oe Age meee Tet le me tot he Me Relig Mes fe Se aia ortte Miser tentgs Br, yes
re
ices
-
ween aie es
I ork Ay * oe ~
Ae eee
Cerys : * ‘ oe an, 4 eB eas ' oa
Meher ie Nig ty Ni Me in: Moy igs he Ya in As br dis gh eg Par Ain eg ag te Ry Naess gn irs Geen ein thy Ne eM bre er Jo Taig: Nerthg igs te Hinge ag Ite Pigs So Mgitoveg ig Sy typ Ort beAgn lig hero Sarin tet clo ip: bes: ter ips MMe Spite ta Ty Do MG my Meenre Oe
Mere Maso lig. Net hetady Sheath ait, Rees 1g) Se bes Bia tar ay thee Wig Sie eM yplaniter te Re”
Be ha to Oe ate
Ee eed ete Tot Aa 0! ihe My My Tha Varta, ing fay "Fee hy gp hg Dae Ta Rig Tp Te Sp igre NP
he bag ing he, Fey’ 2S Me Oy Ab Veg Sig Mp or iter ince ho ante ar x0 eS
. wa yhiing Ne Ay Viatle he dis ip delay hy hee in wag “vee hype Me ee Ren! gather Nertyte Te Len tyrtigs Ny 'tgnaie? “oA ee eg tigaly® thy tg (yelte Rar typhorMe Nyt shin Neg tig lh hh eg heh 0 Haley 0! ihe Noe
I sig We: te Mgt ag Pir Dect iep gag tee halon Cer ect thp a eRe int ag te a rite Ahir Hee Minot hy Mes Vig tw SB Nii Men! woke
rath Mo ty Oe M24
to Age te Meine
oS Neg tat Be Meg olin: te te rei ihe te Melita ets
My fir
Lee oe ee erat ty eee Me oes er ee ee Meee et ee le NoteeMo tor Relte Bee”
Ano See tar Valet, 20% tae ap Mee eg Behe We:
tee tye Ra i th Re Bia, a ashe Re he MM Mh
rub ae a)
SM GE AR We ey ae ea Se oh die oa
PVi8 ORE SR A Dee et ote AN, = Or Oe
atl
flea PrghhtSnctestn La Me ofthat
on na nin. psin th a gE oteg Tee
*
gent ayo sna iee
geet teste Sigh etn teat agit tr relaitteSp me MVBS 5 la GEARS eg ae oN Hag oy
weet Oe
ate arrears x
as gd eee?
> x peep?
LIBRARY OF WELLESLEY <OLEEGE
, (ees d ly
PRESENTED BY
Mrs. Ropes
Mk A the oe ‘a
ON be? 3 "i
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Wellesley College Library
https://archive.org/details/apostolicfathersO102clem
aS al ry ? £ f 5 fo wf yy. 4 Ai A ” sé ce _ {4 a a & rn (2 fA vA
ook APOSTOLIC FATHERS
FIRST PART
VOR oi
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
TABLE OF CONTLER Ps.
SECOND VOLUME.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION. I—4 The authorities for the text. Other sources of evidence. Symbols used.
TEXT AND NOTES. 5—188
THE SO-CALLED SECOND EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT.
INTRODUCTION. IgI—2I10
The attribution to Clement in the manuscripts [191]. External evidence against this [192, 193]. The designation ‘to the Corinthians’ [193, 194]. Internal evidence. Not an Epistle, but a homily [194—197]. Probably delivered in Corinth [197—199]. MHarnack’s theory of its Roman origin considered [199—201]. Limits of date [201—204]. Theories of authorship. (i) Bryennios’ theory, Clement of Rome [204—206]. (ii) Hilgenfeld’s theory, Clement of Alexandria [206, 207]. (iii) Harnack’s theory, the Clement mentioned in Hermas [207, 208]. Analysis [2zo8—210].
TEXT AND NOTES. 211—261 THE LACUNA IN THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT. 263—267 CORRIGENDA IN THE COLLATION OF THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN MANU- SCRIPT, 268 TRANSLATIONS.
1. THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. 271—305 2. AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 306—316
vl TABLE OF CONTENTS.
HIPPOLYTUS OF: PORTUS. PAGE INTRODUCTION. 317, 318
Interesting problems presented by his personality and life. The dis- covery of the Philosophumena. His relation to our main subject through his intimate connexion with (i) the early history of the Roman Church, (ii) the earliest western list of Roman bishops.
f ANCIENT REFERENCES TO: HIPPOLYTOS. 318—365
1 Hippolytus [318—324]. 2 Chair of Hippolytus [324—326]. 3 Eu- sebius [326, 327]. 4 Liberian Chronographer [328]. 5 Epiphanius [328]. 6 Apollinaris? [328]. 7 Damasus [328, 329]. 8 Hieronymus [329—33r]. 9g Rufinus [331]. 1o Prudentius [332—338]. 11 Palladius [338]. 12 Theo- doret (338, 339]. 13 Gelasius [340]. 14 Andreas of Czesarea [340]. 15 Li- ber Pontificalis [340—342]. 16 Cyrillus of Scythopolis [343]. 17 Gregory of Tours [343]. 18 Eustratius of Constantinople [343]. 19 Stephanus Gobarus [343]. 20 Leontius of Byzantium [343]. 21 Chronicon Paschale [344]. 22 Concilium Lateranense [344]. 23 Anastatius Apocrisiarius [344, 345]. 24 Anastatius Sinaita [345]. 25 Pseudo-John of Damascus [345]. 26 Germanus of Constantinople [345]. 27 Pseudo-Chrysostom [346]. 28 Georgius Syncellus [346]. 29 Nicephorus [346]. 30 Georgius Hamar- tolus [347]. 31 Photius [347—349]. 32 CEcumenius [349]. 33 Zonaras [349]. 34 Suidas [349]. 35 Nicephorus Callistus [349, 350]. 36 Ebed- Jesu [350]. 37 Inscriptions relating to reliques [351, 352]. 38 Itineraries [352—354]. 39 Western Service Books [354, 355]. 40 Calendars and Martyrologies [355, 356]. 41 Florus-Beda [356, 357]. 42 Ado of Vienne [357—360]. 43 Menza [361, 362]. 44 S. Petrus Damianus [362]. 45 Passio Sancti Sixti Laurentii Hippolyti [363, 364]. 46 Acta SS. Cyriaci Hippolyti Aureae etc. [364, 365].
2. MODERN LITERATURE. 365—370
3. NAMESAKES OF S. HIPPOLYTUS. 37°—377
Points of contact with the story of the son of Theseus [370]. Five other namesakes, real or imaginary persons [371]. (1) Hippolytus the martyr of Antioch [371, 372]. (2) Hippolytus the Alexandrian connected with Dionysius [372]. (3) Hippolytus the Greek captain of brigands [373—376]. (4) Hippolytus the soldier, the warder of S. Laurence [376]. (5) Hippolytus of Thebes [377].
4. GAIUS OR HIPPOLYTUS. 377—388
Was there such a person as Gaius? [377]. Works ascribed to him [377]. The ‘Refutation of all Heresies’ proved not his, but Hippolytus’ [378]. Yet the author of the ‘Refutation’ must have written all the works ascribed to Gaius, except the ‘Dialogue with Proclus’ [378—380]. The ‘Dialogue’ too by Hippolytus. Gaius simply the name of the orthodox disputant, wrongly considered the author [381, 382]. All facts predicated of Gaius are predicable of Hippolytus [382, 383]. Testimony of the Letter of the Smyrnzeans [383]. The evidence of Eusebius [383, 384]. Presumption
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vil
PAGE that Hippolytus wrote against Montanism [384—386]. The argument from
style [386]. Objections met [386, 387]. The ‘ Heads against Gaius’ [388].
5. THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 388—405
Introduction [388]. (1) Biblical and Exegetical [389—395]. (2) Theo- logical and Apologetic [395—399]. (3) Historical and Chronological [399]. (4) Heresiological [400—403]. Spurious Hippolytean works [403—405].
6. THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 405—413
Metrical passages embedded in Irenzeus [405—407]. Verse employed for theological teaching and for lists of the scriptures [407]. The Muratorian Canon, history, date and country [407]. A translation from a Greek treatise in verse [408—411]. The notice of Hermas common to the Mura- torian Canon and the Liberian Catalogue, and Salmon’s inference [411, 412]. The treatise probably by Hippolytus [412]. Included among the titles on the Chair [412, 413]. Its date [413].
77 THE COMPENDIUM AGAINST ALL THE HERESIES. 413—418 8. THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 418 9. ZABLE OF THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 419—421 m HARLY AND MIDDLE LIFE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 422, 423
His connexion with Irenzeus [422]. With Origen [423].
11. WAS HIPPOLYTUS A NOVATIAN?
The allegation of Prudentius derived from Damasus’ inscription [424]. Damasus’ statement avowedly based on hearsay [425]. Contemporary “ignorance of Hippolytus’ history [425]. Considerations on the other side; (i) the silence of Cyprian and the Liberian Catalogue, (ii) the chronology [425—427].
424—427
12. THE SEE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 427—434
Ignorance of early writers on this point [427, 428]. His allocation to Bostra based on a blunder [428]. Le Moyne’s inference untenable [429]. His association with the see of Portus Eastern in origin [429, 430]. _ Theories of Bunsen and Déllinger [430—432]. Most probably ‘bishop of the Gentiles,’ with Portus as head-quarters [433, 434].
13. HIPPOLYTUS THE PRESBYTER. 435, 436
Unique position of Hippolytus among contemporaries [435]. The title *‘presbyter’ represents not office, but dignity [435]. To whom applied [435]. Subsequently misunderstood [436 ].
14. LATER YEARS, BANISHMENT, AND DEATH. 436—440 The pontificates of Zephyrinus and Callistus [436]. Peace of the Church,
internal and external, under Urbanus [437]. Literary activity of Hippo-
lytus [437]. Death of Alexander Severus succeeded by the persecution
under Maximin [437, 438]. Banishment of Pontianus and Hippolytus
to Sardinia [438, 439]. Their death, and deposition [439, 440].
Viil TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE 13. THE STATUE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 440—442
16. POSTHUMOUS HONOURS AND SANCTUARIES. 442—468
(1) The cemetery of Hippolytus in the Ager Veranus [442]. His sanctuary there [443—445]. Evidence of Prudentius [445]. The Romanus commemorated by Prudentius [446—451]. The sanctuary and _ festival described by Prudentius [451—453]. Gradual decadence of this shrine [454, 455]. The adjacent cemetery of S. Laurence [455]. Importance and architectural history of the basilica of S. Laurence [456—458]. Reliques of Hippolytus transferred thither [459, 460]. Consequent transformation in the personality of Hippolytus [460]. Hippolytus the gaoler substituted for Hippolytus the divine [460—463]. Subsequent history of the cemetery of Hippolytus [463, 464]. (2) The sanctuary on the Vicus Patricius [464, 465]. (3) The sanctuary at Portus [466]. (4) The castle and commemoration at Fossombrone [466, 467]. Reverence paid to Hippolytus outside Italy, especially in France [467, 468].
ie SPURIOUS ACTS OF LIPPOLYT US.
_ Acts of the Laurentian Cycle. 468—474 Acts of the Portuensian Cycle. 474—477
APPENDIX.
1. S. PETER IN ROME. 481—502 2. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 503—512
INDICES.
1. INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES. 515—517 2. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 518—532
Peres Leia lik OP 5S. Cie hiEeaie
TO
ir -CORIN FHEANS:
CLEM., II. I
ie. man
vie ead , Pty yh
HE authorities for the text are three in number, two Greek manu- scripts and a Syriac version.
(1) Codex Alexandrinus (A), where the Epistles of Clement are added to the New Testament; an uncial manuscript probably belonging to the fifth century. It is fully described above, 1. p. 116 sq. It is much blurred and worn, and a leaf has disappeared towards the end of the First Epistle. Thus it omits from § 57 av? av yap ndikovy to the end of § 63. In the Second Epistle it breaks off at § 12 ovre apoev ovte OAAv Todro, the end of the manuscript being lost. The so-called v éfeAxvotixdy is almost uniformly in- serted. All deviations from this authority in my text are noted in the apparatus criticus beneath. The lacunae in this manuscript are not stated, except where a various reading is concerned; but a complete list is given at the end of the Epistles.
(2) Codex Constantinopolitanus (C), a cursive manuscript dated A.D. 1056, and containing the whole of the Two Epistles. It is described fully above, 1. p. 121 sq. The v é@eAxvortixoy is syste- matically omitted, though there are one or two exceptions. All the variations of this manuscript likewise are recorded beneath, with the exception of the v épeAxvo7ixov which it seemed unnecessary to notice.
(3) Syriac Version (S), where the Epistles of Clement are found incorporated among the Epistles of the New Testament in the Philoxenian (Harclean) version. The extant manuscript is dated A.D. 1170. This authority also is described fully in the introduc- tion, I. p. 129 sq. How far this version may be accepted as evidence for the text, and to what extent it seemed advisable to record the variations from the Greek, I have there stated with sufficient precision.
The relations of our three authorities to each other, and the value to be assigned to each, are considered at length in the general intro- duction.
|
—
4 THESEPISTLE OF Ss. CLEMENT.
Besides these authorities (the manuscripts and the version) we have two other sources of evidence; (1) Clement quotes very largely from the Lxx, and the text of the Lxx therefore may be used as a testimony. But discretion must be exercised since the degree of accuracy in quot- ing must be a matter of experience ; and we cannot even assume, where there are variations, that the reading which agrees with the Lxx text gives the actual words of our author, a tendency to restore the actual form of the original being noticeable in transcribers ; (2) Clement him- self is frequently quoted by later fathers, especially by his namesake Clement of Alexandria. But here again discretion is needed, for the fathers—notably the Alexandrian Clement—often quote very loosely and from memory.
Where our chief authority (A) deserts us, it is necessary to be espe- cially careful in dealing with the others. On this account I have given the variations of the Syriac version in greater fulness in these parts than elsewhere ; as this is the only check on possible errors in the one Greek manuscript (C) which we possess here. In these same parts I have uniformly inserted the v é@eAkvorixoy, though wanting in C, be- cause it would certainly have had a place in A, and therefore presumably represents the original text of Clement.
A very few words only are necessary to explain the notation. The authorities are designated as above A, C,S. Where an authority omits any word or words, this is signified by ‘om.’; where it is defective by mutilation or otherwise, so that we cannot tell the reading, this is ex- pressed by ‘def.’ Where the reading is doubtful, as for instance when it is impossible to say what Greek text the Syriac version represents, the abbreviation is ‘dub.’ The abbreviations ‘app.’ and ‘prob.’ stand for ‘apparently ’ and ‘probably’. The square brackets [ | in the text imply that it is doubtful whether the words or letters so enclosed ought to stand as part of the original text. The word ‘Clem’ in the textual notes signifies Clement of Alexandria; and, where necessary, the re- ference to the page of Potter’s edition is added.
Tree KO PANE TO Yc.
‘H °EKKAHCIA rov Oeov 4 rapotkovca ‘Pwunv
Tpoc KopiN@ioyc]| For the titles of this epistle in the several authorities
see I. pp. 117, 122, 131.
‘THE CHURCH OF ROME to the CHURCH OF CORINTH, elect and con- secrate ; greeting in Christ Jesus.’
On the form of the address, as ~ connected with the question of the authorship, see the introduction, I. Pp. 352 Sq.
The writer’s name is suppressed here, as it seems also to have been suppressed in another letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth written more than half a century later during the episcopate of Soter; see Dionys. Corinth. in Euseb. #7. £. iv. 23.
This address is imitated in the openings of three early Christian documents at least; (1) The ZAzstle of Polycarp, see 1. p. 149; (2) The Letter of the Smyrn@ans, giving an account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, see Jenat. and Polyc. \. p. 610 sq; (3) The Apostolic Constitutions. For other openings which it has influenced (though in a iess degree), see the note on mapoxovoa below.
I. mapoixovoa| ‘sojourning tn. (1) The primary idea in this word is transitoriness. The distinction be- tween mdpo.kos a Lemporary and kar- ouxos a Permanent resident appears from Philo Sacr. Ab. e¢ Cain § 10 (I. p. 170) 6 yap Tots éyxukAlous povors
eravéx@y tTapoiket copia, ov Karotkel, de Conf. ling. § 17 (1. p. 416) karg- Knoav ws ev matpid., ovx ws emt Eévns map@knoav, Greg. Naz. Orat. xiv (I. p. 271) tis thy Kat@ oKnyny Kal THv avo modw (dvaipnoe); Tis mapotkiav kal xatotxiay; Orat. vii (I. p. 200) ek THs Tapotkias eis THY KaTotKiay peTa- okevaCouevor: Comp. Gen. xxxvi. 44 (XXXVIL. 1) katr@xet Oe “laxoB év rn yn ov TAp@OKNoEV O TaTHp avTOv ev yn Xavaay, Heb. xi. 9, Luke xxiv. 18. Thus adp- OLKOS, Trapolkely, Tapoikia, are said of the captivities of Egypt (Acts vii. 6 from LXX, xill. 17) and of Babylon (Theoph. ad Aut. ili. 25, 28). See especially the uses of raporketv, karot- kev, in reference to the migrations of Israel, in Judith v. 7—10. Of these captivities the present earthly condi- tion of the Christian people is the antitype (Heb. iv. 1).
(2) Connected with this primary conception is the secondary idea of non-citizenship. In the inscriptions ‘the sojourners’ are opposed to ‘the citizens,’ C. Z. G. 3595 ot re woNira kal of mapoikoe wavres (Comp. 20. 1625, 1631, 2906, 3049). The Christians are no citizens on earth. They dwell in the world as aliens, £évo1, raperidnpuor, mapoxot, I Pet. i. 17, ii. II ; comp. Heb. xi. 13. So too Clem. Rom. ii.
6 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
> qn rot ~ / / TH €kKAnoia Tov Ocov TH TapolKoVveNn KopwOov, KAn- Z L
~ ¢ lod land / Tots, nytacmevors ev OeAnuate Oeov dia tov Kupiov
3. mavtoxpdropos] A; Tov mavroxpdropos C (comp. Ag. Covst. 1. 1).
§ 5 xaradeiavtes THY Tmapotkiay Tov kogpou Tovtrov (comp. C. /. G. 9474 Tov Biou TovTov THY mapokiav), Ep. ad Diogn. 5 marpidas oixovow idias dAN @s TapolKOL’ peTEXOVTL TAYT@Y ws TO- Nira kai ravO vropevovew ws E€vou 7a- ga &€vn matpis €oTw avT@y Kal Taca marpis evn, where the writer is de- scribing the Christians. A good illustration of this sense of mapoukeiv is Orig. c. Cels. iii. 29 ai 8€ rod Xprorod exkAnoia, cvveEeraCouevat Tals ov Tap- otkovot Onpoyv exkAnoials, os PwaTHpEes elo ev Koope, 2. 30 éxkAnoias Tod cov mapotxovoas exkAnoias Tov Kad exdoTny mod Sjyyov. Compare also the parable in Hermas Vzs. 1.1. In the prologue to Ecclesiasticus oi éy ™ tmapotkia are the Jews of the dis- persion, so that sapoxia is almost equivalent to Svaomwopa; and, as the latter word is transferred to the Christian people, the spiritual Israel (1 Pet. i. 1 mapemdypors Scaozropas), So is the former. Hence the form of address here, which appears also Polyc. Phil. rh éexxdnoia rod Ocod rH mapotkovon Biiimmous, Mart. Polyc. 4 TapotKovoa Suvpvay k.T-A., Dionys. Co- rinth. in Euseb. H. £. iv. 23 r7 mapot- Kovon Voprivay, Epist. Gall. in Euseb. FLE.V.1 oi év Buévyy kai Aovydovve rijs TadXias mapotxovvtes SotAot Xpiotov. From this the substantive zapouxia came to be used in a concrete sense, ‘the body of aliens,’ for the Christian brotherhood in a town or district. The earliest instances which I have observed are Mart. Polyc.inscr. racas Tais Kata mavTa TOTov Tis dyias Kal kaOoXixis €xkAnoias traporkias, Dionys. Corinth. [?] in Euseb. H. £Z. iv. 23 da Tats Aourais kara Kpnrnv maporkias, Iren. in Euseb. H. £. v. 24 eipnvevov
5 alpve-
Tois G70 TOY TapolKL@Y ev ais eTNpEiTO, Apollon. in Euseb. . £. v. 18 7 idia Tapoikia avrov dbev nv ovK €d€EaTo: whence farochia, parish. It seems not strictly correct to say that wapor- kia was equivalent to the later term dtoiknors ; for mapoxia, though it is sometimes a synonyme for dcoiknots (e.g. Conc. Aucyr. Can. 18), appears to have been used much more generally. The explanation often given of rapa: kia, aS though it denoted the aggre- gate of Christian communities in the neighbourhood of a large town, re- ceives nocountenancefrom the earliest usage of mapotkos, etc.; for the prepo- sition is not local but temporal, and denotes not proximity but transito- viness. For the accusative after mapo:- kev see the note on Polyc. PAz/. inscr.
I. KAnrots «.t.A.| Taken from the salutation in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, nyvacpévors ev XpioT@ “Inoov, kAyrois ayious. Cle- ment not unnaturally echoes the lan- guage of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, even where he does not directly quote it. Similarly the Epi- stle of Ignatius to the Ephesians pre- sents parallels to S. Paul’s Epistle to the same church, especially in the opening salutation. The same rela- tion again exists between Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the corresponding letter of S. Paul. For the meaning of nysacpévors, ‘ conse- crated to be God’s people,’ see the notes on rots ayious Phil. i. 1.
3. xapis k.7.A.] xapis div Kal eipyyy is the common salutation in S. Paul, excepting the Pastoral Epistles. With the addition of wAnOuvOein however it occurs only in the two Epistles of S. Peter, from whom probably Cle- ment derived the form, as the First
1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7
~ al > / Con > 5) nov ’Inoov Xpirrov. yapts vuty Kal Elonvn aTO TavTO-
kpatopos Qeou dia *Inoot Xpiotov wAnOuvGein.
\ \ > > Vif I. Ava ras ai:vdiovs Kat émadAndovus yevopévas
dlous] ar@yndiove A. yevouevas| C; Epistle is frequently quoted by him. In Jude 1 we have @deos viv kat eipnvn kal dyamrn mAnOvuvbein.
mavroxpatopos| The LXxX rendering of MIN2¥ in the expression ‘ the Lord of Hosts’ (see Stanley, few7sh Church Il. p. 87), apparently not a classical word. In the New Testament it occurs once only out of the Apoca- lypse, 2 Cor. vi. 18, where S. Paul is quoting from the Lxx. So again SS 2, 32 (LXX), 56, 60, 62 (comp. § 8 mavrokparopik®), Polyc. Phz/. inscr., Herm. Vzs. ili. 3 (Sim. v. 7), Mart. Polyc. 14. See also Pearson Exfo- sition of the Creed p. 78 sq (ed. Chevallier) for its position and signi- ficance in the Latin Creed. As a Latin translation of ravroxpdrwp, ‘om- nipotens’ is the survival of the fittest, its defunct rivals being ‘omnitenens,’ ‘omnipollens,’ etc. Conversely the Latin ‘omnipotens’ is sometimes translated by mavroduvayos for mar- Tokpatwp ; comp. Caspari Quedllen 2. Gesch. a. Taufsymbols UW. pp. vi, 24, 204 Sq, 209-212. The two occur to- gether in the Liturgy of S. James, adytos ¢l, mavtokpatwp, mayvrodvvape (Swainson’s Greek Liturgies p. 270 sq).
I. ‘We should have written sooner, but our own troubles have hindered us. We are grieved to hear that one or two headstrong ring-leaders have fanned the flame of discord among you. This was not your wont in former days. Your firm faith, your sober piety, your large hospitality, your sound knowledge, were the ad- miration of all. Authority was duly respected by you. Your young men
anes evag A. S has a present; comp. § 9.
were modest ; your wives were quiet and orderly.’
5. Tas aidydious «.r.A.] This lan- guage accurately describes the perse- cution which the Roman Christians endured under Domitian. Theirtreat- ment by this emperor was capricious, and the attacks upon them were re- peated. While the persecution of Nero was one fierce and wholesale onslaught in which the passions of the multitude were enlisted on the em- peror’s side, Domitian on the other hand made use of legal forms and arraigned the Christians from time to time on various paltry charges; see above, I. p. 81, p. 350 sq. Apollonius in Philostr. Vz¢. Afol/. vii. 4 distin- guishes two kinds of tyrants of which Nero and Tiberius respectively are the types—the one passionate and reckless (oppoons Kat akpirov), the other stealthy and treacherous (vzo- xaOnuévns), the one acting with vio- lence, the other using forms of justice. Obviously he places the contemporary tyrant Domitian in this second class. Again Domitian is described by Suetonius (Domiit. II) in language closely resembling Clement’s, ‘non solum magnae sed et callidae zuofinataegue saevitiae.’ Compare the accounts in Euseb. H.. E. iii. 17 sq, Chrov. an. 95, Dion Cass. lxvii. 14, Suet. Domit. 12, 15. So Mart. Ign. 1 speaks of oi modXol ext Aopetiavod Suwypoi (though this refers especially to Antioch). These and other passages referring to the persecution of Domitian are given in full above, I. p. 104 sq. In one of these attacks the writer’s namesake,
8 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [1
NMiv oupopas Kat wEpiTTWoES, adEeAPoL, Bpadioy vopt- 5) \ a co > Couey éeriatpodny memounoba rept Twv emiCnTOUMEevwY
~ , / oe > / Tap Ul mpayMaTwY, ayannTol, THs TE adAOTPLas
\ / co 5) qn ~ ~ cr \ > / Kal Eevns Tots €kAeKTOIS TOU Oeov, pLapas Kal avootou
1 nui] AS; Ka? judy C.
diov] Bpadecov A.
and patron (as I venture to think), Flavius Clemens, a kinsman of the emperor, fell a victim; see I. 33 sq. Thus the notice here accords with external testimony which places the Corinthian feuds to which this letter refers in the reign of Domitian ; see the introduction, I. p. 347. Volkmar (Theol. Fahrb. 1856, p. 286 sq, and elsewhere), who assigns a much later date to this epistle, is obliged to refer the notice here to the sufferings of the Christians under Trajan; but there is no evidence that this perse- cution extended to Rome. Our epistle therefore was probably written to- wards the close of Domitian’s reign or on the accession of Nerva (about A.D. 95 or 96). Other notices of time in the body of the letter agree with this result; see above, I. p. 348 sq.
emahAnAous | ‘ successtve, repeated, a comparatively late but common word, ¢g. Philo zz Flacc. 14 (Il. p. 534 M.) ras cuvexeis kai émahAndovs kakwoets, Plut. Pomp. 25 xwdvvors emaAAnAots Kal mrodéwous ; see Lobeck Paral. p. 471. It is restored indeed by Hermann in Soph. 4 zz. 57, but this restoration is very doubtful, and the word there must have the sense ‘ re- ciprocal.’ For emaddndovs yevopevas comp. Alciphr. EZ. 1. 23 xiv muKvy kat emaAAnAos hepopéevyn. Other- wise we might read émadAnda@s, which occurs Lpist. Gall. § 14 in Euseb. Va hp Aa
I. vopi¢owev] The whole passage
mepimTaces] A; mepiotdcas C; lapsus et damna S, which evidently represents repurrmoes (see I. p. 136). ayanrnroi S; om. C. See below § 4, where S makes the same change.
adedpoi] A; Bpa-
3 Tap’ vuivy mpaynatwv] A; mpayudtwv map buiv C;
will mean ‘ Owzng to the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us, we consider we have been somewhat slow to pay attention to the questions of dispute among you. Yhe reader must be cautioned against the rendering a- dopted in some translations, English and Latin ; ‘those things which you enquired of us,’ ‘the points respecting which you consulted us,’ ‘ea quae fuerant quaesita a vobis.’ This rendering involves a historical mis- statement. The expression contains no allusion to any letter or other ap- plication from the Corinthians to the Romans. Clement does not write map vpev, but map’ vpiv; and ra ém- (nrovpeva Means simply ‘the matters of dispute,’ not ‘desiderata,’ as it is sometimes rendered, emi(yrnua being ‘a question.’ It would appear that the Roman Christians had not been directly consulted by the Church of Corinth, but having heard of the feuds by common report (§ 47 avdrn 7 axo7) wrote this letter unsolicited.
4. &€vns] Doubtless the right read- ing; comp. Clem. Hom. vi. 14 os adn- Oeias adXotpiay odcav Kai E€rmv. No sense can be made of &evos. The doubling of epithets (a\Xorpias kai fevns) is after Clement’s manner, especially in this opening chapter ; €.g. papas kat avociov, mpomethn kal av0adn, mavaperov Kai BeBaiay, etc.
5. mporwma] Not simply ‘Persons’ but ‘vimgleaders’; comp. § 47, and
1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 9
iE ra} Ce 2 i ~ \ > i 5oTagEWS, HY OAIYa TPOTWTA TeOTETH Kat avOadn
/ > ~ > / 5] f J \ UTAaPXOVTa Els TOTOUTOV aTrovolas E€EKAVTAY, WOTE TO
\ \ , \ ~ > / > / OEMVOV Kal Tept onto Kal TaOLV avOpw7rots agiaya-
TNTOV dvoua Yuwv peyahws Bac pyunOyva. Tis yap
f \ e ~ \ - \ J TApETLON UNG as MpOS UMaS THY TavapEeTOV Kal BeBatav
dub. S. ayamrnroi] AC; om. S.
4 Ems] CS; geo A. 8 Bdac-
dnunOnva] A; BracdnucioPa C; ut laederetur or laedatur (\3ND3) S, which
perhaps represents Br\adOFvac.
see the note on Ign. Magn. 6. The authors of these feuds are again men- tioned as few in number, § 47 dv ev 7 Svo mpocena oraciaew mpos Tovs mpeoBurtépous.
6. eis Tooovtoy k.t.A.| ‘have kindled to such a pitch of recklessness’; comp. § 46 cis rocavtny dmrévoray épxdpeba. Editors have taken offence at the expression, but its awkwardness is no sufficient reason for altering the text; comp. § 45 eis rocovro éénpicay @vpov. Otherwise vo arovoias might be read. In amdvora shamelessness rather than /ol/y is the prominent “idea, so that the azovevonpévos is de- scribed by Theophrastus (Char. xiii) as one wholly devoid of self-respect. So § 47 TO geuvov THs tmepiBontov iradeAdias: comp. Ign. Lph. 8 exkAnoias ris dia- Bonrov Trois aidow.
8. dvona vpar| ‘your reputation’ or ‘character’ or ‘worth. See the note on Ign. Ephes. 1 to modvayarnroy ovopa 0 Kextnobe hice. The addition of the pronoun seems to require this sense, and the epithets as well as the whole context, suggest it. On the other hand the expression BAac- nucitvy to dvoua, where there is no qualifying pronoun or adjective, means ‘to speak evil of, ‘to blas- pheme the Name,’ i.e. of Christ or of God; e.g. 2 Clem. 13 iva 70 évopa 80 npas pn Braodnpqra, Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 6 (p. 532) de ods Kat rd
TO oepvoy k.T.A.|
ovona BAacdnpetra. For this abso- lute use of To ovouwa, which is not infrequentin earlier Christian writers, see the note on Ign. Ephes. 3, and comp. Phil. 1. to (with my note). It might be thought that ro dvopa vpov here would mean ‘the name of Christ which you bear’; but this would have been expressed other- wise, e.g. James ll. 7 BAacdnpovow TO Kadov Ovopa TO emixAnOev eh vpGs, Herm. S7zyz. vill. 6 émauryuvOevres TO ovoma Kupiov tro émixAnOev én’ avrovs. It is hardly necessary to add that Bracghnuetv is frequently used of calumniating or maligning human beings; e.g. Rom. xiv. 16 u7 Bdao- dynpeicOw vuov TO ayadov (comp. ili. 8).
tis yap «.t.A.] The whole pas- sage as far as éeropeveo Ge is quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 610) vai py év tH mpos KopwOiovs emuctoAn oO dmdéctodos KAnuns kal avros nuty TUTrov TWa TOU yYwoTiKoOD vmoypaperv heyet, Tis yap x.r.A.
9. mapemOnunoas| This ‘bimaris Corinthus’ was a natural halting place on the journey between Rome and the East, as we see in the case of S. Paul and his companions, and somewhat later of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). Diogenes is repre- sented as visiting it (Dion Chrys. Orat. viii. p. 151 ed. Emper) 6re mAet- ato. avOpwrot exet Tuviact...kat OTL 7 modus womep ev Tptod@ Tihs “EAAddos
IO THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x
€ ~ / > / / J UMaV mioTW ovK éoKiuacev; THY TE TwHpova Kal
) = > - Deel, 2 2 , \ \ émiekyn ev Xpiot@ evoeBerav ovK efavpacev; Kal TO
peyaNompeTres THS piro€evias vuwv nOos ovK éxnpueev 5
\ \ / \ > ~ ~ > > id é Kat Thy TeNELav Kat aodarn yvwowy OVK EMakapLoey 5
/ \ / > ~ \ ~ / ATPOTWTOANUTTWS Yao TavTa ETOLELTE, KaL TOLS VOLI- a ~ > / € / - ¢€ pois Tou Oceou érropeveoOe, vroTaccopevot Tols nyou- / ¢ lad \ \ \ / > / Mevols UM@Y Kal TIUnVY THY KaOnKOVTaY arrovELoYTES
1 tuav mictw] AC; micrw tuev Clem 610. 2 émveky ev] CS Clem; emveknvy A. 3 ovk] AC; om. S. 4 dopary| acdadryv A. 5 ampoo- wrodnumTws| A; amporwmrodjmTws C Clem (edd.). Tots voulwous] Tocvouoc A; zz lege (NDYODID) S; & Tots vous C3 & Tors voutuors Clem, which is approved by Wotton and others. The rendering of S shows nothing as regards the reading; for (1) the preposition would be required in any case; (2) the singular is explained by the accidental omission of rzdwz ; (3) vducuov is elsewhere translated by ND19) (vduos) in this version (comp. §§ 3, 40).
émovetre] emorecrar A.
éxe.ro. So also it is called the zepi- maros or ‘lounge’ of Greece ; see| Dion Chrys. | xxvii. p. 522 with the context, os €va Ta TOAMAGY Kal Kar éviavTOY Kataipovtav eis Keyxpéas eumopov 7 Gewpov 7 mpecBevtny 7) Stepxopevov. Hence there was an abundant de- mand for hospitality there ; see below on § 10 duto€eviar, § 35 adidogeviar.
mavaperov| Not found either in LXx or New Testament, but a favourite word with Clement: see §§ 2, 45, 57, 60, with the note on § 57. He de- lights in such compounds, e.g. zap- peyeOns, Tavayios, maymAnOns, mavte- TOmTNS.
2. emveckn| ‘forbearing. This yield- ing temper, this deference to the feelings of others, was the quality es- pecially needed at such atime. For émcixeca comp. S$ 13, 56, 58, 62, and see Philippians iv. 5. It was emi- nently a characteristic of Clement himself; see I. p. 97.
TO peyadomperes x.T.A.] For the reproof lurking under this allusion to their past hospitality, see the note on ddro€eviar § 35.
4. yvoow] Here used generally.
For the more special sense see the note on § 48.
5. dmpoowmoAnprras| For this ad- verb see I Pet. i. 17, Barnab. 4. For the forms, -Anurres, -AnmTws, see Winer’s Grammar p.53(ed. Moulton). For an instance of the capricious orthography of both our MSS comp. § 12 ovdAr[p]Wouévous, ovdAn[p]P- Oévras.
rois vopipous| ‘by the ordinances’ ; so § 3 &€y Tols vopimors TeY mpoo- Taypdrev avtod mopeverOa, § 40 Trois vouimots Tov Seomdtov dkodovOovrtes, Hermas V7zs. i. 3 €av tnpnowow Ta vouysa tov Oeov. The phrase rots vouipors mopeverOar Occurs LXX Lev. XVili. 3, XX. 23, and ev rots vopipors mopeverOar Jer. Xxvi (xxxiii). 4, Ezek. v. 6,7) xx 18. For the dative, de noting the rule or standard, see Ga- latians v. 16, 25, vi. 16.
6. Trois nyoupevors| i.e. the officers of the Church, as § 21 rovs mponyov- pévous nuav: comp. Heb. xiii. 7 pry- MOVEVETE TOV NYOUVLEVOY VE@Y oLTWES eAdAnoay viv Tov Aoyov Tod Geov, and again xiii. 17, 24; Hermas Vs. ii. 2, ili. Q of mponyovpevor THs ekkAnolas.
Io
1] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
IPE
~ > ~ / / / \ \ TOs Trap UL mpeo BuTEpoLs* VEOLS TE PETOLA Kal TEVA
a > / / > ? \ 2 VOELV ETETPETETE? yuvalEly TE EV AuwuwW Kal TEU
\ c > / / ? ~ / Kal ayyn CUVELONTEL TavTa E€miTENEly TapnyyéeAXeETE,
/ / \ of ¢ ~ sf ~ OTENYOVTC as KaOynkovTws TOUS avopas EAUTWV* €V TE TW
7 ro ~ / \ \ \ ss KaVOVL THS UTOTaYyNS UVTapXoVTas Ta KaTa TOV OIKOV
~~ > ~ > “ TEUYWS OiKOUpyElY Ed\WaTKETE, TaVY TwPpovovaas.
I have adopted vouiwos from Clem, but év is not wanted (see the explanatory note) and was probably his own insertion. ecOa A, 7 tuov}] AS; om. C.
8 tui] AS; juw C. dpauy S (certainly omitting cal ceuvr), but the transposition of ayr@ and dpuouw may be due to the convenience of translation; see above, I. p. 137. Koupye] A; oikovpety (but apparently y has been erased) C; curam-gerentes
6 éropeverGe] CS Clem; mropev- KkadynKxovoay| kabixovoar A. 9 apouw Kal ceuvy kal ayy] AC; ayvy Kai »
13 ol-
operum (studiose agentes in operibus) S. See the lower note.
Similarly oimpoicrapevortpar, I Thess. v. 12. The reference therefore is not to civil officers, as some take it; and the mpeoBurépos in the next clause refers to age, not to office, as the following véois shows. The ‘pres- byters’ or ‘elders,’ properly so called, are exhausted in rots nyoupevors, but these are not the only seniors to whom reverence is due, and Clement accordingly extends the statement so as to comprise all older men, thus preparing the way for the mention of ‘the young’ also asaclass. Similarly § 21, where, as here, sponyovpevor, mpecBuTepor, véol, yuvaikes, Occur in succession. There is the same diffi- culty about the use of wpeoBuvrepox in connexion with vewrepor in I Pet. v. 1 sq, Polyc. Phz?. 5, 6.
Q. emetpémete] ‘ye enjoined, as e.g. in Plat. Lege. p. 784 C, Xen. Anab, vi. 5. 11 (see Kiithner’s note).
yuvagiv te x.7.A.] See Polyc. Phzi. 4 mera Kal Tas yuvaikas x.t.d., where Polycarp follows Clement’s language here and in § 21.
II. otepyovcas| It should probably be taken with the foregoing clause, and I have altered the punctuation
accordingly. For the change from the dative (yuvagéiv) to the accusative (crepyovoas) comp. Mark vi. 39 én- éra&ev avtois avak\cOnvat mavras, Acts XV. 22 okey trois dmoordAols k.T.d. exdeEapévous avdpas €& avtTay méuyat, and see Jelf’s Gram. S§ 675, 676.
€y TE TS Kavovt k.T.A.| 1.e. ‘not over- stepping the line, not transgressing the limits, of obedience’; e.g. § 41 p7 TapekBaivev Tov wpiopévoy ths et- Toupyias avTov kxavova. On the me- taphor of xavev, ‘a measuring line, see Galatians vi. 16, and the note on § 7, below.
13. oixoupyetv] ‘to ply their work in the house.” The classical forms are oikoupos, oikovpety, and these pre- vail even at the Christian era and much later; e.g. Philo de Sfec. Leg. 31 (IL. p. 327) Ondrclas (epappocer) oikoupla, de E-xvecr. 4 (II. p. 431) yuvai- kas c@dpovas oixoupovs Kat pidavdpous, and the illustrative passages in Wet- stem on ‘Tit. 11/5. Boutin: Tita, 5 aappovas, ayvas, oikoupyovs, aya@as, Urotaccopevas Tos idios avdpacw, which passage Clement may have had in his mind, the great prepon- derance of the best authorities have
i2
EE
4 , VEVOMEVOL, UTOTATOOMEVOL
oikoupyovs, not oikouvpovs; and this reading the ablest recent editors (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) have adopted. In this passage of Clement also A has oik- ovpyovs, and so apparently it was read originally in C, but the y has been erased. Bryennios says ‘vew- Tépa xeip amndeWe To y. But judg- ing by the photograph, I should imagine that it was impossible to say who erased the letter—whether the original scribe or some later cor- rector. 1am disposed to think that the original scribe wrote down oikoup- yous, following an older MS which he had before him, and then after his wont (see above, I. p. 126 sq) corrected it into the more classical form. At all events there is a tendency in the later scribes and correctors to re- turn to the more classical form, as we see from the later corrections of AC in Tit. ii. 5. The Syriac here is PMIAyT }PYNIT, the same rendering being given in the Peshito and Har- clean in Tit.1.5. It seems to repre- sent oixovpyovs rather than oixoupous, the first element of the word (ofkos) having been already exhausted in the translation of the preceding ra kata Tov oixkovy and therefore not needing repetition. Perhaps how- ever it may be intended to combine the ideas of -oupyetvy and -ouvpet. The same verb is more commonly a ren- dering of pepyzvay or éemipedcto Oar.
II. ‘Submission and contentment were the rule of your lives. The teaching of God was in your breasts ; the passion of Christ before your eyes. Peace and good-will reigned among you. Spiritual graces and incessant prayers distinguished you. You loved the brethren ; you bore no malice to any; you loathed faction; you re-
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[11
llavres te éramewodpovette, pndev cdraCo-
ral v\ € / fuaXrXov Hy UTOTaTOOVTES,
joiced in doing good. The ordinan- ces of God were graven on your hearts.’
2. vrotagoopevot k.T-A.]| See Ephes. ¥. 21, Phil. ii. 3, Rom. xii. 10, 16;a0— yet v. 5 (v-1):
3. cov x«.t.A.| Doubtless a refer- ence to our Lord’s words recorded Acts xx. 35, pakapiov éorw paddov diddvar 7) AapBavew ; see below, § 13, where the context of the passage is echoed. It was no new command- ment however, though instinct with a new meaning. Maxims similarly expressed had been uttered by the two opposite schools of philosophy, starting from different principles and speaking with different motives. For the Epicureans see Plut. Jor. p. 778 C’Emikxovpos Tov ed macxew TO ev Tovety ov povoy KaAALov adda Kal 7dLo0v eivai now, ad for the Stoics, Seneca Efpist. \xxxi. § 17 ‘Errat si quis bene- ficium accipit libentius quam reddit’ (both quoted by Wetstein on Acts be):
Trois epodios x.t.A.| i.e. ‘the provi- sion which God has supplied for the journey of life’ Similarly Seneca Epist. \xvii. § 3 ‘Quia quantulum- cumque haberem, tamen plus jam mihi superesset viaticl quam viae,’ Epictet. Déss. ill. 21. 9 €xovras te epodtov TowdvtTov eis tov Biov, Plut. Mor. p. 160 B ws pn povov tov Cay GAAd Kal Tov amoOvnoKey THY Tpodny épdd.ov odcay ; comp. Dionys. Corinth. in Euseb. A. £E. iv. 23 é€xxAnoias moAAais Tais Kata macav mroAw e:od.ia néurew. It is the same sentiment as I Tim. vi. 8, ¢yovres dtatpodas kat oKerdopata TovTos apkerOnoopeOa. The idea of spiritual sustenance seems to be out of place here, though ésddva not unfrequently has this sense. For this and other reasons the words
1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 13
o ' ~ ’ ~ } ee a HAION AIAONTEC H AAMBANONTEC, TOIS Epodiors tou Oéceou
3 Tov Geot] A; tof Xpiorod CS.
Tots ed. Tou ©. dpx. must be connected with the preceding clauses, so that the new idea is introduced by kai mpooéxovres. The Syriac version in- deed attaches cai mpocéyovres to the preceding sentence, but it manipu- lates the words following, as if it had read rovs te dyous...eveaTepyicpéevor (om. 7re).
tov @eov] The reading rov Xpu- Tov is accepted by Bryennios and Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) on the authority of C. On the other hand Harnack retains tod Qeov; while Donaldson hesitates between the two readings.
As regards external evidence, the balance is fairly even. If the view maintained above (I. pp. 124 sq, 139 sq, 142 sq) of the relative value of our authorities be correct, A is en- titled to as great weight as CS to- gether. Moreover the obvious doc- trinal motive, which in C has led to the deliberate substitution of Aoyos for mvedpa in another place (ii. § 9), must deprive it of much value in the present case. On the other hand it is urged with probability that, as Photius (767. 126) complains of Clement’s language in this epistle OTL apxtepea kal mpootarny Tov Kipuiov nav “Incovv Xpiotov eLsvopalov ovde tas Oeomperets Kat vndorépas adike meoi avtov devas, he cannot have had tou Geov in his text. But, as the declaration of Christ’s divinity lurks under the reference of the pronoun avrov, it might very easily have es- caped the notice of Photius who in the course of this single embassy read as large a number of books as would have sufficed many a man not ill-informed for a life-time. Even if the inference were more certain, this evidence would not go far, for Photius is a late writer.
On the other hand Gaius (or rather Hippolytus) early in the third century inthe Lzttle Labyrinth(H. E.v.28; see Routh ReZ. Sacr. 11. p. 129) mentions Clement with Justin, Miltiades, and Tatian, besides ‘several others,’ a- mong those éy ois Oeodoyeitar o Xpioros. Routh (p. 145) supposes Clement of Rome to be meant (as also does Bunsen, Azffol. I. p. 440), because the author of the Z7f¢le Labyrinth refers distinctly to works written ‘defore the time of Victor’ who became bishop about A.D. 189 or 190, and indeed the whole argu- ment turns on this point. To this it may be added that Hippolytus after- wards (p. 131) uses an expression re- sembling the language of the Roman Clement here, 6 evomdayxyvos Gecds kat Kvpios nuayv “Inoovs Xpiotros ovK eBovAeTo... dwokeoOar paptupa Tor idiwov mabey, and that Clement of Alexandria (who is the alternative) can only have died a few years (ten or at most twenty) before the passage was written. On the other side it may be urged that the order of the names, “Iovotivov cai MuiAtiadouv kat Tarcavov cal KAnpevtos Kal €répov mret- ovev, points to the Alexandrian Cle- ment ; but this is not conclusive, since in the very next sentence the chrono- logical order of Melito and Irenzeus, is inverted, tra yap Eipnvaiov te kat MeXitwvos Kal tay AoiTay Tis ayvoet B:Bdia ; The question therefore must remain undecided; though the rea- sons in favour of the Roman Clement seem to preponderate. As it is very improbable that so early a writer as Hippolytus should have recognised as genuine any other writings a- scribed to Clement of Rome, his judg- ment must have been founded upon this epistle.
14 THE JEPISTLE: OF StCLEMENT [11
The external evidence therefore is far from conclusive; and if any de- cision on the reading is possible, it must be founded upon internal evi- dence. But here the considerations which present themselves are numer- ous.
(1) As a question of accidental error in transcription, the probability is evenly balanced; for yu instead of év, and 6v instead of xv, are equally common with scribes.
(2) On the other hand, if we have a deliberate alteration, the chances that Xpucrod would be substituted for @cod are, I think, greater than the chances of the converse change. Such language as aia Gcov, rabnuara @cov, and the like, though common in the second and third centuries, became highly distasteful in later ages; and this from various motives. The great Athanasius himself pro- tests against such phrases, c. Afollin. ii. 13, 14 (I. p. 758) mas ovv yeypapare éru Geds 6 Oia capkos mabey Kal ava- ards ;...ovdapov S€ aia Ocod diya cap- kos trapadedaxacw ai ypadpai 7 cov dia capkos mabovra katavacravra. And how liable to correction such expressions would be, we may infer from the long recension of the Ignatian Epistles, where the original language of the writer is deliberately altered by the interpolator, who appears to have lived in the latter half of the fourth century (Zphes. 1 év aipari Gcov, where Xp.iorov is substituted for Gcov ; Kom. 6 rod wabovs Tov Geov pov, where this interpolator softens down the lan- guage by inserting Xpiorod before Tov Geov pov, while others substitute tov Kupiov pov or tov Xpiorov). At this time the heresy to which such expressions seemed to give counte- nance was Apollinarianism. At a later date, when the Monophysite controversy arose, there would be a still greater temptation on the part of an orthodox scribe to substitute rod
Xptorov for rou Gcov. The language of Anastasius of Sinai (Hodeg. 12, 13, p. 97 sq) shows that these pas- sages of earlier writers (he mentions among others Ign. Row. 6) were con- stantly alleged in favour of Mono- physite doctrine, and he himself has some trouble in explaining them away. Writing against these same heretics Isidore of Pelusium (£7. i. 124) says Gcod mabos ov héyeTar, Xpio- Tov yap TO mdaOos yeyove k.T.A. On the other hand, it might be said that the Monophysites themselves would be under a temptation to alter xv into 6v ; and accordingly Bryennios sup- poses that in this passage the reading of A is due to the Monophysites (or, as he adds, perhaps to the Alexan- drian divines). This does not seem very likely. (a) In the first place, it would be a roundabout and precari- ous way of getting a testimony in favour of their doctrine. If rod Xpio- rov (thus assumed to be the original reading) had been in direct connexion with ra mwa@ypara, a change in this direction would not be improbable ; but it would never have occurred to any one to alter rots edodios Tov Xpistod into rots epodiors Tov Geo, because there happened to be the ex- pression ra wa@ypara avrov in the next sentence, so that avrov would naturally be referred to the genitive after trois éhodios. It would have been much simpler to change avrov into rod Geov at once. (4) Secondly, the dates are not favourable to this supposition. The MS which has @ecov is assigned by the most competent authorities to the fifth century, and by some of them to the earlier half of the century (see above, I. p. 117); and, though not impossible, it is not probable that the Monophysite controversy would have influenced the transcription of the MS at this date. On the other hand Photius, our earliest authority for rod Xprorov (supposing that his evidence be ac-
1 TO THE CORINTHIANS. 15
cepted), wrote four centuries later, when there had been ample time for such manipulation of the text. But, besides the doctrinal motive which might have suggested the change from G¢co0d to Xpicrod, there may also have been an exegetical reason. The word édodioy, viaticum, was used espe- cially of the eucharistic elements (e.g. Lit. D. Mare. p. 29, Lt. D. L[acob. p. 75, Neale), and there would be a na- tural desire to fix this sense on S. Clement here.
(3) The probability that such lan- guage as Ta maOjpata Tov Geo should have been used by an early Chris- tian writer can hardly be questioned. These early writers occasionally used language so strong in expressing their belief of our Lord’s divinity, as almost to verge on patripassianism ; so Ign. Ephes. 1 avalwmupnoavtes ev aipart Geov, Ign. Rom. 6 emirpearé poe piuntny elvar Tov maOovs TOV Oeod pov, Melito (Routh Ae/. Sacr. I. p. 122) 6 Geos mérovbev wrod SeEas “Io- panXiridos, Test. xit Patr. Levi 4 ent To Taber Tod viorov (a very ancient writing ; see Galatians p. 307 sq), Tatian-ad Graec. 13 tov memor- O@sros Geod, Tertull. de Carn. Chr. 5 ‘passiones Dei,’ ad U-xvor. il. 3 ‘ san- guine Dei’ (and so elsewhere Ter- tullian speaks of ‘God crucified,’ “God dead, ‘the flesh of God, ‘the murderers of God’; see de Carn. ar 5, adv. Marc. ii. 16, 27, v-. 5), Anc. Syr. Doc. p. 8 (ed. Cureton) ‘God was crucified for all men,’ etc. And similar passages from writers of these and the succeeding generations might be multiplied. See Abbot l.c. p- 340 sq, Otto Corp. Apol. Christ. IX. p. 445. The nearest parallel in the New Testament is Acts xx. 28, THY ekkAnoiay Tov Geov nv TepLeTrouy- gato Sua Tov atpatos Tov idiov; but even if rou Geov be the correct read- ing (as possibly it is), the form of ex- pression is far less strong than in these patristic references.
(4) It is more to the purpose to urge that, though such language is not uncommon in other writers, it has no parallel in Clement; that he else- where speaks of the blood ‘ of Christ’ ($$ 7,21, 49) and describes it'as ‘ pre- cious to God His Father’ (§ 7) ; and that throughout this epistle he applies the term Geds to the Father as distin- guished from Christ. This argument has considerable weight, but must not be overstrained. The Catholic doctrine of the Person of Christ ad- mits both ways of speaking. Writers like Tertullian, who use the most ex- travagant and unguarded language on the other side, are commonly and even in the same context found speak- ing of Christ as distinct from God ; and the exact proportions which the one mode of speaking will bear to the other in any individual writer must be a matter of evidence. It is clear from the newly discovered end- ing (§ 58 ¢m yap o Geds «.7.A.) that he could have had no sympathy with Ebionite views of the Person of Christ. Moreover, in the passage especially quoted (§ 7) one authority, which probably preserves the right reading, omits Geo. And after all the alternative remains which Abbot is disposed to favour (p. 343), that Cle- ment wrote avrov negligently, not re- membering that tov Geov had imme- diately preceded and referring it in his own mind to Christ.
(5) It remains to enquire whether the connexion is more favourable to Tov Gceov Or Tov Xpiorov. This will depend partly on the connexion of the sentences. If the punctuation given in my text be retained, rov Geov is almost necessary; for ra épo- dca then refers to the ordinary means of subsistence. Hilgenfeld reads and punctuates trois epodiows tov Xpiorov apkovpevot kal mpocéxovres, under- standing by the term ‘spiritual sus- tenance.’ This seems to me to give an awkward sense (for the mention
16 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [11
/ \ / \ / ~ apKOUMEVOL’ Kal TPOTEXOVTES TOUS Noyous avTou eT L-
land / OF ~ lf \ \ pedws evEerTEpVITMEVOL NTE TOS OTAaYXVOLS, Kal TA
rabyuata avtou nv po opadpav vpuov.
OvtTws €l-
onyn Babeia kai Nurrapa €d€O0TO TaTW Kal akKOpETTOS
/ > 9 oh \ / / C gue moos eis a@yabo7oay, Kat mAnons TvevpaTos aytou §
2 éveorepvicpévar] C3 ecrepmopevor A. 5 mAnpnys . . Exxvows.. eylvero] AC; plenae effusiones...erant S,
dero A.
4 Numapa €d€50T0] Aevtrapacde-
as if md/pers éxxvcers...éyivovro, for the plural here cannot be explained by rzbuz.
of ‘contentment’ is then somewhat out of place) and an unnatural punc- tuation (for kat mpooéxorres then be- comes a clumsy addition).
I. rovs Adyous] For the accusative after mpooéxovres compare e.g. Exod. Xxxiv. II mpocexe od TavTa doa eyo évrédANopai cou, Is. i. 10 mpow€xere vo- pov Geov, Neh. ix. 34 ov mpooéaxov ras évrodds (v.1.) cov Kal Ta papripia gov.
2. eveotepriapevor| ‘ye took them to heart, i.e. rovs Aéyous, which is the accusative to eveorepyicpevor as well as to mpoaéxovtes ; SO § 12 ciade£a- pévn avtous éxpuiev. For evorepvi- ¢eoOa. compare Clem. Alex. Paed. 1. 6 (p. 123) Tov owrnpa evorepvioacba, Euseb. JZart. Pal. 8 peifova tov oo- patos Tov hoyopoy evertepyiapern, 720. II prnpas adtav (rav ypapar) eveorép- noto, 2b. Laud. Const. 5 § 5 trav €xet darev tdextov 7iOov eveatepyicpEevos, A post. Const. procem. everrepyicpevor rov poBov adrov, 2b. v. 14 evotepyicd- pevos avtov. There seems to be no such word as orepvifeoOa, and there- fore éveorepiopevor must be read. If éorepyicpevor Could stand, Cotelier’s explanation would probably be cor- rect, ‘Clementi eorepyicpevon sunt, qui Latinis pectorosi, homines lati capacisque pectoris (2 Cor. vi. 11), as the analogy of omd\ayyviferda suggests ; and later critics seem to be wrong in making it equivalent to éveatepyiapevor, Which owes its trans-
itive sense to the preposition.
ra raOypara avrov x.t.A.| Compare Gal. iii. 1 ois car’ odOadpors “Inoovs Xpiocris mpoeypahn earavpapévos, of which Clement’s expression is per- haps a reminiscence. In this passage it has been proposed to read pa6y- para for rajpara; and the confusion of pabnryis, maOnryjs, in Ign. Polyc. 7, and paémjpara, waOjpara, in Ign. Smyrn. 5, shows that the interchange would be easy. This emendation was originally adopted to meet the diffi- culty of the expression ‘ the sufferings of God.” Among others it found an advocate in the late Ezra Abbot (Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1876, p. 313 sq) in a learned paper on Acts xx. 28. But it has obtained some favour even since the discovery of thealterna- tive reading rov Xpuorov. Yet (1) The parallels quoted in the note on row @eov prove that no alteration is need- ed, since ra waOnpatra avtov would be a natural expression to a writer of this age; (2) The reading pa@npara would destroy the propriety of the expressions in the parallel clauses as read in the MS, eveorepricpevor refer- ring to rovs Adyous and mpo opOahpav to ra maOnpara, ‘the words in your hearts,the sufferings before youreyes’; (3) While ra wa@jpara is a common expression in the New Testament, being used especially to denote the sufferings of Christ, the word pa6npa does not once occur either there or
0
1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. iy.
a] ? \ / Oats VA CA Aa
exxvols él mavTas éyiveTo' peotol TE datas BovArs > ’ ~ / > 5) ~ / > ,
év dya0n mpobumia pet edoeBous merronoews €EeTEl- A — ron \ \ 7 7
vaTe Tas YElpas VuwY TpOS TOV TavTOKpaTopa Oéeor, , \ / / af af /
ikeTevovTes avTov idews yeverOa, eiTt aKovTES rucap-
TETE.
6 dcias] AS; Oelas C: see the lower note.
A. ékereivate] A; éferelvere CS. note. axovres] AC; éxdvres S.
in the Apostolic fathers ; and in the only passage in the LXx where it is found (Jer. xiii. 21) there is a v.l. pabnras (for paénpara), which ap- proaches more nearly to the original Hebrew; (4) Though ra paéyjpara tov
- Geov might stand, still ai didayai Tov
cov (or some similar expression) would be more natural.
3. elpnyvn Badeta] 4 Mace. ili. 20 Babeiay eipyyny d:a Thy evvopiay nuay eiyov, Hegesipp.in Euseb. A. £. iii. 32 yevonevns eipnyns Babeias ev mdon ék- kAnoia, Athenag. Suppl. 1 7 ctpraca oikoupevn TH vpeTépa cuvecer Badeias eipnyns arodavovow, Liture. S. Basil. p. 165 (Neale) BaGeiav cai avadaiperov eipnynv, Euseb. Vzt. Cozst. i. 61.
5. ayaborouiar| ‘ deneficence’ ; again just below and §§ 33, 34: comp. I Pet. Iv. 19, Zest. x1z Patr. Jos. 18. The allied words occur several times in S. Peter: dyadomoveiy 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20, ili. 6, 17; a@yaOorous, I Pet. ii. 14. While kaXoroia regards the abstract character of the action, dya@oroia looks to its results and more especi- ally to its effect on others.
6. ooias| For the confusion of ocioc and 6e10c comp. S§ 14, 21, and see above I. pp. 138, 140. For daias see § 45 ev dia kal duopm mpobéce., § 56 dia Tis boias madeias adrod ; for Oeias, § 40 ra BAbn rhs Oeias yroceas. There might possibly be a question which of the two words should be read here: but (1) we have a combination
CLEM. II.
> ~ \ \ \ £ aywv nv Upiv HMepas TE Kal VUKTOS UTED TacNs
7 mwemo.Onoews] metonOnoewo g tNéws] A; ttewv C: see the lower nudprete] AC; peccabatis (huaprdvere) S.
of two authorities (including the best) against one; and (2) the other in- stances show that the tendency is to change oovos into deios, and not con- versely.
9. ihéos yeveoOa| The adverb itk€ws is recognised by Hesychius, but no instances are given in the lexicons. As it appears only to occur in the expression ihkéws yiverOa (Lull. de Corr. Hellén. Xi. p. 453 (1887) unre ot Oeot ik€ws avT@ yevowvto, 2 Macc. il. 23,\ Vil. 3751 X.| 26); 16) 15° probablya grammatical mistake of the later lan- guage, the true construction being forgotten and the word being erro- neously treated as an adverb (idkéws instead of ikews). In this passage it may be due to the transcriber and not to Clement himself. At all events our MS (A) in the three passages of 2 Maccabees has itéws, where the common text has a proper grammati- cal construction iAew yevopévov, ihe yeveoOa, thew yevopevov. In Herm. Vis. ii. 2, S2m. ix. 23, we have the ex- pression fAews yiverOa, but the con- text fails to show whether idews is treated as an adverb or an adjective. E. A. Sophocles Lex. s.v. gives an instance of the adverb idews from Moschion, and the inscription above quoted proves it to be a possible word.
10. ayov Av K.t.A.] Comp. Col. ii. I.
juépas Te kal vuxtos| Hilgenfeld calls attention to the fact that the
2
ow ie
18 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [11
THS adehporTnTos, Els TO cwCec bau peTa O€ous Kal guveoycews Tov ao.Ouov TwVv eKNEeKTWY a’TOU: ELAL- KplWels Kal GKEpaloL NTE Kal duvnoikakot Els aAANHAOUS" Taca TAGS Kal Tav oxXioua BOEeXUKTOY Uuiv: él Tots
/ ~ / a \ / TapanrTwuacw Tols TAnatov évevOEiTE’ Ta VoTEpHMaTa
I peta Séovs] C3 per’ EdXéous (eMavova A) AS. veo A.
2 eiduxpiveis| evderKpt- 3 axépator] axepeot A. ayy notkaxot] C; auauynocxaxor A. So I read the ms with Tischendorf, but previous editors gave it avauynotxakot.
4 Boeduxrov] A; add. jv C, and so probably S.
5 Tots wXyolov] A; Tov
writer elsewhere has the same order ‘day and night’ §§ 20, 24, and argues thence ‘scriptorem non e Judaeis, qui noctem anteponunt, sed e gentilibus, Romanis quidem, ortumesse.’ This ar- gument is more specious than sound. Thus in the Apocalypse the order is always ‘day and night,’ iv. 8, vii. 15, mit AG; Kiv. £1; Xx.( 103. 4n¢S: Paul/al- ways ‘night and day,’ 1 Thess. ii. 9, neat. eo achess 1.3, 1) Cima: wy §,/\2 Tim. i. 3; while by S. Luke either order is used indifferently in both the Gospel (ii. 37, xviii. 7) and the Acts (ix! OAs aoe, SA, XKVI. 7).
I. adeAddrntros| A word peculiar to S. Peter in the New Testament; 1 Pee 17, v.90. So Polyc. P2710 ‘fraternitas,’ where the Greek is not extant; Herm. J/and. 8.
peta Seovs| I have ventured to adopt this reading, as other recent editors have done, on the inferior au- thority of C (meta Aeoye for mete- Aeoyc), because it rescues the passage from a difficulty and so commends it- self. By this combination pera déous kat aovuvevdnoews the whole clause is trans- ferred from God to the believer, and cuverdnoews becomes intelligible. With the whole expression comp. Lzturg. D. Facob. p. 55 (Neale) dds nyiv, Ki- ple, peta Travros oBov Kal cuverdnoews ka@apas mpockopioa «.t.’. For the idea of fear as an agent in the work of salvation see Phil. ii. 12; and for
the expression pera déous Heb. xii. 28 Aarpevopev evapéotws TO Oe@ pera ev- - AaBeias kat Séovs (the correct reading), an epistle which has largely influ- enced Clement’s language elsewhere. For the use of ouvetdnous here comp. S 34 ouvaybevres TH ovverdnoe. It de- notes inward concentration and as- sent. Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. Nov. 8, 1876) still retains the reading per’ €Xé- ous, explaining it of brotherly kindness shown towards offenders, and pro- poses ovvabAnceas for cvverdnoews. He might have quoted A fost. Const. ii. 13 €meita eTa EAEOVS Kal OiKTLPMOU Kal mpooAnWeaws OikeLov UTLTXVOUpEVOS av- To o@tnpiay for this sense. Lipsius (Fenaer Literaturz. Jan. 13, 1877) accepts pera déovs, but holds by his conjecture cvvdenoews (Academy, July 9, 1870), though it is now rendered unnecessary. Donaldson (7heo/. Rev. Jan. 1877) suggests pera redeias cur- eXevoeas. .
2. ovvevdnoews| If the reading ehéovs be retained, cvverdyoewms must mean ‘with the consent of God,’ but this is hardly possible. I had ac- cordingly hazarded the conjecture evdoxnoews (EYAOKHCEWC for CYNEI- AHcewc), which is less violent than cuvaweoews, cuveiEews, cuvSenoews, and other emendations. This conjecture struck me before I was aware that Davis had suggested cuvevdoxnoews, of which word I cannot find any in-
11] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 19
? > af > / 5) / Ss 2 \ 7 > avTwv idia ExplveTe’ GueTaMEeANTOL NTE ETL TaTH aya- t aA o > a By] > ! las / Oorrotia, ETOIMO! €IC TAN EPfON AfPdOON* TH TAaVAaDETYW Kal oe Baciiw TONITELA KEKOOMNMEVOL Ta ewer tb (3 [LLG np TavTa ev TH PoPw
~ a \ / \ \ / QUTOU ETETENELTE’ TA TPCT TAYMATAa Kal Ta OLKALW LATA
~ / Cyan \ ’ = ’ c a > ! TOU Kupiov ET! TA TIAATH THC KAPAIAC Y MOON ErerpamtiTo.
wrynolov C3; vicinorum S. atrouuwor A.
I. p- 126).
stance. The clause would then mean ‘of His mercy and good pleasure’: comp. § 9 ikérau yevopevou Tod éd€ous Kal THS ypnoTotntos avtov. The lexi- cons supply a few instances of the form evdoxnors (e.g. Diod. xv. 6, Dion. Hal. ili. 13), which also occurs below § 40 (see the note). In the N. T. the allied word evdoxia is generally said of God; Matt. x1. 26 (Luke x. 21), Eph. i. 5,9, Phil. ii. 13. If however we accept déous (see the last note), no emendation is needed.
Tov aptOpov x.7.A.| See the note on § 59, where the same expression oc- eurs. So too in our Burial Service, ‘shortly to accomplish the number of Thine elect.’
eiAKpivets Kal axépator| For eidukpe- vets, See Philippians i.10; for axépacot, Philippians ii. 15.
3. apynoikaxot]| So we have apyyn- auxaxws below, § 62. Comp. Jest. 277 Patr. Zab. 8 apunoixakor yiveo Oe, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 14 (p. 883) dpvnot- kakov evar diOaoxer, Hermas Aland. ix. avTos auynoikakos eott, and so Szvom. i. 18 (p. 398) d¢ duynorkakias.
5. Tots mAnoiov| A brachylogy for Tois TOY TAnoiov. Jacobson quotes Eur. Hec. 996 pn epa trav mAyoiov.
6. aperapéAntor k.T.A.] 1.e. ‘When you had done good, you did not wish it undone ; when there was an oppor- tunity of doing good, you seized it.’ The latter clause érowouk.t.A. is from Titus ill. I mpos wav epyov dyabor Eroi-
6 téta] C; wdua A; idia S. 8 ceBacuiw] A, and so apparently S; ceBacuwrarn C (see Q émeteneire] ereTehactar A.
7 roo]
pous etvar: comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8, and see below § 34 with the note.
8. odureia] ‘the graces of your heavenly citizenship’; see Phil. 1. 27, Ephes. ii. 12, 19. For modureia, ro- Atreveo Oar, see S§ 3, 6, 21, 44, 51, 54.
9. avrov] i.e. rod Geod, understood from tj mavapér@ Kat oeBacpio To- Aireta; Comp. § 54 THY adyerapeAnToy moXtelay Tov Geod.
Ta mpootaypata] The two words occur together frequently in the Lxx: see esp. Mal. iv. 4, and comp. I Sam. RKx, | 25) Ezek. xi: 20. xVill.| QO, soteut ts Crc.
10. émita mary x.7.A.| Taken from the LXX of Prov. vii. 3, emiypawoy de émi TO TAdTos THs Kapdias cov, where
mAdros Corresponds to the Hebrew mb ‘a tablet.’ The phrase is repeated in the LXxX with slight modifications in Prov. xxii. 20, and in some copies also in . Prov. . iii) (3,3 but \thereas nothing corresponding in the Hebrew of Prov. xxii. 20. Wotton’s state- ment that mAdros occurs in this sense ‘passim’ in the LXX is erroneous. From this LXxX reading the expres- sion ro mAdtos Ths Kapdlas is not un- common in the Christian fathers (e.g. Iren. i. praef. 3, and other passages quoted by Wotton), and ra mAary was doubtless written by Clement here. But it seems not improbable that the expression arose from a very early corruption of the LXX text (a confusion of rAdros and m\akos), since
ee
20
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [111
> / ‘N / my \ » ‘ émeTeNeaOn TO vyeypampevov' “Edaren kal étien kal ETAATYNOH KAl €TTAYYNOH KAl ATTEAAKTICEN O HPATTHMENOC.
"Ex tTouvrou Gros Kal POovos, [kai] Epis Kal oTaots,
Maca Sofa Kat mrAaTVopOs €600y Umtv, Kat
\ > / / \ > / dlwyuos Kal adkKaTacTacia, ToANEMOS Kal alyuarwota, e/ ? / cs 5S ; > ' eee 2 ovTws ernyepOnoay oi stimol él ToYC ENTIMoyc, OL AdOFOL
> > ¢ / ’ c émt Tous évdogous, of adpoves Eri Tous povisous, oi
a1
NEOl €Ml ToYc mpecByTépoyc.
1 €660n] 600n A. cev A.
\ ~ ' ” Ola TovTO TOppa ateEctIN
3 ameddxricev] CS, Deut. xxxii. 15; ameyaaxtt- 4 kat épis] As épis (om. kal) CS.
8 drectw] A; est S
(which probably represents darecrw); daéorn C, which is nearer to the Lxx of Is.
mAdé is the natural equivalent of mb and is frequently used elsewhere in the LxxX to translate it. S. Paul’s metaphor in 2 Cor, iil. 3 is derived from the original of Prov. vii. 3.
III. ‘But, like Jeshurun of old, you waxed wantonwith plenty. Hence strife and faction and open war. Hence the ignoble, the young,. the foolish, have risen against the highly- esteemed, the old, the wise. Peace and righteousness are banished. The law of God, the life after Christ, are disregarded. You have fostered jea- lousy, whereby death entered into the world.’
I. mAarvopos| ‘enlargement, room to move in, i.e. freedom and plenty, opposed to Odifis, crevoxwpia, avay- kn; aS 2 Sam. xxii. 20 mpoepOacay pe nuepat Oiweds pov kai eyéveto Kv- plos éemuotypiypa pov kal ée€nyayev pe eis mAatuvopov kal e&eidero pe, Ps. cxvil. 5 €k Odivvews émexaXeoauny Tov Kupuov kal émnKxovoév pov eis TAaTVO- pov: comp. Ps. xvii. 20, Cxvili. 45, Ecclus, xlvii. 12. See also the oppo- sition of ev evpyxydpm and orevoyo- petoOa, Hermas Mand. v. 1 ev evpv- x@pe@ karoikovy ayad\duacera. Hence the Latin use of dlatare, dilatatio.
2. epayev k.t.d.] A very free quota- tion from the LXx of Deut. xxxii. 14,
15, kal aia oradvAns emev (v. 1. émov) olvov’ Kat eayev “lakaB kai everAnoOn Kal drreAakticev 6 nyamnpévos, eAuravOn, erraxvvOn, emdatvvOn. It diverges still more from the original Hebrew. Justin Dzaé. 20 (p. 237 B) quotes the same passage, but his quotation has no special resemblances to that of Clement.
4. (dos «.t.A.| The words occur in an ascending scale: frs¢ the inward sentiment of division (¢jA0s develop- ing into POdvos) ; xext, the outward demonstration of this (€pss develop- ing into oraow); lastly, the direct conflict and its results (duwypes, axa- TaoTacia, TOAEMOS, aiypadocia).
(nos kai POdvos| These words oc- cur together also below, §§ 4, 5: comp. Gal. v. 20, 21, Test. 2a Pais Sym. 4 amo mavros (ydov kai Pbovov. For the distinction between them see Trench WV. 7. Sym. ser. 1 § xxvi, and Galatians \.c. Zndros is ‘rivalry, am- bition,’ the desire of equalling or excelling another. It does not ne- cessarily involve the wish to deprive him of his advantages, which is im- plied in Pédvos ; but, if unduly che- rished, it will lead to this; § 4 da (ros Aaveid POovov ecxev, Plat. Me- mex. Pp. 242 A mpotov pev CHros aro (jrov de dovos, Aisch. Agam. 939
11]
TO.UTHE CORINTHIANS: ZN |
- ’ \ > / 5) ~ 5) / v4 \ H AIKAIOCYNH K@l €lonvn, Ev TW a7roNELTTELY EKaTTOV TOV
/ ~ ~ pa io / 5) > ? on poBov Tov Oeov Kai év TH TicTE avToU auBAVwTHTAL ‘
pnoe EV TOLS VOMIMOLS THY TPOTTAYMATwWY aVTOV TrOpEV-
ecOa pnde TodTEVer Oa KaTa TO KaOyKov To XpioTo,
At ef > ~ d\Xa éxactoy BadiCev Kata Tas émiOumias THs Kapdias
qn ~~ ~ ~ of 5] ~ 5) avToU THs Tovnpas, (yAov adikov Kal doe Bn cavetAnpo-
> a \ ’ Sah > \ ' Tas, Ot OU K@L BANATOC EICAAOEN EIC TON KOCMON.
lix. 14 agéornxev, given in the lower note; see above, I. p. 124 sq. Aelrew] amoecmi A; daoduretv C, and so probably S.
Q atro- 10 WioTel] more
A. 13 adda] AC, but Bryennios prints d\n’, as if this were the reading
on C.
0 & apOdvnros y ovdx émifndos méAet, Arist. Rhett. ii. 4 vf? av (nrodtocda BovAovrat kal pr POoveic Gar.
5. axatactacia] ‘tumult’; comp. Luke xxi. 9 rod€pous kal dxaracracias, 2 Cor. xil. 20 €pis, (jAos...axataora- cia, James iil. 16 dmov yap (dos kai epiOeva, exet akaTacTacia K.T.X.
6. of arisor x.t.A.] Is. iii. 5 mpoo- KoWet TO Tatdiov mpos TOV mpeaBuTnY, 6 Grysos mpos Tov evTipov.
8. moppo ameotw x.t.d.| Is. lix. 14 kat 7 Oukacocvyn pakpay adéatnkev.
10. apBrvernoa| ‘grown dim- sighted’. The Atticists condemned apBAverety and preferred duBdAver- rew ; Thom. Mag. p. 39. The word and the form apBdvereiy are as old as Hippocrates, Progn. I. p. 38 (ed. Foes.). In the LXx it occurs 1 Kings xiv. 4 (displaced and found between xii. 24 and xii.25in B). But in most places where it occurs there is a v.1. apBAverrew. Comp. a Gnostic writer in Hippol. Ref v. 16 (p. 133 ad fin.).
12. To ka@jKov TO Xpiote] The ex- pression has a close parallel in Phil. i. 27 a&iws Tov evayyediov Tod Xpictod modrever Oe, from which perhaps it is taken. The emendations suggested (Xpicriav@ or ev Xpior@ for Xpiore) are therefore unnecessary.
14. (dov x.7.A.] Comp. § 45 ddcKcov
THs Kapdtas| CS; om. A.
rs Kal} AC 3/om;"S.
(nrov avetAnhoror.
15. kal Oavatos k.t.A.| From Wisd. ii. 24 POdve dé diaBodrov Oavatos etonhOev eis Tov Koopov ; comp. Rom. v.12. The following passage of Theophilus con- nects the quotation from the Book of Wisdom with Clement’s application of it: ad Autol. il. 29 (p. 39) 6 Zara- vas...ep @ ovK toxvoev Oavateoat avtovs POove epomevos, nvika ewpa Tov "ABed evapeatovrvta T@ Oe@, Evep- ynoas cis rov adedpoy avrov Tov KaXov- pevov Kaivy éroinoev arokretvar Tov ddedpov avrov Tov "ABeA, Kal ovT@s apxn @avarov €yEVETO eis TOVOE TOV KOo- poov k.T.A,
IV. ‘Said I not truly that death came into the world through jea- lousy? It was jealousy which prompt- ed the first murder and slew a brother by a brother’s hand ; jealousy which drove Jacob into exile, which sold Joseph as a bondslave, which compelled Moses to flee before his fellow-countryman and before Pha- raoh, which excluded Aaron and Miriam from the camp, which swal- lowed up Dathan and Abiram alive, which exposed David to the malice not only of foreigners but even of the Israelite king.’
The idea of jealousy bringing death into the world had a prominent place
22 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [iv
IV. léeyparrat yap ouTws’ Kai éréneto med’ HMe- pac, HNEfKEN KAIN ATO TON KAPTION TAC FAC O8YCIAN T@ Oew, kal ABeEA HNEPKEN Kal AYTOC ATO TON TPWTOTOKWN TON TPO- BATWN KAl ATO TON CTEATWN AYT@N. Kal ETTEIAEN O Oeoc él “ABeA Kai én) Toic Awpoic ayTo¥, én) Aé Kain Kal etm TAic Oyclaic ayTOY OY TpocécyeN. Kal eAYTHOH KAIN AIAN Kal CYNETECEN TH TPOCHMW ayToy. Kal elmenN 6 Oedc Tpoc Kain, iNa Ti TEpiAytoc €réNoy; Kal TNA TI CYNETIECEN TO
1 ottws] AS; om. C. 2 7% Ocew] AS; 7H Kuplw C, with the LXx.
3 mpoBarwy] AC; add. advrot S, with Lxx. 4 emeidev] emidé A. 7 ™@ mpocwrw| A with the LXX; 706 mpdowmov CS, in accordance with what follows.
g éavy] A; a C.
in the teaching of the Ophites as re- ported by Iren. i. 30. 9,‘ Ita ut et dum fratrem suum Abel occideret, primus zelum et mortem ostenderet’: and Ire- nzeus himself also speaks of the ¢7Xos Gr Kean, di1.°23.°4, “iv. ¥6."8 ‘(See the last passageespecially). Mill supposes that the idea was borrowed from Clement. As regards the Ophites however it is more probable that they derived it from a current inter- pretation of the name Kaiv: comp. Clem. Hom. iii. 42 Tov pev mp@rov kadéoas Katy, 8 éppnvevera (Aros, os kal (ni@oas aveihev Tov adeAov adrov ”ABeX. In a previous passage (iii. 25) this pseudo-Clement calls Cain dp- orepicov dvopa, because dyn exet THS épunveias Thy exdoxny, épynveterar yap kat krjots (MIP) Kat pros (NIP) k.7.A. The interpretation xrjovs is adopted by Philo de Cherub. 15 (1. p. 148), de Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 1 (I. p. 163), guod Det. pot. ins. 10 (I. p. 197), etc., and by Josephus Azz. i. 2. I.
I, kat eyévero kT.A.] Gen. iv. 3—8, quoted almost word for word from the Lxx. The divergences from the Hebrew text are very considerable.
7. t@ mpooem@| The case is diffi- cult to account for, except as a very early transcriber’s error in the LXX ;
II dpfes avrod] A; avrod dpges C. S has the same
for the form of the Hebrew is the same here as in the following verse, where it is translated ouverecev To mpocerov, and the dative though in- telligible is awkward.
9. ovk €av opOds k.7.A.]| The mean- ing of the original is obscure, but the LXX translation which Clement here follows must be wrong. The words opOes diéAns stand for mna> on (‘doest good, at the door’), which the translators appear to have under- stood ‘doest right to open’; unless indeed they read nAn3 for Mnd, as seems more probable (for in the older characters the resemblance of 3} and 5 is very close). At all events it
would seem that they intended dueAns
to refer to apportioning the offerings (comp. Ley. i. 12, where it represents mn3 and is used of dividing the victim): and they might have under- stood the offence of Cain to consist in reserving to himself the best and giving God the worst: see Philo Quaest. in Gen. 1. § 62—64 (1. p. 43 sq, Aucher), de Agric. 29 (I. p. 319), and de Sacr. Ab. e¢ Ca. 13, 20 sq, (I. p. 171 sq, 176 sq), in illustration of this sense. The Christian fathers however frequently give it a directly moral bearing, explaining dp@as py
Iv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 23
TPOCWITON COY; OYK EAN OPOGC TPOCENEPKHC OpOwWC AE ME
AIEAHC, HMAPTEC; HCYYACON’ Tpoc ce H ATIOCTPOdH ayToy,
Kal cy ApzZEIC ayToy.
MON ayToy’
AIEAO@MEN EIC TO TIEAION.
Kal elmen Kain mpdc “ABEA TON AdeA-
KAl EFENETO EN TO
EINAl AYTOYC EN T@ TEAI@ ANECTH Kain Eri “ABEA TON BAeA-
MON AYTOY KAl ATTEKTEINEN AYTON. ‘Opate, aded pot, (dos
kat POovos ddeAoktoviay KaTEepyacaTo.
Ova (nos
e \ e as > \ > / > \ / 5) ~ 0 matyp nuov “laxw amédpa dro mpocwmov ’Hoav
order as A, but this would be most natural in the Syriac.
12 déAPwpev |
AC; add. igitur (=6h) S. This addition is found in some Mss of the LXx.
mediov| madsov A. ayamntot S; see above, § 1. A; ¢ndov C.
dveAns to refer either to the obliquity of Cain’s moral sense or to his un- fairness in his relations with his bro- ser, e7o./Iren. ii.) 23:4 “Quod non recte divisisset eam quae erga fra- trem erat communionem,’ iv. 18. 3 ‘Quoniam cum zelo et malitia quae erat adversus fratrem divisionem ha- bebat in corde, etc.’, Origen Sed. zx Gen. (Il. p. 30) od Sdueihev opOas* rijs Geias vopobecias kateppovncer k.T-d.
10. yavxacov| The word corre- sponds to the Hebrew 71> ‘lying,’ which the LXX have treated as an imperative ‘lie still’; comp. Job xi. 19. Much stress is laid on novyacov by Philo de Sodr. 10 (I. p. 400), and by early Christian expositors, e.g. Clem. Hom. ii. 25, Iren. ll. cc.
12. OveAdwpev eis To mediov] This clause is wanting in the Hebrew and Targum of Onkelos, but found in the LXxX, the Samaritan and Peshito versions, and the later Targums. Origen’s comment is_ interesting ; Sel. in Genes. (II. p. 39) €v TO “EBpaixe TO hexGev Vrd Tov Kaiv mpos rov”ABedX ov yéypamrat kal of mept AxviAay edevéav Ort €v TO aroxpipe@ haciv oi “EBpaiou ketoGar Tovto évtavOa Kata THY TeV €Bdounkovra éxSoxry. These or similar
13 wediw] maw A. 15 Kateipydcaro] AS; kareipyacavto C.
14 adehgpol] AC; (ros]
words are plainly wanted for the sense, and can only have been omit- ted accidentally. The Masoretes reckon this one of the twenty-eight passages where there is a lacuna in the text: see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. V. T. 1. p.104 sq. Philo enlarges on the allegorical meaning of ro wediov.
15. 6a ¢jAos| On the two declen- sions of (jos see Winer § ix. p. 78, A. Buttmann p. 20. Clement (or his transcriber) uses the masculine and the neuter forms indifferently.
16. 6 watnp nuov| So § 31 6 maryp juav “ABpaap, § 60 xabds eSaxas Tots Tatpacw nuav, § 62 of mpodednropevor marépes nav (where see the note). From these passages it has been in- ferred that the writer was a Jewish Christian. The inference however is not valid; since Clement, like S. Paul (Gals i11..75)/0,. 20, Roms Av BE TB, ix. 6—8) or Justin (Dza/. 134), might refer to spiritual rather than actual parentage; comp. I Pet. iii. 6 Sdppa... ns eyeyvnOnre téxva. So too Theophi- lus of Antioch (quoted by Jacobson), though himself a Gentile, speaks of Abraham (ad Autol. iii. 28, comp. iii. 24) and David (iii. 25) as ‘ our fore- father.’ To these references add 20,
24 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [1v
Tou adeAPov avtov. CyAos éroincev ‘lwand expr Oa- vaTou dwyOnvar Kat mexpt Sovreias eioedOeiv. Cydos guyetv jvaykacey Mwiony dro rpocwrov Papaw Bact- Aéws Atyvrtov év TW akovVTaL avTOY a0 TOU OmoduvAoU Tic cC€ KATECTHCEN KPITHN H AIKACTHN €C() HM@N; MH ANE- Ae€IN ME CY OEAEIC, ON TPOTION ANEIAEC EyOeCc TON AiryTITION; dia Gyros ’“Aapwv cat Mapiau €€w ths mapeufsodns nurtcOnoav. Cydos Aabav cai “APeipwv CwvTas KaTI-
> c/ \ \ / \ \ \ yayev eis a0ov, dia TO TTaTiaTal av’TOUS TPOS TOV
2 eiaeNOelv] A; €dOetv C, and so probably S. apxovra kal duxaoryy CS, with the Lxx.
xbeés Cy nurynoOnoav A. dua (Hrov C.
7 Ova) CS 3 oma. A.
Aaveid] 6a6 AC.
ill. 20 of ‘“EBpaio., ot Kai mpomaropes nov, ap ov kal tas tepas BiPdous EXOmev K.T.A.
5. tis oe x.7.A.| From the Lxx of Exod. ii. 14, which follows the He- brew closely, inserting however x6és (or eyes). Clement has xpurny 7 for dpxovta kai, perhaps from confusion with Luke xii. 14 xpirjy 7) peprotny (the best reading, though A and some others have dixacrny 7) peptotnv). The LXX is quoted more exactly in Acts vil. 27 and in Afost. Const. vi. 2. The life of Moses supplies Clement witha twofold illustration of his point ; for he incurred the envy not only of the king (aro mpoocwrov Papaw), but also of his fellow-countrymen (éy r@ axov- gat avrov x.t.A.), aS in the parallel case of David below.
7. ~Aapov x.t.A.]| The Mosaic re- cord mentions only the exclusion of Miriam from the camp, Num. xii. 14, 15. In this instance and in the next (Dathan and Abiram) the jealous per- sons are themselves the sufferers.
9. tov Oeparovra x.t.r.| The ex- pression is used of Moses several
See the lower note. ¢nros] A; Sov C. Gros] S; diagnroo A; dud EHrov C.
5 Kpirnv i) Oxaoryv] A; 6 éxGés] A;
8 nvrNicOnoar | 10 Oa (nros] A;
I have followed the best Mss of the N.T. for
times, e.g, Exod. iv. Io, xiv. 31, Num. xii. 7, 8, Josh. viii. 31, 33: comp. below §§ 43, 51, 53, Barnab. § 14, Just. Mart. Dial. 56 (p. 274 D), Theoph. ad Autol. |» ili. 9, 18, etc. ‘O Oeparwyv Tov Cecov was a recognised title of Moses, as 0 didos Tov Geov was of Abraham. 10. Aavel6] Or perhaps Aavid. There is, so far as I know, no au- thority for AaBid, except in com- paratively recent Mss. Yet Hilgen- feld reads AaBid. Funk says ‘C AaBid ubique,’ and a similar statement is made by Gebhardt, being misled by Bryennios. The word is contracted in C in all its three occurrences in Clement; §S§ 18, 52, as well as here. II. vmo tov dd\dopvA@y] The Phi- listines, 1 Sam. xxi. II, xxix. 4 sq. 12. vo SaovA] 1 Sam. xviii. 9 ‘And Saul eyed (vmoBAeropnevos LXX, A) David from that day and forward.’ V. ‘Again, take examples from our own generation. Look at the lives of the chief Apostles. See how Peter and Paul suffered from jea- lousy; how through many wander- ings, through diverse and incessant
v] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
25
10 fepatrovta Tov Oeov Mwvonv. sia (ndos Aaved (p0o- vov ExXEV OU Movoy Ud TwY drNoPiAwY, dAAA Kal v7o Caour [ Bacireéws *lopanr] édiwyOn.
/ - ? c / V. ’AAN Wa TeV dpyaiwy UroderyuaTwv TavcW- a} Jean \ af / > / peOa, EAMOwuev El Tos Eyyiota yevouévous dOANTAS: / ~ ~ ~ x ~ / 15 \aBwuev THs yeveas Huwv Ta yevvaia Vrodelypara. A ~ / ¢€ / \ / Ata Gidov Kat POovoy ot péeyioror Kat SiKadTaTot
/ > / e/ / af oTVAOL €d1w vy Onoav Kal €ws Oavatov nOAncav.
AaBw-
\ > lam e va \ 9 \ > / Mev 7pO 6pbarpav nHuwy Tous ayalous dérooToXous:
the orthography of the word. A; amo Tot Zaovr C.
Tw] vrodiyparwyv A.
Ir vro] A; amo C. Baciréws "IopandA] AS; om. C. I5 yevvaia] yevvea A.
12 UTd ZaovA] 13 Umoderypa- 16 péy.orat] CS ;
...0To A. The word péyioroe was rejected by Tischendorf and several editors (myself included) as insufficient for the space, and some other word substituted to fill the lacuna of A, but the text of the other authorities removes all doubt.
persecutions, they bore testimony to Christ; how at last they sealed their testimony with their blood, and de- parted to their rest and to their glory.’
14. eyytoral ‘very near,’ as com- pared with the examples already quoted. The expression must be qualified and explained by the men- tion of 7 yevea nuay just below. It has been shown that the close of Do- mitian’s reign is pointed out both by tradition and by internal evidence as the date of this epistle (I. p. 346 sq). The language here coincides with this result. It could hardly be used to describe events which had happen- ed within the last year or two, as must have been the case if the letter were written at the end of Nero’s reign. And on the other hand 7 yevea nuov would be wholly out of place, if it dated from the time of Hadrian, some 50 years or more after the death of the two Apostles.
a@Anras| See the note on Ign. Polye. 1.
17. otvdot] See the note on Gala- titans il. 9, where it is used of S. Peter and other Apostles. The accentua- tion orvAou is there discussed, and it has the support of C here.
18. dyabovs] So too Clem. Hom. il. 16 0 & dyads Iérpos mpoomndjcas k.T.A.. quoted by Harnack. Editors and critics have indulged in much licence of conjecture, suggesting ayious, mpetous, Oeiovs, etc., in place of aya@ovs. This has led to the state- ment made in Volkmar’s edition of Credner’s Gesch. des N. T. Kanon p. 51, that A reads a ovs (a supposed contraction for mpérovs). Nothing can be farther from the truth. The word adyaovs is distinctly legible in full in A, and it is confirmed by the other authorities. Such an epithet may be most naturally explained on
‘the supposition that Clement isspeak-
ing in affectionate remembrance of those whom he had known person- ally. Otherwise the epithet seems to be somewhat out of place.
26 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v
Ilérpov, os Ova (Aov adikov ovx eva ovdeé Ovo aAXAa
/ c / / \ / / WAELOVAS UTNHVEYKEV TOVOUS, KL OUTW faoTupnaas €7T0-
1 Ilérpov, ds] C; ...0c A; Petrus S. Before the discovery of C, the lacuna of A
was filled up [6 Ilérp]os or [Ilérp]os. seen. portavit (see § 14).
I. Ilérpov «.t.A.] A passage in Peter of Alexandria (de Poentzt. 9, see I. p. 164), where the two Apostles are mentioned in conjunction, was probably founded on Clement’s ac- count here, for it closely resembles his language. The same is also the case with a passage of Macarius Magnes Afgocr. iv. 14, quoted in the note on vréderEevy below. This juxta- position of S. Peter and §S. Paul, where the Roman Church is con- cerned, occurs not unfrequently. The language of Ignatius, Rom. 4, seems to imply that they had both preached in Rome; and half a cen- tury later Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. Ff. £. ii. 25) states explicitly that they went to Italy and suffered martyr- dom there kara rov adroy karpov. This is affirmed also a generation later by Tertullian, who mentions the different manners of their deaths (Scorp. 15, de Praescr. 36); and soon after Gaius, himself a Roman Christian, describes the sites of their graves in the im- mediate neighbourhood of Rome (Euseb. 7. £. ii. 25); see also Lac- tant. de Mort. Pers. 2, Euseb. Dem. Ev. iil. 3, p. 116. The existing Acta Petri et Pauli (Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 1, ed. Tischendorf) are occupied with the preaching and death of the two Apostles at Rome; and this appears to have been the subject also of a very early work bearing the same name, on which see Hilgenfeld /Vov. Test. extr. Can. Rec. iv. p. 68. This subject is further discussed in the excursus S. Peter tn Rome appended to the first volume.
The true reading could not have been fore-
2 Umrnveyxev] Urnveyxe C; and so doubtless S, which has Sap tulit, As regards A, Young read tréuewev; but Mill and others
But not only was this juxtaposition of the two Apostles appropriate as coming from the Roman Church; it would also appeal powerfully to the Corinthians. The latter commu- nity, no less than the former, traced its spiritual pedigree to the combined teaching of both Apostles; and ac- cordingly Dionysius (Il. c.), writing from Corinth to the Romans, dwells with emphasis on this bond of union between the two churches: comp. 1 Gor. a: Wa.
2. paptupnaas| ‘having borne his testimony. The word padptus was very early applied especially, though not solely, to one who sealed his tes- timony with his blood. It is so ap- plied in the Acts (xxii. 20) to S. Ste- phen, and in the Revelation (ii. 13) to Antipas. Our Lord Himself is styled the faithful and true paprus (Rev. i. 5, il. 14), and His paprupia before Pontius Pilate is especially emphasized (1 Tim. vi. 13). Doubt- less the Neronian persecution had done much to promote this sense, aided perhaps by its frequent oc- currence in the Revelation. After the middle of the second century at all events paprus, waprupetiy, Were used absolutely to signify martyrdom; Martyr. Polyc. 19 sq, Melito in Euseb. 4. £. iv. 26, Dionys. Corinth. z0, ii. 25, Hegesippus 2d. ii. 23, iv. 22, Epist. Gall. 26. v. 1, 2, Anon. adv. Cataphr. zd. v. 16, Iren. Haer. 1. 28. I, il. 3. 3,'4, 1h 12, 10; nn 18,5 ere Still even at this late date they con- tinued to be used simultaneously of other testimony borne to the Gospel,
v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 24
pevOn Ets Tov oetAopevoy ToTov THS So0—NS. dua CyAov
professed to see the H, and Wotton accordingly says ‘proculdubio legendum est
bmnveyKev’. hand Tischendorf sees part of an H.
According to Jacobson ‘hodie nihil nisi yt restat’.
On the other
I could discern traces of a letter, but these
might belong equally well to an € or an H.
short of death: e.g. by Hegesippus, Euseb. H. £. iil. 20, 32, by Apollonius 2b. v. 18 (several times), and in a document quoted by Serapion zd. v. 19. A passage in the Epistle of the Churches of Gaul (A.D. 177) illustrates the usage, as yet not definitely fixed but tending to fixity, at this epoch: ovxy ama& ovde Sis adda odds paptupnoartes kat €k Onpioy avis avadnpOertes...ovT avTol paptupas €av- TOUS GVEKNPUTTOV OUTE pV nuiy eéTpe- Tov TOUT@ TH ovopate mpocayopevew avtrovs* GAN elmoré Tis Huey Ov emioToO- Aijs 7 Sia AGyou paptupas avTovs mpoc- eimev, ememAnooov mikpas’ déws yap TapexX@povv THv THs papTupias mpoo- nyopiay T@ Xpiot@ TH TLoT@ kai ady- Ow@ paptupt...Kal érepipvyokovTo TOV e€eAnAvOorav 76n paptipav Kai €dheyov" €keivor 75n paptupes ovs ev TH OmoAoyia Xptoros nElwoeyv ava- AnPOnvat, éemicppayrodpevos av- Tov Sta ths €€dd0u THY papTupiay’ nmets Sé Opodoyor pérpioe kai TaTet- voi (Euseb. H. £. v.2). The distinc- tion between pdprus and opodoynrns (more rarely opodoyos), which the humility of these sufferers suggested, became afterwards the settled usage of the Church; but that it was not so at the close of the second century appears from the Alexandrian Cle- ment’s comments on Heracleon’s account of dmodoyia in Strom. iv. 9, p- 596; comp. also Tertull. Prax. 1 ‘de jactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve carceris taedium.’ Even half a century later the two titles are not kept apart in Cyprian’s language. The Decian persecution however would seem to have been instrumental in fixing
this distinction; see Euseb. JZart. Pal. \1 wpo Tov paptupiov bua Kavty- pov UTopovns Tov THS Omodoyias d.a- Anoas dyova.
Thus the mere use of paprupety in this early age does not in itself ne- cessarily imply the martyrdoms of the two Apostles; but on the other hand we need not hesitate (with Merivale, Hist. of the Romans Vi. p. 282, note 2) to accept the passage of Clement as testimony to this fact. For (1) Clement evidently selects ex- treme cases of men who €ws Oavarov 70\noav; (2) The emphatic position of zaprupnoas points to the more defi- nite meaning; (3) The expression is the same as that in which Hegesip- pus describes the final testimony, the martyrdom, of James (Euseb. 1. £. li. 23 kal oUT@s €paptvpnoer) and of Symeon (Euseb. 7. £. ili. 32 kat oUtT@ paptupet); (4) Dionysius of Corinth couples the two Apostles to- gether, as they are coupled here, say- ing €uaptvpnoay Kata TOY avTOY KaLpov (Euseb. H. £&. ii. 25), where martyr- dom is plainly meant and where pro- bably he was writing with Clement’s language in his mind. The early patristic allusions to the martyrdoms of the two Apostles have been already quoted in the last note. It should be added that S. Peter’s martyrdom is clearly implied in John xxi. 18, and that S. Paul’s is the almost in- evitable consequence of his position as described by himself in 2 Tim. iv. 6 sq.
3. Tov ddetdopevoy torov| The ex- pression is copied by Polycarp (PAz?. 9), where speaking of S. Paul and the other Apostles he says, eis rov
28 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v
Kal Ep [lavXos Urropovns BpaBetov umederEev, EMTAKIS
1 kal épw] CS; def. A. Here again the calculation of the space has proved fallacious. Editors, before the discovery of CS, filled in the lacuna of A with xal 6 or kal simply. BpaBetov] BpaBroy A. vmédeter] edecEev C; tulit (por- tavit) 1'D S. As regards the reading of A, there is some doubt. Young printed améoxev, but Mill formerly and Jacobson recently read the MS y....€N. Ac- cordingly Wotton and most later editors have written taécxev. With respect to the Y my own observation entirely agrees with Tischendorf’s, who says ‘ post BpaBcov membrana abscissa est neque litterae quae sequebatur vestigium superest’. Indeed (if I am right) there can hardly have been any such trace since the MS was bound,
opedopevoy avtois Tomov cict mapa TO Kupia. So Acts i. 25 rov romov tov idvov (comp. Ign. Magn. 5), Barnab. IQ Tov wpicpevoy Tomov, and below § 44 rov idpuvpevov avrois rorov. An elder in Irenzeus (probably Papias) discourses at length on the different abodes prepared for the faithful ac- cording to their deserving, Haer. v. 3G, Ivsq.
I. BpaBetov] S. Paul’s own word, 7 Corsi 24, Phil. i.:14...See also Mart. Polyc. 17 BpaBetov avavtippy- Tov amevnveypevov, Tatian ad Graec. 33 axpacias BpaBeiov amnvéyxaro: and comp. Orac. Szd. il. 45, 149. The word is adopted in a Latin dress, bravium or brabtum, and occurs in Tertullian, in the translation of Irenzeus, and in the Latin versions of the Scriptures.
vréderEev] ‘Pointed out the way Zo, taught by his example’; comp. § 6 Umoderypa KaAdLOTOY eyévovTO ev nuiv. The idea of vmédevéev is carried out by vmoypappos below; for the two words occur naturally together, as in Lucian Rhet. Praec. 9 vmodeckvis ta AnpooGevous ixvn...mwapadeiypata trapa- rideis Tav Aoyov ov padia pupetoOa... kal TOY Xpovoyv Taumodvy vroypaet THs OOouropias: SO vrrodeckvieww edmidas and vmoypapew eAmidas are converti- ble phrases, Polyb. ii. 70. 7, v. 36. I.
This conjecture vmedeEev, which I offered in place of the vmécyey of previous editors, occurred indepen- dently to Laurent, who had not seen
my edition, and it was accepted by | Gebhardt (ed. 1); though in his later edition Gebhardt has adopted the simpleverb édefevfromC. If Milland Jacobson are right, this cannot have been the reading of A, as the initial Y was once visible. My reasons for doubting whether this was possible, at least in the later condition of the MS, are given in the upper note. On the other hand vmédecEev is supported by a passage in the recently discovered work of Macarius Magnes Afocr. iv. 14 (p. 181, Blondel), where speaking of .S. Peter and:.S. ‘Paul he says; éyvocav vrodetEa Tovras [1.e. Tots mioTevovoty |, moiows ayo@ow oO THs Tic- Tews ouyKkexpotnra otedavos. In the context, which describes the labours and martyrdoms of these same two Apostles, the language of Macarius appears to give many echoes of this passage in Clement; vméyewar evoe- Bos Siddoxovres, Tov adtkoupEevev Ureép- paxot, ToAAG...TO KOT pNvUcarTes, tov Biov To TéAos amyvTnoEr, péxpt Gavarov...mpoxuwdvvevoat, THs evKAElas Tov €mawvov, of yevvadat, ava THY oiKov- pevnv, BpaBetov...nr@pevot, TUmoL av- Spelas...yevopevot, moda Tay Kadov adyovucparay, tis didaxis Kai Tov Knpvy- patos, paptupiov So€ay, mixpais...Baca- vous, UTOLOVA TOAAN, yevvaiws pepe. It seems highly probable therefore that the use of vmodecxvuvae in this some- what strange connexion was derived by him from the same source. Comp. also Ep. Gall, § 23 in Euseb. A. £,
v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 29
deo pa operas, gpuyadeveis, AGac Geis, KnpvE ryevo-
so that Jacobson was certainly mistaken and Mill perhaps so; but I have so far regarded this statement, as to offer a conjecture which respects the y. On the other hand the 2 at the beginning of the next line is clearly legible even in the
photograph, though it has not been discerned by previous editors.
Tisch. says ‘ 2
quum paullo minus appareat, possit erasum credi’. The letter is certainly faint, but though I have inspected the Ms more than once, I can see no traces of erasure. For other reasons which have led me to prefer trédecéev to @erkev see the lower
note.
v. I eis thy Tov omev vroTUT@ OLY vmobeckyuay ote pndev poBepov srov matpos ayann, unde adyewdv dtrov Xpic- tov doéa. S. Paul himself says (Acts XX. 35) vmédevEa vpiv ore x.t.A. C is found in other cases to substitute the simple verb, where A has the com- pound (see I. p. 127), and would naturally do so here, where the meaning of the compound was not obvious. The rendering of S, which also translates BpaBetov by certamen, corresponds fairly with tméoyer sug- gested by some editors ; but this was certainly not the reading of A.
émraxis| In 2 Cor. xi. 23 S. Paul speaks of himself as év duAakais me- ptocotépws ; but the imprisonment at Philippi is the only one recorded in the Acts before the date of the Se- cond Epistle to the Corinthians. Clement therefore must have derived his more precise information from some other source. Zeller (Theol. Fahrb. 1848, p. 530) suggests that the writer of this letter added the captivi- ties at Czesarea and at Rome to the five punishments which S. Paul men- tions in 2 Cor. xi. 24. But the wevra- kis there has no reference to impri- sonments, which are mentioned se- parately in the words already quoted. I should not have thought it neces- sary to call attention to this very obvious inadvertence, if the statement had not been copied with approval or without disapproval by several other writers.
2. puvyadevbeis |] We read of S, Paul’s
flight from Damascus (Acts ix. 25, 2 Cor. xi. 33), from Jerusalem (Acts ix. 30), from Antioch of Pisidia (xiii. 50), from Iconium (xiv. 6), from Thes- salonica (xvil. 10), from Bercea (xvii. 14), and perhaps from Corinth (xx. 3). Some of these incidents would be described by gvyadevOeis, but it is perhaps too strong a word_to apply to all. On gvyadevew, which though found even in Attic writers was re- garded by purists as questionable, see Lobeck Phryn. p. 385. The read- ing paBdevdeis (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25) which was proposed to fill the lacuna in A is objectionable, because the form pafdi¢ew alone is used in the Lxx and O. T. (and perhaps else- where, in this sense).
AGacbeis| At Lystra (Acts xiv. 19). An attempt was made also to stone him at Iconium, but he escaped in time (xiv. 5). Hence he says (2 Cor. xl. 25) adma€& éedOacOnv. See Paley Hor, Paul. iv. § 9.
kjpvé| S. Paul so styles himself 2 Tim. i. 11. Epictetus too calls his ideal philosopher kjpvé ray Bear, Diss. iii, 29. 13}i:-22. 69. “The Stotes} ke the Christians, were essentially kypu- kes in their mode of action. The picture of Diogenes at Corinth, given in Dion Chrysost. Ovaz. viii, ix, might stand mutatis mutandis for S. Paul. The word is accentuated kypv& (not knpvé) in C in accordance with the rule of the grammarians; see Chand- ler’s Greek Accentuation p. 181, no. 669.
30 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v
af ~ Coal \ a y A ~ Mevos Ev TE TH avaTOAnH Kal év TH OVTEL, TO YyEVVatov rf t t
~ / ~ 7 / 7 / THS TloTEWS avTOU KEos Ea BEV, SiKatoovvny Sia~as
v4 \ y, NAS \ \ / - y b) / OAOV TOV KOTMOY Kat ETL TO TEpua THs SUTEws EAOwY"
r re] AC;-om. S.
2 tlorews| micrawwo A. atvns CS, connected by punctuation in both these authorities with @\aBe.
dixacoovvnv|] A; dikao- Bryen-
nios had overlooked the reading of C in his edition, but corrects the omission
I. To yevvaiov x.t.d.| ‘ the noble re- nown which he had won by his faith’ ; i.e. his faith in his divine mission to preach to the Gentiles: see Credner’s Gesch. des N. T. Kanon (1860) p. 52.
3. oAov Tov Koopor k.t.A.] In the spu- rious letter of Clement to James pre- fixed to the Homzlzes it is said of S. Peter 6 rns bUcews TO OKOTELVOTE- pov Tov KOapov pépos ws TavTaY ikavarepos cbatioa Kedevobeis ... Tov €oopevoy ayaboy Oho TO KOT L@ pNv- cas Baowdéa, péxpis evtava THs “Peuns yevomevos...auTos Tov viv Biov Biaiws To (hv petndAa€gev (§ I, p. 6 Lagarde). This passage is, I think, plainly founded on thetrue Clement’s account of S. Paul here; and thus it accords with the whole plan of this Judaic writer in ¢ransferring the achieve- ments of S. Paul to S. Peter whom he makes the Apostle of the Gentiles : see Galatians p. 315.
To tTéppa tis dvcews| ‘the extreme west. Inthe Epistle to the Romans (xv. 24) S. Paul had stated his in- tention of visiting Spain. From the language of Clement here it ap- pears that this intention was fulfilled. Two generations later (c. A.D. 180) an anonymous writer mentions his hav- ing gone thither; ‘Sed et profec- tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis, Fragm. Murat. (pp. 19, 40, ed. Tregelles, Oxon. 1867; or Westcott Hzst. of Canon p. 517, ed. 4). For the expression 70 répya tis dvcews pointing to the western ex- tremity of Spain, the pillars of Her- cules, comp. Strab. il. I (p. 67) wépara
dé avris (rhs oikovpéevns) TiOnot mpos dvoer ey Tas “HpakAelous otndas, i. 4 (p. 106) péype Tov akpoy ths “IBnpias dmep Svopiketepa eats, iii. I (p. 137) TOUTO (TO lepov akpernpLov) éote TO SuTE- K@TaTOV ov THs Evpw@mns povoy adda Kat THS oikovpevns amaons onpetov’ mepa- ToUTal yap umd Taev dvely Hreipav 7 cikoupéevn mpos Svat, Tois Te THS Evpo- ms akpots kai Tois mpeTos THs AiBuUns, ili. 5 (p. 169) éesd)) Kata Tov mopOjov eyévovTo Tov Kata THY KaAmny, vopicar- Tas TEppovas elvat THS oikoUpEMNs...Ta axpa, 2b. (p. 170) ¢nreiv emi rev Kuplos Aeyopevav oTnd@v Tovs THs oikovperns opous (these references are corrected from Credner’s Kanon p. 53), and see Strabo’s whole account of the western boundaries of the world and of this coast of Spain. Similarly Vell. Paterc. i. 2 ‘In ultimo Hispa- niae tractu, in extremo nostri orbis termino.’ It is not improbable also that this western journey of S. Paul included a visit to Gaul (2 Tim. iv. 10; see Galatians p. 31). But for the patriotic belief of some English wri- ters (see Ussher \A7zt. Lech Angie I, Stillingfleet Ovzg. Brit. c. 1), who have included Britain in the Apo- stle’s travels, there is neither evidence nor probability ; comp. Haddan and Stubbs Counc. and Eccles. Doc. 1. p. 22 sq. This journey westward supposes that S. Paul was liberated after the Roman captivity related in the Acts, as indeed (independ- ently of the phenomena in the Pas- toral Epistles) his own expectations expressed elsewhere (Phil. ii. 24,
v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 31
/ \ = / e/ , Kal papTupnoas ETL TWY NYOUMEVWY, OVTWS amndAaYN o / \ > \ J y / “A TOU KOM MOU Kal Els TOV ayLov TOTOV ETropEeVON, UTrOMOVIS / / / YEVOMEVOS MEYLOTOS UTTOYPaUMOS.
Didache p. py’ - mundo S (see the note on ii. § 19).
Philem. 22) would suggest. Those who maintain that this first Roman captivity ended in his martyrdom are obliged to explain ro réppa ris dvcews Of Rome itself. But it is in- credible that a writer living in the metropolis and centre of power and civilization could speak of it as ‘the extreme west,’ and this at a time when many eminent Latin authors and statesmen were or had been natives of Spain, and when the com- mercial and passenger traffic with Gades was intimate and constant. (For this last point see Friedlander Sittengesch. Roms U. p. 43, with his references.) On the other hand Phi- lostratus says that, when Nero ban- ished philosophers from Rome, Apol- lonius of Tyana tpémera emi ra éore- pia THs yns (iv. 47), and the region which he visited is described imme- diately afterwards (v. 4) ra Tadepa Keirat KaTa TO THs Evp@mns Téppa (quoted by Pearson JMznor Theol. Works 1. p. 362). This is the natural mode of speaking. It is instructive to note down various interpretations of emt ro Téppa ths SUaews Which have been proposed : (1) ‘to his extreme limit towards the west’ (Baur, Schen- kel); (2) ‘to the sunset of his labours’ (Reuss); (3) ‘to the boundary be- tween the east and west’ (Schrader, Hilgenfeld) ; (4) ‘to the goal or centre of the west’ (Matthies) ; (5) ‘before (vr for emi) the supreme power of the west’ (Wieseler, Schaff). Such attempts are a strong testimony to the plain inference which follows from
3 éml] The word is distinctly legible in AC, and therefore the conjecture 7d (see below) is inadmissible.
5 Tov kdouov] AC; ab hoc
érropetOn| AC; susceptus est (érnp0n?) S.
the passage simply interpreted.
4. emi trav nyoupevar] ‘before rulers’ ; comp. § 37 Tots nyoupevors nuav...ToU Baoihéws Kat Tov nyoupevor, § 51 of nyovpevoe Aiyirrov, § 55 mwoAXot Bacr- eis kal nyovpevot, § OI Tots Te apxovow Kal nyoupevois nua@v emt ths yns. The names of Nero and Helius (Dion Cass. lxiii. 12), of Tigellinus and Sa- binus (the przetorian prefects A.D. 67), etc., have been suggested. In the absence of information it is waste of time to speculate. Clement’s lan- guage does not imply that the Apo- stle’s paptupia emi Tay nyoupévay took place in the extreme west (as Hil- genfeld argues), for there is nothing to show that én ro réppya x.r.A. and paptupynoas emt Tay nyoupévey are in- tended to be synchronous. Indeed the clause kal émi ro réppa Ths ducews edOadv seems to be explanatory of the preceding S:xcavootyny didaéas GAov TOY koopov, and the passage should be punctuated accordingly.
6. vroypappos |‘ a copy, an example, as for instance a pencil drawing to be traced over in ink or an outline to be filled in and coloured. The word oc- curs again S§ 16, 33; comp. 2 Macc. ii. 28, 20,1 Petoit 23, Polyes Fed8, Clem. Hom. iv. 16. The classical word is umoypadn. For an explana- tion of the metaphor see Aristot. Gen. An. il. 6 (I. p. 743) kal yap ot ypadeis Umoypawavres Tails ypappais ovTws €va- heipovart Tois xp@pact TO Caov. The sister art of sculpture supplies a simi- lar metaphor in vrorv’meors, the first rough model, 1 Tim. i. 16, 2 Tim. 1. 13.
32 VA,
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[v1
/ ~ / i Tovtots Tois avopacw doiws moTEVoOapeEvols
/ \ Va a J ~ cuvnOpoia On modu mAnOos éxkNEeKTwV, OlTIWES TOAXQisS
Day \ / \ ~ 7 7 aikiais Kat Bacavoi, dia CiXos maQovtes, UTOOELY La
3 <Hros] A; gHAov C, and so again in the next line. 5 Aavaides cai Aipxat] A ; davatées cai delp kai C ; danaides et I am not prepared to say now that the word is written AaHatAec as I
xXOica A.
dircae S.
VI. ‘ But besides these signal in- stances, many less distinguished
saints have fallen victims to jea- lousy and set us a like example of forbearance. Even feeble women have borne extreme tortures without flinching. Jealousy has separated husbands and wives: it has over- thrown cities, and uprooted nations.’
2. modv mdAnbos| The reference must be chiefly, though not solely, to the sufferers in the Neronian per- secution, since they are represented as contemporaries of the two Apo- stles. Thus ev nyiv will mean ‘among us Roman Christians,’ and the aikia kat Bacavo. are the tortures described by Tacitus Anz. xv. 44. The Ro- man historian’s expression ‘ multi- tudo ingens’ is the exact counterpart to Clement’s odd mA7 Gos.
modAais aikias x.t.A.| ‘by or amid many sufferings.” Previous editors have substituted the accusative, zrod- Aas aixias; but, as the dative is fre- quently used to denote the means, and even the accessories, the circum- stances (see Madvig Gr. Syzt. § 39 sq), I have not felt justified in alter- ing the reading. In this case dca (ndos mabortes will be used absolute- ly, and moAXais aixias «.7.A. will ex- plain vddevypa éyévorto.
5. Aavaides kai Aipxac] This read- ing is supported by all our authori- ties, with minor corruptions, and I have therefore replaced it in the text, though not without misgiving. If it be not correct, the error must have existed in the archetypal Ms from
4 dtwxPetoa] diw-
which our three extant authorities were derived. But such testimony, though very strong, is not decisive, since we find this common ancestor at fault in other places; see above, I. p. 145. If correct, it must refer to those refinements of cruelty, patron- ized by Nero and Domitian but not confined to them, which combined theatrical representations with judi- cial punishments, so that the offender suffered in the character of some hero of ancient legend or history. For the insane passion of Nero, more espe- cially, for these and similar scenic exhibitions, see Sueton. /Vero I1, 12; and for illustrations comp. Fried- lander Szttengeschichte Roms M1. p. 234 sq. Thus one offender would represent Hercules burntin the flames on (Eta (Tertull. Afo/. 15 ‘qui vivus ardebat Herculem induerat’); ano- ther, Ixion tortured on the wheel (de Pudic, 22 ‘puta in axe jam incendio adstructo’). We read also of crimi- nals who, having been exhibited in the character of Orpheus (Martial. Spect. 21) or of Dzedalus (2d. 8) or of Atys (Tertull. Afo/. 15), were finally torn to pieces by wild beasts. The story of Dirce, tied by the hair and dragged along by the bull, would be very appropriate for this treatment; but all attempts to make anything of the legend of the Danaids entirely fail. Arnold (Veronische Christenver- Jolgung p. 38, 1888) cuts the knot by suggesting that additions were made to the original legend of the Danaids for the purposes of the amphitheatre ;
vi]
/ ? / 5) Cela KaANLOTOV EYEVOVTO EV HUILV.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 33
dua Gyros Siwy beioa
5 yuvatkes, tAavaides kat Aipxart, aixiopata sewa Kai
formerly read it (H and n being frequently indistinguishable where the Ms is creased and blurred), and I was certainly in error as regards the division of the lines in my
first edition.
just as in these scenic exhibitions Orpheus was torn to pieces by a bear (Martial Sfec¢t. 21). But after all the difficulty still remains, that the mode of expression in Clement is altogether awkward and unnatural on this hypothesis. Harnack, who however expresses himself doubtfully on the reading, quotes Heb. x. 32 ToAAnY GOAnow vrepeivare TaOnparor, TOUTO wey OVELOLO POLS TE Kal OdiWveow GeatpiCopevor, but here Gearpifo- pevot is best explained by 1 Cor. iv. Q O€arpoy eyernOnuev TO KOT W@ KT, where no literal scenic representation is intended. Laurent explains the words by saying that the punishment of the Danaids and of Dirce ‘in pro- verbium abliisse videtur.’ But he can only quote for the former és rov ray Aavaidey ridov ddpomopety Lucian 77m. 18, which is hardly to the point, as it merely denotes labour spent in vain. Clement of Alexandria indeed (.Szvomz. iv. 19, p. 618) mentions the daughters _ of Danaus with several other exam- ples of womanly bravery among the heathens, and in the earlier part of the same chapter he has quoted the passage of his Roman namesake ($ 55) relating to Esther and Judith; but this does not meet the difficulty. It has been suggested again, that these may have been actual names of Christian women martyred at Rome: but the names are perhaps improbable in themselves, and the plurals cannot well be explained. Having regard to the difficulties of this expression I am disposed still to favour the acute emendation of Wordsworth (on Theocritus xxvi.
CLEM. II.
1) which I placed in the text in my first edition, yuvaikes, veavides, madi- oxat, as highly probable and giving an excellent sense; ‘ Women, tender maidens, even slave-girls’: comp. August. Serm. cxlili (Vv. p. 692 sq) ‘Non solum vir sed etiam mzdieres et pueri et Awe//ae martyres vicerunt,’ Leo Sevm. \xxiv (I. p. 294) ‘ Non so- lum viri sed etiam /oemznae nec tan- tum impubes pueri sed etiam ¢enerae virgines usque ad effusionem sui sanguinis decertarunt’; quoted by Wordsworth (l.c.). To these illustra- tions add Minuc. Fel. 37 ‘viros cum Mucio vel cum Aquilio aut Regulo comparo? pueri et mulierculae nos- trae cruces et tormenta, feras et omnes suppliciorum terriculas, in- spirata patientia doloris inludunt.’ For the meaning of radiocnyn in Hel- lenistic Greek see the notes Galatians iv. 22.
Tischendorf calls it ‘liberrima con- jectura.’ So it is, but there is a free- dom which justifies itself; and the corruption is just such as might have occurred at an early date, when the epistle was written on papyrus. I have been informed by Mr Basil H. Cooper, through a common friend, that he proposed this very same emendation in the Monthly Christian Spectator, January, 1853, p. 16. He assured me that it had occurred to him inde- pendently; and that, till quite re- cently, he believed the credit which had been assigned to another to be due to himself, and wrote to this effect to the Western Times as lately as 1871, not knowing that Words- worth’s emendation was published
3
34
THE EPISTLE OF S, CLEMENT [vi
> / lol 3 \ \ ~ / y ' dvooia mabovaa, ert Tov THs TinTews BEBatov Spopov
/ Avs! / i ~ ~ kaTyvTnoav, Kal ENaBov yepas yevvaiov at dobeveis TO
TWMATL.
jANOLwoEV NYN OCTOYN (ros Kat peyara €FepiCwoev.
5 doréwy] ocrawy A; dara&v C. karéoxawe C.
in 1844. The fact of its having occurred independently to two minds is a strong testimony in its favour. Bunsen (Hippolytus 1. p. xvili, ed. 2, 1854) enthusiastically welcomes this emendation as relieving him ‘from two monsters which disfigured a beautiful passage in the epistle of the Roman Clement.’ Lipsius also in a review of my edition (Academy, July 9, 1870) speaks favourably of it; and Donaldson (Afostolical Fathers p. 122, ed. 2)’ calls it ‘admirable, though elsewhere ( 7heo/. Rev. Janu- ary 1877, p. 45) he himself offers another conjecture, yevvaiai re kai dov-
Aa. Lagarde (Armen. Stud. p. 73) conjectures dvadkides Kat Koptkai ; Haupt (Hermes Ul. p. 146, 1869)
suggests dyvides Sikaca, Comparing Clem. Alex. Protr. 12 (p. 92) ai rov Ocov Ovyarépes, ai apvades ai Kadai.
2. Katnvrnoay x.t.A.]| The verb karavray signifies to arrive at a destz- mation, and the corresponding sub- stantive xardayrnya is ‘a destination, a goal,’ Ps. xix.6: comp. Schol.on Arist. Ran. 1026 (993) €Aaiar ortyndov torar- Tal, ovgat kaTavTnpa Tov Spopov. Thus 6 BéBaos Spopos ‘the sure course,’ ie. the point in the stadium where the victory is secured, is almost equi- valent to ‘the goal.’ For xaravrap éri comp. 2 Sam. ili. 29, Polyb. x. 37. 3, xv, T.'9;
7 ékepifwoe] A; efepplfwoe C.
> / \ b) lon N
(ros amnddoTplwcEey yaueTas avopwv Kal \ ¢ \ € \ -~ \ € val 3 ¥ a
To pnlev vio Tov TaTpos nuwy “Adap, TofTo
EK T@N OCTEWN MOY KAdl CApZ EK TAC CAPKOC MOY.
a} / / lA AS Epis moe peyadas kateoTpeWev Kat eOvn
6 épis] epeo A. xatéotpevev] AS;
Q vrouvncKovtes| A;
4. tovto viv x.7.A.| From the LXxX of Gen. ii. 23, which corresponds with the Hebrew.
6. Hros kai gpis| The two words occur together, Rom. xiii. 13, 2 Cor. xll. 20, Gal. v. 20: see above, § 3.
modes peyddas x«.t.A.| See Ecclus. XXVlil. I4 modews oxyupas Kabeie Kal oikias peytotavev Karéotpe We. Jacob- son refers to Jortin, who supposes that Clement had in his mind Horace Carm. i. 16. 17 sq, ‘ Irae Thyesten exitio gravi stravere, et altis urbibus ultimae stetere causae cur perirent funditus.’
7. e&epiCwoev| For the form see Tis- chendorf /Vov. Test. 1. p. lvi (ed. 7), A. Buttmann Gramm. p.28 sq. Most editors needlessly alter the read- ing to eEeppi{woev. Compare peyado- pnpova § 15, huvddopoet § 23 and ii. § 31. For C see above, I. p. 127.
VII. ‘While instructing you, we would remind ourselves also. We are all entered in the same lists; we must all run on the straight path; obeying the will of God and respect- ing the blood of Christ. Examples of penitence in all ages are before our eyes. Noah preached repentance to his generation: Jonah to the men of Nineveh. All whosoever listened to them were saved.’
9. vmouvnocxovres| Comp. O7ph. Hymn. \xxvii. 6 (p. 345, Herm.) @ird-
vit |
VII.
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
a,
ol / / ~ ca TavtTa, dyarnrtol, ov povoy vuads vovbeTour-
/ \ \ \ ¢ / Tes Elo TENNOMEV, AANA Kal EavTOUS FUTOMYnoKOYTES Tt:
\ lon > ra ee \ \ év yap TW avTW EOMEVY OKaMMaTL, Kal
> \ / AYWY ETLKELTAL.
e > x CA 6} AUTOS 1) [ALY
x J \ \ \ Ato a7roXeitwmevy Tas KEvas Kal pa-
/ / Ash ? \ \ ? ~ \ \ Talas dpovtioas, kal ENOwpev él Tov evKNEH Kal OEMVOY
a / e lan LA as TapacowEws nUWV KaVOVa.
e ta vroutuvnoKkovTes C.
juiv C; dub. S.
ypumvos vrouynoKoved re mravra (a refer- ence given by Hefele). So also pry- oxoua in Anacr. ap. Athen. xi. p. 463 A prnoketa evppoovyns (which editors perhaps unnecessarily alter intO pyoera OY pynoera). But as the scribe of A blunders elsewhere in add- ing and omitting letters under similar circumstances (see above, I. p. 120), we cannot feel sure about the read- ing. The word occurs again § 62, where C reads tropipynokovtes, as it does here (see I. p. 126 sq). There is the same divergence of form in the MSS of the spurious Ignatius, Zazs. 9.
10. oKkappare] ‘lists’ The oxdypa is the ground marked out by digging a trench or (as Krause supposes) by lowering the level for the arena of a contest: see Boeckh Cor. /uscr. no 2758, with the references in Krause Flellen. 1. p. 105 sq, and for its meta- phorical use Polyb. xl. 5. 5 ovd€ eri TOU okappatos oY TO dy AeEyopevor, Epict. Dzss. okdupa mpoekadeiro mavra ovtivaody. A large number of examples of this metaphor in Christian writers is given by Suicer s.v. This word and many others referring to the games, as agonotheta, epistates, brabium, etc., are adopted by the Latins (see esp. the long metaphor in Tertull. ad Mart. § 3), just as conversely military terms are naturalised from Latin into Greek; see Ign. Polyc. 6 with the
iv. 8. 26 eis rocovro
to €v yap] AS; Kal yap év C. II amoNdelrwuev| A; droNrwpev C.
\ »/ Is \ \ kat iOwpev TL KaXNoV Kal
nui ayov] A; ayo T2 eUKNen] evkAatn A.
notes. In the phrase tzép ra éoxap- péva mOav, adreoOa (e.g. Plat. Crat. p- 413 A, Lucian Gal/. 6, Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 13, p. 696; see below on kavov), ‘to do more than is required orexpected,’ ra €ckappéva is thetrench cut at the end of the leap beyond the point which it is supposed the great- est athlete will reach (Pind. Mem. v. 36 paxpa 81) avrodev Gdpa@ vrookdr- ToL Tis’ Exw yovatwy ehadpoy oppar). Krause indeed (He//en. 1. p. 393) interprets ta éoxaypéeva of the line marking the leap of the preceding combatant, but this explanation does not account for the peter use.
0 autos piv dyoy] See Phil. - 30 Tov aUTOV ayava ExXOVTES OLoY a ev
€pol. II. émixerrat] ‘awaits’; as Ign. Rom. 6 6 tokeros pou emixerrac: Comp.
Heb. xii. I Tov mpokeipevoy nyuiv a- yava, Clem. Rom. ii. § 7 &v xepow o ayov.
kevas kat pataas] ‘empty and fu- tile,” the former epithet pointing to the quality, the latter to the aim or ef- fect of the action. The combination is not uncommon; e.g. LXX Is. xxx. 7, Hos. xii. 1, Job xx. 18; comp. The- oph. ad Aut. iii. 3, Plut. Vzt. Artax. 15, Mor. p. 1117 A.
13. THs mapaddaews | The lacuna was variously filled so long as A was our only authority, the best suggestions being reXeedoews and dbAjnoews. The
SS ere
36 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[vit
\ / ~~ 7 vi Tepmvov Kal Ti mpoodeKTOV EvwTLOY TOU TOITaYTOS
pas.
5) > \ fe la an \ ~~ adTevicwpev eis TO aia Tou XpioToU Kat yvwuEV
y) ~ \ oe / \ A e / ws COTW TimLOV TH TaTpL avTOU, OTL dia THY NuETEPaY
> \ \ - / , / TwTnplav éxyulev TAVTL TW KOO UW MEeTavOlas Xap
To tTaTpt avTod] S; 3 TS p
Te warp ab’tod TG Oe@~ C3; TwHew[Kkarrarp}iavrov A,
presumably. An upright stroke (probably 1) and a portion of a preceding letter
(which might be p) are visible. if 8 re 2d quod.
See the lower note. 4 petravoias xdpw] AC ; peravolay S.
drt] S translates as Bensly points out that
the omission in S may be easily explained by the homceoteleuton in the Syriac,
Smvan7, XN.
true reading could hardly have been anticipated ; but it adds to the close- ness of the parallel in Polycarp PAz7. 7 Sw aroXurovTes THY paTaLoTnTa TOV ToAAav kal Tas WevdodiacKadias ert rov €& apxns np mapadobévra oyov emioTpeyopev, a passage already quoted by the editors. By roy rijs mapaddcews nuay kavova Clement ap- parently means ‘the rule (i.e. measure of the leap or race) which we have received by tradition’, referring to the examples of former athletes quo- ted in the context; comp. § 19 émt rov e€ dpxns mapadedopevoy nuiv ths eipy- vns okorov (to which passage again Polycarp is indebted), § 51 tas mapa- SeSopévns nuiv Karas kal Sikalws opo- devias. Clement’s phrase is borrow- ed by his younger namesake, S¢vom. i. I (p. 324) mpoBnoerar nyiy Kata Tov evk\en Kal Geuvoy Ths mapadocews Ka- vova.
kavova| This is probably a con- tinuation of the metaphor in okdaupa: comp. Pollux ili, 151 ro 6€ pérpov Tov mOnuatos Kavev, 6 dé pos Ta éoxappéva’ obey emi tev Tov Spov Vrep- TNOOVT WY of TapotuaCopevot Aéyouet TN- Sav Umep ta eoxappéeva. See § 41 (with the note). Thus kavov will be the measure of the leap or the race as- signed to the athlete.
Ti kadov k.t.A.] From Ps. cxxxii. I idod d1 Ti kadov f) Ti Tepmvdy K.T.A,
5 Umnveyxey] A;
sustulit VAD S3 érjveyxe C. dvéA-
I. mpoadexrov evariov] So azmddek- Tov évemtov, I Tim. li. 3 roro Kadov Kal GrodeKTov €vemloy TOU TaTHpPos nav @cod, of which Clement’s language here seems to be a reminiscence: comp. I Tim. v. 4, where xador kat is interpolated in the common texts from the earlier passage. The simple mpoodextos appears in the LXX, Prov. xi, 20, xvi. 15, Wisd. ix. 12 (comp. Mart. Polyc. 14), but the compound evmpoadexros iS commoner in the N. T., and occurs three times in Cle- ment ($$ 35, 40 twice).
3 Tiptoy TO marpi] Compare 1 Pet i. 19 Tyul@ aipare os Guvod auedpov Kal aomidov Xpiorov.
matpi| The lacuna after ro Oco in A must, I think, be supplied by kat matpi rather than zarpi alone for two reasons; (1) If warpi were con- tracted trpi, aS is most usual in the MS, the letters would not be sufficient to fill the space; (2) We find o Geds kat matnp frequently in the Apostolic writings followed by rov Kupiov, etc. (e.g., Rom. xv. 6,, 2 Cor. a1. 3) ety 1 Pet. i. 3, Rev. i. 6), whereas 6 Geds matnp is never so found. In fact with any genitive following, the alternative seems to be 6 Geds kal matnp or Geds marnp. On the other hand 6 ©eos matnp occurs once only in the N. T. (Col. iii. 17, with a v.1), and there it is used absolutely. On the whole
vit]
/ UTNVEYKEV.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 37
/ > A / \ dreANOwpev Els Tas Evens TacTas Kal KaTa-
/ e/ > a \ on i , s/ padOwpuev OTL év yEeved Kal yeved peTavolas TOTOV EdwKEY
¢ / ~ / > ~ he, > / oO O€OTOTNS TOLS BovNopevors emia Tpapnvat €7 QuTOP.
cad 5 / c / ? / Nwe éxnpvEev peravoiav, Kal ol vmakovoaytes éowOy-
Owpev eis]..... wuevers A 3 déXMwpev (om. els) C ; transeamus super S (which probably
represents dcéAOwuev eis).
In Rom. vy. 12 els mavras dvOpwrous 6 Oavaros dindOev
both Pesh. and Harcl. have 2 2 not by 73 as S has here. In § 4 duedOetv
els is rendered by " ay. The verb dueNGew is frequent in the LxXx, 7 0 deorétns|] AC; om. S.
AC ; om. S.
however the correct reading is pro- bably preserved in the Syriac, the different positions of r@ Oe@ in the two Greek MSS showing that it wasa later addition.
5. umnveyker] ‘offered. So it is gene- rally taken, but this sense is unsup- ported; for Xen. He//. iv. 7. 2, Soph. El. 834, are not parallels. Perhaps ‘won (rescued) for the whole world’
dteAOwpev «.7.A.] This passage is copied in Afgost. Const. ii. 55 0 yap Ocds, Geos @v Edéous, aw apyis ExdoTny yeveay emi peravoray kadet dua Tov Ou- kaiay...rovs dé &v TH Katakdvop@ dua Tov Nae, Tovs ev Soddpuois Ova Tov pirokévov Awr (see below § 11) k.r.A.
6. -yeved xal yevea] ‘each successive generation. A Hebraism preserved ma the LXX;-Esth: ix: 27, Ps. xviii. 11, Peete 5 C2) 1; “etc? ‘comp. Luke: 1. 50 yeveas kal yeveas (vv. ll.).
torov| The same expression é.d6var Tomov petavoias occurs also in Wisd. xll. 10; comp. Heb. xii. 17 peravoias Tomov ovx evpev, Tatian. ad Graec. 15 ovk €xeu petavolas tomov, Afost. Const. ii. 38 romov petavoias w@picev, V. 19 AaBeiv avtov tomov peravoias. The corresponding Latin ‘foenttentiae locus’ occurs in the celebrated letter of Pliny to Trajan Plin. et Traz. Epist. 96. The emendation rvzoy is not needed.
7. Seomorns] Very rarely applied to the Father in the New Testament
kal]
(Luke ii. 29, Acts iv. 24, Rev. vi. Io, and one or two doubtful passages), but occurring in this one epistle some twenty times or more. The idea of subjection to God is thus very pro- minent in Clement, while the idea of sonshif, on which the Apostolic writers dwell so emphatically, is kept in the background; see Lipsius p. 69. This fact is perhaps due in part to the subject of the epistle, which required Clement to emphasize the duty of szdmission; but it must be ascribed in some degree to the spirit of the writer himself.
8. Noe exnpvéev «.t..] The Mo- saic narrative says nothing about Noah as a preacher of repentance. The nearest approach to this concep- tion in the Canonical Scriptures is 2 Pet. ii. 5, where he is called d:xaco- avyns knpvé. The preaching of Noah however is one of the more promi- nent ideas in the Sibylline Oracles ; see especially i. 128 sq. Nde d€uas Oap- guvov €ov Aavici te mace Knpuéov peravotay k.t.A. This passage,though forming part of a comparatively late poem, was doubtless founded on the earliest (pre-Christian) Sibylline (111. 97—828 of the existing collection) which is mutilated at the beginning and takes up the narrative of the world’s history at a later point than the deluge. Indeed this earliest Sibyl (if the closing passage of the book
38 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ VII
> ~ A \ > / € \ gav. ‘lwvas Nwevitas Kxataotpodny éxnpvEev, oi oe / > ,] ~ ¢€ VA > 7 5) / METAVONTAaYTES ETL TOIs GuapTHUacW a’TwV E~\AaATAVYTO \ \ ¢ / \ / / / Tov Oeov ikerevoavTes Kal éEXaBov cwTnpiav, KaiTreEp
7: a ~ xf aANOTpPLOL TOU Oceov ovTes.
WILL.
e \ la / a la \ Oi AETovpyot THs yapitos Tov Oeov dia
/ web yd \ / ? / \ ? \ TVEUMATOS aylouv TeEpl MEeTavolas EXaAnNTAaV, Kal AUTOS
I of 6é]C; ode A; olde S. S. 5 Aecroupyol] Aucroupyor A.
still belongs to the same poem) con- nects herself with the deluge by claiming to be a daughter-in-law of Noah (iii. 826). From these Ora- cles it seems not improbable that Clement, perhaps unconsciously, de- rived this conception of Noah. To this same source may probably be traced the curious identification in Theophilus ad Autol. ill. 19 Noe xa- TayyéhAwy Tois Tore avOpworors pehew KaTakAvopov ecco bat mpoedryrevoev av- Trois Néyov" Acdre Kade vas 6 Oceos eis petavoray’ 610 oikeiws Aevkadiov e- kAn6n ; for Theophilus has elsewhere preserved a long fragment from the lost opening of the earliest Sibylline (ad Autol. ii. 36), and this very passage incorporates several frag- ments of hexameters, e.g. Aetre kale ...Qeos els petavorav. As Josephus also quotes the Sibyllines, he too in his account of Noah (Azz. 1. 3. I émewev €ml TO KpeiTToy avTovs THY Sudvovay Kal Tas mpageis perapéepey, quoted by Hil- genfeld here) may have been influ- enced by them. See on this subject I. p. 178 sq. For the Mohamme- dan legends of Noah, as a preacher of repentance, see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test. 1. p. 262. To the passages there collected from apocryphal and other sources respecting Noah’s preaching add this from the Afo- calypse of Paul § 50 (quoted also by Hilgenfeld) eyo «ivi Noe...cal ovk emavodyny tois avOpemos knpiocew*
3 ixerevoavres] A; ixerevovres C, and so apparently 8 wera Spxov] AC; Bryennios reads med’ Spkouv
Meravoeire, iSov yap kataxhvopos épxe- ta (p. 68, ed. Tisch.). A passage cited by Georg. Syncell. (Chrox. p. 47 ed. Dind.) from Enoch, but not found in the extant book, seems to have formed part of Noah’s preach- ing of repentance; see Dillmann’s Henoch pp.xxxviii,lxi. See also below § 9, with the note on madtyyevecia.
I. xaraotpodpny| ‘overthrow, ruin’ ; comp. Jonah iii. 4 xat Nuvev?) xara- orpadpnoera..
4. dAdorpioe x.t-rA.] ‘aliens from God, i.e. ‘Gentiles’: comp. Ephes. li. 12 dmnAXoTpl@péevoe THs TodiTet- as Tov Iopayh...kai dO eot Ev TO KOTHO. Both addorpioe and addcdvAo are thus used, as opposed to the cove- nant-people.
VIII. ‘God’s ministers through the Spirit preached repentance. The Almighty Himself invites all men to repent. Again and again in the Scriptures He bids us wash away our sins and be clean; He proclaims repentance and promises forgiveness.’
5. Ot Aecroupyot| i.e. the prophets ; though they are not so called in the LXX or New Testament.
8. Zé yap e¢y@ x.t.A.] Loosely quoted from Ezek. xxxill. I1 (6 eyo, rade héyer Kuptos, ov BovAopat Tov Oavarov Tov doeBovs ws amootpéa Tov aceBA amo Tis odov avTov kal (Hv avrov. amrootpopyn amoorpéware do THs odo vpav* kal iva Ti amoOvnckere, oikos “Io-
panr; K.T.A.
Io
vu] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
39
de 6 deamroTns Twv dTavTwY TEL pEeTavoias éENaAnoEV META dpkov" Za rap érw, A€ret Kypioc, oy BoyAOmal TON BANATON TOY AMAPT@AOY, WC THN METANOIAN’ TpooT els Kal yvounv ayabnv: Metanotcate, oikoc “IcpadaA, amd TAC
ANOMIAC YMON* EITION TOIC Ylolc TOY AaoY Moy: “EAN CIN
which has no manuscript authority.
mpooTndec A. (etrayv) S.
Io. Meravonoare x.t.A.] It is usual to treat these words as a loose quo- tation from Ezek. xviii. 30 sq otkos "Iopann, Aéyer Kupios, emiotpapnre kai GmootpéeWate €k Tacav Tay aceBeLov Upav...cai iva Ti damoOvioKete, otkos ‘Iopand ; dSuote ov Oedw Tov Gavaroy Tov amoOvnoxovros. If taken from the canonical Book of Ezekiel, the words are probably a confusion of this pas- sage with the context of the other (Ezek. xxxiii. II), as given in the preceding note. See however what follows.
II. “Eav oow k.t.d.| This passage is generally considered to be made up of Ps. clii. 10, II ov kata Tas apaprias Hav emoinaey nuiv ovde KaTa Tas avo- plas nuav avraméd@xeyv nuiv’ ote Kata TO UYpos TOU OUpavoU amo THs yns €kpa- Taiwoe Kiptos TO €Xeos avTov emt Tovs hoBovpévous avtov, and Jer. ill. 19, 22 kat eima, Ilarépa xadéoeré pe kal an e“ou ovK amootpadpnocobe ... émurtpa- nre vio émurtpeportes Kal idgouar Ta cuvtpimpata vpev, together with Is. 1. 18 kat €av wow ai adpaptia «.T.X. Such fusions are not uncommon in early Christian writers and occur many times in Clement himself. But several objections lie against this solution here; (1) No satisfactory account is thus rendered of the words €ayv GoW TUppOTEpal KOKKOU Kal peAave- Tepat odkkov k.T.A.: for the passage of Isaiah, from which they are supposed to be loosely quoted, is given as an zndependent quotation immediately
11 tuwv|] AS ; Tod Aaod pov C. "Eav] AC; xay [?] or kai éav S.
yap] AS; om. C. Q tpooriGels | elmov] AC; dum dicis tu
afterwards. (2) The expression zpoo- Tels Kal yve@pnv ayabnv seems to im- ply that, even if not a continuation of the same passage, they were at all events taken from the same prophet as the words quoted just before. (3) This inference is borne out by the language used just below in intro- ducing the passage from Isaiah, kai ev érép@ Tom@, implying that the previous words might be regarded as a single quotation. (4) A great portion of the quotation is found in two differ- ent passages of Clement of Alexan- dria, and in one of these the words are attributed to Ezekiel: Quzs div. salv. 39 (p. 957) ov BovAopar Tov Oa- vaTov Tov auapt@Aov adda THY perd- voiay’ Kav @ow ai auapTtiac vuaoY as goukovyv eprov, ws xLova AevKava, Kav feayTepoy TOU GKOTOUS, WS epLov evKOY exvias tmouow, and Paedag. i. 10 (p. 151) dnol yap dua “leCexind* *Eav emtotpapnre €& OAns THS KapOlas kal elmnte, Ilarep, akovoouat tyav ws aod ayiov. Thus it seems to follow either (1) That in the recension of the can- onical Ezekiel used by the two Clements the passage xxxiil. II was followed by a long interpolation con- taining substantially the words here quoted by Clement of Rome; or (2) That he is here citing some apo- cryphal writing ascribed to Ezekiel, which was a patchwork of passages borrowed from the canonical pro- phets. The latter supposition is fa- voured by the language of Josephus
40
c
al
THE EPISTLE OF S..CLEMENT [ VIII
AMAPTIAL YM@N attd TAc fAC €wc TOY oYpaNnof, Kal EAN GCIN TYPPOTEPAl KOKKOY KAl MEAANWTEPAI CAKKOY, KAl ETTI- cTpadAte mpdc me €Z SAnc TAC KapAiac kal eiTHTe, TTAtep, eTAKOYCOMAl YM@N GC Aao¥ Arloy. Kae €v ETEDW TOTW NEveL outws* Aoycacée Kal KABAPOI FENECHE’ AEAECHE TAC TTONHPIAC ATO TON YYY@N YM@N ATIENANTI TON OPOAAMO@N MOY’ TIAYCACOE ATIO THN TIONHPI@N YM@N, MABETE KAAON TIOIEIN, EKZHTHCATE KPICIN, PYCACOE AAIKOYMENON, KPINATE
6PhaN@ Kal AlKAIwWCATE YHPd, KAl AEYTE Kal AIEAEPYOWMEN,
3 Kapdlas] A; wuxys CS. ovtws|] A; ovTws Aéyer CS. yéverbe] yeverOar A. mavoacbat A. (om. kai) S.
(Ant. x. 5. 1), od povov ovros (lepepias) mpoeOeamice TavTa Tois dxAols GAG kat o mpodntns ‘leCekindos mpa@tos mept tovtav dvo BiBAria ypawas xaré- hurev. This statement however may be explained by a bipartite division of the canonical Ezekiel, such as some modern critics have made; and as Josephus in his account of the Canon (c. Apion. i. 8) and elsewhere appears not to recognise this second Ezekiel, this solution is perhaps more probable. Or again his text may be corrupt, 8’ (=8vo) having been merely a repetition of the first letter of Gu- Bria. See also the remarks of Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. V. p. 19. Apocry- phal writings of Ezekiel are men- tioned in the Stichometry of Nice- phorus (see Westcott Canon p. 504), and from the connexion (Bapovx, "ABBakovp, “E¢exinA, kai Aad, Wevd- emtypadpa) it may be conjectured that they were interpolations of or addi- tions to the genuine Ezekiel, like the Greek portions of Daniel. This hy- pothesis will explain the form of the quotations here. At all events it appears that some apocryphal writ- ings attributed to Ezekiel existed,
4 aod ayiov] C Clem 1523; Aawayww A. Novcacbe] Novoacba A. apédeobe] apereoOar A; adédere C, 8 pioacde] pucacba A. xnpe] As xnpav C; dub. S.
5 Névet kal] A; om. CS. 7 twavoacbe] 9 kal Sixawoare] AC; Ecxaudoare kal dueNeyxOamev] Kar. . eheX-
’ for Tertullian (de Carn, Christ. 23;
comp. Clem. Alex. Stvom. vii. 16, p- 890) and others quote as from Eze- kiel words not found in the Canonical book: see the passages collected in Fabric. Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test. p. 1117. Hilgenfeld points out that one of these, ‘In quacunque hora ingemue- rit peccator salvus erit’, is closely allied to Clement’s quotation here. This apocryphal or interpolated E- zekiel must have been known to Jus- tin Martyr also, for he quotes a sentence, éy ois Gy vuas KatahaBa, ev rouTos Kat kpweo (Dial. 47, p. 267), which we know from other sources to have belonged to this false Eze- kiel (see Fabric, l.c. p. 1118); though Justin himself from lapse of memory ascribes it to our Lord, perhaps con- fusing it in his mind with Joh. v. 30. (On the other hand see West- cott Zztrod. to Gosp. p. 426.) So too apocryphal passages of other pro- phets, as Jeremiah (Justin. Dzad. 72, p. 298) and Zephaniah (Clem. Alex. Strom. Vv. 11, p. 692), are quoted by the early fathers. The passage of Je- remiah quoted by Justin must have been an interpolation, such as I sup-
un
Io
1x]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
4i
Aérel’ KAI EAN @CIN Al AMAPTIAL YMON WC MOINIKOYN, OC
YIGNA AEYKANG@* EAN AE WCIN WC KOKKINON, @C EPION Aey-
KANO.
Kal EAN OEAHTE Kal EICAKOYCHTE MOY, TA AfAOd TAC
ric darecbe’ GAN AG MH OEAHTE MHAE EICAKOYCHTE MOY,
MAYdIPA YMA&C KaTéAETAl’ TO fAp cTdMa Kypioy E€AdAHCEN
TAYTA.
/ a \ ? \ ? io / TAaVTAS OUV TOUS ayamnToUs avToU PBouAOMEVOS
/ ~ > , la vo MeTavolas MEeTATYELV, ETTHPLEEY TH TAaYTOKPATOPLKH
if 3 la BovAnmatt avTou.
A t / ~ a a) 43 U IX. Ato vraxovowpev TH peryadorpeTet Kai EvOoEw
Owuev As; Kal dvarexOauery C; loguamur cum alterutro (om. kai with Pesh) S:
see above, I. p. 143. 5.8% 13 payecbe] payecOa A. om. S with the Pesh.
pose was the case with Clement’s citation from Ezekiel; for he writes avTn 1) Tepikomn 7 €k T@V Ady Tov "lepeuiov ere eotly eyyeypaypern ev Tiow avrvypadpos Tav ev ouvaywyais "Tovdaiwy, mpo yap oAiyou xpovov TavTa e&éxoway «.t.A. On the apocryphal quotations in Clement see below S$ 13, 17, 23, 29, 46 (notes).
2. peAdavorepa] The comparative peAavetepos occurs Strabo xvi. 4 § 12 (p. 772), but I cannot verify Jacob- son’s further statement ‘hanc formam habes saepius in LXx.’ It is derived from the late form pedavos =péAas, on which see Lobeck Paral. p. 139. Another late form of the superlative iS peAawvoraros.
gaxkov] Comp. Rev. vi. I2 kal o mAwos eyevero wédas OS OaKKOS TPpi- xevos, Is. 1. 3 evdtow Tov ovpayov oKo- Tos Kal as oakkoy Onow TO TepiBo- Aaov avtov. It was a black hair- cloth. Thus Hilgenfeld’s emenda- tion Adkxkov is superfluous, besides being out of place, for the comparison is between garment and garment. The okorovs of the existing text of Clem. Alex. may at once be rejected.
4. ev érépm tom@| Is. i. 16—20. The quotation is almost word for
10 Néyer] A; add. x’puos CS, with Hebrew and
Gédnre] OeAXnra A. 14 yap] AC;
word from the Lxx. See Hatch Essays in Biblical Greek p. 177, for the various readings in the MSS of the LXxX and in the quotation. It is twice quoted by Justin Martyr, AZol. i. 44 (p. 81), 1. 61 (p. 94), and the first verse again in a third passage, Dzad. 18 (p. 235); but his quotations do not agree verbatzm one with another. Almost all the various readings of our authorities here, xaOapoi (kai xa8apot), apéheaOe (adedete), Kal Scxawoare (Suxaraoate), xnpa (xnpav), Sevre Kal (Sedre), SuekeyxOopev (dtarexOopev, etc.) are found in the MSS of the Lxx or in Justin or in both.
9. Ouxarwoare xnpal ‘eve redress to the widow, preserving the same construction as in xpivate opdava@. The LXx however has the accusative xnpavy in the second clause though with a various reading xnpa.
10. Aéyer] Sc. 0 Kvpios, which words occur in the LXxX of Isaiah in accord- ance with the Hebrew.
16. mayroxpatopik@] Apparently the earliest instance of this word ; comp. S 60.
IX. ‘Let us therefore obey His gracious summons. Let us contem- plate the bright examples of obedi-
42 THE. EPISTLE OF S.;CLEMENT [1x S > ~ Ny 72 / / = 59 / \ ~ BovAncet avTOU, Kal LKETaL yevosevot Tov EAEOUS KaL THS iA Lon / > , XENTTOTNTOS AVTOU TPOTTETWMEV Kal ETLTT PEW WEY ETL \ > \ ~ 5) / \ TOUS OLKTIDMOUS aUTOU, aTOALTOYTES THY paTaLoTroVviaY , 4 \ \ > / sf land 5) / THV TE Epi Kat TO Els OavaTov ayov (ros. aTEvicwpeEV Eis TOUS TEAELWS NELTOVOYNOaYTAas TH MEevyaNoTpETTEL do&n 5 py i Meyadorrp
> ~ / / <\ € o © avTov. AaBwuer "Evwx, Os Ev Vrakon Oikatos evpeeEis é
1 yevouevar] AC; but S seems to read yuwdpevo.
3 oikTipmovs] ovxTerpyoug A. 5 Tedelws] AC; reXelous S.
ence in past ages: Enoch who was translated and saw not death; Noah through whom a remnant was saved in the ark.’
3. pataormoviay| The word occurs in Classical writers, e.g. Plut. Zor. 119 E, Lucian Dial. Mort. x. 8 (I. p. 369) ; comp. Theoph. ad Aufol. ii. 7, 12, ili. 1. Polycarp, PAz/. 2, appa- rently remembering this passage has dmo\urovres THY KEVnY paTaLtodoyiay kal THY TOV TOAA@Y TAayny. But this does not justify a change of reading here ; for paraioroviay, which is the reading of all the authorities here, is more appropriate, and a transcriber’s error is more likely in the MSs of Polycarp (all derived from one very late source) than in all our copies of Clement: nor is it impossible that Polycarp’s memory deceived him. Maraodoyia occurs I Tim. i. 6.
4. drevicwpev x.t.A.]| Clement of Alexandria Strom. iv. 16 (p. 610), after giving an earlier passage from this epistle (see § 1), adds cir’ éudavéore- pov ’Areviowpev x.t.A. down to ‘PaaB 7 wopyn (§ 12), but contents himself with a brief abridgement, and does not quote in full, so that he gives but little aid in determining the text.
5- TH meyadorperet O6&| The same expression occurs in 2 Pet. i. 17. The word peyadompenns is frequent in Clement, §§ 1, 19, 45, 58, 61, 64,
éhéous] edXavovs A.
amohurovtes] AC ; but S apparently azoNelovres. AecToupyjcavTas] AcToupynoavtac A.
7 Gava-
and just above (comp. peyadomperea S60). It is only found this once in the NT:
6. *Evex| Clement is here copying Heb. xi. 5 "Ev@y petetéOn tod py idew Oavarov kat ovx nupiokero (comp. Gen. v. 24); though the words are displaced, as often happens when the memory is trusted. In the sequence of his first three instances also, Enoch, Noah, Abraham—he follows the writer of that epistle. See also the language in Ecclus. xliv. 16, 17, to which Clement’s expressions bear some resemblance.
dikacos| The book of Enoch is quoted as ’Evey 6 Sixatos in Test. xit Patr. Levi 10, Juda 18, Dan. 5, Benj. g. Thus it seems to have been a re- cognised epithet of this patriarch, and perhaps formed part of the title of the apocryphal book bearing his name. It was probably the: epithet applied to him also in the opening of the extant book, i.2, in the original ; see also xii. 4, xiv. I, xv. I, and else- where.
7. avrov | i.e. Enochhimself. Forthis reflexive use of avrod see A. Buttmann p. 98 sq. Comp. also §§ 12, 14, 30.
8. madvyyeveciay] i.e. ‘a second birth, a renewal, of the world after the flood; as Ovac. Std. i. 195 (comp. vii. II) kai devrepos eooera aidy, words put into the mouth of Noah
x] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
peTeTeOn, Kal ovyx evpeOn avTou BavaTos.
43
~ \ Nowe mioros
€ \ \ ~ / > ~ / / evpeUels dua THs NELTOUPYLas aVTOU TadiyyEvEeriay KOO Mw
5) / \ / > > a e / \ > exnpveey, Kal dlecwoev Ol avTOU O O€O7TOTNS Ta €loeA-
/ ’ e 7 ~ > \ / 10 JovTa év dpmovoia Coa ets THY KIBwTor.
X. "ABpaau, 6 Piros mpoc~ayopevbeis, muxTOs ev-
tos] A; 6 Oavaros C. Necroupyla C. dominus universi 655 N79).
himself. See Philo Vzz, Moys. ii. 12 (ii. p. 144) maduyyevecias éyévovto nye- poves kal Seurépas apynyerat Trep.odov, where also it is used of the world renovated after the flood. Somewhat
similar is the use in Matt. xix. 28,
where it describes the ‘new heaven and new earth.’ The Stoics also employed this term to designate the renewed universe after their great periodic conflagrations ; see Philo de Mund. incorr. 14 (Il. p. 501) of ras extup@oets Kal Tas madtyyeverias €io- nyovpevo. Tov Koopov, Marc. Anton. xl. I thy mepiodixny madvyyeveciay Tav dAwv (with Gataker’s note). For Christian uses see Suicers.v. Any direct reference to the baptismal water (Aourpov madryyevecias, Tit. iil. 5), as typified by the flood (comp. I Pet. iii. 21), seems out of place here ; but madtyyeveoia appears to allude indirectly to the renewal of the Corin- thian Church by repentance. See the next note.
10. €v ouovoia| An indirect reference to the feuds at Corinth. Even the dumb animals set an example of concord ; see below § 20 ra éAayiora tav (@wv tas auvedevoets avTay ev omovoia kal eipnvyn mowovvra. The word oudvora is of frequent occurrence in Clement.
X. ‘Abraham by obedience left his home and kindred, that he might inherit the promises of God. Not once or twice only was a blessing
8 dua THs NecToupylias] AS (but AuTovpyrao A); év TH Q 6 decrdrns] S translates the word here and in other passages Il mioros| muotio A.
pronounced upon him for his faith. He was promised a race countless as the stars or the sand in multitude, and in his old age a son was granted to him.’
II. o didos] From Is. xli. 8 ‘Abra- ham my friend’ (LXX ov nyamnoa) : comp. 2 Chron. xx. 7, and see the passages of the LxXxX quoted by Roensch Zeztschr. f. Wass. Theol. XVI. p. 583 (1873). See also James lil. 23 kal Pidos Geod exAnGn, and below S$ 17 idos mpoonyopevOn Tov Cecod. In the short paraphrase of the Alex- andrian Clement this chapter relating to Abraham is abridged thus, ’ABpaap ‘Os Oud riot kal pirogeviay piros Geod matnp O€ tov “Ioaax mpoonyopevOn ; and it has therefore been suggest- ed to read 6y giAoc for o @iAoc. But no alteration is needed. Abra- ham is here called ‘the friend’ abso- lutely, as among the Arabs at the present day he is often styled ‘El- Khalil’ simply: see d’Herbelot s.v. Abraham, and Stanley’s Fewish Church 1. p. 13. So too Clem. Hom. XVili. 13 ovT@s dSvvarat...ovdé "Evdy © evapeotnoas pn eldévar ovTe Noe 0 Ol- Katos pr) emiotacOa. ote “ABpaay 6 itos pr ovveva, which has other resemblances with this passage of the genuine Clement; Clem. Recogn. 1. 32 ‘Abraham pro amicitiis quibus erat ei familiaritas cum Deo.’ It is an indication how familiar this title of Abraham had become in the Apo-
44 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x
/ > ~ > e lA , ~ cP ~ peOn ev TW avTov UmNKOOY yever Oat Tois pnuaciw TOU Oceov.
ta / ~ \ 5) an af ~ \ €K THS TuyyEvelas av’TOU Kal €K TOU OlKOV TOU TAT POS
c > ¢ ~ > a= > ~ lant 5) ~ \ ovTos Ov U7rakons e€nNOev ex THS yns avTOU Kal
~ 4 ~ > \ li > > \ Ss QUTOV, OTWS YHV OALYyHY Kal Guyyevetay aobeEvy Kal oiKoV
\ \ Uh a ? / es fukpov KaTaXirwy KANpovounon Tas emayyeNlas TOU 5
5G / \ = ” > an a ‘ Oéeou. AEVEL yap aUTO* AmeAOe €K TAC fFAc coy Kal éK TAc CYrreNelac coy Kal €k TOY OiKOY TOY TATPOC Coy €ic THN TAN HN AN COl AEizZW, Kal TOIHCW ce Eeic EONOC MELA KAl eY- AOTHC® Ce KAI MEFAAYNG TO ONOMA COY, Kal ECH EYAOPHME- NOC’ Kal €YAOrHCW TOYC EYAOLFOYNTAC CE Kal KATAPACOMAI TOYC KATAPWMENOYC CE, KAI EYAOPHOHCONTA! EN CO! TACAI Al
\ = es \ y > a ~ 5) \ @yAal TAc fAc. Kal wad eé€v TW draxwpirOnvat QUTOV 9 \ A \ Lor ’ ~ e / > ’ x > aTrO WT ELTEV AUTW O Oéceos: ANaBAEWac TOIC OOAA- MOIC COY, iA€ ATO TOY TOTMOY, OY NYN CY €l, TPO BOppAN Kal AIBA
KAI ANATOAAC Kal BdAACCAN’ OTI TACAN THN TAN, HN CY Opde,
3 ovyyevelas] cuyyenac A. pacowa] A; Katapdoooua C. alwvos C. add. Tod ovpavod S.
5 emayyeNlas] erayyeNecac A. 15 a PAb ons: 19 “Hényayev] A; é&nyaye dé CS.
24 ynpa] yipec C; see the note on § 63. 6e3] AS; om. C. For a similar omission see Ign. Rom. 4.
IO KaTa- 16 aiwvos] As rod
21 Tovs agrépas] AC; 25 TW
mpos] A; eis C3
super S (with the Hebr. and Pesh. of Gen. xxii. 2, where the Lxx has 颒 or ézi),
stolic age, that Philo once inadver- tently quotes Gen. xvill. 17 ’ABpadp Tov didouv pov for tov maidos pov and argues from the expression, de Sodr. II (1. p. 401), though elsewhere he gives the same text correctly de Leg. All, iii. 8 (1. p. 93), Quaest. in Gen. iv. 21 (p. 261 Aucher). Ata much earlier date one Molon (Joseph. ¢. AZ. ii. 14, 33) who wrote against the Jews and is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 19, p. 420) in- terpretedthename Abraham as qarpos didov, apparently reading DOAN as if it were ON7AN. And in the Book of Jubilees c. 19 (Dillmann in Ewad/d’s Fahrb. Wl. p. 15) it is said of this patriarch that ‘he was written down on the heavenly tablets as a friend
of the Lord.’ Later Rabbinical illus- trations of this title will be found in Wetstein on James il. 23, and espe- cially in Beer Leben Abraham’s, notes 427, 431, 950. Comp. Tertull. adv. Fud. 2 ‘unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus ?’
6. "AmeAGe x.7.A.] From LXX Gen. xl. I—3 with slight but unimportant variations. In omitting kai dedpo after tov marpds cov Clement agrees with A and the Hebrew against the common text which inserts the words. He also reads evAoynOnoovra with A against the common text évevAoynOn- govra, but evAoynwévos where A has evAoyntos. See Hatch &rblical Greek p. 154 for the various readings in this passage in the MSS of the LXx, in Acts
“5
30
x1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 45 col AwWcwW AYTHN Kal TH crépmati coy €wc ai@noc: kal TOIHC@ TO CTépMA COY ®C THN AMMON TAC [LAc’ él AYNATAI
Tic €ZApl@MACAl THN AMMON TAC LAC, KAl TO CTTEPpMdA Coy > ' \ , lf 2 ; c \ . éZaplOmHeHceTal Kal TraAw Neyer’ “EZHraren 6 Oedc TON
"ABPAAM Kal EIEN AYT@' ANABAEYON EIC TON OYPANON Kal
> '
API
ic] Bl \ , > U A > \ a Seo. EC&TAL TO CTTEPMA COY° €ETTICTEYCEN AE ABpadam TW
>
OMHCON TOYC ACTéPac, Ei AYNHCH E€ZAPIOMACAl ayTOYC’
a es ' > a > ’ \ / \ Oed, KAI EAOPICOH AYT@ EIC AIKAIOCYNHN. Ata wiotw Kat / / ol Ce \ > / \ rf piro€eviav €d00n avTw vULOS EV YNpa, Kat Ov U7TaKons / \ / ~ ~ \ ray la / TmooonveyKev avtov Ouciav Tw Oew Tpos Ev TwY OpEwY *. af > ~ wy edeEey avTo. \ / \ 3 / \ ,
XI. Ata Pirogeviay cat eioeBevav Awt éowbn éx
/ vont , 7 / \ \ \ Codopuwr, THS TEDL Vy WPOU TAGHS kpieions ola TUPOS Kal
, / / e / e/ \ 2 /
Geiou: 7™poondov Tomnaoas 0 O€EOTOTNS, OTL TOUS éXriCov-
hee | 5) \ ? > / 4 \ e a Tas ém@ avTov ovK éyKaTaNelTel, ToUs d€ ETEPOKALVETS Tischendorf, with whom Wright agrees, reads it xpi@ynono and appeals to the photograph. The photo- graph seems to me more like xpifevono, and another inspection of the Ms itself confirms me. I can see no traces of the left-hand stroke of an H.
Ocov A. mojoas| AC; S translates as if éwoincev. and so too apparently S; eis avrév C.
dpéwy] oparwy A. 28 xpieions] A, as I read it.
29 Oelov] 30 é@ avrov] A,
vii. 3, and in Philo Mgr. Abrah. I (1. p- 436). Clement agrees with Philo in quoting azed6e for ¢&ed Oe.
12. ev To SvaxwpicOjva] The ex- pression is taken from Gen. xili. 14 peta TO StayopicOjva tov Adt am avTov.
13. "AvaSdéWas x.7.A.] From LXx Gen. xiii. 14—16, almost word for word.
25. mpos év x.7.A.] Gen. xxii. 2 ep” év TOV OpéwV OV Ay OL ElTTO.
XI. ‘Lot’s faith and good deeds saved him from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; while his own wife perished and remains a monu- ment to all ages of the punishment with which God visits the disobedient and wavering.’
28. xpiOeions da mupds| Comp. Is.
19. "Eényayev] From LXX Gen. xv. 5, 6, with unimportant variations.
24. pidro€geviar] i.e. his entertaining the angels; comp. Heb. xiii. 2. Simi- larly of Lot just below, § 11, and of Rahab, $12. The stress laid on this virtue seems to point to a failing in the Corinthian Church. See also the note on aduro€eviay below, § 35.
Ixvi. 16 €v t® muplt Kupiou kpiOnoera maca 7 yn. The emendation xcavéeions for kpiOeions is unnecessary as well as weak.
29. momoas| A nominative abso- lute; see Winer § xxviii. p. 194, A. Buttmann p. 251 sq.
30. érepoxdweis] ‘swerving astde, especially in a bad sense; Epictet,
46
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[x1
e / > / \ > A / UTapyovTas els KONaoLW Kal aikiopoy TiOnowW’ ouvecen-
/ \ 5) ~ -~ / e / g / dovens yap avTw aS. rYUVQLKOS, ETENOYVWMOVOS u7TapXOU-
\ ’ ’ € / > ~ a 9 / e/ ONS Kat OUK EV OMOVOLA, Els TOVTO ONHMELOV éeTEOn wore
ie ’ \ V4 € A TA ~ ¢€ / / > yever Oar auTyv oTHAnY aXoOs EWS THS NMEOaAS TaUTHS, ELS
\ \ ‘s aA e/ e 4 \ e / TO yvworoy eivat TaoW OTL ol Oirvuyor Kal oi SirtaCor-
1 kd\acw] AC; but S translates as if xptow. read erepoyvwuoo by Tischendorf and Jacobson, erepoyywuou by Vansittart.
2 €repoyvwpovos] C; A is The
last letter appears to me like c with possibly y superposed. Wright is probably correct in his explanation that the y is seen through from eype@H on the oppo-
site side of the page. lom;, C. 6 Kpliua] xptua C.
Diss. iii. 12. 7 érepoxkwads exw mpos noovnv. See below, $47 rovs érepoxXu- veis Umrepxovtas ad’ nuav. So €érepo- kAwia Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 15, said of the ship of the Church heeling over, when not properly trimmed.
2. €érepoyvepovos| The word has two senses, either (1) ‘dissentient, otherwise-minded,’ Cyril. Alex. zz Es. xlviii (II. p. 642), lii (II. p. 736) oAorpo- Tws ETEpoyvepovas Tap’ éekeivous ; OF (2) ‘wavering, double-minded’, Cyril. Alex. Cord. Cat.in Ps. 1. p.225 dubixou Te kal €Tepoyvepovos. As it seems to be defined here by ovk ev opovoia, the first meaning must be adopted; though Lot’s wife was alse érepoyve- pov in the other sense, and as such is classed among oi dipuyor cai duora- ¢ovres below. In ev opevoia there is again an allusion to the feuds at Corinth ; see above § 9.
3. is Touro x.7t.A.]| Here sore is dependent not on eis rovro, but on gonpeiov eréOn ; and eis tovro ‘to this end’ stands independently, being afterwards explained by eis ro yvo- OTOV Eval K.T.X.
4. €ws THs nu. Tavtns | A pillar of salt identified with Lot’s wife is mention- ed as standing in Wisdom x. 7, am- orotons Wuxns pynpetov eornkvia oTnAn addos, and in Joseph. dvz. i. 11. 4 who says that he himself had seen it. So
The reading therefore is erepoyrwpoc. onuelwow] onucwow A.
3 Todro] AS; 8 pidokeviar]
too Irenzeus (Haer. iv. 31. 3) speaks of it as ‘statua salis semper manens, which he makes a type of the Church. Cyril of Jerusalem also, Cafech. xix. 8 (p. 309), describes Lot’s wife as éorn- Aurevjéevn Sv aiadvos. The region a- bounds in such pillars of salt (see Robinson’s Azblical Researches, ete. II. p. 108 sq). Medizeval and even modern travellers have delighted to identify one or other of these with Lot’s wife.
5. of diyvvxor] The word occurs only twice, James i. 8, iv. 8, in the New Testament. Both the word and the warning are very frequent in Cle- ment’s younger contemporary Her- mas, 2s. Wh °2, Wi: °2, 3, %°7; Ieee iv. I, 2, Szm. vill. 7, etc., but especi- ally Wand. ix, x. Comp. also Didache 4 ov Supuxnoes morepov garat 7) ov, with the corresponding passage in Barnab. 19. See below § 23 with the note (comp. Clem. Rom. ii. § 11).
XII. ‘Rahab also was saved by her faith and her hospitality. She believed in the might of the Lord God, and she rescued the spies; therefore she and her family were spared. She was gifted too with a prophetic spirit, for the scarlet thread typified the saving power of Christ’s blood.’
8. ‘Paa8| This account is taken
~
4
x11]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
47
\ ~ a va / 7 \ TES wept THS TOV Oeov duvauews Eis Kpiua Kal Els ON-
/ / ~ ~ , MELWOLY TAGDALS TALS YEVEALS YlVOVTal.
XII.
Awa miotw Kat pirogeviay éowOn ‘PaacB 7
/ 3 , \ € Ves a aA ~ \ mopyn* exreuplevtwy yap vio *Incov tov tov Navn
> \ € / af \ ~ - 1oKaTackoTwy es THY ‘lepiyw, Eyvw 0 Baoirevs THS yrs
iL Ns aE
/ J - \ / ~ , OTL NKaolY KaTaTKOTEVTaL THY Ywoayv av’TwY, Kat é€eE-
A, but CS repeat the preposition, see dua gudogeviavy. For C see Bryennios Didache
P: py’ TEeupoévTwy] exrepbevtwy A. 10 THv|] A; om. C. Bryennios Didache p. py’.
from the book of Joshua; but Cle- ment gives it in his own words, even when recording the conversational parts. The instance of Rahab was doubtless suggested by Heb. xi. 31, James ii. 25; for both these epistles were known to S. Clement and are quoted elsewhere. His expression
— §480a riorw kai drogeviay connects the
id
‘two aspects, to which the two Apo- stolic writers severally direct atten- tion, the mioris of the one, the gpya of the other; comp. §§ 31, 33, 34, 49 (notes). See also the note on the @udo- Eevia of Abraham § Io.
7 wopyn| For the insertion 7 ém- Aeyopevn see above, I. pp. 125, 139. The object of this interpolation is to suggest a figurative sense of the word; comp. Orig. zz Jes. Nave om. ii. § 3 (il. p. 403) ‘Raab in- terpretatur latitudo. Quae est ergo latitudo nisi ecclesia haec Christi, quae ex peccatoribus velut ex mere- tricatione collecta est?...talis ergo et haec meretrix esse dicitur, quae ex- ploratores suscepit Iesu’; comp. 2d. vi. § 3 (p. 411). From a like motive the Targum interprets the word in Josh. ii. 1 by NMYPIND =aavdoxevtpia ‘an innkeeper, and so Joseph. Azz. V. I. 2 Umoxwpovow els TL KaTAy@yLoV... dvTes EV TH THS “PaxyaBns KaTaywyia, etc, This explanation has been a-
h wopyn| A; % émi\eyouevn répyn CS; see the lower note.
Q €K-
Tod Tov] A; Tod (omitting the second Tod) C. 11 ééreuver] A; @reupev C; dub. S. For C see
dopted by several Jewish and some Christian interpreters; see Gesenius Thes. S. Vv. MI, p. 422. Others again have interpreted the word as meaning ‘Gentile’. The earliest Christian fathers took a truer view, when they regarded this incident as an antici- pation of the announcement in Matt. xm. 315 6c. Justin az, 111, isem. iv. 20. 12.
In Heb. xi. 31 also 7 émAeyouévn mopyn is read for 7 mopvn by ®& (first hand) and likewise by the Harclean Syriac, this part being preserved only in the Cambridge MS (see above, I. p. 130 sq). Bensly also calls my attention to a passage in Ephraem Syrus Of. Graec. 1. p. 310 opoiws dé kal ‘PaaB n emdeyouern mopyn Sia Tis pitogevias ov cuvam@deTo Tois arret- O@ncaot, SeEauévn Tovs Katackdrovs év eionvyn. Immediately before, this father has mentioned Abraham and Lot as examples of persons rewarded for their duto€evia, so that he seems to have had the passage of S. Clement in view.
g. tov tov Navy] In the Lxx Num. XXxll. 12, Deut. xxxil. 44, Josh. vi. 6, etc., he is called "Incods 6 rot Navn, and the same expression is adopted here, though in the genitive it sounds somewhat awkwardly.
11. avtov] Not avrady, as most edi-
48 THE EPISTLE OF SPCEEMENT [x1
meuvvev avopas Tous auvAAnMomEevous avToUs, OTS c 6 \ n ovv dirog€evos ‘PaaB elodefapuevn avTouvs éxpuev els TO UrEepwov Vo THY pevn 0 UTEPWOV UTO TH
ovdAnuplertes Cavatwhwow.
/ > / A ~ an Awokadayunv. émistabevtwy 0€ TwWY Tapa Tov Bacr-
iz \ / \ \ 2 A c , a Aews Kat AEevyovtwy: Iipoc cé ElCAABON O| KATACKOTIO! TAC rac HM@N* é€Zdrare ayToyc, O fap BaciAeyc OYT@C KEAEYE!
\ / > = \ € ” a“ = 1] O€ atrexp.0n: EicAA@ON MEN OI! OANAPEC, OYC ZHTEITE, TpOc Me, AAAA EYOEWC ATIAABON Kal TOPEYONTAI TH OAB’ e t > ~ > / \ > \ UmovenKVUoUca avTois é€vadAa£. Kai eirev mpos Tous I cud\Anupoudvous|] cuA\nYouevova A, though just below it has cudAnupbevres.
For the omission of “~ compare exwep@Gevtew above. C has avAdnPouévous, ovd-
Anpbévres. For the orthography see § 1 ampoowrodnuTTws. 5 dNeyovrwy] AC;
add. wiz S. 8 dm7ndOov] A; é&dOov C.
g évakdaé] CS. For A, Tischendorf prints ex... as though the 2nd letter were
legible; but nothing more than e1 can be discerned, and the 1 might as well be
6 ovTws]..Two A; ovTw C.
the upright stroke of N as of k.
tors print it; comp. § 9 and see the note on Phzlippians iii. 21.
I. Tovs cvAAnpopevous| 1.€e. of cvA- Anporra. For this construction see Winer § xviii. p. 121, and the notes Galatians 1. 7.
4. Awokardunyr] ‘flax-stalks’ laid on the flat roof of the house to dry; see Josh. ii. 6. So Joseph. (Azz. v. 1. 2) explains it, Aivou yap aykadidas emi Tov réyous éuxe. The word vmepaov does not occur in the original narrative, which describes the men’s lurking place as on the house-top (émi rov Saparos). But Clement would not necessarily be familiar with Eastern customs and might easily substitute a wrong expression.
Q. vmodexviovca avtois| Clement must have made a slip of memory, as he has done already in vmepdor; for in the original narrative Rahab shows the opposite route not to the king’s messengers but to the spies.
evadda€é]| ‘22 the reverse’ or ‘oppo- stte direction.’ The word évadda& has twomeanings ; (1) ‘alternately, which
to éyw] AS; om. C.
rt bua] A;
is its more frequent sense; (2) ‘cross- wise, or ‘inversely’; e.g. Aristot. Anim. Hist. iii. 4 (p. 515, Bekker) etepar (Pr€Bes)...pepovew evaddAdk€, 7 pev €k Tov apiotepav eis Ta Seiad, 7 Oe eis Ta apiorepa ek TOV SeEvav. So too the attitude of Jacob crossing his hands, when he blesses the sons of Joseph, is described in Barnab. 13 (professing to quote the words of Genesis) kal éroinoev “laxaB evadda€ Tas xeipas x.r.A. Again in mathe- matical language speaking of propor- tion, evadda€ is Permutando, i.e. the inversion of the antecedents and consequents, as defined by Euclid v. def. 13 éevaddAak Aoyos eoti AnWis rod Nyoupéevou pos TO nyovpevoy kal Tov €mo- pévov mpos TO émopevoy: Comp. Aristot. Anal. Post. i. § (1. p. 74), il. 17 (p. 99), Eth. Nic. v. 6 (p. 1131), who is rather fond of the word. The attempts to supply the lacuna in A were signal failures before the discovery of the second MS.
II. 06 @oBos x.r.X.] The expression does not occur in the LXxX here, but
Io
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 49
XII]
s/f } , , > \ , c \
avooas* Tin@ckoyca fIN@CcKw® érw OT! Kypioc 6 Oec€dc YMO@N TTAPAAIAWCIN YMIN THN [AN TAYTHN, O TAP MdBOC Kal 6 TPOMOC YMQ@N ETTETTECEN TOIC KATOIKOYCIN AYTHN. OC EAN
OYN féNHTAl AABEIN AYTHN YMAC, AlACWCATE ME KAI TON OIKON TOY TraTpdc Moy. Kal €lTrav auTn’ "Ectal 0YTMC OC EAAAHCAC HMIN. @C EAN OYN FN@C TAPArINOMENOYC HMAC, CYNAZEIC TIANTAC TOYC COYc YTIO TO TEfOCc COY, Kal AlACwWOH- CONTAI’ OCOl FAP EAN EYPEODCIN EZ@ TAC OIKIAC, ATTOAOFNTAL Kal mpocelevto avty Sovvat onpetov, Orws Kpeuaon €K
~ af Cis tes if / on e/ \ TOU OLKOU QUTHS KOKKLVOV, 7 poondov FJOLOUVYTES OTL Ola
om= €S. posed in S. Anoas] A; AeAdAnKas C.
Totoeyoocou A; Td oréyos (om. cov) C; reads gov, not ov as sometimes stated.
(kai door) S. éav] A; av C. is common elsewhere; e.g. Gen. ix. 2, Deut. il. 25, xi. 25. These passages illustrate not only the combination of @oBos and rpopos, but the repeti- tion of the article before the latter. Cotelier observes that Clement seems to have had in his copy of the Lxx (Josh. i. 9) the words kai xarémrno- Gov TayTEs Of KaTOLKOUYTES THY yny ap tjpov, which are wanting in all the best MSS, though supplied in the Complutensian edition and repre- sented in the original Hebrew. The existing text of the LXxX has only em- ménrakey yap 0 PoBos vpay ep nas. 16. reyos] The text of our au- thorities makes it difficult to decide whether we should read oréyos or teyos. The former occurs in the LXX only once, Epist. Jer. 8; the latter not at all in the Lxx, but in Aquila Num. xxv. 8 In these passages they are used for ‘lupanar’; and Teyos especially has frequently this
bad sense elsewhere (e.g. Ovac. seal. iii 186; v.,, 387). But. the CLEM. II,
poBos, Tpduos] C; PoBoo, ...moo A. 12 avrynv] AC; rhv ynv S.
ws] AC; not translated in S.
mapaywouevous] AS (by the pointing); rapayevouévous C.
The two words are trans- édv] A; av C. 15 €Ad-
eav] A; av C. 16 76 Téyos cou] tectum domus tuae S. See below. A
17 boo yap] AC; et omnes cll qui
18 kpeudon] A; éxxpeudon CS.
word is perhaps not intended to bear the meaning here.
18. mpooéGevro x.t.r.] ‘they went on to give her a sign’. The word is used in imitation of the LXx diction, where it very frequently renders 4D) and thus reproduces the Hebraism “to. add, to. do,” asve.c., Luke sirasar mpoobeioa eirev, Acts Xli. 3 mpooéOero ovAd\aBeiv kai éerpov, and so commonly in the LXx. In this sense both the active and middle are used. Har- nack strongly objects to the transla- tion ‘praeterea ei signum dederunt’ and renders ‘praeterea mandaverunt ei ut signum daret, apparently taking mpooriber Oa ‘to enjoin’ or ‘impose.’ This seems an impossible rendering, and moreover in the narrative (Josh. ii. 19) the spies are represented as giving the sign of the scarlet thread to Rahab in the first instance.
19. mpodndov k.t.A.| So Justin Dead. III (p. 338) To cvpBodroyv Tov KoKkivov orapriov...1o otpBodov Tod atparos Tov Xpiorov edndov, OS’ od of wadat
4
50
THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT
[ XII
Lg J ~ / / sf ro os ToU aiuatos Tov Kupiov AvTpwois EoTar Tac Tots
/ \ 5) / f) \ A , TWlOTEVOVGLY Kal éAmriCovely E€7l TOV Oeov.
‘Opare,
> / ? / / > \ / 2 a ayamnTol, ov povoy miaTis ada mpopyTela ev TH
\ ? YYUVQLKL YEVOVEV.
XIII.
Tarewoppovncwpev ovv, adedpol, drrobeue-
- ’ y \ / \ > / A vo. madcav ddaCoveiay Kat Tudos Kat appoovvny Kat
1 Tod Kuplov] AC; Tod xpicrob S (see the passage of Justin in the lower note).
2 Kal édmlifovcw] AC; om. S.
Mopvot Kal AOtkot EK TravT@Y TaV eOVaY owtovra k.t.A., perhaps getting the idea from this passage. Irenzeus (iv. 20. 12) copies Justin, ‘Raab for- nicaria conservata est cum universa domo sua, fide signi coccini etc.’ pee also ‘Origen /xz Fes. fiom. iii. § 5 (II. p. 405), vi § 4 (II. p. 411), In Matth. Comm. Ser. 125 (ill. p. 919). From this time forward it becomes a common type with the fathers. Barnabas (§ 7) similarly ex- plains the scarlet wool of the scape- goat (see the note there). Compare also Heb. ix. 19, which may have suggested this application to Cle- ment.
The word mpodnAos occurs twice be- sides in Clement § 11 mpodndov rroiunoas 6 Seomérns ote (the same construction which we have in Heb. xii. 14 mpodn- Nov ott €& "Iovda k.t.A.), § 40 mpodnrwv ovv nui dvtav trovtov. It may be a question in many passages whether the preposition denotes priority in time or adistinctness. In Demosth. de Cor. 293 «i pev yap jv oou mpodnda Ta péAAovTa...TOT Eder mpohéeyery, ei Oé py mponoes K.T.A.. 20. 199 ef yap Hv dmaot mpodnka ta péddovta yevrnce- cOa. Kat mpondecay amavres Kai od mpovreyes. On the other hand mpdéy- Nos frequently signifies ‘plain,’ ‘mani- fest,’ ‘famous,’ ‘illustrious,’ and it is explained by mpodarjs in the Greek lexicographers.
3 ov] A; dru od CS.
dda] A; add. cal
3. adda mpodnreia] So Origen zz Fes. Hom. iii. § 4 (iI. p. 403) ‘Sed et ista meretrix quae eos suscepit ex meretrice efficitur jam propheta etc.’
4. yéyovev| The perfect tense yéyo- vev, ‘7s found, must unquestionably be the right reading here; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 14 9 O€ yun eEararnbeioa ev mapa- Bdaoe yéyovey, where, as here, the tense denotes the permanence of the record and the example. See also Gal. ili. 18 r@ S€ “ABpadw Ov éemayye- hias Keyaplorar O Geds, iv. 23 0 ek THS maidioKns Kata odpka yeyevynrat, where the explanation of the perfect is the same. So too frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, e.g. vii. 6 dedexataxey, Xi. 28 mremoinkev.
XIII. ‘Let us therefore be hum- ble, and lay aside anger and pride. The Holy Spirit condemns all self- exaltation. Let us call to mind the words in which the Lord Jesus com- mends a gentle and forgiving spirit. The promise of grace is held out to patient forbearance.’
5. dmobepevor «tA.] So § 57 pdbere vmordccecOa amobeuevor rh avafova Kal vmrepnpavoy ths yAooons tpav avdadecav. Comp. Heb. xii. 1 OyKov amroGéuevot travra, James 1. 21, I Pet miz'%.
6. rudos] A neuter form like éXeos, ¢ndos, mAovTOs, etc., for which see Winer § ix. p. 78 and Jacobson’s note on (jAos above § 4. For an ex-
a1
x1 | TO THE CORINTHIANS.
51 3 / \ 7 \ 7 ‘* iz \" A Opyas, Kal TolnowpuEev TO yeypaupEvov" Eyer yap TO TTVEU [La TO cry.ov" MH kayyace@ 0 comdc EN TH COdia ayTo¥,
c
\ > \ > aw. 2 yee > a \ c ’ > a MHAE O ICYYPOC EN TH ICyY! AYTOY MHAE O TIAOYCIOC EN Tw
TAOYTW AYTOY, AAA HO Kayy@menoc EN Kypi@ Kayydcdw, TOF
> a > \ " ! , / €KZHTEIN AYTON KAI TIOIEIN KPIMA KAl AIKAIOCYNHN’ MAALO TA
/ io / ~ / ? = e\ ? / meuvnpevo, THY Nowy ToU Kupiou *Incov, ovs ENaAnoev
Cs. p. 126.
4 yéyovey] A; éyer76n C; dub. S. See the lower note and comp. I. 6 ddagovelay] C3 adagovay A.
tupos] A; t&dov C,
10 GAN 4 6] A; add 6 C, and so perhaps S.
ample of rudos Jacobson here quotes Conc. Ephes. Can. 8 (Routh Scrzpz. Eccl. Opusc. p. 395). As the v is long in the older writers but short in the more recent (e.g. Greg. Naz. II. pp. 490 Vv. 44, 880 v. 45, ed. Caillau), I have accentuated it according to this later usage; see L. Dindorfin Szeph. Thes. s.v. and compare the analogy of orv- Xos, otvAos, Galatians il. 9.
8. My xavydo6 x.t.’.] This pas- sage is taken from 1 Sam. ii. 10, or from Jer. ix. 23, 24, or from both combined. The editors have overlooked the first of these passages, quoting only the second, though in several points Cle- ment’s language more closely resem- bles the first. The latter part in I Sam. ii. Io runs GAN 7 &v TovT@ kavxyac0@ 6 Kavy@pevos cumeEl Kal yweokew tov Kipiov kat Trovety Kpipa kal Suxacoovyny év pec THs ys; while the corresponding passage in Jere- miah diverges still more from Cle- ment’s quotation. On the other hand S. Paul quotes twice (1 Cor. 1. 31 kaos yéypamrra, 2 Cor. x. 17) 0 kavxo- pevos ev Kupia kavyacdo. The resem- blance of Clement’s language to S. Paul may be explained in two ways ; either (1) S. Paul does not quote lite- rally but gives the sense of one or other passage (1 Sam. ii. Io or Jer. ix. 23sq); and Clement, writing after- wards, unconsciously combines and confuses S. Paul’s quotation with the
original text; or (2) A recension of the text of Jeremiah (or Samuel) was in circulation in the first century which contained the exact words o Kavx@pevos ev Kupi@ xavxyacOo. The former is the more probable hypo- thesis. Jren; iv. 57. 3, quotes jer ix, 24 as it stands in our texts. In neither passage does the Hebrew aid in solving the difficulty. In 1 Sam. il. 10 it is much shorter than and quite different from the Lxx. Lucifer pro Athan. li. 2 (Hartel, p. 148) quotes it ‘non glorietur sapiens in sua sa- pientia nec glorietur dives in divitiis suis, sedin hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, inquirere me et scire in Dominum gloriari, quia ego sum Dominus qui facio misericordiam et judicium et justitiam super terram.’ As Cotelier remarks, he seems to have read éx¢y- tew with Clement, for he has ‘in- quirere’ three times in this context, but the coincidence may be acci- dental. On the other hand Antioch. Palest. Hom. xiii (Bzbl. Vet. Patr. p. 1097, Paris 1624) quotes directly from I Sam. il. Io, and betrays no connexion with Clement’s language.
12. pepvnpévor x.t.A.] Comp. Acts XX. 35 pnpovevery TOV AOyeav Tov Kupiov "Inood, ore eimev k.t.A. See above § 2 7 0vov AapBavortes x.7.A. (with the note), where Clement’s language reflects the context of this quotation.
4—2
52 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x01
OiaoKkwy érieikeav Kat pakpoOupiav: ovTws yap EimeV -EAedte INA EACHOATE, AdieTE INA AMEOH YMIN* GC TIOIEITE, OYTO TOIHOHCETA! YMIN* Wc AIAOTE, OYTWC AOBHCETAI YMIN* G@C KPINETE, OYTWC KPIOHCECHE’ GC YPHCTEYECHE, OYTWC YPH- CTEYOHCETAI YMIN' W METP@ METPEITE EN AYTG METPHOHCE- tar ymin. Tavry ty évToAy Kal Tos TapayyéAuacw TOUTOLS FTNPLEWpEV EavTOUS Els TO TopeverOaL UVrNKOOUS OvTas TOls adyLompETEeTt Novos avTou, TaTretvoppo-
I émvelKevav] emverxiay A. ovTws] C;..Two A. 2 ’EneGte] A; éXectre C. agiere] A; dere C. 3 ovrws] C, and in all the other places in this sentence where it occurs; so too A, except in the first, where it has OUT. xpnoreverbe] xpnoreverOa A. 5 @ Méerpw...meTpnOnoerar duty] here, AS Clem; before ws xpivere x.7.d., C. év ait@] S; evautn A; ovTws C; om. Clem.
4 Kplvete] kpwerar A.
mopever Oar] mopeverbe C.
2. ’Edeare x.t.A.] The same saying which is recorded in Matt. vii. I, 2, Luke vi. 36—38, to which should be added Matt. v. 7 paxapior of €Aenuoves 6Tt avrot éAenOjoovrat, V1. 14 eav yap apyre trois avOpeémos x.t.r., Luke vi. 31 Kaas Oédete va Tolmow «k.T.d. (comp. Mark xi. 25). As Clement’s quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this pas- sage. The resemblance tothe original is much closer here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, § 12. The hypothesis there- fore, that Clement derived the saying from oral tradition or from some lost Gospel, is not needed. Polycarp indeed (PAz/. 2) in much the same words quotes our Lord as saying adiere kal apeOnoerat vpiv, edeeire wa eAenOnre, but it can hardly be doubted from his manner of introducing the quotation (pynpovevovres av elev oO Kupuos didaoxwv), that he had this passage of Clement in his mind and does not quote independently. See also Clem. Alex. Stvom. ii. 18 (p. 476) edeare, now o Kupuos k.t.A.,
10 mpaiv] A; mpaov C.
7 ornpléwmev] A; ornplfwuev C. Ta Aéyia] A
where it is quoted almost exactly as here, except that éy avr@ is omitted. He betrays no misgiving that he is not quoting directly from the Gospel, when evidently he has taken the words from his namesake the Roman Clement. Comp. AZos?t. Const. li. 21, Ps-Ign. Tvral/. 8.
On the form édeay (for éXeciv) see Winer § xv p. 97 sq, A. Buttmann p. 50; comp. Clem. Hom. xviii. 6. Previous editors needlessly read éXe- etre here.
4. os xpynoreverGe] The corre- sponding words in S. Luke (vi. 36) are yiveoOcoikrippoves. In Justin Dal. 96 and Aol. i. 15 they are quoted yiveobe S€ xpnorol Kat oikrippoves, and in Clem. Hom. ii. 57 yiverOe ayabot kat oixtippoves. Theverbxypnorever@at occurs’ 1 Cor, xii2-4-
5. @ perpo k.t.A.] Quoted also in- directly Clem. Hom. xviii. 16 6 pérpo €weTpnoay, petpnOn avrois T@ io@. See Mark iv. 24, besides the passages already quoted from the other Evan- gelists.
8. dytorperéot] Compare Polyc. Phil. 1. This is apparently the earli-
xiv]
~ \ € VOUVTES. now yap o
c ,
TO THE CORINTHIANS. eo
c/ J > \ ’ > ' aytos Aoyos: “Et Tina éemiBAEyo,
To AAA H ETI TON TIPAYN KAl HCYYION KAl TPEMONTA MOY TA AGFIA;
XIV. Aikaov otv kal Gowov, dvdpes adeAoi, Vrn-
/ € ~ a / - FN ~ > > fe Koous nuas uadAov yeverSat TH Oew 4 Tots Ev dNaCovela
\ > / é aN > cond 3 x Kal AKATACTAGLA [AUG ENOU On OuSs apxynyots €€ ako OU=
Geiy.
PraBnvy yap ov THY TUXOVTaV, madXdov OE Kiy-
c , , He a | e , > ~ ¢€ 15 OuvoV UTTOLO OMEV MEYQ), EaYV piloxuwvouves ET LOW MEV E€aU=-
\ ~ / ”~ > / ef > / mOUS TOLS GeAnuacw TWYV avOpwrrwr, OPTLVES €€akovTi-
3 sf \ / > \ > ~ ~ Covow €ls Eply Kat OTATELS Els TO ATAaNAOTPIWOAL Huds
Tovs Adyous C (with Lxx); dub. S. al. 12 muds] AS; tuds C. Co. adafoveta] adagova A.
11 davov] AC; Betov S. See also §§ 2, yevécbar TG Oew] A; TH Oew yevéo Oar
13 ¢(MAous] A; Fpdov C. 17 épw]
A; épes S (where the plural depends merely on 7z0uz, and would be suggested by
the plural of the following word); aipésers C Nicon. See above, I. p. 125. eis T0] AC; 70d Nicon.
ces| oracic A.
est passage in which the word occurs. Suicer gives it a place ‘quia a lexi- cographis omissa,’ but does not quote either of these passages in the Apo- stolic fathers.
Q. ‘Emi riva k.r.A.] A quotation from the Lxx of Is. Ixvi. 2 with slight and unimportant variations. For a dis- tinction between mpavs and novxios see Bengel on 1 Pet. ili. 4 (where both words occur). Comp. also Hatch Bzblical Greek p. 73 sq.
XIV. ‘We ought to obey God rather than man. If we follow men, we shall plunge ourselves into strife and peril; if we follow God, we shall be gentle and loving. The Scriptures teach us, that the guileless and meek shall inherit the earth; but that the proud and insolent shall be blotted out.’
II. Aikawov x.t.A.] This passage as far as kxad@s €xovros is quoted in Nicon the Monk, in an extract given by Cotelier from the Paris Mss “eg. 2418, 2423, 2424. He strings together with this passage quotations from §S 15, 46, of this epistle, and § 3 of the
f OoTa-
Second. See the several references.
Umnkoous x.T.A.] For the stress laid by Clement on the duty of dmakoy, see §§ 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 58, 60, 63.
13. pucepov] The form puoepos occurs again below § 30; and in both places the editors have altered it to pvoapos. This is not necessary: see Lobeck Pathol. p. 276. In Lev. xviii. 23 it is so written in A; and simi- larly in Mark i. 42 exaepio6n is read in the best MSs: see Tischendorf on Acts: x./15 and :proleg..p; Is(ed-+7); Winer § v. p. 56. See also the form puepay (for prapav) in Boeckh C. /. G. no. 3588. So likewise the play on iepevs, puepevs, in Apost. Const. il. 28. (C writes pvoapay for pvcepay in § 30, but not so here).
apxnyois| Comp. § 51 dpynyol tis oTaTEws.
15. pipoxuddvves| ‘22 a foolhardy spirit’; Appian Czv.i. 103. It does not occur in the LXx or New Testa- ment.
16. e£axovri¢ovow] The word here appears to mean, ‘launch out.’ Gene- rally, when it occurs metaphorically,
54 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[xiv
TOU Kadws ExXOVTOS. xXonTTEVTWMEDAa avTOIS KATA THY evoTAayyviavy Kal YAUKUTHTA TOU TroWoavTOS Has. yeyparra yap" XPHCTOI ECONTAI OIKHTOpEc FAC, AKAKO! Aé yTOAEIDOHCONTA!I ET! AYTAC’ O1 A€ TapaNOoMOYNTEC €2Z0- A€OpeYOHCONTA ATT AYTAC™ Kal TaN Never’ ETAoN aceBa YTEPYYOYMENON KAl ETTAIPOMENON GC TAC KEApoyc TOY AiBa-
NOY, KAl TAPAAOON Kal IAOY OYK HN, KAl EZEZHTHCA TON TOTION
1 avrots] A; éauvrots CS.
OpevOncovrar C. See the lower note.
aceBnv A; Tov adoeBn C3; there is the same v. 1. in the Lxx. 7 Tov Torov...etpov] AC; avrov kai odx ebpéOn 6 Témos
avmrepomevov A. avtov (with the Lxx) S.
Aoyous Or yAwooas would be under- stood, if not expressed.
I. avtois] ‘towards them, the leaders of the schism ; comp. 2 Thess. lll. 15 un Os €xOpor nyetoGe x.7.A. This must be done ‘in imitation of the com- passion of the Creator Himself’ (xara Thy evoTmayxviay k.T.A.); comp. Matt. v. 44. Others substitute avrots = d\An- Aos, but this is not so good. More- over, as the contracted form avrov etc., for éavrod etc., seems never to occur in the New Testament, it isa question whether Clement would have used it : see the note on avrdy § 12.
2. evomdayxviay k.t.A.] The same combination occurs in Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14 tiv yAukitnta Kal ev- omAayxviay kal Suxavoovvny k.T.A. quoted by Harnack.
3. xpnotrot «.7.A.] From Prov. ii. 21,22. The first part of the quota- tion ypnorol...ém avrns is found in A with a very slight variation (and par- tially in S), but B omits the words; the second runs in all the best Mss of the LXX, 0601[d¢| aaeBav ex yijs oXovvrat, of dé mapdvopor cao Onoovraram avtis. In quoting the latter part Clement seems to be confusing it with Ps. xxxvil. 39 of d€ mapavopor eEodoOpevOnaovrat eri
2 yAuktrnta] yAuKyrnta C. am atrns}] AC; om. S (by homceoteleuton).
4 ob O€... €foXePpevyjoovrar] A; e&oXo- 5 Hidov] ov A. aceBn]
6 émarpouevor |
Q évKardXepua] evkarahimua A; éyxarddeupa Cc: 10 KoAAnOGmev] AC; akorovby}cwuev Nicon.
12 Odros 6 dads]
To avto, which occurs in the context of his next quotation.
4. é€odeOpevOnoovra| On the vary- ing forms odebpevew and ododpeveuv see Tischendorf WVov. Test. p. xlix. Our chief MSs for the most part writes the word with an e.
5. Eldov doeBq x.7.A.] From the LXxX of Ps. xxxvil. 36—38 with unim- portant variations. The LXxX has kal e(ntnoa avrov Kal ovy evpéOn Oo Toros avrov. In the Hebrew there is nothing corresponding to 6 rozos avrov. Without hinting that he is quoting from a previous writer, Cle- ment of Alexandria, Strom. iv. 6 (p. 577), strings together these same six quotations, beginning with Ps. xxxvii. 36 sq and ending with Ps. xii. 4 sq (rappnoidcopa €v avt@). In compar- ing the two, we observe of the Alex- andrian Clement, that (1) In his first passage he restores the text of the LXX, and quotes kal e(jtnoa avrov k.7.A.3; (2) For the most part he follows Clement of Rome, e.g. in the remark- able omission noted below (on a@Aada yernOnr@ x.T.A.); (3) He inserts be- tween the quotations an explanatory word or sentence of his own; (4) He ends this string of quotations with the
15 PWNTO.
xv]
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 55
AYTOY KAl OYY EYPON. YAaccE SKAKIAN KAl [AE EYOYTHTA, OTI
ECTIN ENKATAAEIMMA ANOPOTW EIPHNIKO. / > = / XV. Totvyy KodhAnOwpev Tois eT’ EvoEBElas Eipn- / \ \ ~ 3) ue / / > / YEvOVTLV, Kal un TOIs MEO UrroKploEews BouvAopeEvoLS Eipn-
/ © c \ “ U ' n VnV. dévyeL yap mov’ Oytoc 6 Aadc TOIC YElAECIN ME TIMG,
H AE KAPAIA AYT@N TOppa@ ATIECTIN ATT EMOY.
\ / Kat maXy*
T@ ctdmati ayT@n eYAOrOfcan, TH AE KAPAIA AYT@N KATH-
A and apparently S; 6 dads obros C.
13 dweotw] A Clem; daéxyee C Nicon; dub. S. youv C; evAoyovo. Clem. See I. p. 127. katnpavro] C (with LXx); xarap&vrac Clem; Tischendorf says of the
the LXx.
reading of A ‘xkarnpovvro certum est,’ but Wright reads it xarypwvro. several times and could not feel certain.
\ / / > ’ > \ a ’ Kat madi Aeyet* “HrdtmHcan aYTON TG cCTOMATI
Tois xeiNeow] AS; 7H orduare C. 14 evNoyotcav] A; evdXo- Th 5é] AC Clem; xai 77S, with
I looked On such forms as xarnpouvvro see
Tischendorf Nov. Tesz. prol. p. lvii (ed. 7).
very words of the Roman Clement, Tamrewopovovvray yap ...TO Toipviov avrov, without any indication that he is citing from another.
Q. évkarddeppal ‘a remnant,’ i.e. a family or a memorial of some kind, as in ver. 39 ra éyxaraNeippata Trav aceBav €Sod0bpevoerat: comp. Ps. Xxxiv. 16 tov é€odoOpedoat ex ys To pynuoouvoyv avtay, quoted by Clement below, § 22.
XV. ‘Letus then attach ourselves to the guileless and peaceful; but avoid hypocrites who make a show of peace. Against such the denun- ciations of Scripture are frequent and severe; against the idle profession of God’s service—against the deceitful and proud lips.’
12. Otros o Nads| From Is. xxix. 13, which is quoted also Matt. xv. 8, Mark vii. 6. Clement follows the Evangelists rather than the original text. For the opening words of the original, éyyifer por 6 ads otros ev T® oTOmaTt avTOU Kal ev Tois xeiheow avTay Tiuaciy pe, they give the sen- tence in a compressed form otros o Aads (6 Aads avros Matt.) rots yeiheowv
we tywa as here. Both Evangelists have améyes with the LXx, where Clement has ameorw. Clem. Alex. follows our Clement, modifying the form however to suit his context. In Clem. Rom. ii. § 3 it is quoted exactly as here, except that o Aaos otros stands for ovros 6 Aads. Justin quotes the Lxx, Dzal. 78 (p. 305). For various readings in the MSs of the LXx and quotations from it see Hatch Bzbiical Greek p. 177 sq.
14. To ordpare x.t.A.] From LXx Ps. lxii. 4, with unimportant varia- tions.
evdoyovcay | for evdAdcyour. See Sturz Dial. Mac. p. 58, and the refer- ences in Winer § xiii. p. 89. In the LXxX here SB have evAoyovcav. Clem. Alex. (edd.) quotes evAoyovar.
15. “Hydmnoav «t.A.] From Ps. Ixxviil. 36, 37. almost word for word. ’Enict@bnoay is here a translation of JONI, ‘were stedfast.’ Though nya- mnoay is read by the principal MSs (SB) of the Lxx, the original reading was probably jzarnoar, as this corre- sponds with the Hebrew. See also Hatch Biblical Greek p. 204 sq.
56 THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT [xv
AYTON KAI TH FAMCCH AYTO@N EYPEYCANTO AYTON, H AE KaPAla AYT@N OYK EYOEIA MET AYTOY, OYAE ETICTMOHCAN €N TH
’ > n \ BS By] , \ ' AIAOHKH AYTOY. Ola TOUTO “"A\AAA FENHOHTW TA yelAH TA
Kal wad -EZoAeOpeycat Kypioc manta TA yelAH TA AGAIA, FADCCAN
AOAIA TA AASAOFNTA KATA TOY AIKAIOY ANOMIAN’
MEPAAOPHMONA, TOYC EITMONTAC, THN TA@CCAN HM@N MELAAY- NOMEN, TA YEIAH HM@N TAP HMIN ECTIN* TIC HM@N KYPIOC ECTIN; ATO TAC TAAAIT@PIAC T@N TT@YON Kal ATO TOF
1 évevcavro] AS Clem; éwegar C. 3 dua TovTo] CS Clem; om. A.
yernojnrw) A Clem; yevnfein C. Clem by homceoteleuton.
4 Ta ANadodyTa...Ta SONA] S; om. AC
5 yA@ooayv meyaropnmova rods eirévras]| AS; kai
yraooav pmeyadopnuova rods eirévras Clem; yA@ooa peyadopjuwv’ Kal madw* Tods eirévras C. The scribe thus patches up by insertion and alteration the text which the previous omission had dislocated, so that it may run grammatically and make
sense; see I. p. 143.
3. dua rodto| This should not be treated as part of the quotation, since it is not found in any of the passages of the Psalms which are here strung together. The Alexandrian Clement however (p. 578), quoting from his Roman namesake, may perhaps have regarded it as such.
“Adaka k.t.A.] Iventuretotranscribe (within brackets) the note in my first edition; from which it will be seen how far I had divined the reading of the text, as since confirmed by the Syriac version.
[The words adaka yernbjrw ra xeiAn ra Ookva are taken from the Lxx, Ps. xxx. 19. Those which follow are from the LXx Ps. xi. 3—6 éefoXoOpevoar Kupwos mavta ta xeihn ta Soda [kal] yA@ooav peyadopnpova tovs eimovras x.7.A. Since in the quotation of Cle- ment, as it stands in the MS, yAdooav peyadopnpova has no government, it seems Clear that the transcriber’s eye has passed from one ra yeiAyn ra Sdda to the other and omitted the intro- ductory words of the second quota- tion. I have therefore inserted the words e£oAeOpevoat Kvptos mavra ra
6 peyadtvwuev] A; weyaduvotuer C Clem; dub. S.
xeiAn ta SoAca. Wotton and others detected the omission but made the insertion in the form kat “Eé. K. 7. tT. x. ta Oodra kat. This does not explain the scribe’s error. The kai before yAéooay peyadopypova, though found in AB, is marked as to be erased in S and is omitted in many MSS in Holmes and Parsons; and in our Clement’s text of the LXX it must have been wanting. The Hebrewomits the conjunction in the corresponding place. The existing omission in the text of the Roman Clement seems to be as old as the end of the second century, for his Alexandrian name- sake (see the note on eidov doeBi k.T.A. above) gives the passage, aAaXa yemOnrew mavra ta xeidn Ta Sodia kal yAGooay peyadopnpova k.T.X., inserting kat before yA@ooay, though quoting it in the main as it is quoted here. Orwehavethealternative ofsupposing that a transcriber of the Alexandrian Clement has independently made a similar omission to the transcriber of the Roman. For the form peyadopy- pova see the note on efepifacer § 6.] 7. map npiv] ‘2x our power, our
Io
g
xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
57
CTENAPMOY T@N TENHT@N NYN ANACTHCOMAI, A€rel Kyptoc: OHCOMAl EN CWTHPIW, TAPPHCIACOMAI EN AYTO.
XVI.
> 5) a > \ \ / ? ~ OUK ETTALNDOMEVWY ETL TO TTOLMYLOY AUTOU.
Tarewoppovovvray yap éotw 6 Xpioros, TO OKNTT POV [tis peyarwourys| ToD Qeov, 6 Kupros [pov] Xpioros "Incovs, ox nev év KouTro céaCovetas OUOE uTepnpa-
/ / if 5) \ ~ Q X \ vias, Kaimrep Ouvamevos, d\Aa TaTrEeLvoP~povwy, Ka0ws TO
7 wap nuiv] A Clem; map’ nuav CS. oTHoopal] avacryncomev A.
Awavvns}] AC; om. S Hieron. used equally for o xpeatos CS Hieron.
AC [Hieron]; add. 7\Gev S.
own. It represents the Hebrew NN. The dative is correctly read also by Clem. Alex. and some Mss of the LXx ; but SAB have map’ nue.
9. dvaornoopa| The reading of A avaotnoopev has arisen from ava- oTnoope, Whence avactnocopé: Comp. atxpadord (aiypadtociar) for atyparo- oa (aiywadewoia) in 1. § 6. So too S 41 ovveidnow (cvvednot) for cuver- Snow= ovveonoes.
10. Onoopa x.t.A.| ‘ZL wll place him in safety, I will deal boldly by him. The Hebrew of the last clause is wholly different from the LXx.
XVI. ‘Christ is the friend of the lowly; He Himself is our great pat- tern of humility. This is the leading feature in the portrait which the evan- gelic prophet has drawn of the lamb led to the slaughter. This too is declared by the lips of the Psalmist. If then He our Lord was so lowly, what ought we His servants to be?’
12. ovk ématpoevoy k.T.A.| Comp. 1 Pet. v. 3, Acts xx. 29. The word qoimviov occurs again §§ 44, 54, 57.
TO oKnmTpoy K.T.A.| The expression is apparently suggested by Heb. 1. 8, where Ps. xlv. 6 paBdos evdurnros 7 paBdos ths BacwAelas gov is applied to
14 ddagovelas] adagovac A.
8 dd} A; om. CS Clem. Q ava-
10 év cwrnplw] Clem; evowrnpra A; NIPWEDA (Ev cwrnpia or év cwrnpiy) S; om. C. The Mss of the LXX vary. juav] A; om. C Hieron; dub. S, for }W) is KUptos and 6 KUpios Huw.
13 THs meya-
Xpictos “Incovs] A; éinoots 15 Tamewoppovwv ]
our Lord. Fell refers to the applica- tion of the same text made by Justin Dial. 63 (pp. 286 sq) to show ore kal TpooKuyynros eoTt kal Geds Kat Xpuoros. Jerome zz Ssaz.) lin ‘13° (lV. p. G12) quotesthis passage of Clement, ‘Scep- trum Dei, Dominus Jesus Christus, non venit injactantia superbiae, quum possit omnia, sed in humilitate.’ This application of our Lord’s example bears a resemblance to Phil. il. 5 sq and may be an echo of it.
13. peyatoovrns] The word is doubtful here, but occurs several times in Clement elsewhere, S$ 20, 27, 36, 58, 61, 64, 65; and this fact is in its favour.
14. €v koumr@ x.t.A.] Macar. Magn. Afpocr. iv. 2 (p. 159) modvs yap otros THs Gdaoveias 6 KOptros.
adagoveias x.t.d. | The adjectives dXa- (ov and vmepydavos occur together, Rom. i. 30, 2 Tim. ili. 2. The one refers to the expression, the other to the thought; see the distinction in Trench WV. 7. Syz. § xxix. Ist ser.
15. kaimep Suvapevos| This passage implies the pre-existence of Christ; comp. Phil. ii. 6 sq os év poppy Gcod dmapxyov «T.A.; see the introduction I. p. 398 sq.
58 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XvI
> A / \ > = 5) / A \ / F TVEULa TO ayloy wept avTou eXaAnoeEV’ yow yap Kypie, Tic émicTeYCeN TH AKOH HM@N; Kal 6 Bpayi@n Kypioy ! > , ? U > ' > a c ! TINI ATTIEKAAYDOH; ANHPFEILAAMEN ENANTION AYTOY, WC TIAIAION, @c piza éN FH Alya@cH’ OYK ECTIN EfA0C ayT@, OYAE AOzZA° KAl €lIAOMEN AYTON, KAI OYK E1YEN E1AOC OYAE KAdAAOC, SAAB TO €iA0C AYTOY ATIMON, EKAEITION TIAPA TO E1AOC TAN ANOPO- TON’ ANOPOITOC EN TAHPH WN KAI TION® Kal ElA@C HEpeEIN MAAAKIAN, OTL ATTECTPATITAI TO TIPOCMTION AYTOY, HTIMACOH Kal OYK €AOFICOH. OYTOC TAC AMAPTIAC HM@N Gepel KAI TEP! HM@N OAYNATAI, KAl HMEIC EAOFICAMEBA AYTON EINAl EN TION®
3 avnyyetdapmer] avnyyirauev A, madiov] AS; medlov C. 4 €ldos avr@] A (with LXx); at7v@ ei60s C; and so S, but the order cannot be pressed in
this case.
5 Kdéddos] AC; ddfav S, but NMAIW is probably a copyist’s
error for NID, the former word having occurred in the previous sentence.
6 ékXelrov] exNurrov A.
2. Kupue x.7-A.| A Messianic appli- cation is made of this 53rd chapter of Isaiah by S. Matthew viii. 17 (ver. A) ie ., Nark xv. 28 (ver. | 12), be po uke xa) 37. (ver:' 12), by S.upounsa. 20 (ver.i4, 7), x11, 38 (ver.1), by Philip Acts viii. 32 sq (ver. 7, 8), by S. Paul Rom. x. 16 (ver. 1), and by. neter (7 Pets a1../230Sq) (ver. 4, 9). Barnabas also (§ 5) applies ver. 5, 7,to our Lord; and Justin both in the Afology and in the Dialogue interprets this chapter so frequently: ceenesp. Apos 1.50, 51 .(p, 851Sq), Dial. 13 (p. 230 sq), in both which passages it is quoted in full. For Jew- ish Messianic interpretations of this chapter see Hengstenberg Chrzséol. II. p. 310 sq (Eng. trans.), Schottgen Hor. Hebr. il. p. 138 sq, and espe- cially Driver and Neubauer The jifty- third Chapter of Isaiah according to the fFewish Interpreters, Oxf. and Lond. 1877, with Pusey’s preface.
Clement’s quotation for the most part follows the Lxx tolerably closely. The more important divergences from the LXxX are noticed below.
To €l60s Tay dvOpirwv] AC; mdvras dvOpwrous S.
The LXx itself differs considerably from the Hebrew in many points. See also Hatch Azblical Greek p. 178 sq, p. 201 sq, on the form of the early quotations from this passage of the Lxx.
3. avnyyetiapev «.t.r.] The LXx reading here is devoid of sense and must be corrupt, though the Mss and early quotations all present avyyyeiia- pev. As this word corresponds to the Hebrew Sy) (Aq. Theod. dvaByoerat, Symm. dvéBn), Is. Voss proposed avereidapev (see Grabe Diss. de Variis Vities LXX p. 38); but even this alteration is not enough, and we should require avérevkev. The follow- ing meaning however seems gene- rally to have been attached to the words; ‘We—the preachers—an- nounced Him before the Lord; as a child is He, as a root etc.’ (see Eusebius and Jerome on the pas- sage); but Justin Dzal. 42 (p. 261) strangely explains os madioy of the child-like submission of the Church to Christ. The interpretation of Ori- gen ad Rom. viii. § 6 (Iv. p. 627)
Io
15
xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
59
Kal €N TAHPH Kal EN KAK@CEL AaYTOC AE ETPAYMATICOH Ala TAC AMAPTIAC HM@N KAl MEMAAAKICTAI AIA TAC ANOMIAC HMON. TAIACIA EIPHNHC HMON €T AYTON' TM MOAWTI AYTOY HMEIC IA@HMEN. TIANTEC WC TIPOBATA ETTAANHOHMEN, ANOPWTTIOC TH OA@ aYTOY EMAANHOH* Kal Kypioc TApe€A@KEN AYTON YTIEP T@N AMAPTION HM@N. KAl AYTOC AIA TO KEKAKOCOAI OYK ANOIFEl TO CTOMA’ GC TPOBATON ET] CHATHN HYOH, KAl OC AMNOC €ENANTION TOY KEIPANTOC AM@NOC, OYTWC OYK ANOITE!
TO cTOMA ayTOf. EN TH TATIEIN@CE! H KPICIC AYTOY HPOH’
See the lower note for the LXx reading. 12 auaprlas, dvoulas] A; transposed in CS. See the lower note. 13 matdela] madia A. 15 Umép Tw
dmaptiav|] AC; rats duapriars S with the Lxx. See the lower note. IQ &v Th Tatewwoa] AC; add. ejus S, where the punctuation attaches it to the previous
sentence. plows] Kpiceco A.
is not quite clear. The fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries gene- rally interpret os pita év yn dupoon as referring to the miraculous con- ception. In the order éy, avr. os mao. Clement agrees with SA Justin p- 230 (p. 85, 260 sq, éevdmuoy avrov); and so the old Latin, e.g. Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 17 (and elsewhere) ‘annun- tiavimus coram ipso velut puerulus etc.’: but B has os raid. év. adr., the order of the Hebrew.
6. mapa TO €i0. t. avOp.| The LXx S, Clem. Alex. p. 440, mapa mavras (S corr. from ray) tods viovs Tay avOpa- mov; B, Justin p. 230, Tertull. adv. Mare. iii. 7, adv. Fud. 14, mapa rovs viovs Trav avOperav; A, Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 17, mapa mavras avOporovs ; Justin p. 85, Clem. Alex. p. 252, mapa Tovs dvOparous.
7. kal rovm| Wanting in the Lxx. The words must have crept in from below, ev move kat €v mAny7, either by a lapse of memory on Clement’s part or by an error in his copy of the LXx or in the transcription of Clement’s own text.
8. améotparta] The original is
11919 DID AND, ‘as hiding the face Jrom him’ or ‘fromus.’ The LXXseem to have adopted the latter sense, though they have omitted 391 ; ‘zs face ts turned away, i.e. aS one ashamed or loathed; comp. Lev. xiii. 45.
12. duaprias, avouias| So B, Justinp. 230; but SA, Barnab. § 5, Justin p. 85, transpose the words, reading avo- pias in the first clause and dyaprias in the second.
14. avOperos| ‘each man, distribu- tive; a Hebraism not uncommon in the LXX; and the use is somewhat similar in John ii. 25, I Cor. xi. 28.
15. umep Tov auaptiov| The LXx has Tats auaptias, and so Justin pp. 86,230, Clem. Alex. p. 138; but Tertull. adv. Prax. 30 ‘pro delictis nostris.’
19. ev TH TaTmewooerk.T.A.] This pas- sage is also quoted from the LxXx in Acts viil. 33 €v ty Tamewocer [avtod| ” Kplows avtov npn, where the first avrov Should be omitted with the best MSS, so that S. Luke’s quotation ac- cords exactly with the Lxx. For the probable meaning of the Lxx here see the commentators on Acts lL.c.;
60 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XvI
THN FENEAN AYTOY Tic AlnfHceTal; OT! alpetal ato TAC FAC H zwd aytoy 210 TAN ANOMI@N TOY AAOY MOY HkKEl EC BANO- TON. Kal A@CW TOYC TONHPOYC ANTI TAc Tadfc ayToy kal TOYC TAOYCIOYC ANTI TOY BANATOY aYTOY STI ANOMIAN OYK €TOIHCeEN, OYAE EYpéOH AdAOC EN TH cTOMaTI ayTo¥. Kal Kypioc BoyAeTal KA@ADICAl AYTON TAC TAHTAc’ €AN AWTE TrEPI AmapTiac, H YYYH YMON OETA! CTEPMA MAKPOBION. Kal Kypioc BoyAeTal AmeAEIN ATO TOY TONOY TAC YyyyAc ayTo¥, Aelzal aYT@ mAc kal TAAcal TH CYNECE, AIKAIMCAl AIKAION ey Aoy- AEYONTA TOAAOIC’ KAI TAC AMAPTIAC AYT@N AYTOC ANOICEL Ald 1 Thy yeveav] AC; xal rhv yeveay S. 2 nkec] AC; 4xOn S. See the lower note. 7 dWera] eWerar A. 8 ris puxjs] AC; dd THs pux7s S.
The } which represents dro before rod wévov is pointed as if =pér. 12 Tos]
and for patristic interpretations of yeved, suicer I. p. 744. 5.v. The Hebrew is different.
2. hKet| 7xOn LXX and Tertull. adv. Fud. 10; but jee is read by Justin pp. 86, 230, though elsewhere he has 1xOn p. 261 (MSS 7xOnv), Comp. p. 317 Ort amo TeV Gdvyopidy Tov aov axOnoera eis Oavarov. As nxOn may easily have been introduced from ver. 7, #kes was perhaps the orig- inal reading of the LXx; and so it stands in some MSS in Holmes and Parsons.
3. kat Sdoo x.t.A.] The LXxX clearly means that the wicked and the wealthy should die in requital for His death; as Justin Dzal. 32 (p. 249) avti Tod Oavarov avrovd rods mAov- ciovs GavatwOnoeo Oa. Thus the refer- ence to the crucifixion of the thieves and the entombment in Joseph’s grave, which the original has sug- gested to later Christian writers, is rendered impossible in the Lxx. This application however is not made in the Gospels, where only ver. 12 éy Tots avopo.s €Aoyio On is quoted in this connexion, nor (I believe) in any fa- ther of the second century nor even
in Tertullian or Origen.
5. ovde evpéOn Sddos] So A in the LxXx, but SB (corrected however in S by later hands) have simply ovde dodov, following the Hebrew more closely. In 1/?Petruiy @2>arel tie words 0s dpuaptiay ovK émoinoev ovde evpebn dodros €vT@ oTOpart avTov, though this is not given as a direct quotation and may have been intended merely as a paraphrase, like much of the context. But it is quoted by Justin also kat ovy evpéOn Sodos p. 230, and ovde evpeOn Sddros p. 86, though in a third passage he has ovde dodov p. 330. And so likewise Tertull. adv. Fud. to ‘nec dolus in ore ejus inventus est; Origen iI. p. 92. CG; 11. pp 2300 287 C, and Hippol. zz Psalm. 7 (p. 191 Lagarde). The passage of S. Peter might have influenced the form of quotation and even the reading of the MSS in some cases: but the pas- sages where ovde evpeOn Sodos appears are so numerous, that we must sup- pose it to have been so read in some copies of the LXX at least as early as the first century. This reading is found in several MSS in Holmes and Parsons.
Io
20
XVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 61
TOYTO AYTOC KAHPONOMHCE! TOAAOYC KAl TON ICYYP@N meptei cKYAa’ 4NO® GN TIADEAGOH EIC GANATON H YYYH AYTOY Kal TOIC > U > U \ > \ c ' al > , \ ANOMOIC €AOPICOH’ KAI AYTOC AMAPTIAC TIOAAGN ANHNEPKEN Kal
\ \ c ’ > a , K \ / 5) / i AIA TAC AMAPTIAC AYTON TTAPEAOOH. alt Tat AUTOS pnow
Ero Aé EiMI CKMAHZ KAI OYK ANOPTIOC, ONEIAOC ANOPMTON
KAl €Z0YOENHMA AdOF. TIANTEC O1 BEWPOYNTEC ME EZEMYKTHDI-
CAN Me, EAAAHCAN EN YEIAECIN, EKINHCAN KEQAAHN, “HAtTICEN étt! Kypion, PycacO@ AYTON, CWCATW AYTON, OT! BEAE! AYTON. ©) > / } 5) / / e e \ e } } /
PaTE, aVOPES ayaTHTOL, TIs O UTOYPAaMMOS O CECOME-
eA 2 \ e / e/ 5) / / VOS nly? EL yao O Kupuos OUTWS ETATELVOPOOVNG EV, Tl
A; év rots C, and so probably S, which has 3 not 9. 15 8] AS; om. C.
17 éxiynoav] exewnoav A.
6. ris mAnyjs] So SB Justin pp. 86, 230 ; but A (LXX) has amo rns mAnyis. For xa8api¢ew or xabaipew Twos Comp. Herod. i. 44. So the intransitive verb xaapevew (Plato Epzsz. viii. p. 356 E) and the adjective xa@apos (Herod. ii. 38) may take a genitive.
ddre| So also LXX (SAB) and Jus- tin pp. 86, 230 (MSS, but many edd. dérat). Eusebius comments on this as the LXX reading, and Jerome dis- tinctly states it to be so. Accordingly it was interpreted, ‘If ye make an offering’ (or, translated into its Chris- tian equivalent, ‘If ye be truly con- trite and pray for pardon’). With Sovvac wept comp. Heb. v. 3 mept éav- Tov mpoodhéepew epi apaptiav. The meaning of the original is doubtful, but dére seems to be a rendering of pn taken as a second person, ‘ ¢hou shalt give. The reading ddra ‘ gzve himself; which some editors here would adopt, is quite late and can hardly stand.
7. Kuptos BovAderar k.7.A.| The LXx departs very widely from the Hebrew, but its meaning is fairly clear. For agenetv amo, ‘to diminish from, comp. Rev. xxii. 19, Exod. v. 11, and so fre-
18 671] AC; ef S.
quently. Tertullian however reads Thy Wuynv ‘eximere a morte animam ejus,’ adv. Fud, 10. TWAaca (sc. adrov) stands in the present text of the LXx (SAB), and in Justin pp. 86, 230, nor is there any indication of a different reading: but, as yw» stands in the corresponding place in the Hebrew, the original reading of the LXx was probably mAjoa, as Grabe suggested (Diss. de Vit. Var. LX X, p. 39). Com- pare the vv. ll. pacoe: and pyoces in Mark ix. 18.
I2. Trois avopots] év Tots avopors LXX (SAB), Justin pp. 86, 231, (though in the immediate neighbourhood of the first passage he has pera ray dvopor, p- 85); pera dvoporv, Luke xxii. 37, (+Mark xv. 28+).
14. avtos] Christ Himself, in whose person the Psalmist is speaking. Comp. § 22, where avréis mpockanei- ra has a similar reference. The words are an exact quotation from the LXx Ps. xxil.6—8. The applica- tion to our Lord is favoured by Matt. xxvii. 43.
19. 6 tmoypaupos|] See the note above on § 5.
62 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XvI
ToMowpEev nels ot Vo TOV Cuyov THs yapiTOs avTOU ou avtou éNOortes 3
XVII. Mipnral yevopeba Kdxeivwv, ofrwes év dép- pac aiyelois Kal pndwTais TEepieTaTHaaY KnpvooOor- Tes Thv éXevow TOV XpioTod: Réyouev Se "HALav Kal "Erioae Er O€ Kal *leCexiujrA, Tovs mpopntas’ mpos Tov- TOLS Kai TOUS pEeu“apTUpHEVoUS. EéuapTupnOn pEeyadws
2 €\OdvrTes] S3 eOovtoc A; ére 6€] AS$ om. C.
I tojowuev] A; torjoouey C; dub. S.
dmenOdvres C. 6 ’EXioaé] As ’EXtooae C.
kal] AC; om. S. add. dé C.
I. tov Cvydv tis xapiros| A verbal paradox, explained by the ‘easy yoke’ of Matt. xi. 29,30. The following 6? avrov is ‘through His humiliation and condescension.’
XVII. ‘We should also copy the humility of the prophets who went about in sheepskins and goatskins ; of Abraham the friend of God, who confessed that he was mere dust and ashes; of Job the blameless, who condemned himself and all men as impure in the sight of God; of Moses the trusty servant, who declared his nothingness before the Lord.’
The whole of this chapter and part of the next are quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 610) in continuation of §$9sq (see the note there): but he cites sofreely, abridging and enlarging at pleasure, and interspersing his own commentary (e.g. tyv ovxy varorin- Tovoay vOL@ aivirTomevos apapTiay yvo- oTikas petpioraberv), that he cannot generally be taken as an authority on the text, and (except in special cases) I have not thought it worth while to record his variations.
3. ev d€éppaow x«.t.d.] From Heb. xi. 37. For the prophets’ dress comp. Zech. xiii. 4 ‘The prophets shall be ashamed...neither shall they wear a
mpos Tovras] AC; add. 6é S. g atevifwv] A; arevicas C; drevicw S, apparently, for it renders e¢ dicit cogitans humiliter, videbo gloriam Dei.
7 €uaprupyon] AS; Tatewoppovayv] C;
garment of hair’? (where the LXx omits the negative and destroys the sense, kal évdvcovra Séppw rptyivny) ; see also Bleek Hedy. l.c., Stanley’s Sinat and Palestine p. 305. The word pndvorn is used in the LXX to translate MAIN, paludamentum, ‘a mantle’; e.g. of Elijah and Elisha, 1 Kings xix. 13, 10; 2 Kings 1. 6,422) 14. Though not a strict equivalent, it was doubtless adopted as describing the recognised dress of the prophet. Ezekiel is fitly classed with the older prophets, as representing a stern and ascetic type. His dress is nowhere mentioned in the O. T., but might be taken for granted as the ordinary garb of his office. Clem. Alex. after ynrwrais adds kat Tptyov Kkapnrelov Théypacw, as after “IeCexuyA he adds kai Iwavynv, the former interpolation preparing the way for the latter.
6. ’EAucae| A frequent form in the best MSS of the LXx (with a single or — a double a), e.g. 2 Kings 11. 1 sq. The editors have quite needlessly changed it into "EAtooaiov, which is the form in Clem. Alex.
rovs mpodnras] Epiphanius has been thought to refer to this passage in Haer. xxx. 15, avros (KAnpns) eyko- puater Hdiav kai AaBid Kat Sapo kat
Io
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 63
XVII]
"ABpaau Kai diros mpoanyopevOn Tov Oeov, kai réryer areviCwy eis THy Sd€av Tov Oeov, TaTevodpovav *Era Aé eiMi fA Kal ctoAdc. rt O€ Kal TEpL "loB ovTws ye- ypamTa “laB Aé HN Alkaloc Kal AMemTITOC, AAHOINGC, 8E0- ceBHc, dmeydMENOC ATO TANTOC KAKOY? GAN’ avTOS EavTOU KaTNYOpEL Neyo, OyAeic KaOapdc AattdO fytTOY, OYA AN
TaTewoppwvuv A.
11 6€] CS Clem; om. A. kal] AC [Clem]; om.
S with Lxx. aAnOiwvds] arynbewoo A; adnOivds kai Clem 611. I2 Kaxov] AC Clem; zovnpot mpdyuaros (with Lxx) S. 13 Karnyopet Aéywr] C; ROTIYY?; «05: A; contra setpsum dicens loquitur (as if xatnyopav Néye) S. 00d”
dv] C; 085 ef Clem; def. A. See the lower note.
mavras Tovs mpodyras x.t.A.; but the reference must be to the spurious Epistles on Virginity, where Samson, as well as the others, is mentioned by name (see above, I. p. 409).
7. Tovs pepaptupnuévors| ‘borne witness to, approved, whether by God or by men; see below, §§ 17, 18, 19, ae, 44,,47,,Acts vi. 3, Heb. xi. 2, 4, 5, 39, 3 Joh. 12, etc. Here the testimony of God’s voice in Scripture seems to be intended, as appears from the examples following.
8. giros mpoonyopevOn] Comp. James ii. 23, and see above, § Io with the note.
9. tHv Soéav] i.e. the outward ma- nifestation, the visible light and glory which betokened His presence; as erdixod, xvi. 7, 10, xxiv. 16, 17, meet 1O, 22. xi. 26, 290, Luke i. 9, mearxv. 40 sq, 2 Cor. ili. 7 sq, etc.
tarewoppovav| A favourite word with Clement; see § 2, 13 (twice), 16 (three times), 19, 30, 38, 48. In like manner razewodpoovvn and ra- meivoois occur several times. The scribe of A reads rarewodpor wy here, as he reads ramewogpov ov § 19. In both cases his reading must be cor- rected. This verb occurs only once om the Exx (Ps. cxxxi. 2), and not once in the New Testament.
"Eyo Oe «.7.A.] Quoted exactly from
the EXX Gen. xviii. 27.
II. "168 jv x.t.A.] A loose quotation from Job i. 1, where SB have adnéi- vos Gueumrtos Sikatos GeooeBys, and A dueumrtos Sixatos ddnbewwos OcoreBrs.
13. Katnyopet déywv] I prefer this to Kkatnyopav héyer OF KaTnyopay etrev. Wotton is certainly wrong in saying that he could read eiwevin A. There is no trace of the word and cannot have been any. He must have made some confusion with the eizey below, which is blurred.
Ovdeis x.7.A.] A loose quotation from the LXxX Job xiv. 4, 5.
ovd’ av| All the best MSS of the LXX agree in reading éay kal, which many editors have preferred here. On the other hand Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 611) has ov® e?, and as in the rest of this quotation he follows his namesake pretty closely, where he departs from the Lxx, he may have done so in this instance. Origen, who frequently quotes the text, gene- rally has ovd ay (e.g. I. p. 829) or ovo ei (III. pp. 160, 685), but some- times omits the negative. In AZosz. Const. ii. 18 it is quoted as here. The passage is one of very few out- side of the pentateuch quoted by Philo, de Mut. Nom. 6 (1. p. 585), who reads ris yap...xal a...
64
migc HMépac H H ZH ayToy.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XVII
Movons tmictéc én 6A\® TH
By > A > / \ \ io ¢ / > Leys oikw ayto? €kAnOn, Kal Ova THs UaNpEetias avToU ExpiveEV
¢ \ xl \ ~~ 7 \ van ) 7 0 Geos Aiyurtoy dia THY MaTTiywY Kal TwY aikiopa-
TWV QUTWY.
> \ > =~ / adda Kakeivos dogacbes peyadws ovK
€ueyadopnuovnoev, aA’ eitrev, emt THs BaTou xenma-5
~ a / ’ > > ’ a ! TlOMOU AUTW OLOOMEeVOU, Tic eimi érw, OT! me TémmTeEic; Z 3
2 avrod pri] AS (with Heb. ili. 2); om. C.
5 él tys Bdrou] ¢€
rently) S. (or Tod) Barov S3 ék ris Bdrov Clem.
I. motos x.t-A.] He is so called Num. xil. 7; comp. Heb. iii. 2. The avrovu 1S tov Qeov, for the LXxX has pov.
2. wmnpecias| Comp. Wisd. xiii. ax 7,
éxpwev x.t.A.| Compare § II xpe- Geians Sta mupos. Moses was the instrument in fulfilling the prophecy uttered before, Gen. xv. 14 (comp. Acts vil. 7) ro dé €Ovos & éav Sovdcv- TOOL KPLYO Ey@.
5. é€ueyadopnuovnoev| See the note on efepicacer, § 6.
émt ths Barov| A cannot have so read the words as they stand in C, unless this line was very much longer than the preceding or following one. Moreover emi rod tis Barov xpnpatio- pod avT@ Sidopévov is in itself a very awkward and unlikely expression. Probably A read émt rhs Barov or eri Tov Barov, this being a common mode of referring to the incident; Luke xx. 37 (comp. Mark xii. 26), Justin Dzad. 128 (p. 357), Clem. Hom. xvi. 14, A post. Const. v.20. The reading of C must be attributed to the in- decision of a scribe hesitating be- tween the masculine and feminine genders ; the word being sometimes masculine, o Paros (e.g. Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4, Apost. Const. vii. 33), some- times feminine (Deut. xxxiii. 16, Acts vil. 35, Justin Dzal. 127, 128, Clem.
éxpwev] AC; xplvec (appa-
eho Barov A; én rod ris Barou C3 ém rips
See the lower note. 9g drwper] Flom. xvi. 14, Apost. Const. v. 20). So we have ézi rov Batov Mark xii. 26 (though with an ill-supported v.1), but emi t7s Barov Luke xx. 37. In Justin DzaZ. 60 (p. 283) we meet with dro ths Barov, 0 Baros, 6 Baros, 6 Batos, ek ths Barov, in the same chapter. See on this double gender of the word Fritzsche on Mark l.c.
6. Tis eius éyo|] From Exod. iii. 11 Tis eis ey@, OTL TOpEevoopal K.T.A.
7. eyo dé «7.A.| From Exod. iv. 10 laxvopevos kai BpadiyAwooos eye elpe.
8. “Eyod O€é eipe dtpls x7.A.] This quotation is not found in the Old Testament or in any apocryphal book extant whole or in part. The nearest parallel is James iv. 14, moia yap 7 (a) vuav; atpuls [yap] éore 7 mpos oAL- yov awopéevn «.t.4. Compare also Hosea xt. 3 ‘As smoke from the chimney’ (or ‘the window’), where the LXX seems to have translated originally drpis amo dxpidwr (see Sim- son’s Hosea p. 44), corrupted into azo Saxpvev in B and corrected into éx xarvodoxns from Theodotion in A; and Ps. cxix. 83 ‘I am become like a bottle in the smoke,’ where again the LXX mistranslates doel dokds ev maxvn. In none of these passages however are the words very close, nor are they spoken by Moses. Per- haps therefore this should be reckon-
Io
XviIT] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 65
Sg ! > > ' \ \ /
ér@ AE EIMI ICYNOMWNOC Kal BpadyrAwccoc. Kal Tadwy , > \ ! ? > \ 2 \ Y
Aeyel, Era Aé eimi AatTMic AT10 KyYO@pac.
XVIII.
A ISW \ rat x € / e ey \ avelo; mpos ov eimev 0 Oeos, EYpon ANApaA kKaTA THN
V4 \ xf > \ os / Ti o€ ei7wuev émt Tw mMEeu“apTUpNnUEVH
KAPAIAN Moy, AayelA TON TOY leccal, EN EAEEI AIDNIW EYPICA > ’ ’ \ \ > \ / \ \ / > , ! aytén. a@AAa@ Kal avTos AEyEr Tos TOV Oeov? ’E\EeuHcON
A; elrowmev C, AS: om C.
ed among S. Clement’s quotations from apocryphal books, on which Photius (476/. 126 pnra twa os amo Ts Oeias ypadis EeviCovra mapevoayet) remarks: see also §§ 8, 13, 23, 30, 46 (notes). Hilgenfeld supposes that the words were taken from the Assump- tion of Moses. This is not impossible ; but the independent reason which he gives for the belief that Clement was acquainted with that apocryphal work is unsatisfactory; see the note on the phoenix below, § 25. I have pointed out elsewhere (§ 23) another apocryphal work, from which they might well have been taken. The metaphor is common with the Stoics: see Seneca 7road. 392 sq ‘ Ut cali- dis fumus ab ignibus Vanescit...Sic hic quo regimur spiritus effluit’, M. Anton. x. 31 kamvoy kal To pndéy, Xil. 33 vekpa kal karvos; so also Empedo- cles (in Plut. Od. AZor. p. 360 C, quoted by Gataker on x. 31) had said, wxv- popot Karrvoto Sikny apdevres amenrap.
kvOpas| Another form of xvtpas, just as «Oey and yirey are inter- changed. The proper Ionic genitive would be xv@pns, which is used by Herodes in Stob. Florzl. \xxvill. 6 (quoted in Hase and Dindorf’s S7eph. Thes.). Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 1 (p. 165) has xv@pidiots ; and for instances of kvOpivos (for yurpivos) see Lobeck Pathol. p. 209. In the text of Clem. Alex. here xvrpas is read.
XVIII. ‘Again take David as an
CLEM. II.
10, 11 Aaveid] 6a5 AC. See above, § 4. rr éAéer] C3 eXavee A; éXalw S Clem (edd.).
10 6 Geds] See below.
example of humility. He is declared to be the man after God’s own heart. Yet he speaks of himself as over- whelmed with sin, as steeped in im- purity, and prays that he may be cleansed by God’s Spirit’.
10. mpos ov] Comp. Rom. x.21, Heb. i. 7, and see Winer § xlix. p. 424.
Evpov «.r..| A combination of Ps. Ixxxix. 21 etdpov Aaveld tov doddov pov, év éAaim dyi@ pou e€xpica avrov, with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 dvOp@mov kara THY KapOlay avTov, or rather with Acts xiii. 22 edpov Aaveid Tov Tov “lecoat, dvdpa Kara tiv Kapdiay pov (itself a loose quotation from 1 Sam. xiii. 14). In the first passage eAai@ the reading of SA is doubtless correct, the cor- responding Hebrew being }DY; though edger is read by B. But Clement ap- pears to have read éAéec as our Greek MSS testify. Similarly in § 56, when quoting Ps. cxli. 5, he reads eAawoo (i.e. €Aeos) duaptodey for éAatov ayap- twrov. On the interchange of at and ¢ in this word see above, I. p. 121. On the other hand Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 611), quoting this passage of his namesake, restores the correct word éAai@ (if his editors can be trusted), as he would do naturally, if accustomed to this read- ing in the Psalms.
12. ’Edénoovk.t.r.| The 51st Psalm quoted from the LXx almost word for word. The variations are very slight and unimportant.
66
THE EPISTLE OF So CLEMENT [XVIII
me, 6 Oedc, KATA TO MEfa EAEOC COY, Kal KATA TO TIAHOOC TON OIKTIPM@N COY EZAAEIYON TO ANOMHMA MOY. ETT TAEION TAYNON ME ATTO TAC ANOMIAC MOY, Kd) ATTO THC AMAPTIAC MOY KAOAPICON Me’ OTI THN ANOMIAN MOY €f@ FINDCK@, Kal H AMAPTIA MOY EN@TIION MOY €CTIN AIA TTANTOC. COl MONW® HMAP- TON, KAl TO TTONHPON @NQ@THION COY éTOIHCA’ OTC AN AIKAI@- OHc EN TOIC AOfoic coy, KAl NIKHCHC EN TO KPINECOAl CE.
iMoy rap EN ANOMIAIC CYNEAHMQMOHN, KAl EN AMAPTIAIC EKIC-
CHCEN ME H MHTHP MOY.
AAHAA KAI TA KPYMIA TAC codmiac coy EAHAWCAC MOL.
1 eos] eXavog A.
2 oikTipnwv] oixreipnov A.
> , > ’ : \ iAOY fap AAHOEIAN HPATTHCAC™ TA
PAN-
émt mdelov K.T.A.] C
omits the rest of the quotation from this point to é£ov#evdoe (inclusive) at the end
2. emt mAetov k.t.A.| i.e. ‘wash me again and again’. The Hebrew is ‘multiply (and) wash me’.
6. omwsk.t-A.] This verse is quoted also Rom. iii. 4. The middle xpiveo- @a, ‘to have a cause adjudged, to plead, is said of one of the parties to a suit. The ‘pleading’ of God is a common image in the Old Testament; e.g. Is. 1. 18, v. 3. In this passage however the natural rendering of the Hebrew would be xpivew, not kpiveo- 6a.
7. vuenons| Thefuturevcjoers isim- probable (see Winer § xli. p. 304), especially with a preceding SixcarwOijs ; and the Ms A is of no authority where it is a question between and el. The LXx text (SB) has wxnons.
8. exiconoer] ‘conceived’, not found elsewhere in the Lxx. The sense and construction which the word has here seem to be unique. Elsewhere it denotes the fastidious appetite of women at such a time and takes a genitive of the object desired; comp. Arist. Pax 497.
9. ta adnda k.7.d.] The LXX trans- lators have missed the sense of the original here.
11. toodn@| As one defiled by le-
prosy or some other taint was purged according to the law; see Lev. xiv. 4 sq, Num. xix. 6, 18, and Perowne On the Psalms, ad loc.
12. dkoutveis| For the word akourti- ¢ew see Sturz de Dial. Mac. p. 144. It was perhaps invented to translate the Hiphil of Yu.
16. ed6és] A common form of the neuter in the LXx, e.g. Judges xvii. 6, Xxi. 25, 2 Sam. xix: 6; 16; ete, Sa masculine ev@7s also occurs, e.g. Ps. KC. 14
19. tyenovuro] The word occurs frequently in the Greek philosophers. The Stoics more especially affected the term, To nyepovixov, OF ye“oviKoV without the article, using it to signify the principle of life, the centre of being, the seat of the personality, the element which determines the character, etc. (see Menage on Diog. Laert. vii. 86 § 159; Schweighauser on Epictet. Dzss. i. 20. 11 with the index; Mayor on Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 11 § 29). Considering the world to be an animated being, they dis- cussed what and where was nycpouixov. The Stoic definition of nyepovixoy in the human being, as given by Chrysippus, appears in
Io
its."
r5
XVIIT | TO THE CORINTHIANS.
67
TIEIC ME YCCHMW, KA) KADAPICOHCOMAI® TIAYNEIC ME, Kal Ymep YIONA AEYKANOFCOMAI* AKOYTIEIC ME APAAAIACIN KAI ey bpocy-
NHN° APdAAIACONTAL OCTA TETATIEINDMENA.
ATTOCTPEYON TO TPOCWTON COY ATO T@N AMAPTIM@N MOY, KAl TACAC TAC &NO- EZAAEIWON.
MIAC MOY KAPAIAN KA@APAN KTICON €N €MOI, 6
Oedc, Kal TNEYMA EYOEC EfKAINICON EN TOIC EfKATOIC MOY. MH ATTOPIYHC Me ATTO TOY TPOCwITOY COY, Kal TO TINEYMA TO ATION COY MH ANTANEAHC at? émof. ATOAOC MO! THN AfaAd-
AIACIN TOY C@THPIOY coy, Kal TNEYMaTI HTEMONIK@ CTH-
of the chapter; see I. p. 128.
mAuvueis A.
Diog. Laert. l.c. rd kupidraroy ris Wuxis €v @ ai davracia kai ai dppat ylvovrat kal dev 6 Aoyos dvaméurerat. M. Antoninus divides the human being (ii. 2) into three parts, capkia, TVEvpaTLoY, nyepovixov, Which corre- sponds to his triple division else- where (iil. 16) capa, Wuyx7, vods ; Comp. tb, v. 11. In Epictetus the use of the word is very frequent. A full defini- tion of it is given in Sext. Empir. ix. § 102 (p. 414 Bekker) raca: ai éni ra Bépy TOU Odov e€arrogTeAAOpevar Svuvd- PELs WS amd TLVOS THYNS TOD TyEep“or- Kov e£amootéAXovTra, with the context. It is identified by various writers with the Aoyos or with the vovs or with the mvedya or with the Wuy7, according to their various philoso- phical systems. In Latin it becomes principatus in Cicero (de Nat. Deor. Lc. ‘principatum id dico quod Graeci nyewovxov vocant’) and principale in Seneca (Z/. 92 § 1, 113 § 23, and elsewhere). So Tertullian de Resurr. Carn. 15 ‘principalitas sensuum quod Hyepouxov appellatur,’ de Anim. 15 ‘summus in anima gradus vitalis quod nyepouxov appellant, id est principale.’
The Hebrew word 27), here trans- lated nyepouxdy, signifies ‘prompt’,
metov] mAcov A. Ms 10 gov] A (with Lxx); om. S (with Hebr.).
7 viKnons)| wuKnoew II wdvvets]
16 éyxdro.s] evkatou A,
‘spontaneous’, and so ‘liberal in giving’. Hence it gets a secondary meaning ‘a prince’ or ‘a noble’, ‘generosity’ or ‘liberality’ being con- nected with persons of this high rank. In this meaning, which is extremely common, the LXxX translators seem to have taken it here; and the ideas which heathen philosophy associated with the word nyeporkos suggested it as an equivalent. Thus rveipa nye- povxoy would mean ‘a spirit which is a principle or source of life.’ The Hebrew phrase itself however seems to signify nothing more than ‘an open, hearty, free spirit.’
But, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is the fountain-head of all spiritual life, the expressions mvedpua yepovikor, ‘spiritus principalis’, came soon to be used by Christian writers of the Holy Spirit ; and the passage in the Psalms was so explained, as e.g. by Origen Comm. ad Rom. |. vii. § 1 (Op. IV. p. 593 De la Rue) ‘principalem spiritum propterea arbitror nomi- natum, ut ostenderetur esse quidem multos spiritus, sedinhis principatum et dominationem hunc Spiritum sanc- tum, qui et principalis appellatur, tenere’. This connexion indeed might appear to them to be suggested
§ 5
68
PICON ME. ETTICTPEWOYCIN ETT! CE. TAC CWTHPIAC MOY.
CYNHN COY.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
AIAAZ@ ANOMOYC TAC OAOYC Coy,
[ XvIII
\ an KAI aceBelc
PY¥cal me €Z aimaTw@n, 6 Oedc, 6 Dede APAAAIACETAL H FA@CCA MOY THN AIKAI0-
Kypie, TO cTdMA Moy ANOIzZeICc, Kal TA YelAH
Moy ANarreAel THN AINECIN COY’ OTI ei HOEAHCAC OBYCIAN,
EAWKA AN’ OAOKAYTM@MATA OYK EYAOKHCEIC.
Bbycia TO Oew
an f ' , \ TINEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON® KAPAIAN CYNTETPIMMENHN KAl, Tes
TATIEINDMENHN 6 QOcedc OYK €Z0YNENDCEL.
> > e/ XIX. Tov toco’twy ovv Kal TOLOUTwWY OUTWS [E-
~ \ Ki papTupnMevwy TO TamTEWoppovovy Kai TO UrocEES ola
> e - > / 9 la > \ \ \ \ € lan THS UTakons OU Movoy nuas aAAa@ Kal Tas TPO NMwY
48q TO ordua...7& xei\n] A; the words are transposed in S with the Lxx and
Hebrew.
om. C; kal otirws S. 11 d\Aa] CS; addao A. yeveds) C.
by the words of the Psalm itself, since TO mvevpa TO ayloy cov Occurs in the preceding verse. So in the Fragm. Murator. p. 18 (Tregelles), where speaking of the four Gospels this very early writer says that they are in perfect accord with one another ‘cum uno ac principali Spiritu de- clarata sint in omnibus omnia’; on which passage see Hesse Das Mura- torische Fragment p. 109 sq. Thus mvevpa rnyepovrxov furnishes an ad- ditional instance of the alliance of the phraseology of Greek philosophy with scriptural ideas, which is a common phenomenon in early Chris- tian literature.
amnpicov| So SB read in the Lxx, but A and others ornpifov. On these double forms see Buttmann Ausf. Gr. Spr. § 92 (1. p. 372); and on the use of ornpicor, etc., in the New Testament, Winer § xv. p. IOI. The scribe of A in Clement is in- consistent; for he has éornpiéev § 8,
otnpiéwper § 13, but éornjpucer § 33,
9 Tocol’Twr, Too’Twv] A; transposed in CS. Io Tamewogppovody] tamewoppovoy A; Tamewdppov C.
ottws] A;
Tas mpd uav yeveds] AS; rods mpd hus (omitting 12, 7e| AC; om. S.
13 av’rod] AC; Tod Oeod S.
and ornpicov here.
2. aiuarwv] The plural denotes es- pecially ‘dloodshed’, as in Plat. Legg. ix. p. 872 E, and the instances col- lected in Blomfield’s Gloss. to A‘sch. Choeph. 60: see also Test. xzz Patr. Sym. 4 eis aiwata mapoévver, Anon. in Hippol. Haer. v. 16 aipaot xaiper 6 Toude Tov Koopouv Seororns, Tatian. ad Graec. 8, The same is the force also of the Hebrew plural 0%", of which aiuata here and elsewhere is a ren- dering: comp. Exod: xxii. I, where, as here, ‘bloodshed’ is equivalent to “blood-guiltiness’.
XIX. ‘These bright examples of humility we have before our eyes. But let us look to the fountain-head of all truth; let us contemplate the mind of the universal Father and Creator, as manifested in His works, and see how patience and order and beneficence prevail throughout crea- tion’.
9. Tov tocovrev «.r.A.| An imita- tion of Heb, xii. 1,
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 69
XIX]
yeveas BeXTious Erroincev, ToUs TE KaTadeEapmevous TA Aoyia avTou év PoBw Kai ddryOeia. Tlod\Nwy ovv Kal peyadwy Kat évdoEwv weTerypores Tpacewy, émavadpa- 15 wey ert Tov EE apxns Tapadedomevoy Hutv Tijs Eipnyns OKOTOV, Kal ATEVITWMEYV Els TOV TATEPA Kal KTLETHY TOU CUMTAYTOS KOTMOV, Kal Tats MEYANOTPETETL Kal UTTEp- Barrovaas avTou Owpeais THS Elonvns EvEepyeriais TE Ko\AnOwpuev’ idwuev avTov KaTa diavoray Kal éuBréVw- 20 MEV TOIS OupacW THS WuyNs Eis TO paxpoOupov avtou
/ ~ >/ e / \ a BovAnpa? vonowpmev Tes aOPYNTOS UTaDYEL TPOS Tacay
\ / > ~ THY KTLIOLY AUTOU.
14 mpdfewy] C; mpagacwv A; add. rovtwr, ddeXgol dyaryroi S. AC; hujus mundi S; see above, § 5, and below, ii. § 1g.
17 Koopou] IQ KoNAn-
dawev] AC; consideremus (vontwpev) et adhaereamus S, but this is probably one of the periphrases which abound in S (see I. p. 136).
10. tamewodppovovr| See the note on ramewodppover above, § 17; and comp. § 38 below.
TO umodees| ‘submisstveness’, ‘sub- ordination’. This seems to be the meaning of the word, which is very rare in the positive, though common in the comparative vmodeéorepos ; see Epiphan. aer. lxxvil. 14 70 vrodeés kal nAaTT@pevoy, a passage pointed out to me by Bensly. Accordingly in the Syriac it is rendered adiminutio et demissto. Laurent says ‘Colo- mesius male substantivo szdjectio vertit; collaudatur enim h. 1. volun- taria sanctorum hominum egestas’, comparing Luke x. 4, and Harnack accepts this rendering ‘egestas’. But this sense is not well suited to the context, besides being unsupported ; nor indeed is it easy to see how vrodens could have this meaning, which belongs rather to éevdens. It might possibly mean ‘fearfulness’, a sense assigned to it by Photius, Suidas, and Hesychius, who explain it vmopoBos. But usage suggests its
connexion with d¢ona zudigeo, like amrodens, evdens, katadens, rather than with d¢os ézmor, like ddens, repiSens.
12. karadeEapevovs |] Davies proposes karadefonevovs. The emendation would have been more probable if the pre- position had been different, d:adeEo- févous and not katadeEouévovs.
14. perevdnpores| ‘participated in’, i.e. profited by as examples. The achievements of the saints of old are the heritage of the later Church.
15. elpnyns cxoroy| ‘the mark, the goal, of peace’. God Himself is the great exemplar of peaceful working, and so the final goal of all imitation.
21. dopyntos| ‘calm’; Ign. Philad. I, Polyc. PAzd. 12 (note). Aristotle attaches a bad sense to the word, as implying a want of sensibility, 7. Vic. ii. 7. Others however distin- guished dopynoia from dvacbnota (see Aul. Gell. i. 27); and with the Stoics it was naturally a favourite word, e.g. Epict. Dzss. iil. 20. 9 TO dvekrikdy, TO dopyntor, Td mpdor, iii. 18. 6 evorabas, aldnpoves, dopyntws, M. Anton. 1. 1
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ xx
7O
ca / lo y XX. Oi ovpavol TH Stounoe av’ToU cadevopmevoL ? > / ¢ / 5) om e / \ \ \ év elonyn VToTaTTOVTaL avTM" NMEpa TE Kal VUE TOV / Paks 5) ~ / / ~~ 5) / TeTaypevov Um avTou Spomov SLavvovawy, undev &ANAOLS > / vA / \ / 2 / \ €umooiCovTa. HALOS TE Kal GDEANYN aoTEPwWY TE KXOpOL \ \ \ a > ¢ / / if KaTa TyHvy dlaTayny avToU év oOpmovoia oixa mans 5
/ > / \ > / ’ ~ mapekBacews €€eALTGOVGLY TOUS ETLTETAYMEVOUS aUTOLS
/ Opto pious.
1 diorxnoe| AC; dixauwoe S apparently. aoTépwv re xopoi] AC; but S translates as if dorepés re kal xOpo.. In S it is rendered 27 omni egressu cursus
Bdoews] .apexBacewo A; mapaBdoews C.
TO KadonOes kal dopyntov. The word does not occur in the Lxx or New Testament.
XX. ‘All creation moves on in peace and harmony. Night and day succeed each other. The heavenly bodies roll in their proper orbits. The earth brings forth in due sea- son. The ocean keeps within its appointed bounds. The seasons, the winds, the fountains, accomplish their work peacefully and minister to our wants. Even the dumb animals ob- serve the same law. Thus God has by this universal reign of order mani- fested His beneficence to all, but especially to us who have sought His mercy through Christ Jesus’.
I. gadevopevor] If the reading be correct, this word must refer to the motion of the heavenly bodies, ap- parently uneven but yet recurrent and orderly; and this reference seems to be justified by eeAiacovow below. SareverGa is indeed frequently used in the Old Testament to express terror and confusion, in speaking of the earth, the hills, etc.; but never of the heavens. So too in the Sibylline Oracles, iii. 675, 714, 751. On the other hand Young would read py caevouwevor; and Davies, improving upon this correction, suggests ov caAdevopevot, repeating the last letters
a ~ \ \ y 5) ~ ~ yn KvopopovTa Kata TO OeAnpa avTov Tots
4 Te kai] AS; kal (om. te) C. 6 mapek-
of avrov. But such passages in the New Testament as Matt. xxiv. 29, Heb. xil. 26, 27, are not sufficient to justify the alteration ; for some ex- pression of motzon is wanted. Not ‘fixity, rest,’ but ‘regulated change’ is the idea of this and the following sentences. For this reason I have retained gaXevopevor. In the passage of Chrysostom quoted by Young in defence of his reading, zz Psalm. cxlviii. § 2 (V. p. 491) ovdév cuvexvOn Toy ovT@v’ ov Oadatra THY yy éméKdv- wev, ovx NALtos TOE TO Opepevoy KaTe- Kavoev, oUK ovpavos TrapecadevOn K.T.A., this father would seem purposely to have chosen the compound zapagca- Never Oa to denote dsorderly motion. The same idea as here is expressed in Theoph. ad Autol. i. 6 dorpev xopeiav ywomerny ev TH KUKA@ TOV ovpavod ois 7 moAvroikiros copia Tov Geod macw idva ovowata KéxAnkev, Comp. 20. il. 15.
5. év opovoia] Naturally a frequent phrase in Clement; §§ 9, 11, 34, 49, 50, comp. §§ 21, 30, 60, 61, 63, where likewise the word opovora occurs.
6. mapexBaoews| The other reading mapaBdoews destroys the sense. For the whole passage comp. AZoszt. Const. vii. 34 poornpes...amapaBaroy odtovtes tov Sodtyov kal Kar ovdev mapadAaooortes THS Ons TMpooTayns. In the immediate neighbourhood is the
Xx | TO THE CORINTHIANS.
71
2V/ ~ \ / > / \ \ \
tdlows Kaipots THY TravTANOn avOpwros TE Kat Enpawy Kat
-~ = = ? 5) > \ f > / y \
TaoW TOS OVW ET avTHY Cwois avaTehrEL TOOGHY, EN
a \ ’ ~ / lm /
dwyorTaTovca unde addrolwovTAa TL TwV SEdoymaTLCUE-
e ~ > > / \ f
vwv Um avToU. aBicowy TE aveetxviaoTa Kal VvEpTE- / ~ 9 pe ,
pwy aveKoinynTa KpiuaTa ToIs avTOls DUVEXETAaL TPOG-
/ \ / land / , \ \ TAYMATLW. TO KUTOS THS aTrELOOU Gartacons KaTa THY
tpsorum, which probably represents tapexBdcews, and where probably the reading
was 6id for dixa. 8 mavrd\nbyn] A; traumrd7On C. g én’ avrny]
A; én’ airis C; 2 zlla S.
same quotation from Job xxxviii. II as here in Clement.
e€ehiccovow] Comp. Plut. Mor. p- 308 A rocavtras nuepars Tov avTns KUkAov e€eAiooes (Of the moon), Heliod. LE th. Vv. 14.01 8é wept Tov vopéa KiKXovus dyepdxous é&eXittovres (both passages given in Hase and Dindorf’s S7eph. Thes.). Thus the word continues the metaphor of yopoi, describing the tangled mazes of the dance, as e.g. Eur. Zvoad. 3. The opicpot therefore are their defined orbits.
g: é€@ avtnv| For the accusative so used see Winer § xlix. p. 426.
dvare\iet| Here transitive, as e.g. Gen. 1i./18, Is. xlv. 8, Matt. v. 45); comp. Epiphanes in Clem. Alex. Strom. ili. 2, p. 512, Atos Kowvas tpopas (wos amacw avaréAder (MSS avaté\Aew), which closely resembles our Clement’s language here.
10. trav. dedoypaticpévov k.T.A.] Comp. § 27 ovdev pn mapedAOn Tadv Se- Soypariopevev Um’ avTov.
12. xpipara| ‘statutes, ordinances, i.e. the laws by which they are governed, as e.g. 2 Chron. xxx. 16 é€oTnoayv em Tv oTdoW avTdey KaTa TO Kpiwa avtoy (‘as they were ap- pointed’), 2 Chron. iv. 7 tas Avyvias kara TO Kpiva avToy (Comp. ver. 20). But kpivata is very awkward, and several emendations have been sug- gested, of which kAiwara is the best.
We may either adopt this, or (as I would suggest in preference) strike out the word altogether. In either case we may fall back upon the con- jecture of Lipsius (p. 155, note) that Kpiwara was written down by some thoughtless scribe from Rom. xi. 33 ave€epevynta Ta Kpiyata avTov Kal ap- e€tyviacrot ai oOol avtov (he gives the reference ix. 33, which is repeated by Jacobson, and still further corrupt- ed ix. 23 by Hilgenfeld). Indeed the same word seems still to be running in the head of the scribe of A when be- low he writes kpuyara for kuzara. The véprepa are the ‘subterranean regions’ regarded physically. Yet xpivara is the reading of all our authorities. It must have been read moreover by the writer of the later books of the Apostolic Constitutions, vil. 35 ave&- txviacros kpivaow. My attention has been called also to the connexion of words in Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 5 Ta kpiata cov [@oei] G8vccos ToAX7.
13. 70 KUtos| ‘the hollow, the basin,’ as Ps. lxiv. 7 0 cuvtapaooe@y TO KUTOS ths Oakaoons. In Dan. iv. 8 ro kvros is opposed to 7d vos. Comp. also Theoph. ad Autol. 1. 7 6 ovytapacowy TO KUTos THs Oaracons, and AZost. Const. viii. 12 6 cuotTnodpevos a- Buvooov kai péya kvUTos avTH Te- piGeis...mnyats devao.s peOvaas... éviavTav KUKAOLS...vepav ouSpoToKer
72 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT
[xx
bY la \ > \ \ Onpuoupyiav av’tov avaTadey cic tac cyNarwmrdc OU Tap-
/ 98 FS a \ exBaiver Ta tepiteOepeva avtTn KAEOpa, ada Kalws
/ la e/ ~ dueTagev avtTy, ovTws TroLet.
1 Onptovpylav] Snucovpyecav A. Kpuwata A.
Siadpopais eis xapmov yovas kat (d@v avotacw, ordbpov avépov duamveovrwy x.t.A., in which passage the resemblances cannot be acci- dental.
I. eis tas ouvaywyas| From LXX Gen. i. 9 kai cuvnxOn TO Vdwp TO vro- KdT® TOU ovpavod eis Tas TUVaywyas avTov, wanting in the Hebrew. It refers to the great bodies of water, the Mediterranean, the Caspian, the Red Sea, etc:
mapekBaiver x«.t.A.] From Job XXXVili. 10, I1 eOéuny Sé avrn dpa mepubeis KAetOpa Kat mvAas, cima Oe avTA Meéype tovrou ehevon kal ovx vrepBnon, ad\N é€v ceavtn cuvtTpiBnoerai cou Ta xvpata: comp. also Ps. civ. 9, Jer. v. 22.
4. @keavos x.t.A.] This passage is directly quoted by Clem. Alex. Stvom. V.1i2 (p..603), by Origen de Prec: WO; (1. 1p. 02,83), Select. ta Leech. will, 3 (111. p, 422), by Jerome ad Pephes. iW. 2 (Vik, ps. 571)... | Tt must also have suggested the words of Irenzeus Yaer. 11. 28. 2 ‘Quid autem possumus exponere de oceani accessu et recessu, quum constet esse certam causam? quidve de his quae ultra eum sunt enuntiare, qualia sint?’? On the other hand the expression 6 zroAvs kal amépavtos avOperois okeavos used by Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. #H. £. vii. 21 may be derived indirectly through Clement or Origen. On Photius see below, p. 86.
5. améparos| ‘zmpassable, as the context shows, and as it is rendered in the translation of Origen de Princ. li. 3 (‘intransmeabilis’), The com- mon form in this sense is améparos ;
owrpiBjcera] A; cuvtpiBjcovra C.
a / a a elev yao’ “Ewc wae 3 otrws] A; ovTw C. 4 Kvpara] 5 avOp. aép.| A; dmép.
though arépavros is read here not only in our MSS, but by Clem. Alex. p. 693 and Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. H. £. vii. 21, or their transcribers, and may possibly be correct. Yet as I could not find any better instances of this use than Eur. Med. 212, Atsch. Prom. 159 (where Blomf. suggests dzéparos), and in both passages the meaning may be questioned, I have preferred reading améparos as quoted by Origen Select. in Ezech., viii. 3.
The proper meaning of dzrépartos, ‘boundless,’ appears from Clem. Hom. XV1. 17, XVli. 9, 10, where it is found in close alliance with azretpos. See also Clem. Alex. Fragm. p. 1020. On the other hand for dméparos comp. e.g. Macar. Magn. A foer. iv. 13 (p. 179) pet TO Ocper kal T@ Yeysaue TOAVS kal amrépa- tos. The lines in A here are divided aTTepan|toc ; and this division would assist the insertion of the n. An earlier scribe would write atrepdtoc for attrepaltoc. See Didymus Zs. Psal. 138 (p. 1596 ed. Migne) «i yap kal @keavos amépavtos, GAN ovy Kat of per avTov Koopot Tais Tov Seamdrou Siarayais Svidvvovrar’ mavta yap Ta Tpos avrov yeyernpéva Orro.[ Grota? | ror €or Tayais THs éavTov mpovoias Siovkovpeva idvvera. This language may possibly have been derived from Origen, and not directly from Clement. Anyhow the recognition of both the various readings, rayais, Siarayais, is worthy of notice.
of per avrov koopot k.T.A.| Clement may possibly be referring to some known but hardly accessible land, lying without the pillars of Hercules
xx]
HZeIc, KAl TA KYMATA COY EN COl CYNTPIBHCETAI.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 73
\ WKEAVOS
/ / \ e / ~ a avOpwros admepaTos Kal Ol MET AVTOV KOTMOL Tals avTats
a “ 3 / / Tayats Tov decmoTou dLevOuvoyTat.
avOp. C. Didym. See the lower note.
and in foreign seas: as Ceylon (Plin. NV. fH. vi. 22 ‘Taprobanen alterum orbem terrarum esse diu existima- tum est, Antichthonumappellatione’), or Britain (Joseph. &. F. ii. 16. 4 vrép w@keavov érépav e(ntnaay oikoupévny Kal BEXPL TOV ayaTOpHT@Yy mpoTepoy Bper- tavey Ounveykay ta omAa). But more probably he contemplated some un- known land in the far west beyond the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of Plato or the real America of modern discovery. From Aristotle onwards (de Caelo ii. 14, p. 298, Meteor. ii. 5, p. 362), and even earlier, theories had from time to time been broached, which contemplated the possibility of reaching the Indies by crossing the western ocean, or maintained the existence of islands or continents towards the setting sun. The Cartha- ginians had even brought back a report of such a desert island in the Atlantic, which they had visited, [Aristot.] Wzrab. Ausc. § 84 p. 836, § 136 p. 844, Diod. v. 19, 20; see Humboldt Exam. Crit. I. p. 130. In the generations before and after the time of Clement such specula- tions were not uncommon. Of these the prophecy in Seneca’s Medea li. 375 ‘ Venient annis saecula seris Quibus oceanus vincula rerum Laxet et ingens pateat tellus etc.,’ is the most famous, because so much stress was laid on it by Columbus and his fellow discoverers: but the state- ments in Strabo i. 4 (p. 65), Plut. Mor. p. 941, are much more remark- able. The opinions of ancient writers on this subject are collected and ex-
\ \ \ Kalpol Eaplvol Kal
dméparos] Orig; zztransmeabilis S; awépaytos AC Clem, Dionys, 6 tayats] AC; dtarayats Origen.
See below.
amined in the Ist volume of A. von Humboldt’s Exam. Crit. dela Géogr. du Nouveau Continent : see also other works mentioned in Prescott’s Feraz- mand and Isabella Il. p. 102. This interpretation is quite consistent with the fact that Clement below (§ 33) speaks of the ocean as ro mepiéxov THY ynv Voap.
At all events this passage was seemingly so taken by Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria, and it is dis- tinctly explained thus by Origen (Sed. in Ezech. viii. 3 sq, de Princ. il. 6) who discusses it at great length. All these fathers acquiesce in the exist- ence of these ‘other worlds.’ Ata later date however this opinion came to be regarded with suspicion by Christian theologians. Tertullian, de Pall. 2, Hermog. 25, was the first to condemn it. The idea of the Antipodes is scouted by Lactantius Div. Inst. iii. 24, with other fathers of the fourth century and later (comp. August. de Czv. Dez xvi. 9); and in the reign of Justinian (¢.A.D. 535) the spe- culations of Cosmas Indicopleustes (Montfaucon Coll. Nov. Patr. i. p. 113 sq), who describes the earth as a plain surface and a parallelogram in form (see Humboldt le. I. p. 41 sq), stereotyped for many centuries the belief of Christian writers on this subject. It was made a special charge against Virgilius, the Irish geome- trician, bishop of Salzburg (+ A.D. 784); see Stokes J/reland and the Celtic Church p. 224 sq.
6. tayais] ‘directions, as Hermes in Stob. Ecl. 1. 52. 40 émomrnp toivuy
THE EPISTLE OF S$. CLEMENT [xe
74
\ \ \ \ ea 5) / Oepivol Kat peToTwpLVOL Kal Keep wen év elonvn MeTa- / 5) / > \ \ \ Tapadiwoacw aAndos. avEenwy oTraQuot KaTa Tov sf \ \ / q 4 OLov KaLpoV THY AELTOUPYLaY aVTwV aTpOTKOTWS ETLTE- > / / \ \ / \ / Novaw" déevaol TE TWHYal TOs aTONavoOW Kal vYyElav an , > / / \ \ Onpuovpynbeioa diva éAAElWEws TapeyovTaL TOUS TOS 5 lo > / / / 5) / land / \ Cons avOpwrois waCous. Ta TE EAXaYIOTA TWY CwwY Tas / a 5) € / dé ~ TUVEAEVTELS AUTWY EV OMOVOIa Kai ElonYN ToOLOVYTAL. a / € / \ \ , ~~ Tatra mavta 6 peyas Snmuoupyos Kal deomoTns Tw € / ) SIPS WG / / =: p) dTavTwy év Elpyvy Kal OMOVOLa TPOTETAEEY Elval, EVEDYE-
I perotwpwol| weGorwpivo A. peTatrapad.doacw] A, and so app. S; mera-
diddacu C. it had read dveuol re crabuwr. ANecroupyerav A. Se byelav] A; dvylevay C.
Tayns ota Tov Oday o€vdepKys eds ’Adpaoreca, with other passages quoted by Hase in Steph. Thes. s.v. Origen Sel. in Ezech. \.c., and apparently also de Princ. |.c. (for the Latin is as- posttionibus), has dvatayais, which some editors adopt ; but he would naturally substitute a common for an unusual word, and his quotation throughout is somewhat loose.
I. peramapadiddacw | ‘ give way in succession’; again a rare word, of which a few instances are collected in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes.
2. avépov orabuoi] From Job XXVili. 25 émoinoey b€ dvépav crabpov kal vdodtev peétrpa, where it means ‘weight, as the original shows. Clement however may have mis- understood the meaning; for he seems to use the word in a different sense, ‘ the fixed order’ or ‘ the fixed stations, as the context requires. The common Greek expression in this sense is oraces, e.g. Polyb. i. 75.8 Kata Twas dvépwv ordoels, ix. 5. 23 émix@plor Tas TaY dvé“ov oTaceLs kddAd\oTa ywookovor: see Schweig- hauser on Polyb. 1. 48. 2. A good
4 advan] A; advvan C. 5 mpos fwys] A; mpos fwyv C.. S translates
2 dvéuwy] A; add. re CS. S translates ventigue locorum as if
3 THv] AS; Kat rn C. Aecroupylav] dmé\avow] AC; add. re
illustration of Clement’s meaning is the noble passage in Lucretius v. 737 Sq:
3. dmpookormas|] So again § 61 Suérrery THY vmTO Gov OEedopevny avrots nyewoviay ampookores. For the cor- responding adjective admpdcxoros, which seems to have been a spe- cially Pauline word (Acts xxiv. 16, as well as 1 Cor. x. 32, Phil, i) 10) see Philippians |.c.
4. vyeiay] A common form in late writers: see Lobeck Paral. p. 28 (with the references), Phrvyn. p. 493, Pathol. p. 234. It is so written in several inscriptions, and so scanned in Orph. Hymn. lxxxiv. (8 (pr 350; Herm.) ¢cABov emumveiovoa Kat nrt0- xetpov vyeiavy (unnecessarily altered by Porson, Eur. Ovest¢. 229, into jmu- xeup vyievav), and elsewhere. Editors therefore should not have substituted vyievav. Compare rapeia § 50.
5. tovs mpos Cans watovs| The meta- phor was perhaps suggested by Jer. Xviil. I4 (LXX) py ékAeiYrouow amo méTpas pacroi, which however departs from the existing reading of the He- brew. For mpos (ans, ‘on the side of
xxI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
75
~ \ / > \ ¢ ~ \ 10 TWY Ta TAaVTA, UTEpEKTEpLTTWS OE NUaS TOUS TOT TE-
15
Aa ~ a \ ~ / e - pevyoras TOls OLKTIDMOIs avTOU 61a TOU Kupiou NUwY
‘Incov Xpicrov, w
é
> ~~ a a 7 ALWYAS TWY ALWYWY. apn.
¢€ f 2 \ 4 So€a Kat 4 peyadwourn els Tous
> > ? / o XXI. ‘Opate, ayamrnrol, pn at evepyeriae avTou
Ig > / ~ ( C P| \ > / al joAAat YEVWOVTAL ELS KOLUA TAL HULVY, EaVY LH aELWS
qn \ \ \ >» / > / ? avUTOU TONITEVOMEVOL Ta KaNa Kal EvapETTa EvwTLOV av-
~ ~ > c E Tov Tolwmev pe? opmovotas.
ea quae ad vitam, omitting wagovs altogether. 10 mpoomepevyétas] AS; mpoogpevyortas C. 12 kal 7 weyadwovvn|] AC; om. S.
if cukAjWes) S. forts] ouxTecpuou A.
Ever yap jou: TIneyma
7 ouveNedoers] AC; auxilia (as II otKTup- 15 els Kpiua
macw juiv] A; es xpluara obv juiy C (EICKPIMATACYN for EICKPIMATTACIN) ;
in gudicium nobis S; see l. p. 143-
life, ‘conducive to life, comp. Acts XXV1l. 34 mpos THs UueTepas TaTnplas, Clem. Hom. vill. 14 mpos Koopov kat rep Weas, and see Winer § xlvii. p. 391. This sense of mpos is more common in classical Greek.
7. ovvedevoers] Comp. Jer. viii. 7 ‘The stork in the heaven knoweth his appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow ob- serve the time of their coming’, etc. Or it may refer to their pairing at the proper season of the year. Comp. Ptolem. Geogr. 1. 9 (quoted in Szeph. Thes.).
8. Sdnusovpyos| Only once in the New Testament, Heb. xi. 10: in the LXX again only in 2 Macc. iv. 1 (and there not of the Creator). On the Christian use of this Platonic phrase see Jahn’s Methodius 1. pp. 11, 39, 9I.
10. mpoodevyer| Altogether a late and somewhat rare word: see I Sam. xxix. 3 (Sym.). It does not occur in the Lxx or New Testament.
12. d0€a kai 7 pey.| So again § 64. In the doxology Jude 25 also the two words occur together; comp. Ecclus. xliv. 2.
XXI. ‘His blessings will turn to
16 avrod pri.] AC; om. S.
our curse unless we seek peace and strive to please Him. He sees all our most secret thoughts. Let us therefore offend foolish and arrogant men rather than God. Let us honour Christ ; let us respect our rulers, and revere old age; let us instruct our Wives in purity and gentleness, and our children in humility and the fear of God. His breath is in us, and His pleasure can withdraw it in a mo- ment’.
15. a&iws moditevopevot] The ex- pression occurs in Phil. i. 27. Cle- ment’s language here is echoed by Polycarp Phd. 5.
16. evapeota evomiov| Heb. xiii. 21; comp. Ps. cxiv. 9.
17. éyes yap x«.t.A.] Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 611 sq) cites the re- mainder of this section and the whole of the next, continuously after §§ 17, 18 (seethenote § 17). For the most part he quotes in the same loose way, abridg- ing and interpolating as before; but here and there, as in the long passage Tas yuvaikas nuov...dvehet avtyv, he keeps fairly close to the words of his original and may be used as an au- thority for the readings.
76 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xx1
} t > n \ a a ’ / Kypioy AYYNOc €peYN@N TA TAMIEIA TAC FAcTPpOc. lSwpev Co > 7 ) \ / 2V\ / > \ a Tws éyyus é€oTw, Kal Ott ovdev NEANOEY avTOY TwY A Ol-
oy p) A ~ e on ’ A lan / Ka.lov ouv éoTw py ALTOTAKTElY Huas amo TOU OeXr-
5) ~ c ca 2O\ > > . / EVVOLWY HUwY OVdE TwWY SLaNOYLoMwY wy ToLoUMEDa.
5 ~ ~ I if a \ ? / patos avTov: pardAov avOpwros adpoot Kat avoynTois 5 \ / 5 / C kal émaipopeévors Kal éyKavxywpevors ev a&aCoveta ToU / > la / \ -~ a \ / Aoyou av’twv TpocKkoWwuev 7 TH Oew. Tov Kupiov
‘Incovv [Xpirrov], ov TO aia vrep jpav 600, évTpa-
I A’xvos] C Clem 611; Avxvov A. AC; add. zodzs S.
Trew C. 5 paddov] AC; add. oe S. pevor A. adafoveia] adagovia A. A; om. CS. véous] vaouo A.
Ilveta Kupiov «.t.r.| From Prov. xx. 27, which runs in the LXX das Kuplov mvon avOparrer os épevva (épavra) Tapeia (rapweia) KowWlas. A adds 7 hvxvos after advOperay, but this must originally have been a gloss suggest- ing an alternative reading for dds, as Avxvos 1s actually read by Aq. Sym. Theod. ; seea similar instance of cor- rection in this MS noted above on § 17. Comp. also Prov. vi. 23 Avyvos evToAy vopov kai dos, from which passage perhaps Avyvos came to be interpo- lated here. Hilgenfeld prints Aéyeu yap mov mvevpa Kupiov Avyvos epevvar K.T.A. and finds fault with Clem. Alex. for making the words mvevya Kupiou part of the quotation (Aéyex yap ov 7 ypapn IIvevpa Kupiov k.t.A.); but they seem to be wanted to complete the sentence. Our Clement in fact quotes loosely, transposing words so as to give a somewhat different sense. See below, Is. lx. 17 quoted in § 42. For the exact words héyer yap mov see S§ 15, 26, and for other instances of Aéyex (or dyoi) with no nominative expressed, §§ 8, To, 16, 29, 30, 46. On the spelling of Tap.eia (rapeta) Clement (or his tran- scriber) is capricious: see § 50 (note).
Tameta] AC; taueta Clem. &rt] AC; om. (?)S.
2 éoTw | 4 Nuroraxtety| A; Neurotak- 6 éyKavxwuévos] eyKavxw- 8 Xpicrév] A; om. CS. 10 7uwv] II wadelav| madcay A. Tov poBou]
2. éyy’s éorw] As below § 27; comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, (Cxix,, 151;7eame 18, Ign. Ephes. 15 ra kputra nuar ey- yvs até eorw (with the note), Herm. Vzs. ii. 3. There is no allusion here to the nearness of the advent, as in Phil. iv. 5 (see the note there).
ovdev éAnOev x.7.A.] This passage is copied by Polycarp P&zl. 4 «ai heAnOev avTov ovdev ovTe oyiopov oute evvotay. On diadroyopol, ‘z2zward guestionings, see the note on Phil. jis AL
4. uroraxtety| So avroponeiv be- low, § 28. Ignatius has the same metaphor but uses the Latin word, Polyc. 6 pynris tpav decéptwp evpeb7: see the note there.
On the authority of our older Ms I have preferred the form Aurorakreiv. There is poetical authority for the simple vowel in DArrora€wv; see Meineke Fragm. Com, Il. p. 1214, Ill. p. 71, with the notes. So too in analogous words, wherever they occur in verse, the form in z is found: e.g. Auravyns, Aurovadtns, u- momvoos, Auroaapkys, Autowvxetv. The grammarians differed on this point ; see Choeroboscus in Cramer’s A necd.
Aurovaus,
to
15
XxI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
77
la \ 7 a 5) = \ 77 @ MEV * TOUS TT POnYOUMEVOUS MOV alder Omer, TOUS
f lon 7 \ L / TpEecBUTEPOUS uwY TYLNTwWMEY, TOUS VEoUS TaWdEvTwWMEY \ E eed Zi “ — \ ~~ e a THV Talwélav TOU poBov tov Qeou, Tas yuvaikas juov
émt TO ayabov diopbwowpeba: TO ad€iayarntov THs
¢ VA Ss 3 A \ ’ / ~ oh ayveias nOos évoeEacOwoar, TO AKEPALOY TNS TOAUTNTOS
3 Ct 7 3 / \ oY \ ~ / avTwy BovAnpa adroveEaTwoar, TO €TLELKES THS yAWO-
qn \ lon qn \ Vf \ ons avTwv dla THS oLyNs pavepov ToNncTaTwoayv’ THY
5 / ? a \ \ / > \ a“ - ayaTNny avTwWV, Un KaTa TpooKALoEls, aAAa Tac TOLS
Ae om, S.
ayvelas.
Clem as évdeEdtwoav (ad loc. and comp. p. pké’). 15 ovyns] CS Clem; gwvno A.
(kal BovdrAnua) S.
13 ayvelas] ayviao A. Clem 612 has the order 700s ris evdeEdoOwoav] AC Clem. Bryennios wrongly gives the reading of A
14 BovAnua] AC; NIAY 16 mpockNXicers]
AS; mpooxd\jces C. This same itacism occurs several times in C, §§ 47, 50.
Graec. Bibl. Oxon. UU. p. 239 Aéeyer 6 *Qpos ott mavta Tapa TO delmo Sia Ts et SupOoyyou ypaderat, oiov Neuro- vews, euroragia, euroraéiov, Neutro- atparevov’ 0 O€ ‘Opryévns dia Tov t Eyer ypapecOa. There seems to be no poetical and therefore indisputable authority for the eu.
5. app. kai avont.| LXX Jer. x. 8 dua appoves kal dyonroi eior, found in some copies, but not in the principal Mss. The former word points to defective reason, the latter to defec- tive perception. Comp. § 39.
6. eykavyepévors x.t.A.] See James iv. 16 Kkavxyaocde ev rais adagoveiars ULOV.
7. Tov Kvpiov x.t.A.] Clem. Alex. (p. 611 sq), as commonly punctuated, quotes the passage tov Kvpiov Incovv héyo...00 TO aiwa vmrep judy nyidoOn evTpam@pev ovyv Tors Mponyoupévous 1- Pav, kal aidecOapev Tovs mpecBuTépovs” TILNT@pEV TOs Véous, TaLdeVT@pEY THY maieiav Tov Geov. A different punctua- tion, kai aidecOapev" Tovs mpeaButépous TLULNT@LEV" TOUS VEOUS TALOEVT@MEVK.T.A., would bring the quotation somewhat nearer to the original.
Q. Tovs mponyoupévous| i.e. the offi-
cers of the Church ; see the note on Tois nyoupévois § 1. The following Tous mpeoSurepous must therefore refer to age, not to office.
IO. tTovs véous k.t-A.| Copied by Po- lycarp Phzl. 4 ra réxva radevew rH mawWelav Tou pofov Tov Geov. Comp. Prov. xvi. 4 (xv. 33) @oBos Kupiou maioeia, and Ecclus. i. 27 where the same words are repeated.
15. ovyyjs| They must be eloquent by their silence, for yuvaéi koopov 7 ovyn pepe. This meaning is so obvi- ously required, that I had restored oltyns in my first edition on the au- thority of the Alexandrian Clement alone in place of the senseless davis of A. It is now confirmed by our two new authorities. Hilgenfeld re- fers to 1 Cor. xiv. 34 sqjga Tim. ii. £1,
Thv aydmnv x.t.A.| So too Polyc. Phil. 4 dyardoas taytas é& ioov ev maon éykpareia. The numerous close coincidences with this chapter in Polycarp show plainly that he had our epistle before him.
16. kata mpookAioes| From 1 Tim. V. 21 pndev mowwv Kata mpooKAow. The word mpdckdso1s occurs again
SS 47, 50.
78 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XxI
/ A A (ey ¢ / , \ poBoupevais tov Oedv doiws ionv mapexéeTwoav' Ta 7 € - ~~ ~ if / TEkVa nuwVy THs Ev XpioTw Tradelas UETALaUPavEeTwoay , i \ lo > , / pabetwoav, Ti Tarevoppoovwn mapa Oew ioyvel, TL > ‘a e \ \ lan lo / 4 e / ) al ayarn ayvn Tapa TW Oew dvvatat, Tws 6 PoBos avTou \ \ / \ MA \ 3 “~ / KaNos Kai meyas Kal odCwy TavTas Tous Ev AUTH OTIWS > / 5) Lo / 5) \ / > dvacTpepopevous év kabapa diavoia EpevynTns yap €or > ~ \ / e e \ lan _~ Evvoltwy Kat €vOuunoEewy? OV 4 VON aUTOU EV HUY ETTLY, Aye 7 = 9 / Kat oTav OéXAn avEeNEL AUTH. L
\ \ \ \ lam / ~ if / TIS’ Kal yap avTOS Oia TOU TVEVMATOS TOU ayloV OUTS
Tatra 6é ravta BeBaot 4 év XpicTe@ Tic-
TPOCKANELTAL nuas’ Aefte TEKNA, AKOYCATE MOY, POBON Kypioy AlAdz@ YmM&c. TIC ECTIN ANOPOTOC O BEAWN ZOHN, ATATION HMEpac iAEIN APADAC; TAYCON THN FAWCCAN COY ATTO
KAKOY, Kal yelAH TOY MH AdAACAl ADAON* EKKAINON ATTO
2 jpov] S Clem; tuav AC. peTarauBavérwoav] AC; peradaBérwoar
Clem. 3 loxver] wx A. 4 To] A; om. C Clem. avtod] ACS; Tov kuptov Clem. 5 katowgwv] AC; et liberans et salvans S; cwgwv (om. kat) Clem. dolws] AC; Geiws S. See above, §§ 2, 14. 6 dcavoia] AC;
éotw] AC; om. Clem. 7 évOuunoewy] C3 evOuunoawy 8 aveNet] A; avacpe? CS. g 6¢] AC; om. S. 10 ovTws] AC; but Bryennios reads ovrw without indicating that he is departing from his MS. 12 Tis éotw dvOpwmos] C omits from here to picerar adrov 6 Kvpwos, and begins again elra mwodXai ai wdoriyes ToD auaptwdod x.7.Xd. (1. 21).
kapdla Clem. A; évOuunudtwy Clem.
I. doiws| This word is best taken ful and God-loving, but threatening
with mapeyérwoar, for it would be an unmeaning addition to rots @oBoupé- vois Tov Geov.
6. épevyntyns x.t.d.| As Heb. iv. 12 kputikos evOupnoewv kai evvoidy Kap- dias.
7. ov...avtovu] A Hebraism, for which see Winer § xxii. p. 161.
8. dvedet] On the rare future €\é of aipéw see Winer § xv. p. 94 with his references: comp. Exod. xv. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 6.
XXII. ‘All these things are as- sured by faith in Christ. He himself speaks to us by the lips of David, promising all blessings to the peace-
utter destruction to the sinful and disobedient’.
9. Tatra dé mavra xk.t.X.]| i.e. Faith in Christ secures all these good re- sults ; for itis He Himself who thus appeals to us, not indeed in the flesh, but through the Spirit, where David says ‘Come etc.’ For avros zpocka- Netra See above, § 16 avrés dyow, with the note.
II. Aevre x.7.A.] From LXX Ps. xxxiv. Ir sq almost word for word. The differences are unimportant.
18. To pynpoovvoy| See the note on éveataveyspa above § 14.
exexpa&ev| In the existing text of
ut
&
XXIII] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
79
KAKOY KAl TTOIHCON ArAOGN: ZHTHCON EIDHNHN KAI AI@ZON AYTHN. O@OAAMO!} Kypioy é@mi Aikaioyc, KAl @Ta ayto¥F TPOC AEHCIN AYT@N* TIPUC@TION AE Kypioy émi tmolofNtac Kaka TOY €ZoAEOpEfcal EK FAC TO MNHMOCYNON AYTON. EKEKPAZEN 6 Aikaloc Kai 6 Kypioc eicHKOYCEN ayTOyY Kal éK TACAN TOAAAL Al BAIVEIC TOT EiTa’
TON BAIPEWN AYTOY EPYCATO AYTON. AIKAIOY Kal €K TAC@N HYceTal aYTON 6 Kypioc: TToAAal ai mactirec tof AmMapT@AOY, TOYc Aé EATIZONTAC etl Kypion €A€OC KYKAOCEL. > tA \ 7 ‘ a Xi. *O OLKTLOMWY KATA TaVTa Kal EVEPYETLKOS \ af / > \ \ 3 > V6 TaTHO EXEL OTAaYYVa ETL TOUS po Boupeévous QUTOV, / \ a \ 7 > lan ~ ~ NTLWS TE KAL TPOTHYWS TAS KALTAaS aUTOU QTOOLOOL TOtS / > ~ ec lo / \ \ ~ TPOTEPYoMEvos avTW aA Ciavoia. dio py diwvyo-
ev, unde ivdadrA€obw 7 \uyn juwv éml Tals UTepBad-
14 kal] A Clem (with Lxx); om. S. xeihn] A; add. cov S Clem with the
ax (y. 1.): 16 6@0aduol] A Clem (with A of Lxx and Hebr); é7e 6f0adwol S (with BS of Lxx). mpos| A; eis Clem with the Lxx. 18 éxéxpacev x.7.X.] See below. 20 OriWew] ONarwy A. avTov] om. Clem. modal ai
OriWes...6 Kvpios] S; om. A; def. C. 21 elra] C; et iterum S, frequently a translation of kat ra\uv, which possibly we should read here; but see below, § 23, MeTa TADTA. 22 at] ACS; wév yap Clem. ToD auaprwrov] AC; Trav apaprwrav Clem LXX. Tovs dé éArifovras] A Clem; rov dé édrifovra CS with the Lxx and Hebr. 23 €Neos] C Clem; edatoo A. 24 olkTipuwr] oxrepuwv A.
Clem. Alex. this is read éxéxpagev dé 6 Kupwos kai eionkovae, obviously a cor- ruption.
20. mrodAai ai Odipers k.t.A.] This is from Ps. xxxiv (xxxiii). 20, the verse but one following the preceding quo- tation. The LxXxX however has the plural réy dixai@y, adrovs, and so it is quoted in 4 Macc. xviii. 15. The Hebrew has the singular, and so the Peshito. The words have obviously been omitted in A owing to the re- currence of ToAAat ai, and should be restored accordingly.
TloAAai ai paoreyes k.t-A.] An exact quotation from Ps. xxxii. Io (LXxX), except that rots éAmifovras is sub-
stituted for rov éAmifovta.
XXIII. ‘God is merciful to all that fear Him. Let us not spurn His gracious gifts. Far be from us the threats which the Scriptures hurl against the double-minded, the im- patient, the sceptical. The Lord will certainly come, and come quickly’.
28. ivdaddr\é0ba] ‘znudulge in ca- prices and humours’. The word is generally passive, ‘to be formed as an image’, ‘to appear’, and with a dative ‘to resemble’; see Ruhnken Timaeus s.v. Here however it is a middle signifying ‘to form images, to conjure up spectres’, and so ‘to in- dulge in idle fancies’, like the later
80
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[xx11I
Noveas kal évdoEas dwpeats avTov. moppw yevérOw ad’
juov i ypapn avtn, Omov AEyer* Tadainwpoi eicin oi
Alwyyol, O| AlcTAZONTEC THN YYXHN, O1 A€rontec, Tafta Hkoy-
CAMEN KAl ETT] TON TATEPM@N HMO@N, KAI 1AOY PEFHPAKAMEN
I méppw yevécOw] AS; méppw ye yevéoOw C. See below, § 33. 3 Tiv poxqv] A; TH poxp C; dub. S.
AS; avrod C.
use of davtatecOa. The lexicons do not recognize this use, but see Dion Chrys. Orat. xii. 53 (p. 209 M) mpore- pov pev yap dre ovdev cades eiddres GAAnv aAXos averAarropev idéav, Tay To Ovnrov Kata THY é€avtov Svvayw Kal pvow ivSaddopevor kat Gvewperrortes, Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 249 eat (pavracia) maw amo vmapxovTos pév elo, ovK avto O€ Td vmapxoyv ivdad- Aovrat K.T.A., Xl. 122 0 Tov mAOUTOY peéeytotov ayabov ivdaddopevos, Clem. Alex. Protr. 10 (p. 81) xpvaov 7j Aiov 7 Sevdpov 7 mpak&iv 7 mados 7) vooov 7 poBov ivddad\rAcoOar ws Geor, Method. Symp. vill. 2 éru evdnuovoar Tols gopaow ivdaddovra Ta Geta. (The last two passages I owe to Jahn’s Method. i. p. 51; the others I had collected before I saw his note.) So woadpa most frequently suggests the idea of an unreal, spectral, appear- ance, as Wisd. xvii. 3 ivdaApaow ék- tapacoopevot, Clem. Hom. iv. 4 pavr- Tagpata te yap Kal ivOadpara ev peony tT dyopa daiverOa troy dv nuépas Tacav éxmAntres THY modu, Athenag. Suppl. 27 ai odv adoyor avra Kai iv- dadparaders THs Wuxns Kiwyces €ida- Aopavets amorixktovat pavracias, where he is speaking of false objects of wor- ship.
2. Tadaima@por x.t.A.]| The same pas- sage is quoted also in the 2nd Epistle ascribed to Clement (§ 11), being there introduced by the words Aéyer yap Kal 6 mpopntikos Adyos. Though the quo- tation there is essentially the same, yet the variations which it presents show that it cannot have been de-
2 aury]
5 ouvBéBnkev]
rived directly or solely from the First Epistle. Moreover it is there con- tinued, ovrws kal 6 Aads pov axatacTa- aias kal ONipets eoyev, emerta amoAn- Wera ta ayaa. As this passage does not occur in the Old Testament, it must have been taken from some lost apocryphal writing. Some writers indeed have supposed that Clement here, as he certainly does elsewhere (e.g. S$ 18, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 46, 50, 52, 53, and just below rayd né&er k.T.A.), iS fusing several passages of the Canonical Scriptures, such as James i. 8, 2 Pet. iii. 4, Mark iv. 26, Matt. xxiv. 32 sq (Mark xiil. 28 sq, Luke xxi. 29 sq); but the resem- blances though striking are not suffi- cient, and this explanation does not account for the facts already men- tioned. The description 6 rpodnrikos Aoyos and the form of the quotation o Aaos pov «.T.A., aS given in the 2nd Epistle, show that it must have been taken from some spurious prophetic book formed on the model of the Canonical prophecies. I would con- jecture that it was E/dad and Modad, which was certainly known in the early Roman Church; see Herm. Vs. li. 3 eyyds Kupuos rots emirtpehopevors, os yéypanta ev T@ “ENOad kal M@dad Tois mpopynrevoaow €v TH Epnu@ TO hag, a passage alleged by Hermas for the same purpose as our quota- tion, to refute one who is sceptical about the approaching afflictions of the last times. On this apocryphal book see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. V.T. I,p. 801. It may have been forged by
Xx]
Kal OYAEN HMIN TOYT@N CYNBEBHKEN.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. SI
= > ‘ ’ @ ANOHTOI, CYMBAAETE
EayToYc ZYA@* AdBETE AMTIEAON’ TIP@TON MEN YAAOPOEl,
= ' - ’ 3 4 \ eita BAacTOc FINETAI, EITA PYAAON, EITA ANOOC, KAI META
aA » \ a ~ J > TAYTA OMOAZ, elTa CTADYAH TIAPECTHKYI4. ‘Opate, OTL EV
A; cup BéBnxer C.
6 mpa&rov pev puddopoet] AS; om, C.
7 Kal wera
Tatra] translated in S as if efra, the cal being omitted.
some Christian to sustain the courage of the brethren under persecution by the promise of the Lord’s advent; and, if so, the resemblances to the New Testament writings in this quo- tation are explained. Hilgenfeld sug- gests the Assumption of Moses (see the notes § 17, 25) as the source of this quotation, but does not assign any reason for this view except his own theory that Clement was ac- quainted with that work.
of Sivvvyor x.t.A.]| Comp. James i. 8 aynp Sivvvxos akatdotatos €v mdcats tais oOois avrov. For the parallels in Hermas see the note on § 11. The conjecture in the last note is con- firmed by the fact that Hermas gives repeated warnings against duuyxia and even speaks thereupon in the context of the passage referring to ‘Eldad and Modad.’ For close re- semblances to this quotation see V’zs. iii. 4 dia rods Supvxous rovs diadoyi- Coevous év tats xapdiais avtady ei apa éorau tavta 7 ovk eotat, Mand. ix. oi yap Suotagovres eis Tov Cedy obToi eiow ot divuyxor k.7.A.
3. of Aéyovres x.7.A.] 2 Pet. iii. 4 kat Aéyovtes Ilov cori 7 emayyeXia Ths mapovoias avtov; ad’ fs yap oi marepes exouinOnoay, mavta ovraws Siapever av apxns KTicews.
4. kat emt] ‘also in the time of”. Either the speakers use the first person jxovcapey as identifying them- selves with the Israelite people of past generations, or (as seems more probable) emi rav rarépwy must mean ‘when our fathers were still alive’, i.e. ‘in our childhood and youth.’ It
CLEM.. Tt.
will be remembered that this apo- cryphal prophecy is supposed to be delivered to the Israelites in the wilderness. At all events we cannot arbitrarily change emi into amo with Young and most subsequent editors (Jacobson and Hilgenfeld are excep- tions), for emi is read in both our MSS, both here and in ii. § II.
6. AaBere apymedov «.t.A.] The words strongly resemble Mark iv. 26 sq (comp. Matt. xxiv. 32 sq, Mark xiii. 28 sq, Luke xxi. 29 sq). See also Epict. Dzss. ili. 24. 86 @s cdKoy, ws atapvan, TH TeTaypevn pa Tov Erovs, iii. 24. QI ro uAXoppoeiv kat To iaxada yivesOar avti ovxov Kal doraidas &k Ths orapvAfs xt... M. Anton. xi. 35 dpphak, ctapvdAyn, oradis, mavra pera- Bodat ovk eis TO pr) Ov GAN’ els TO viv
Ln) Ov.
gvAdopoet] For the orthography see the note on e&epifacer § 6.
8. mapeornkvia) ‘v7pe’; Exod. ix. 41 7 yap kptOn mapeotnkvia. So Theo- phrastus Caus. Plant, vi.7. 5 mapiora- pevos kal e€vatapevos, of wine ripening and going off (see Schneider’s note). Similarly mapayiveoOa is used, e.g. Herod. i. 193 mapayiverat 0 GirTos. The words dudaf, crapvdn, oradis (doradis), denote the sour, ripe, and dried grape respectively; see the passages in the previous note, and add Anthol. Il. p. 3, IV. p. 131 (ed. Jacobs).
‘Opare «.t.A.] This sentence is generally treated by the editors as part of the quotation, but I think this wrong for two reasons; (1) In the 2nd Epistle, where also the passage is cited, after crapvAn mapeotnxuia fol-
6
82 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXIII
Kapa OAlyw eis TéTELpOV KaTaYTa 6 Kap7ros TOU EvAoU. am’ addnOeias Tayv Kal éEaipuns TeAELwOnceTat TO Bov- Ansa avTou, TUVETTLAPTUPOUVENS Kal THS yoagns Ort TAYY HZel Kal OY YpoONiel, KAl EZai@nuc HzZe1 6 Kypioc eic TON NAON AYTOY, KAl O ATIOC ON YMEIC TIPOCAOKATE.
XXIV. Katavoiowpev, dyarntol, mas 0 SexmoTns €mWeiKvUTaL OlnveKwS Huly THY péANOVTAY advacTAacLY
> ce \ > \ > , A MB ~ éxecOar, ns THy adrapynv éEroucato Tov Kupioy ’Incour
’ ~ > / XpirTov EK VEKOWV avacoTynoadas.
\ \ / / KaTa Kalpov yivomEvny advacTacw.
1 mwémepov| mempov A. efarxvno A.
Hon S.
A; in omni tempore S.
2 ekalpyns| ekeguno A. ~ 7 emideikvuTar dinvex@s nuiv| A (but emduxvura); denvexds nutv émidelkvuce C; monstrat nobis perpetuo S. g Xpiordv] AS; om. C.
ywopuevnv] AC; add. juty S.
5) ? \ LOW MEY, ayannNTOl, THV ¢€ / \ \ nmepa Kat vE 4 ekalgvns] 8 riv arapxyv] AC; add.
Io Kara Kaipov] C; Karaxat... II Kolparat...
nuépa] AC; S renders as if it had read xowmarac [ris] vuxrds, dvicrarar fuépas.
lows immediately the sentence otras kat 0 ads pou x.t.A.; the words opare k.7.A. not only not being quoted but being hardly compatible with the form of the context as there given ; (2) opare is an expression by which Clement himself elsewhere, after adducing a quotation or an example, enforces its jesspu ; ‘as’ § 4,112;116, 41, 50.
I. eis wémeipov| ‘to maturity’. The construction karavray eis is common in the LXxX and N.T.; see also above S 5. |
4. raxd n&ev «.t.A.]| A combina- tion of Is. xill. 32 tayd epyerar Kal ov xpomet (comp. Hab. ii. 3, Heb. x. 37), and Mal. ili. I cat éeEaidyns n&eu eis Tov vaov avtovd Kipios ov vpeis Cynreire Kal 0 ayyedos ths Svabykns ov vpeis Oédere. The substitution of 6 dyios for 6 dyyedos x.7.A. may have been intentional, but is much more pro- bably an inadvertence of Clement, who quotes from memory largely but loosely and is influenced by the in- terpretation which he has in view
(e.g. § 42 katraoryow Tovs emirKorous x.T.A., Where he cites Is. lx.17). This portion of Malachi’s prophecy is quoted much less frequently in early Christian writers than we should have expected. On the other hand the first part of the same verse idod amo- aTé\Akw Tov dyyeAov pov is quoted Matth. xi. 10, Mark i. 2, Luke vii. 27, and not seldom by the early fathers, by whom, following the evangelists, it is explained of John the Baptist.
XXIV. ‘All the works of the Creator bear witness to the resur- rection. The day arises from the grave of the night. The young and fruitful plant springs up from the decayed seed’.
The eloquent passage in Tertullian de Resurr. Carn. 12, 13, where the same analogies are adduced, is pro- bably founded on this passage of Clement (see above, I. p. 160). Com- pare also Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13, Tertull. Afol. 34, Minuc. Fel. 48, especially the passage of Theophilus,
2
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 83
xxv]
>’ / ~ ~ > lot e / 3 avactaow nuiv OnAovow"’ KomaTat 7 wE, avicratat e , ‘ e e 7 / \ 5) / / noepa* 1 nMEepa ameow, vuE emepxeTa. DAaBwuev \ , 7 = \ / / TOUS KapTroUS* 0 OTTOpOs TwS Kal TiVa TpOTOV yiveTaL ; a c ’ Q. oF > \ - / ~ EZAAOEN O CTTEIPWN KL éBadev Els THY YnV EkaoTOY TwY / e/ / > \ ~ \ OTEPUATWY, ATWA TETOVTA Els THY YoY Enpa Kal yuma / > > ~ / ~ diadveTat. eit ék THs StadvcEws 7) pevyarewoTys Tis
/ ~ / Ae / ? ~ mTpovolas Tov bearTOTOU avicTnoW avTa, Kal éK TOU EvOS
af > wA€ELOVa avEe Kat EKPE PEL KapTrov.
XXV. “ISwuev TO mapado£ov onpeiov, TO yiv0-
> ~ > a / A 20 MEVOV Ev TOLS avVaTOALKOLS TOTOLS, TOUTETTLY TOIS TEL
dvioratat nuepa] dvicrarat } huépa C; avioraray... A. After the Tisch. thinks
he sees part of a second H and would therefore read 4 *udpa. Having more than once inspected this Ms, I could only discern a stroke which might as well belong to a M as to an H; and the parallelism of the clauses suggests the omission of the
article.
which has many points in common with Clement.
8. tv amapynv|] 1 Cor. xv. 20 Xpioros é€ynyeprac ék vexpov dmapyn TOY Kekolunuevoy ; COMp. ver. 23. It is evident from what follows that Clement has this 15th chapter in his mind.
IO. kara katpov|] ‘at its proper season’, Inmy first edition I adopted the reading xara xaipovs, ‘at each recurring season’; as in the parallel passage Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13 xara Kaipovs mpopépovaw Tovs kapzovs, but in deference to the recently dis- covered authorities, I now adopt Kara Katpov.
12. AdBwpev] So again § 37 Aa- Bopev TO copa yor.
14. e&dGev x.t.X.] The expression is borrowed from the Gospel narra- tive; Matt. xiii. 3, Mark iv. 3, Luke oH
15. yuuva] See 1 Cor. xv. 36 sq, from which this epithet is derived. It denotes the absence of germina- tion: see the rabbinical passages
15 pa kal yuuva] AC; Enpay S.
quoted by Wetstein on 1 Cor. l. c., and Methodius in Epiphan. Aaer. Ixiv. 44 (p. 570) xarapade yap ra orép- pata Tas yuuva Kal Goapka BadXderar eis THY yh K.T.X.
16. dvadverac] ‘voc’. Comp. Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13 mpe@tov amoOvncket kat Avera. This analogy is derived from 1 Cor. xv. 36; comp. John xii. 24.
18. av&e.] Intransitive, as in Ephes. ii, 21, Col. ii. 19. It is treated how- ever as a transitive in the Syriac, where av&ec and éxdépec have the same subject as aviornow.
XXV. ‘The pheenix isa still more marvellous symbol of the resurrec- tion. After living five hundred years he dies. From his corpse the young bird arises. When he is fledged and strong, he carries his father’s bones and lays them on the altar of the sun at Heliopolis. This is done in broad daylight before the eyes of all: and the priests, keeping count of the time, find that just five hundred years have gone by’.
6—2
34
thy “ApaBiav.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[xxv
A / Opveov yap eat 0 mpocovopaceTat
1 dpveov] opvatov A.
I. Opveov x.t.A.] The earliest men- tion of the phoenix is in Hesiod (Fragm. 50 ed. Gaisf.), who however speaks merely of its longevity. It is from Herodotus (ii. 73) that we first hear the marvellous story of the burial of the parent bird by the offspring, as it was told him by the Egyptian priests, but he adds cautiously éyot pev ov miota Aéyovres. It is men- tioned again by Antiphanes (Athen. xiv. p. 655 B) ev “HAiov pév dace yly- veoOar more goimkas. From the Greeks the story passed to the Ro- mans. In B.C. 97 a learned senator Manilius (Plin. VV. H. x. 2) discoursed at length on the pheenix, stating that the year in which he wrote was the 215th since its last appearance. He was the first Roman who took up the subject. At the close of the reign of Tiberius—a.D. 36 according to Pliny (following Cornelius Valerianus) and Dion Cassius (viii. 27), but A.D. 34 as Tacitus reports the date—the marvellous bird was said to have reappeared in Egypt. The truth of the statement however was ques- tioned by some, as less than 250 years had elapsed since the reign of the third Ptolemy when it was seen last (Tac. Am. vi. 28). But the report called forth many learned dis- quisitions from savants in Egypt both native and Greek. A few years later (A.D. 47) the bird was actually exhibited in Rome (‘in comitio pro- positus, gwod actis testatum est, are Pliny’s words) and may have been seen by Clement, but no one doubted that this was an imposture. The story of the phoenix of course has a place in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (xv. 392 ‘Una est quae reparet seque ipsa reseminet ales’ etc.), and allusions to it in Latin poets are naturally
not unfrequent. Claudian devotes a whole poem to it. Another ascribed to Lactantius (Corp. Poet. Lat. p. 1416 ed. Weber) also takes this same sub- ject. The references to the phoenix in classical and other writers are collected by Henrichsen de Phoenicis Jabula Havn. 1825.
The main features of the account seem to have been very generally believed by the Romans. Thus Mela (iii. 8), who seems to have flourished in the reign of Claudius, repeats the marvellous story without any expres- sion of misgiving. Pliny indeed de- clines to pronounce whether it is true or not (‘haud scio an fabulose’); but Tacitus says no doubt is enter- tained of the existence of such a bird, though the account is in some points uncertain or exaggerated. Again felian (fzst. An. vi. 58), who lived in Hadrian’s reign, alleges the phoenix as an instance of the superiority of brute instinct over human reason, when a bird can thus reckon the time and discover the place without any guidance; and somewhere about the same time or later Celsus (Origen c. Cels. iv. 98, I. p. 576), arguing against the Christians, brings it forward to show the greater piety of the lower animals as compared with man. Still later Philostratus (Vzt. Ajol7. ill. 49) mentions the account without recording any protest. I do not lay any stress on such passing allusions as Seneca’s (Z%. Mor. 42 ‘Ille alter fortasse tamquam phoenix semel anno quingentesimo nascitur’), or on de- scriptions in romance writers like Achilles Tatius (iii. 25), because no argument can be founded on them.
It thus appears that Clement is not more credulous than the most learned and intelligent heathen wri-
XXV]|
ters of the preceding and following generations. Indeed he may have thought that he had higher sanction than the testimony of profane authors. Tertullian (de Resurr. Carn. 10) took Ps. xcii. 12 Sikawos ws hoimE avOnoer to refer to this prodigy of nature, and Clement may possibly have done the same. Even Job xxix. 18 is trans- lated by several recent critics, ‘With my nest shall I die and like the pheenix lengthen my days’ (comp. Lucian Hermot. § 53 nv pn poivixos érn Pieon), therein following some rabbinical authorities: but even if this be the correct rendering, the Lxx version, through which alone it would be known to Clement, gives a different sense to the words, 7 nAkia wou ynpa- get womep ortéeAexos oivxos, modvy xpovov Bidow. The passage of Job xxix, 18, in relation to the pheenix, is the subject of a paper by Merx in his Archiv. f. Wess. Forsch. d. Alt. Test. 11. p. 104 sq (1871).
At all events, even before the Chris- tian era the story had been adopted by Jewish writers. In a poem on the Exodus written by one Ezekiel, pro- bably an Alexandrian Jew in the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. (see Ewald Gesch. IV. p. 297), the phoenix, the sacred bird of Egypt, is represented as ap- pearing to the Israelite host (see the passage quoted by Alexander Poly- histor in Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. 29, p. 446). Though the name is not mentioned, there can be no doubt that the phoenix is intended; for the description accords with those of Herodotus, Manilius (in Pliny), and Mela, and was doubtless taken from some Egyptian painting such as He- rodotus saw and such as may be seen on the monuments to the present day (see Wilkinson’s Auc. Egypt. 2nd ser. I. p. 304, Rawlinson’s Herod. I. p. 122). Inthe Assumption of Moses too, if the reading be correct (see Hilgenfeld Mov. Test. extra Can.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 85
Rec. 1. p. 99), the ‘profectio phoenicis’ is mentioned in connexion with the exodus, and it seems probable that the writer borrowed the incident from Ezekiel’s poem and used it in a simi- lar way. The appearance of the phoenix would serve a double pur- pose; (1) It would mark the epoch; (2) It would betoken the homage paid by heathen religion to the true God and to the chosen people: for Alex- andrian Jews sought to give expres- sion to this last idea in diverse ways, through Sibylline oracles, Orphic poems, and the like; and the atten- dance of the sacred phoenix on the departing host would not be the least eloquent form of symbolizing this homage in the case of Egypt. But this Ezekiel, though he coloured the incident and applied it to his own purpose, appears not to have invent- ed it. According to Egyptian chro- nology the departure of the Israelites was coincident or nearly coincident with an appearance of a phcenix (i.e. with the beginning of a _ phcenix- period). Tacitus (Azz. vi. 28) says that a phoenix had appeared in the reign of Amaszs. If this were the earlier Amoszs of the 17th or 18th dynasty and not the later Amoszs of the 26th dynasty (the Amaszs of Herod. ii. 172), the time would coin- cide; for the Israelites were consi- dered by some authorities (whether rightly or wrongly, it is unnecessary here to enquire) to have left Egypt in the reign of this sovereign; e.g, by Ptolemy the priest of Mendes (Apion in Tatian ad Graec. 38 and Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 378) and by Julius Africanus (Routh’s Re/. Sacr. II. p. 256). For rabbinical references to the phcenix, which seem to be numerous, see Buxtorf Lex. Rad. s. v. Syn, Lewysohn Zoologie des Talmuds p- 352 sq; comp. Henrichsen l.c. Il. p. 19. The reference in a later Sibylline too (Orac. Szb. viii. 139
86
drav hoivixos eméhOn mevraypovowo) Was probably derived from an _ earlier Jewish poem.
Thus the mere fact that the phoenix is mentioned in the Assumption of Moses affords no presumption (as Hilgenfeld supposes) that Clement was acquainted with that work; for the story was well known to Jewish writers. In the manner and purpose of its mention (as I interpret it) the Assumption presents no coincidence with Clement’s Epistle. The pas- sage in the Assumption of Moses is discussed by Ronsch in Hilgen- feld’s Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. XVII. p. 553 sq, 1874. Ré6nsch takes the reading profectio Phoentces, and explains it of the ‘migration from Phoenicia’, i.e. Canaan, into Egypt under Jacob. And others also take fynicis to mean Pheenicia, explaining it however in different ways. See Hilgenfeld’s note to Mos. Assumpt. p- 130. In this way the phoenix en- tirely disappears from the passage.
Of subsequent Christian fathers, Tertullian, as we saw, accepted the story without misgiving. As Theo- philus of Antioch (ad Aut. i. 13) fol- lows Clement’s analogies for the re- surrection up to a certain point, but omits all mention of the phcenix, I infer that his knowledge of Egyp- tian antiquities (see ii. 6, ill. 20 sq) saved him from the error. For the same reason, aS we may conjecture, Origen also considers the fact to be very questionable (c. Ceds. iv. 98, I. p. 576). But for the most part it was believed by Christian writers. S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Caz. xviii. 8),S. Ambrose (see the quotations, I. 167, 172), Rufinus (Sywb. Afost. 11, p. 73), and others, argue from the story of the phoenix without a shadow of mis- giving. In Afgost. Const. v. 7 it is urged against the heathen, as a fact which they themselves attest; and Epiphanius (A cor. 84) says eis dxonv
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XxXv
adixrat moAA@y micTay TE Kal atioTor. On the other hand Euseb. (Vz¢. Const. iv. 72) gives it merely as a report, Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxxt. § 10, 1p. 562 D) says cautiously ef rm motos 6 Aoyos, and Augustine de Anim. iv. 33 (20) (X. p. 404) uses similar lan- guage, ‘Si tamen ut creditur’; while Photius (4262. 126) places side by side the resurrection of the phoenix and the existence of lands beyond the Atlantic (§ 20) as statements in Clement to which exception may be taken. Other less important patris- tic references will be found in Suicer’s Thes. s.v. hoiné.
It is now known that the story owes its origin to the symbolic and pictorial representations of astrono- my. The appearance of the phoenix is the recurrence of some prominent astronomical phenomenon’ which marked the close of a period. Even Manilius (Plin. VV. H. x. 2) had half seen the truth; for he stated ‘cum hujus alitis vita magni conversionem anni fieri iterumque significationes tempestatum et siderum easdem re- verti. For the speculations of Egyptologers and others on the phoenix period see Larcher J/ém. de L’ Acad. des Inscriptions etc. 1. p. 166 sq (1815), Lepsius Chronol. ad. Aegypt. p- 180 sq, Uhlemann Hando. d, Ae- gypt. Alterthumsk. Il. p. 39 Sq, 79 sq, IV. p. 226 sq, Poole Horae Ae- gyptiacae p. 39 sq, Ideler Handd. der Chron. I. p. 183 sq, Creuzer Sym. u. Mythol. i. p. 163 sq, Brugsch 4egyp- tische Studien in Zettschr. da. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch.X. p. 250 sq (1856), Geograph. Inschrift. der Altaegypt. Denkmaler 1. p. 258 (1857), Wiede- mann Die Phoenix-Sage in Zettschr. J. Aegyptische Sprache etc. XVI. p. 89 sq (1878), Lauth Die Phoenix-Periode 1880 (a separate issue of a paper in A bhandl. ad. Bayer. Akad. der Wiss.). The actual bird, around which this mass of symbolism and of fiction has
Xxv |
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
87
~ - \ / af pong’ TOUTO [MOVOYEVES UTapXOV Gi ET) TEVTAKOCIA’
I povoyeves] wovoyevno A.
gathered, bears the name dennu in the Egyptian language and appears to be the ardea cinerea (or purpurea), a bird of passage; see Wiedemann Lc. p. 104.
Thus the phoenix was a symbol from the very beginning. Horapollo says that in the hieroglyphics this bird represented a soul, or an inun- dation, or a stranger paying a visit after long absence, or a restoration after a long period (dmoxardoracw modvxpoviov), Hzerogl. i. 34, 35, il. 57. The way was thus prepared for the application of Clement. This Apo- stolic father however confines the symbolism to the resurrection of man. But later patristic writers di- versified the application and took the phcenix also as a type of the Per- son of our Lord. The marvellous birth and the unique existence of this bird, as represented in the myth, were admirably adapted to such a symbolism: and accordingly it is so taken in Epiphan. (l.c.), Rufinus (L.c.), and others; see especially an un- known but apparently very ancient author in Sfzcz/. Solesm. Il. p. 345. Some of these writers press the par- allel so far as to state that the phoenix arises after three days. The fact that a reputed appearance of the phoenix was nearly coincident with the year of the Passion and Resur- rection (see above, p. 84) may have assisted this application. At a later date the Monophysites alleged the phoenix as an argument in favour of their peculiar doctrines (see Piper Mythol. u. Symbol. der Christl. Kunst. I. I, p. 454).
For the representations of the phoenix in early Christian art see Piper l.c. p. 456 sq. Before it ap- pears as a Christian symbol, it is
found on coins and medals of the Roman emperors (for instances see Piper p. 449) to denote immortality or renovation, with the legend SAEC. AVR., or AETERNITAS, or aiwn. It is significant that this use begins in the time of Hadrian, the great patron and imitator of Egyptian art.
I. povoyeves] ‘alone of tts kind, unigue’. This epithet is applied to the pheenix also in Origen, Cyril, and Afpost. Const. v. 7, and doubtless as- sisted the symbolism mentioned in the last note. The statement about the phoenix in AZost. Const. paci yap Opveov TL povoyeves Umapxew K.T.A. 1S evidently founded on this passage of Clement; comp. e.g. ef roivuy...d0 adoyou opvéov SeikyuTar 7 avactaois x.7.A. with Clement’s language in § 26. So also in Latin it is ‘unica’, ‘semper unica’, Mela iii. 9, Ovid Am. i. 6. 54, Lactant. Phoex. 31, Claudian Laud. Stil. ii. 417. Thus Milton Samson Agonistes 1699 speaks of ‘that self-begotten bird...That no second knows nor third, and again Paradise Lost V. 272 ‘A phoenix gaz’d by all, as that sole bird, When to enshrine his reliques in the Sun’s Bright temple to A‘gyptian Thebes he flies’. Why does Milton despatch his bird to Thebes rather than Heli- opolis?
érn mevraxooia]| The longevity of the phcenix is differently stated. Hesiod gives it (9x 4xX3X9=) 972 generations of men; Manilius (Plin. NV. H. x. 2) 509 years; Solinus (Polyh. 36) 540 years; authorities mentioned in Tacitus 1461 years, which is the length of the Sothic period; Martial (v. 7), Claudian, Lactantius, and others, 1000 years; Chzremon (in Tzetzes Chil. v. 6. 395) 7006 years, But, says Tacitus, ‘maxime vulgatum
88 THE EPISTLE OF S “CLEMENT [XXV
U / a \ 2 / - > ~ ? / yevouevov TE Non moos amoAVTW TOU arobavely avTO, A ~~ ~ / \ / \ ae ONKOV é€avTw TOLEL EK NiBavov Kal opupvys Kal THY lon / > ray / lan Aowrwy apwuaTwv, els Ov mAnpwlevTos TOU xpovouU vo / \ ~ A EloepxeTar Kal TeAEVTA. ONTOMEVNS d€ THS TapKos / a A ? - > / - oKwWANE Tis yevvaTal, OS EK THS ikKLaOOS TOU TETE- , / > / ~ oy AevTHKOTOS Cwou avaTpepomevos mTEpoduel* EiTAa YEV- a / af SM \ ~ e/ \ vaios yevouevos aipes TOY ONkOY €KkElvoy OTOU Ta ~ lon / , \ ~ , doTa TOU mpoyeyovoTos éoTiv, Kal TavTa BactaCwy / > \ an ? a“ f c/ a > / Siavver aro THs “ApaBicns ywpas ews THs Atyvmtou ? / ¢ Ie \ c / / eis THY Aeyouevrnv ‘HAtovrroNw: Kat nuepas, (Ae7rov- / > \ 9 \ A ~ / \ / TwY TavTwY, éemimTas emt TOV Tov HALov Bwyoy TiOnowW 1 te] A; 6€ CS. 3 Tod xpovod] AC; add. wvelae suae S.
AC; add. zz zllo S. 6¢] AS; re C. the latter translating ascitur in ea tlic.
4 TedeUTE] 5 yevvara] As éyyerarat CS, ds] AC; dors (apparently) S.
TETE=
NeuTnKéros] TeNeuTnKoTOs A}; TedeuTHTavTos C; see I. p. 126. éxetvov] AC; S adds MYTH FD (=xukd60ev adtod).
quingentorum spatium’; and this is adopted by almost all the Christian fathers together with most heathen writers; of the latter see a list in Lepsius Chron. p. 180.
I. tov amoGaveiv avto| ‘so that it should die, explaining the preceding yevopevoy mpos amroAvow ‘at the eve of its dissolution’; comp. § 46 épyopeOa @ote emAabéoOa nuas. This con- struction seems to me preferable to connecting avro with what follows, as in the Syriac version; for in this case I should expect that avro éavr@ would stand in juxtaposition, as e.g. hom viii. 23, 2 Cor. i. 9.
5. oke@dAn€ tis yevvara| This mode of reproduction is not mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 73); but it formed part of the story as related by Manilius to the Romans and is frequently men- tioned by subsequent writers. To this account is sometimes added the incident that the parent bird lights its own pyre and that the worm is
7 onkov 8 Bacrdfwv] Bacrafgov
found in the smouldering ashes; e.g. Artemid. Oneirocr. iv. 47 avros éaute Toimoduevos ek Kagias Te Kal opupyns mupay amobvnoker: KavOeions Oe THs Tv- pas pera xpovov €k Tis arob0d oKeAnKa yevvacba héyovow k.r.A. (comp. Mar- tial v. 7). Itis interesting to observe the different stages in the growth of the story, as follows; (1) The lon- gevity alone (Hesiod); (2) The en- tombment and burial of the parent by the offspring (Herodotus) ; (3) The miraculous birth of the offspring from the remains of the parent (Mani- lius); (4) The three days’ interval between the death of the parent and resuscitation of the offspring (Epi- phanius).
6. yevvaios] ‘strong, lusty, as e.g. Dion Chrys. vil. p. 228 R ioxupot ere véou kal yevvaio. Ta oopara. It corre- sponds to Ovid’s ‘Quum dedit huic aetas vires’.
g. duavver] ‘makes tts way’, fre- quently used absolutely, e.g. Polyb.
15
XXVI|
> / \ 4 > > E > ~ QAUTA, KAL OUTWS ELS TOUTTLOW agpoppa.
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
89
Ol ovuy LEpELS
\ A ~ / \ EMLIOKETTOVTAL Tas dvaypapas TwWY XpovwY Kal Evpio-
\ m »/ , KOVOLY QUTOV TEVTAKOGLOD TOU ETOUS TETANPWMEVOU EAN-
AvGEvat.
XXVI.
\ \ S Vf [x Méya kat Oavuaoctov ovv vouiCopuerv eivat,
> \ ~ e / 5] / I EL O Onmloupyos TwYv adTavTwY avacTacW ToMmoETal
a > ~ 7 / / TWV OTLWS AUTH SovAevoavTwy €v memoOnoe TicTEws
> = J \ ? 2 / / con dyabyns, Strov Kat dv Opveov OEeikyvuow uty
ome a > , 3 -~ / MA A€elov THs ETTayyeNlas auTov; AEeyel yap
EZANACTHCEIC ME Kal
\ > ' ¢ \ > > n Ge Kal YTIN@Cd, EZHTEPOHN, OT! CY MET EMOFY El.
A. Q dtavder] C3 duavevee A; migrat volans S.
amavrev C. 12 lepets] AC; add. of rijs Alyirrov S.
C. 19 dpvéou delxvucwv] opvaov dixvucw A.
20 emaryyeNias] emayyedetag A.
ili. 56. 1 (azo), iv. 70. 5 (ek), il. 54. 6 (pos). The word occurs above, § 20. The reading of A, davever, is out of place, for it could only mean ‘turns aside’, i.e. for the purpose of avoiding. Several instances of the confusion of Svavvery and dvavevew by transcribers are given by Jahn Methodius Ul. p. IIo.
13. tas dvaypadas| ‘the public re- cords’; comp. Tatian ad Graec. 38 Aiyurtiov dé eiow ai én’ axpiBes xpo- veov avaypapai. For the Egyptian dvaypagai see also Diod. Sic. i. 44, 69, a, (53; Jaseph..4 AZ. 1..6'sq. The recently discovered register of the epiphanies of the bulls Apis is a par- allel instance of such chronological records; see Bunsen’s Egy# I. p. 62 (2nd ed.).
XXVI. ‘Is it then strange that God should raise the faithful, when He has given this marvellous sign? To such a resurrection we have the testimony of the Scriptures’.
16. Méya kat Oavpaordy] For the
€ZOMOAOPHCOMAI COI’
TO Meya- Kai
> , EKOIMHOHN
Tov" Kal \ ; Kat aX
Il mavtTwv] A;
émurTas] AS; om. C, doubtless owing to the following é7i.
14 weTAnpwuévov] AS ; mAnpouuévou beyanetov] meyadiov A, 22 €&nyépOnv] A; Kal é&nyépOnv CS.
same combination of epithets see S$ 50, 53.
17. 06 Snproupyos k.t.A.] See above § 20. On this Platonic phrase com- pare Jahn Methodius I. pp. 39, 91.
18. ev wemovOnoer k.t.X. | ‘22 the con- fidence which comes of honest faith’: comp. Ephes. iii. 12 ev memorOnoes Sua Ths miotews avtov, and below § 35 miotis ev memorOnoet, The phrase ric- tis ayaén occurs Tit. ii. 10, where however wioris seems to mean ‘fi- delity.’
19. To peyadetor| ‘the greatness’; comp. S$ 32,49. It occurs Acts ii. 11, Luke 1. 49 (v.1.), and several times in the LXx.
20. Aéyer yap wov] Taken apparently from Ps. xxvill. 7 kal dvéOadev n capé pou kal ex OeAnparos pov é£ouodoynao- pat avt@ (comp. Ps. Ixxxvii. 11).
21. €kowunOny x.r.r.| A confusion of Ps. ill, 5 €y@ e€kousnOnv cal v7veca, eEnyepOnv ore Kupios avriAnweral pov, and Ps. xxiii. 4 ov @oBnénoouat Kaka OTe OV per E00 EL.
we wT
go THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXvVI
lo Ne El° Kal ANACTHCEIC THN Ca KA MOY TAY THN THN : ANANTAHCACAN TAYTA EON Oc
XX VII.
¢ Neue ~ fe a 2 ~ ? / \ ~ al Yuya HUWY TH TIOTW EV TALS eTayyeNlals Kal TW
Tavrn ouv TH €ATIOL Tpoc dedec Owoay
/ ~ / Oikalw €v TOLS KpluacLy. é a a 9 \ ( \ A > / TOAAW uaAAov avTos ov \evoeTat* ovdEev yap aduva- A vo lad 5) \ \ / > Tov mapa TH Oew, et pn TO Wevoacba. dvaCwrvpn- > V / a con \ / / CATW OUV 4 TIOTIS AUTOU EV HIV, Kal vonowmEY OTL / 2 \ ? = b) / an l TavTa eyyus avTw €oTwW. €v AOYW THS MEeyadwourns ~ / \ lf \ ? Up a / avTOU GUVETTHTATO Ta TavTa, Kal Ev NOYW OvVATAaL
' > U '
\ if ' > a > a n” avuTa KaTaoTpeya. Tic €pel ayYT@* TI €moiHcac; H TIC
> ' a ' an > ’ > an 4 / ANTICTHCETAI TW KPaTel i) FAG Icyyoc AYTOYs | ; ORE Gérer Kal
1 odpxa] capxay A. (avar\joacay?) S. A; om. C; dub. 8. 7 rp] A; om. C3; see above, § 21.
1o 7a mwdvta] A, and so probably S; mdv7a C.
15 of] A; om. C.
accidentally omits xe:pwv in recording the reading of C (p. 51).
16 moinow] monoew A.
\
2 advavTAncacav] A; dvtAhoacav C; toleravit 3 mpocdedéoOwoav] AS; mpocdexécOwaar C. T@ dixaly] A; dicaly (om. 7M) C, and so apparently S.
4 &v]
70] A, and so apparently S; om. C. 13 mojoet] AS; morjoa C.
xepav] ACS; Bryennios 17 TO oTe-
péwua K.T.A.] C runs 76 orepéwua kal dxovovTa ai dwval mdvtwy Brerrouévww Kal
axovounevwv’ PoBnOduev xk.7.X., omitting many words.
I. "I1d8 Aéyer] From LXX Job xix. 26 dvactrnoe S€ pov TO Toya TO avav- TAovy ravra as read in A, but NB have dvactnoat To d€éppya pov To avavrAovy (or aytAovv) ravra. The Hebrew original is different from either. For the con- fusion of davarAjoa and avavtrAnoa in this passage of Job and in Prov. ix. I2 see Schleusner Lex. Vet. Test. s.v. avavtdew, Field Orig. Hexapl. il. p. 36. It may be a question what reading the Syriac translator had here, but the same word Sap is used elsewhere (e.g. Eus. 4. £. viii. 14) to render avarAavres; see Payne Smith Thes. Syr. S. V.
Harnack refers to the discussion of this passage of Clement in Caspari Quellen z. Gesch. ad. Taufsymools iil.
p. 158.
The omissions here are not
XXVII. ‘Let us therefore cling fast to God. He has promised, and Hecannot lie. Whatsoever He wills, He is able to perform. To His power no bounds are set. To His eye and His mind all things are open. The heavens declare His glorious works’.
4. T® mioT@ k.7.A.]| Comp. Heb. x. 23 micros yap 6 émayyeiAduevos, and ree a
6. ovdev yap advvarov x.r.d.| Com- pare Heb. vi. 18 év ois ddvvarov Wev- cacOa [Tov] Geov, with Matt. xix. 26 (Mark x. 27); see also Tit. i. 2.
7. avaConupnoara | Intransitive; see the note on Ign. Ephes. 1. The con- text seems to suggest that 7 miortis avrov should be rendered ‘ His faith- fulness’, as in Rom. iii. 3; see Gada- tzams p. 155.
0 mapayyeivas un Wevdeo Oat 5
xxvul] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
OI
ws OéXNer ToInoeL TavTa, Kal ovoEY py mrapehOy TOV OedoyMaTIoOMevwy UT avTOU. TavTa eévwriov avToU Elio, Kal ovoev AEANOEV THv BovAny av’ToU, Et Oi oF- PANO! AIHPOFNTAI ADZAN Oceoy, TOIHCIN AE YEIP@N ayToY ANOrreAAE! TO CTEPEMMA’ H HMEPA TH HMEPa EpeyreTal PAma, Kal NYZ NYKTI ANAOPrEAAE!L FN®@CIN’ KAl OYK EICIN AGO! OYAE AdAIAI, ON OYY] AKOYONTAI Al PDWNAI dYTON.
XXVIII.
“ > 5) / Sf VWV, poBnbwper QUTOV Kal aTrONELTTWMEV pavrwy E0yav
/ > , \ > / Hlavtwy ovv BAEeropévwy Kal akovopeE-
\ / / = / > ~ ~ puapas émifuuias, a Tw édAE€e avToU oKeTracOwper é
amo Twv pMeANOYTWY KPLLATwY. TOU yap TIS Huw altogether explained by the practice of abridging quotations (see I. p. 128). 18 dvayyé\Ne] A; dvayyede? S (with Hebr. and Lxx A); def. C. In the previous line S has the present (dvayyéANev). 18, 19 Adyot, Aadcat] S transposes these words, as in the LXx. 19 al dwval] The text of S is perhaps corrupt here. As it stands, the translator would appear to have had rats gwvats NPA, instead of dp, unless it is a very loose paraphrase. 20 obv] A; re (MD) S; om. C (see the note on 76 orepéwua k.T.X.). 21 dmodelrwuev] A; amoNirwpev C, 22 papas] AS; BdaBepas C (see Bryennios Did. p. py’). 23 Tay meddédv- Twv Kpydtav] AC; Tod wéAdNovTos Kpluaros (TINYT NII) S. The variation cannot
be explained by vzéuz here, and must have been deliberate; see also § 21.
9. éyyds aité] So Ign. Ephes. 15 ovdev AavOdver rov Kvpiov, dAda Kai Ta KpuTTa nav eyyus avT@ eat, which is perhaps a reminiscence of this pas- sage: compare § 21 above.
év hoy@ «.t.A.| See Heb. i. 3 hép- oy Ta TavTa TO pyyate THs Svvawews avtov: comp. Wisd. ix. I. See the introduction, I. p. 398, on the relation of Clement to the Logos doctrine.
II. Tis épet avr@ x.t.A.] From Wisd. xii, 12 tis yap épel Ti éroinoas 7 Tis avrioTnoeTat T@ Kpiwati gov; Comp. Wisd. xi. 22 xpares Bpaxiovds cov tis dvtistnoetat; The expression 76 xpa- Tos THs taxvos avrov occurs in Ephes. i. 19, vi. 10, The xparos is the ioyvs exerted on some object.
13. ovdev pr mapéAOn «.7.A.] Comp. Matt. v. 18.
15. ei Of ovpavol x«.r.A.] ‘seeing
that The heavens etc? The ei is no part of the quotation. So treated the passage presents no difficulty ; and the corrections proposed (e.g. the omission of e?, or the reading kai of ovpavol) are unnecessary. Perhaps also the kai before ovx eioiv should be excluded from the quotation in the same way. The quotation is then word for word (except the interchange of Aoyou and Aadai) from the LXx Ps, x1x. I—3.
19. ov...avrav| See above the note on § 20.
XXVIII. ‘Therefore, since He sees and hears all things, let us for- sake our vile deeds and take refuge in His mercy. We cannot escape His powerful arm; neither in the height of heaven nor in the abyss of ocean nor in the farthest parts of the earth’.
Q2 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXVIII
om 3 \ _~ ~ A ~ ~ duvata uyely aro THS KpaTalas YELPOS aVTOU; TOLOS ~ ’ , ~ de Koopos OeFeTai TVA TwWY aVTOMOAOUYTWY aT aUTOU 5 Ul / \ - a > ' ‘ a Neyer yap mov To ypadeov’ Mof apHzm kal moY Kpy-
BHcomal ATO TOY TpOCcwMOY COoY EAN ANARG EIC TON OYPAa-
c
NON, CY €l €kel’ EAN ATIEAOW Eic TA EcyaTa TAC Ac, kel H
AEZIA COY’ EAN KATACTPWCW EIC TAC ABYCCOYC, EKE! TO TINEYMA
5 el éxet] A (with Lxx ABS); éxe? ef CS. 7 ov] AC; om. S.
éxel 7 beEtad cou] AS; od éxet ef C. dmodpdon] A; amodpacy (or amodpace) S; Tis dmodpd-
2. avroworovvtev| See above, ku- with the Prophets; see Furst Der
morakrew § 21, and the note on decép- top Ign. Polyc. 6.
3. To ypadetoy] ‘the writing. S. Clement here seems to adopt the threefold division of the Old Testa- ment books which appears in Ecclus. (prol.), in S, Luke (xxiv. 44), in Philo (de Vit. cont. 3, Il. p. 475), in Jose- phus (c. Ag.i. 8), and generally. The third division is called ra dAXa BiBXia and ra Aoura Tov BiBAiwv in Ecclus., Wadpol in S. Luke, tuvo. in Philo and Josephus. Its more general name in Hebrew was D°D1N5, ‘the writings’, translated sometimes by ypadeia, sometimes by ay:oypada: comp. Epi- phan. Haer. xxix. 7 (I. p. 122) ov yap dmnyopevtat map avtois vouobecia kat mpopfyra kat ypadeta ra rapa Iovdaios kaAdovpeva, and again map’ avtois yap mwas 6 vow“os kal of mpopyra: Kal Ta ypaheta Neyoueva k.t.d., Mens. et Pond. 4 (II. p. 162) ta xadovpeva ypadeia mapa Tiot O€ ayioypada Aeyoueva. In the first of these passages however Epiphanius includes the historical books among the ypadeta, and in the second he confines the term to them, placing the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, etc., in a separate section which he calls of ortynpets. This does not truly represent the Jewish tradition, in which 1, 2 Chronicles alone be- longed to the 0°21N3, while the his- torical books generally were ranged
Kanon des Alten Testaments p. 10 sq, p- 55 sq. Elsewhere he uses ypapeta more widely, Haer. xxvi. 12 (p. 94) aAAa pupia rap’ avdrois rem\ac- peva ypadeia ; comp. Deut. x. 4 (Aq.). John Damascene likewise (de Fid. Orthod. iv. 17, 1. p. 284), following Epiphanius, describes the historical books from Joshua to 2 Chronicles, aS Ta kadovpeva ypadeia mapa Tic O€ aytoypapa. In the Classical language (as also LXX Job. .1x..24,<Hex ice XVll. 1) ypagetoy is not ‘a writing’ but ‘a pen.’
Ilot ag@n€w| A very loose quota- tion from Ps. cxxxix. 7—10, where the slight variations of the principal MSS of the LXx do not affect the wide divergences in Clement’s quotation. Compare also the parallel passage in Amos ix. 2, 3, to which Clement’s quotation presents some faint resem- blances. It is important to observe that in using xaraorp#ce, ‘make my couch,’ Clement conforms to the ori- ginal NYSN, where the LXxX has ka- taBo. ‘This is the more remarkable, as he elsewhere shows no knowledge of the Hebrew, and in the Psalms generally quotes pretty accurately from the LXx. Whence then did he get this word? We may conjecture that he was acquainted with one of the versions afterwards included by Origen in his Hexapla. The 5th
IO
XXIX]| TO THE CORINTHIANS.
93
coy. mol ouv TIS dmenOn Hn Tou dmodépacn aro TOU Ta TAVTA EUTEDLEXOVTOS §
XXIX. [lpocéAOwpev ovv avtw év dowwoTnT. \Ww- Xs, ayvas Kal duavTous yelpas aipovTes mpos avTor, adyanwvTes TOV éTLELKH Kal EVOTAAYYVOY TaTEpa Huw ds ékAoyis pépos éroincey éavt@. OlTw yap ye-
ypanrrat’ "Ote AlemépIZEN O YYICTOC EONH, DC AIECTIEIPEN
ce C. It émveckn] emcecxny A.
version (e in Origen) has orpe#c or kataotpwcew (see Field’s Hexapl. ad loc.), and as this seems to have been the one found in an old cask either at Jericho or Nicopolis (Euseb. . £. vi. 16, Epiphan. A/ens. et Pond. 18, p. 174 ; see Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. etc. p. 587 sq), it may very well have been an ancient Jewish tradition prior to the age of Clement. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 22 (p. 625) quotes the passage nearly in the form which it has here (though substituting the Lxx xata8e for xaraorpeow), and doubt- less derived it through the medium of the Roman Clement, so that he is not an independent authority. agnéo| The verb adnxew is not found in the Lxx or N.T., and is altogether a rare word ; comp. Plato Resp. vii. p. 530 E, Antiphon in Bekker Axecd. p. 470 S.v. adnxovros.
XXIX. ‘Therefore let us approach Him in prayer with pure hearts and undefiled hands. We are God’s spe- cial portion and inheritance, of which the Scriptures speak once and again’.
See on the liturgical character of this portion of Clement’s Epistle which follows, the introduction, I. p- 386 sq.
IO. ayvas x.t-A.| 1 Tim. ii. 8 ésai- povras oaiovs xeipas, Athenag. Suppl. 13 emaip@pev oalovs xXEipas avT@; See also Heliodorus the tragedian in Ga-
7a] A; om. C, and so probably S. 12 pépos] A; add. quds CS.
g otv] AC; om. S.
oUTw] ovTws C.
len. de Antid. ii. 7 (XIV. p. 145, ed. Kiihn) add’ ooias pev yetpas és népa Aaumpov deipas (quoted by Wetstein on I Tim. ii. 8). The expression de- scribes the attitude of the ancients (as of Orientals at the present day) when engaged in prayer, with ex- tended arms and uplifted palms.
12. éxdoyns pépos k.t.r.] ‘has made us Hts special portion, or rather ‘has set apart for Himself a special por- tion’. In either case the exdoys pépos is the Christian people, the spiritual Israel, who under the new covenant have taken the place of the chosen people under the old; as 1 Pet. ii. 9 vuets be yevos exdexrov, Bacidesov iepa- Teupa, €Ovos ay.ov, Aaos eis Tmepuroinow k.7T.A. See the notes on maporxoica and nyiacpévors (§ 1). Thus pépos ék- Aoyns here is coextensive with oi ékde- Aeypevor VO TOU Ceov Sia "Incod Xpio- tov § 50 (comp. § 64). The words épos exAoyns are not to be translated ‘a portion of his elect’ but ‘a portion set apart by election,’ ékXoyns being a genitive of the same kind as in Acts ix. 15 okevos exAoyns, Iren. i. 6. 4 omep- para exdoyns. The expression therefore has no bearing on the question whe- ther Clement was a Jewish or Gentile Christian. See the note on Aaos below.
13. “Ore duepepeCev x.t.A.] From the LXxX Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, almost word for word.
94 THE EPISTLE
OF S. CLEMENT
[XxIXx
yioyc ’Addm, ECTHCEN OPld EON@N KATA APIOMON ArPPéAWN
GE OY. KAHPONOMIAC aYTOY ‘IcpaHa.
EreNHOH mepic Kypioy Adoc ayToy ‘lakwsB, cyOINICMa A ir / / Kal €v ETEODW TOTW EYEL*
lAoy Kypioc AamBAaNel EdYT@ EONOC Ek MécoY EONAN, OctrEp
I dpiOuor] apiOov A.
I. kata apiOpoyv x.7.A.]| The idea conveyed by the LXxX which Clement quotes is that, while the Gentile na- tions were committed to His inferior ministers, God retained the people of Israel under His own special guardianship: comp. Dan. x. 13 sq, xii. I, but esp. Ecclus. xvii. 17 éxaor@ €Ove Katéatnoev nyovpevoy Kai pepis Kupiov “Iopanad éarww, and F2bzlees § 15 (Ewald Fahré. il. p. 10) ‘ Many are the nations and numerous the people, and all are His, and over all hath He set spirits as lords...but over Israel did He set no one to be Lord, neither angel nor spirit, but He alone is their ruler etc.’, with the context. See also Clem. Hom. xviii. 4, Clem. Recogn. ii. 42 (references which I should have overlooked but for Hil- genfeld Afpost. Vat. p. 65). Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 2 (p. 832) uses the text to support his favourite idea that heathen philosophy is the handmaid of revelation ; odros ear o did0vs Kal Tois "EAAnot tHv Pirrocodiar dia Tay v- modeeaTepar dyyéeAav’ cial yap ovvdiave- veunwéevot mpoorage: Oeia Te kal apxaia dyyeAou kara €6yn, GAX’ 7 pepis Kupiov 7 d0€a rav miotevorvtov. On the other hand the present text of the Hebrew runs ‘ He set the boundaries of the na- tions according to the number of the sons of Israel (Sxw 992 BD) ; for (or ‘while’, °3) the portion of Jehovah is His people, Jacob is the rod of His inheritance’. So too the Peshito and Targum of Onkelos. But it is diffi- cult to get any good sense out of this reading, and the parallelism of the verses is thus shattered. I can hardly doubt therefore that the LXx is right,
2 éyev7On] AC; xal éyev4On S with Lxx.
and the error can be easily explained. The ends of the lines have got out of gear ; Sx, which in the present text occupies the end of ver. 8, has been displaced from its proper position at the end of ver. 9, and thrust out the original word D'MONN, which has thus disappeared. The ‘sons of God’ are mentioned Job i. 6, ii. I, xxxviil. 7, and in all places are translated (as it appears, correctly) by dyyedou [rod ©cov| in the LXxX; see Gesen. Thes. p. 215. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that the Samar. Pent. reads ‘Israel’ at the end of both verses, thus presenting an intermediate read- ing between the LXx and the present Hebrew text. Justin Martyr Dzad. § 131 (p. 360 B) refers to the difference between the Hebrew and LXxX texts; see also Origen Jz Num. Hom. xxviii. § 4 (II. p. 385), 2a Ezech. Hom. xiii (III. p. 401). The reading of the He- brew text is naturally adopted in Clem. Hom. xviii. 4, as it is by Justin’s Jewish opponents. Thewriter lived late enough to have got it from one of the Judaizing versions. On the other hand the LXxX is quoted by Philo de Post. Ca. 25 (I. p. 241), de Plant. 14 (1. p- 338).
2. ads] We have here the com- mon antithesis of Aads ‘the chosen people’, and ¢6m ‘the Gentiles’; as eg. Luke ii. 32, Acts iv. 27, xxvi. 17, 23, Romi: ‘xv. mo; 4d; ele aie becoming the Aaos however the Is- raelites do not cease to be called an €Ovos (see esp. Joh. xi. 50), but are rather ¢6vos ayiov (as Exod. xix. 6, I Pet. ii. 9) or €Ovos ex pécov eOvav
(as below): so Justin Dzad. 24 (p. 242)
XXx]
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 95
5 AAMBANE! ANOPWTOC THN ATIAPYHN AYTOY TAC SAW, Kal EZE-
AEYCETAl EK TOY EBNOYC EKEINOY ALIA ALI@N.
XXX. ‘Ayiou ovv mepis VrapyovTes TroInTwpEV TA
oY
7 ‘Ayiov ovv] AfIOYN (the oy above the line being written prima manu) A; ayla otv uepis S; ayia ovv wépn C. Seel. p. 143.
iva yévnrat €Ovos Sixaov, Aads PvAdo- cov tiorw (from Is, xxvi. 2). All such titles, referring primarily to the Israel after the flesh, are transferred by Clement, following the Apostolic wri- ters, to the Israel after the spirit; see - abovethenoteson §1,and comp. below § 64 eis Aady mrepiovaroy, and especially Justin Dza/. 119 (p. 347). I call at- tention to this, because Hilgenfeld (Zettschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. 1858, p. 585, and here) distinguishes the Aads of the first passage and the ¢Ovos of the second, as though they referred to the Jewish and Gentile Christians respectively. Of such a distinction the context gives no indication; and the interpretation moreover supposes that Clement departs from the ob- vious meaning of the passages in- corporated in the second quotation, where the original reference of ¢Ovos is plainly to the Israelites. See the note on éexAoy7s wépos above. cxoimcpa] ‘a portion measured out by a line’ (see the note on xavoy, § 7), a2 common word in the Lxx exactly representing the Hebrew ban.
4. “ISovd Kupuos x.7.A.] A combina- tion of several passages ; Deut. iv. 34 ei emeipacey 6 OGeds eciaehOav Rafeiv €auT@ €bvos €k pécou €Ovous év Tmeipac- H@ x.T.A., Deut. xiv. 2 cal o¢ éEehe~aro Kupios 6 Geds cov yevéoOar ce adv avT@ Teptovo.oy ard mavTwv Tov eOvav k.T.A. (Comp. vii. 6).
@omep AapBaver x.t.A.]| The pas- sages most nearly resembling this are, Num. xvill. 27 AoyioOjoerar vyiv Ta adaipépata vpaov ws aiTos amo ao kal adaipepya dio Anvov, 2 Chron. xxxi.
14 dovva tas amapxas Kupiov kal ta dyia tov dyiwv, Ezek. xlviii. 12 €ora avTois 7) amapyn Sedouevn ex Tay arap- XOY Tis ys, Gy.ov ayiov amo Ta opie k.T.X. With the context; but in all these passages the reference of the ‘ first- fruits’ is different. As Clement’s quo- tations elsewhere are so free (e.g. $§ 18, 26, 32, 35, 39, etc.), he may only have combined these passages and applied them from memory; but the alternative remains that he is quoting from some apocryphal wri- ting, such as the spurious or interpo- lated Ezekiel quoted above (see the notes S§ 8, 13, 17, 23, 46). The aya ayiwy are the specially consecrated things, the offerings or first-fruits, as in the passages just quoted ; see also Lev: xxi.,22, Ezek xlin13)) Phere: pression is applied here either to the people of God themselves, or to their spiritual oblations (see below, §§ 40, 44).
XXX. ‘ Therefore, as the portion of the Holy One, let us be holy our- selves; let us lay aside all sins which defile ; let us shun pride and ensue peace ; let us be on our guard against slander and backbiting ; let us seek not our own praise, but the praise of God. Self-will is accursed in His sight ; but His blessing rests on the gentle and lowly-minded’.
7. ‘Ayiov ovv pepis| i.e. ‘As the special portion of a Holy God’: comp. I Pet. 1. 15 sq xara rov KaXé- gavra vas ayioy Kal avTol ayou ev maon avactpopn yevnOnte, Siote ye- ypanra (Lev. xi. 44) “Aysou vec Oe or:
eyo ayos. On the liturgical charac-
96 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxx
TOU aylacmouv TavTa, pevryovTes kaTadadias, uiapas TE kal dvayvous cuumAoKas, welas TE Kal vewTEptopous kat BdeAuKTas émiOupias, wvoTEpav poryelav, BdeAVKTHY vTepnpaviay. Oedc rap, pnow, YTEPHMANOIC ANTITACCE- TAl, TATTEINOIC AE AiAwciIn yApIN. KoAAnOwmev ovv éxel- vois ois 4 yapis dro Tov OQeou dédoTa. évdovaowmeba THY Omovoiav, TaTrEWoPpovoUYTEs, EYKPATEVOMEVOL, a7rO mavTos \ilupicmou Kal KaTaXadias moppw éauTous TOLOUVTES, Epryols OiKalovpevot Kal pn Doyo. Evel yap° ‘O TA TOAAA AEFON Kal ANTAKOYCETAI’ H O EYAAAOC OETA EINAI AIKAIOC; EYAOPHMENOC FENNHTOC LFYNAIKOC GAI-
’ \ \ > eT; 1 € af € ~ rOBloc’ MH TOAYC EN PHMACIN TINOY. O €érawos 1 [LWV
2 dvdyvous] C; ayvouc A. cupmdokds] AC; kal cupmdoxds S, rendering the word however by contentiones (jurgia), and connecting papas Te Kal dvdryvous with karadaduds. te] AS; om. C. 3 muoepav] As puoepav (uvoapav lage CS. porxelav] morxiavy A, Bbedukrhv] A; kat Bdeduxriy CS. 4 Geos] AC. Bryennios reads 6 Qeds, as if it had some manuscript authority. 6 dd] AS; om. C. 8 xaradadias...€avrovs] AC; S translates as if karada- Nds...€avTav, connecting dd mavTds YiOupicuod with éyxparevduevot. 9 kal] AS$ om. 10 7] » A; ef C; 7 (apparently) S, for it translates z//e gui
ter of the language here used, see above, I. p. 387.
I. hevy. karad.| I Pet. ii. 1 amoOépe- vol...mdoas KatadaXuds.
2. dvayvovs] Something may still be said for Adyvous which I read in my first edition after Colomiés ; comp. Athenag. Suppl. 19 Tots dkxoAdorots Kat Adyvots, 21 Aayveias 7 Bias 7 mAEO- ve&ias, Clem. Recogn. ix. 17 (the Greek is preserved in Czesarius) pedicous, Aayvous, Sayovavras, Acta Petrz in Isid. Pelus. £7. 11. 99 (see Hilgenfeld’s Nov. Test. extr. Can. Rec. WV. p. 70) 0 yap itoxpyparos ovK éxopynoe Tov Ts dktTnpoovrvns Adyov ovdé 6 Aayvos Tov TEept cw@ppouvrns k.t.A., Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 10 (p. 222—225). The com- mon form was Aayvos, the Attic hayyns; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 184. Neither word (avayvos or Adyvos) oc-
curs in the LXxX or New Testament.
3. puoepay| For this form see the note on § 14.
4. ©cds yap x.t.d.] From Prov. iii. 34 Kuptos vmepnpavois x.t.A. Int Pet. v. 5, James iv. 6, it is quoted 6 Geds umepnpavos «.t.’. The Hebrew has simply 81 ‘he’.
8. Wid. ai katad.] See below, § 35. The words occur together also 2 Cor, xii. 20; comp. Rom. i. 30 Widupioras, KaradaXous.
9. épyous Sixacovpevor] See the note at the beginning of § 33, and the in- troduction, I. pp. 96, 397.
10. ‘OrazoAXa k.t.A.] From the Lxx of Job xi. 2, 3, almost word for word. It diverges widely from the Hebrew, and the sentiment evAoynpevos x.t.X. has no connexion with the context. It may be conjectured that the words
she)
r5
20
XXxI| TO THE CORINTHIANS.
97
of > a \ \ > 9 ~ > \ \ écoTw év Ocw kat pn €€ avTwy, avTETaWETOUS yap a / e / ~ ~ / e ~ puoet 0 Oeos. 1 paptupia THs ayabys mpaEews juwy f e sf A y a , ~ didocbw vm addwv, Kabws €00n Tois TaTpaoLW Huw Tots Ouaios. Opacos Kai avOadea Kal ToAUa Tots f \ ~ oa ? / \
KaTnpaueévois v7o Tou Oeov: EmleiKela Kal Ta7eELvo- / \ aie \ ~~ / \ a Ppocvrvn kat mpavTys Tapa Tots nvNOYNMEVOLS UTO TOU
Oeov. XXX E
10 / e ¢ \ lon b) / LOwWMEV TIVES al COOL THS EvVAOYIAS.
qn = ~ ? / > ~ \ KodAnO@pev ovv Tr EevAoYia avTOU, Kal > E \ QVATUNLEWMED TA
an apxns yevopeva. Tivos yap nuroynOn o TaTNO
juav ABpaau; ovxt Sikacocvyny Kal adynbeav dia Tio-
/ N \ / / \ Tews momoas; “loaaxk peta rerolbnocews ywwoKwy TO
multum dicit et audit in hac (hoc) quod qui bene loguitur, etc. Ir evhoynueé- vos] A; om. C; S substitutes yevynrés, thus repeating the same word, ss sT5s, 12 nuav] AS; tua C. 13 Oew] A; 7H Oew C. yap] AC; om. S. 14 ayaSjs] AS; om. C. nuav| A; tuoav CS. 15 €060n] edenOn A. £7 ume, Tov Geov| AS: om. C. See I.. p. 125. émvetkera] emeckia A. 18 mpaitys] A; mpadrns C. S transposes tarewodpootvn and mpaitns, probably
for convenience of translation; see I. p. 137.
yevintos yuvaikos oduydBios crept in from xiv. I Bpords yap yevynros yuvat- kos oAcyoBtos, Which may have stood next to this passage in a parallel column, and the evAoynpevos will have come from the first word of the next verse, 9! misread 4)93.
II. yevynros] See the note on Ign. Ephes. 7.
12. ‘O érawos x.t.A.| See Rom. ii. 29 ov 6 émawwos ovK €& avOp@rev aN €k tov @eov, 2 Cor. x. 18 ov yap 6 €avToyv ovvioravey K.T.A.; Comp. I Cor. ive 5.
13. avrov| So read for avrayv. On the forms avrov, avr, etc., as inad- missible here, see §§ 9, 12, 14, 32 (notes).
avterawetovs| No other instance of the word is given in the lexicons.
(oe Ye A
15. um addoy] See Prov. xxvii. 2.
CLEM. II.
23 dia tictews] AS; om. C.
18. mpavtns| This word is distin- guished from tarewvoppoovvn, Trench N. T. Syn. tst ser. § xliv, and from émvetkera 20. § xlili.
XXXI. ‘Let us therefore cling to His blessing: let us study. the re- cords of the past, and see how it was won by our fathers, by Abraham and Isaac and Jacob’.
21. dvatudiEwperv| ‘unroll’, and so ‘pore over’; comp. Lucian Migr. 7 Tovs hoyous ovs TOTe NKkOVTA GuVayei- pov kal avarv\itrov.
22. 6 matnp nuoyv| See the note on § 4.
23. odxt Suxarcocvyny x.t.r.]| Com- bining the statement of S. Paul (Rom. iv. I sq, Gal. ii. 6 sq) with that of S. James (ii. 21 sq). See the note at the beginning of § 33, and the intro- duction, I. p. 96.
A
THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT [XXX
98
péAANOV OdEwWs MpoonyeTo Oucia. "laxwB peta Tarel- a rs an \ voppoourns éFeydpnoev THS YS avToU dv adeAov Kal éropev0n moos AaBav Kai édovdAevcev, Kat éd00n ait@e \ / = 93 'g
To OwoekacKnmrTpov Tov ‘lopann.
XXXII. ’€av tis ka@ év Exaorov eitAtKpwes KaTa-
’ } fot la > ) ~ 4
vonon, ETiyvwoeTa PEeyanNEla TwY UT avTOU dEdoMEvwY Swoewv.. €£ avTOoU yap tepeis Kal NevITa TavTes ot
Nertoupyouvtes TH OvoitacTnpiw Toi Oeovs €€ avTov
1 Hdéws| AC; Kal Hdéws S. & éav) S, which is perhaps correct. A. 7 Swpeav] Swpawy A. iepets C.
I. 7Oéws x.t.A.] There is nothing in the original narrative which suggests that Isaac was a willing sacrifice ; Gen. xxii. 7, 8. According to Jose- phus however, Azz. i. 14. 4, on hear- ing his father’s purpose he déyerar mpos nOovny Tovs Aoyous and dpynoer emt Tov Bwpoy kal THY opayny. See also Beer’s Leben Abraham’s p. 65 sq with the notes p. 709 sq, where ample rabbinical authorities are collected for this addition to the narrative. The idea is brought out strongly by Melito (Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 123) 6 Se *Ioaak ovya memeOnpévos ws KpLos, OUK dvoiyov TO oropa ovde beyyopuevos avn’ To yap Eihos od PoByOeis ovde To TUp mTonOels ovde TO Taety AvTN- Geis €Baoracey tov TUmov tov Kupiov k.T.A., Where there is an obvious reference to Is. lili. 7 in ovdé Pbey- youevos hovn. Philo de Abr. 32 (II. p. 26) is seemingly ignorant of this turn given to the incident.
4. 10 da@dexdoxnrtpov| Equivalent to ro dw@dexaddvAov, which occurs below § 55 and Acts xxvi. 7; for oxfmrpov (ow), ‘a branch or rod’, is a syn- onym for ‘a tribe’; e.g. 1 Kings xi. 31, 32 Kat ddcw oor déxa oKAmTpa Kal duo oKnntTpa €orae avT@, and again ver. 35, 36 (see § 32); comp. Zest. xii
See the lower note.
oi] AC; om. (apparently) S.
"Edy ] conj.; def. A; 6 av C; guae si (as if et\cKpivws] tALKpUW... avTo0] S; atray AC. iepets] Az; of
8 Nevroupyouvres] Ncroupy...
Patr. Nepht. 5 ra dé0dexa oxnntpa Tov "Iopana.
XXXII. ‘If any one will consider, he may see what blessings God show- ers on the faithful. What great ho- nours did He confer on this patriarch Jacob! From him was derived the priestly tribe of Levi: from him came the great High-priest, the Lord Jesus; from him are descended kings and rulers through Judah. And by the other tribes also he was the father of countless multitudes. It was God’s will, not their own righteous doing, whereby they were glorified. And by His will also, not by our own piety or wisdom, are we and all men justified through faith—by His Almighty will to whom be glory for ever’.
5. Edy] Previous editors read ei; but, though e with the conjunc- tive is possible (see Phzlippzans iii. II), it is rare and ought not to be introduced unnecessarily.
eiluxpwas] ‘azstinctly, severally’. It seems to be a military metaphor from etAn ‘turma’; see the note, Philippians i. to.
6. vm avrod| i.e. rov Gcov. There is a little awkwardness in the sudden transition to ¢€ avrov, which must re-
XXXII]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
2
/ ~ ~ ~ 0 Kupios *Incovs TO Kata capka: €£€ a’Tov Bacirels
\ s/f \ e / \ \ ’ / \ \ Kal apXOVTES Kal nyoumevol, KaTa Tov “lovdav: Ta bE
\ ~ 5) co 5) > a / € F AolmTa TKNTTPA a’TOU OUK EV pLKpa do€n UTAPXOUGLY,
€ ? / Co eh EY \ t ws eTayyelXauevou Tou Oeov OTL “Ectai TO crépma coy
@c o1 dcTepec TOY O¥panof.
Mavtes ovy édo€dcOncav
\ > / > > 5) ~ s\ ~ sf > ~ \ Kal eueyaNuvOncav OU OL AUTWYV Yy TWYV EpYyYwv QAUTWV
= / Cy / > \ \ r THS OlKaLoTpayias ns KaTELpyacavTO, adANa Oia TOU
Teo A. IyoUmEVoL, dé] A; te CS. Tage C. 12 Tod Qeod] A; Geod C.
fer to Jacob; but rev vm advrov ded. Sdwpeoy can only be said of God (as in §§ 19, 23, 35), nor can vm avrov be translated ‘fer eum’, as in the Latin version of Young. Lipsius (de Clem. Rom. Ep. p. 55) explains ‘De beneficiis a Jacobo in nobis collo- catis’ and Harnack adds ‘haec dona sunt sacerdotes, ipse Dominus se- cundum carnem, reges.’
7. €& avtov| i.e. from Jacob. The following clauses render it necessary to read avrov for avtév, which might otherwise stand. For the whole pas- sage comp. Rom. ix. 4, 5 @v...7 Xa- Tpela Kal al éemayyeNlat, ov of marépes kat €€ oy Xpiotos TO KaTa oapKa.
9. 0 Kvuptos “Inoovs] He is men- tioned in connexion with the Leviti- cal tribe, as being the great High- priest, a favourite title in Clement: see the note § 36. Comp. Ign. Phzlad. Q KaNol Kal of iepets, Kpetacov O€ 6 ap- xvepevs. With Levi He is connected as a priest; from Judah He is de- scended as a king. Hence His name is placed between the two, as the link of transition from the one to the other. But there is no ground for assuming that by this collocation Cle- ment implies our Lord to have d- scended from Levi, as Hilgenfeld (4- post. Vat. p. 103, and here p. 98, ed. 2) thinks. The Epistle to the Hebrews,
10 Kata] AC; oi xara S, this being a repetition of the last syllable of
11 atrov] AS; om. C. d6éy] AS;
14 avrwv] avira C.
which Clement quotes so repeatedly, and from which his ideas of Christ’s high-priesthood are taken, would dis- tinctly teach him otherwise (vii. 14). A double descent (from both Judah and Levi) is maintained in the Zesz¢. ait Patr. (see Galatians p. 308), but this writing travels in a different cycle of ideas. And even in this Judaic work the Virgin herself is represented as belonging to Judah. In Iren. Fragm. 17 (p. 856, Stieren) likewise a double descent is ascribed to our Lord éx d€ Tov Aevi kat rod Tovda TO Kata oapka ws Bacidevs Kal iepevs eyervnOn. On the descent from Levi see Sinker Zest. of Twelve Patr. p. 105 sq.
IO. xara tov lovéay| ‘after Fudah, i.e. as descended from him and thereby inheriting the attribute of royalty, Gen. xlix. 10. This idea of the royalty of the patriarch Judah runs through the Zes¢. 27z Patr., e.g. Jud. I 6 waryp pov “lax@B nv€ato poe héeyou, BacwWevs Eon Katevodovpevos év Tact.
12. "Eorac x.r.A.| Comp. Gen. xv. 5, Xxll. 17, xxvl. 4. It is not an exact quotation from any of these passages, but most closely resembles the first.
i4. 60 avrav| Not avray. See above the notes on §§ 9, 12, 14, 30.
15. THs Stkavompayias x.t.A.] Comp.
a
100 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXII
/ 5) > Wee a oi \ 7 > vo OeXnpatos avTov. Kal rpuets ovv, dia OeAnmaTos avToU > ~ ~ / DX» € ~ , év Xpioto “Inco KAnbévtes, o0 Ov EavToy diKaoupeBa 2S \ \ ~ € / / \ / \ > if a\ ovde Oia THS NMETEPAS Toias n TUVETEWS 7 EevoeBElas 7 of fe Id 5) lf lA > \ Epywv wy KaTeipyacapela ev ooloTnTt kapolas, ada \ las / a) re, / \ > 2A e Sia THs TlaTEws, OU Ns MavTAas TOUS aT alwyos O Tap-
/ A > / fe) 3f ¢ ‘4 > A TokpaTwo O6eos GOLKALWOEV" Ww ETTW 7] doga els Tous
Seis ~ Be ALWVYAS TWVY ALWYW).
XXXII.
any. Ti ovv Tromowpev, adedpol; dpynowpmev
> \ = > Le \ > / \ / dro tis dyaborotias Kal éyKaTaXelTwmEev THY aya-
1 avrod] AC; rod Oeod S. homeeoteleuton. Tous] Tou A.
below, § 45.
3 huetépas| nuepac A. 6 rovls aidvas Tov aidvwy] AS; aidvas C. 8 TM ody rovjowuer, ddeXpol] AS; rl obv époduer, dyamyroi C.
kat uets...0edruaros avtod] AS; om. C, by
3 mdvras|] A; dravras C. See also
This variation is obviously suggested by Rom. vi. 1, where the argument is the
same; see I. p. 125. dpyjowmev] A; dpynooper C. A; xaraNitropev C; dub. S.
Tit. iii. 5 odk €& epyav tay ev dikat- ootvn & éroujoapey jets GAA Kata TO avTou €Aeos K.T.A.
2. &¢ éavray] i.e. nuady avtTay, as ef, Rom. vil. 23, 2 Cor. i. 9, iil, I, 5, and commonly.
3. coias 7} ovvécews| The words occur together 1 Cor. i. 19 (from Is. xxix. 14), Col. i. 9; so too cogot Kat cuveroi, Matt. xi. 25 (Luke x. 21). They are explained in Arist. £7h. Nic. vi. 7, 10. The first is a creative, the second a discerning faculty.
6. 7 dd€a] See the notes on Gala- Zians i. 5.
XXXIII. ‘What then? If we are justified by faz¢h, shall we leave off doing good? God forbid. We must needs work. The Almighty Himself rejoices in His own beneficent works. The heaven, the earth, the ocean, the living things that move on the land and in the sea, are His creation. Lastly and chiefly He made man after His own image. All these He created and blessed. As we have
For d5e\¢ol translated as if dyamnrot see above, §§ 1, 4. g kai] AS; om. C.
10 édoa 6 Seordrns| A; 6 Seomérns édoa C.
eyKaranelrwper |
seen before that the righteous have ever been adorned with good works, so now we see that even the Creator thus arrayed Himself. Having such an example, let us do good with all our might’.
In § 31 we have seen Clement com- bining the teaching of S. Paul and S. James in the expression ovyxi dxavo- cuvny kai addjnOecay Sid TicTews Tojeas; So here, after declaring emphatically that men are not justified by their own works but by faith (§ 32 od dv avTay 7) Tov épyev avreéy x«.T.A., and again ov Oud...€pyov ov kareipyacapeia év ootornre kapdlas dda bia THs TicTews k.T.A.), he hastens to balance this statement by urging the importance of good works. The same anxiety reveals itself elsewhere. Thus, where he deals with the examples adduced in the Apostolic writings, he is care- ful to show that neither faith alone nor works alone were present: § Io of Abraham 61a riorw kal didrogeviav €006n avT@ vids x.7.A., § 12 of Rahab
15
XXXII1| TO THE CORINTHIANS. IOI
mv; pwnlauws TovTo éaca 0 SearoTns ef jpiv ye yevnOnvar, dda oTEVT WEY META EKTEVELaS Kal TpO- Qupias mav épyov dyabov émitedeitv. attos yap 6 Snpuoupyos Kat deomoTns THY arravTwY El TOs Epryots avToU ayaNNiaTal. Tw yao TaupeyeleaTAaTW avTOU KpaTeL OUpavous ETTIPLOEV, Kal TH akaTaANT TH avTou guverer OveKOoUNTEV avTOUS* yy TE SLEexwWLTEV aro TOU TEPLEXOVTOS aUuTHV voaTos Kal nO pacev €ml TOV
ye yevnOjvar] A; yernOfva (om. ye) CS. Above, § 23, we have the same pheno- menon, though there the relations of A and C are reversed, A omitting and C re-
taining ye.
fervyeotadtw Leont Damasc.
dpacev] AC Damasc ; édpacev Leont.
dua miotw kai diro€eviay €owOn. See Westcott Canon p. 23. Nor is it only where doctrine is directly con- cerned that Clement places the teach- ing of the Apostles of the Circum- cision and the Uncircumcision in juxtaposition, as e.g. § 49 dyamn xa- AUmres TAROoS apuaptiay, ayarn wavtTa avéxerat x.T.A. (See the note there). This studied effort to keepthe balance produces a certain incongruous effect in the rapid transition from the one aspect of the antithesis to the other; but it is important when viewed in connexion with Clement’s position as ruler of a community in which the two sections of the Church, Jewish and Gentile, had been in direct an- tagonism and probably still regarded each other with suspicion. On this position of Clement, as a reconciler, see Galatians p. 323, and the intro- duction here, I. p. 96. A part of this chapter is quoted by Leontius and John Res Sacr.ii (see above, I. p. 188) with considerable variations.
8. Ti otv womoopev| Evidently modelled on Rom. vi. I sq.
It is wanted here for the sense. 14 adyadNGrac] A; dyddXerac C Leont Damasc.
Il éxrevelas] exrevia... A. TwapmeyebectaT@| AC; mrap-
15 éornpicev] AC; éornpiéey Leont Damasc. 7™n| A Leont Damasc; év rH C; dub. S. Tad a pioev A; yqv dé dtexadpicev Leont ; ynv dé éxwpicev Damasce.
16 ynv Te duexedpicey] C3 ynv 17 #
10. éaca 6 Seomorns x.t.r.| True to his dictum that everything is da OeAnparos avrov and nothing dv éav- trav, he ascribes the prevention of this consequence solely to God’s pro- hibition. On o deomorns see the note above, § 7. For the preposition in ep nuiv, ‘22 our case, comp. John xii. BOS Acts. Vi 3.5) xx1.'245:2) Coerie ae
I2. avros yap x.t.A.| This passage as far as av€averOe xai mAnOuvedGe is quoted (with some omissions and va- riations) by John of Damascus Sacr. Paral, (Wi. p. 316).
13. Snusoupyos x.t.A.] So Clem. Hom. Xvll. 8 rdvrev Snptoupyoy Kat Seorérny.
I5. eornpicevy] See the note on atnpioop § 18.
17. meptexovtos| This has been thought to imply an acceptance of the theory of the @xeavds morapos supposed to encircle the earth ; comp. e.g. Herod. 11. 21 ro & @xeavov yy mepi macav peery, M. Ann. Seneca Szas. i. I ‘de Oceano dubitant utrumne terras velut vinculum circumfluat.’ But, as Clement does not use the word oxeavos, and as it is not un-
102 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT | XXXII
dopadyn Tov idiov BovAnuatos Geuediovs Ta TE EV aitTy Cwa horwvta tH EavToU diataker éxedevoev elvat’ OarXacoav Kai Ta ev auth Coa 7 POOnmLoupyn- gas évéxheicev Th EavTov duvaue* él mao TO é€o- XwWTaTOV Kal Tappeyeles KaTa Sidvotav, avOpwrov Tats 5 lepais Kal duwpols YEpolv EmAaTEY THS EavTOU ELKOVOS YapakThpa. ovTws yap gnow o Oeos* Tlotticamen an- OPWITON KAT EIKONA KAl KAO OMOIWCIN HMETEPAN. KAI ETTOI-
HCEN 6 Oedc TON ANOP@TION, APCEN KAI OAAY ETOIHCEN dy-
Td TE €v avry...duvdper]
3 Tpodnp.oupynoas | 4 evéxrecev | evéxdicey A. €mi
1 BovAjuatos] AC; OeAjwaros Leont Damasc. om. Leont Damasce. TpOOnfl..+-- cas A; mpoero.udoas CS.
2 é€auvtov] AS; éaurdy C.
mwaot...dvOpwrov] AC; émi rovras tov éEoxwrarov (€&srarov Leont) kal raumeyédn
dv@pwrov Leont Damasc S. the other authorities see the last note.
natural to speak of the water ‘ gird- ling’ the land independently of this theory, the inference is questionable. See the note on § 20.
3. mpodnptovpynoas| i.e. before ra ev tT yn (ea ouravta, which have been already mentioned out of their proper place.
4. evexdecoev] ‘zuclosed within their proper bounds’: see above § 20 TA TEplikeleva avUTH KAEiOpa.
To e€f0x@eTaToy x7.A.] Is this an accusative after émAacev, avOperov being in apposition? Or is it a nominative absolute, referring to the whole sentence which follows, av6pa- Tov...xapaxtnpa? On the construction adopted depends the sense assigned to xara Oidvocay which will mean respectively either (1) ‘27 zutellectual capacity’, referring to man; or (2) ‘as an exercise of Hts creative tintellt- gence’, referring to God. The former appears to be generally adopted; but the latter seems to me preferable; for a sentiment like Hamlet’s ‘How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty !’ is somewhat out of place on
5 maupeyebes| A; trampeyebéorarov C. For
6 iepats] AC; idtas atrod Leont
the lips of Clement, and such a strong expression as zapupéyeOes xara did- vovay jars with his language elsewhere about human intellect, e.g. §§ 13, 32, 36. The rappeyebes kata didvoray therefore seems to have the same bearing as 77 dxaradnTT@ avrov cvvéet above. John of Damascus indeed takes the sentence otherwise, but he omits cata dravocap.
5. maupéeyeOes| The word does not occur either in the LXX or in the G.T., but is foundin Symmachus Ps. Ixvii (Ixviii). 31 ouvdd@ rappeyebav (Field’s Orig. Hexafpl. 11. p. 204).
6. apopos] ‘faultless’. See the note on popockornber, § 41.
7. Tlouowpev x.t.A.| A broken quo- tation from the LXx Gen. 1. 26, 27, clauses being left out.
8. eikdva, ouoiosw| These words are distinguished in reference to this text by Trench WV. 7. Syz. Ist ser. § xv.
Dorner (Person Christi 1. p. 100, Engl. trans.) considers it probable that ‘under the expression exav Gcov, whose yapaxtjpa man bears, we are
XXXIV | TO THE CORINTHIANS.
103
toyc. Tavra ovv mavTa TeNELlwoas ETNVET EV aUTa Kal nuAoynoev Kal elev? AyzANEcbE Kal TAHOYNECOe. Eido- pev OTL év Epyos ayabois mavtes éexoopiOnoav oi Oi- Kator* Kal av’Tos ovv 0 Kuptos épyous éavToy Koopnoas éyapn. mporehOwuev TH OeAnuate avTov, EE GANS ioXVOS Hua
af > a \ ¢ \ np: EXOVTES OUVY TOUTOV TOV UTTOY PAMMOV QAOKVWS
€Epyacwuela Epyov Suxaoovrns.
XXXIV. ‘O dyalos épyarns pera Tappnolas Nap-
Damasc. 8 eixdva] Damasc adds juerépay and omits it after duolwou. 3 Ul b] is > / 10 ermvecev] AC; émaivecey Leont; émroincevy Damasc.
avéavecOar A. wAnOvver Be] wANOUVeT Oa A.
11 Avédvecde]
ACS. AC; éxounOnoay S.
A3 Ts icxvos C.
to understand the Son’. Though the text in Genesis is so interpreted by later fathers (e.g. Clement of Alex- andria and Origen), I see no indi- cation in the context that this idea was present to the mind of the Roman Clement. See the remarks on the logos-doctrine above, I. p. 398.
II. AvéaveoOe «.7.A.] From the LXX Gen. i. 28.
Eidowev| The sense seems to re- quire this substitution for idwpev; see the introduction I. p. 120 for similar errors of transcription. ‘We saw be- fore,’ says Clement, ‘that all the righteous were adorned with good works (§ 32), and now I have shown that the Lord God Himself etc.’ By 6 Kupuos is meant 6 Onprovpyos kal Seomotns Tey amavTev, aS appears from ovv and from eyapn taken in connexion with what has gone before (compare dyaA\ara above).
12. drux.t.d.] If the reading ro be retained, we must understand a cog- nate accusative such as koopnya: e.g. Soph. £7. 1075 rov dei marpos (sc. otovoy) Seiikaia orevayovoa. ‘This is
possible ; but the reading of A is dis-
12 67t] CS; add 7d A. 13 ow] A; 6é CS. See above, § 30, and comp. I. pp. 126, 141.
Hidouwev] Young (marg.); cdwmev epyots] eyyour A. exoounOnoar | épyos| A; add ayaéots CS.
15 €€] A; xai €& CS. icxvos |
credited by the fact that the scribe’s attention was flagging here, for he writes eyyos for epyous and (as we have seen) wWepev for edouer. On these grounds I proposed the omis- sion in my first edition, and it has since been confirmed by our new authorities.
14. vmoypappov] See the note on S 5. 15. mpocéAOwopey| The verb mpoo-
épxecOar occurs several times of approaching God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the imperative mpocepxeueOa more especially twice, iv. 16, x. 22. See also above § 29 mpocehOopev ody ato «7T.A.; Comp. SS 23, 63.
XXXIV. ‘The good workman re- ceives his wages boldly: but the slothful dares not face his employer. The Lord will come quickly with His reward in His hand. He will come attended by myriads of angels, hymning His praises. Let us there- fore with one voice and one soul cry to Him, that we may be partakers of His glorious promises, which surpass all that man can conceive’.
104 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXIV
\ af = Sf 5) a ¢ \ \
Baver Tov apTov Tov Epyou avTOU, 6 vwOpos Kat Tap- , > ) ~ tou / > - /
Eyuevos ovK avTodpUadpet Tw EpyomapEeKTN aUTOU. O€OV
S / ¢ - S. 2 A ou éoTw mpoOvmous nuas eivar eis ayaboroitav: €€ a \ / / \ Curr > \ avToU yao éoTW Ta TavTa* TeOAEyEL yap nuly* “ldaoy 6 Kypioc, kal 6 micO0c ayTOY TPO TPOCWMOY AYTOY, ATOAOF- c ' \ Werke) > a , 3) Le Nal €kdcT@ KATA TO épron ayToy. [lootpemerar ovy nuas Ue 5) ef o / ane 2 > \ 2 \ miaTevovTas €& SANS THS Kapolas Ex a’TH py apryous \ 7 > \ ~ af / \ 7 pnoe Taperevous Eivar ert mav Epyov ayabov’ TO Kau-
e ~ \ € / 4 > p) ~ € XNA nMwy Kal n Tappynola EoTwW EV a’TwW* VTOTAG-
1 6 vwOpds] AC; 6 0€ vwApos S.
AC. S translates as if it referred to rpo@vmous vuds x.T.X. 6 Ilporpémerat] mporpererte A.
KUptos (om. 6) C.
I. 6 vwOpos «.t.r.| Both these words occur in the epistle to the He- brews, and nowhere else in the N.T. For vwOpos see Heb. v. II, vi. 12; for mwapeipevos, ib. xii. 12. The com- bination appears in Ecclus. iv. 29 voOpos Kal mapemmevos ev Tols epyots avrov, which passage perhaps Cle- ment had in his mind.
2. avtopOarpet] ‘faces’, as Wisd. xii. 14, Acts xxvii. 15, Barnab. § 5. The word occurs frequently in Poly- bius. Comp. dvtomeiy Theoph. ad Autol. i. 5, avroppareiv Afost. Const. vi. 2. For dvrop@adpeiv itself see Lit. D. Facob. p. 25 (ed. Hammond).
épyorapexty| ‘hzs employer’. Ihave not found any other instance of this word, which is equivalent to epyodorns. Compare also épyodaBos, epyoduaxrns (Exod. iii. 7, v. 6, etc.).
3. €& avrov| i.e. Tov épyorapéxtov NL@V.
4. *Idod 6 Kupwos «.7.A.]| The be- ginning is a confusion of Is. xl. Io idov Kuptos (6 eos duav S) Kiptos (om. Kupuos sec. A) pera ioyvos epxerat kal 6 Bpaxiwy add. avrod A) pera xupias’ idov 0 picOos avTov per avTov Kal TO épyov evayriov avtov, and Is, lxii. 11 idod 6 GaTnp aor Tapayéyovey (col oO
€& avrov] 5 6 Kupios] A; 7 mioTevovTas| CS ;
3 nuas] AC; wmas S.
ceTp mapayiverar SA) €x@v Tov éav- Tov puoOov, kal TO epyov avrod (om. avtov A) rp0 mpoo@mov avrov: but the ending comes from Prov. xxiv. I2 os arodidwow exdoT@ Kata Ta epya avToU, unless (as seems more probable from the connexion) it is taken from Rev. Xxli. 12 idod €pyopar raxd Kal 0 pro Oos pov peT emov amodovva ExdoT@ ws TO épyov €orat avtov. Clem. Alex. Strom. lv. 22 (p. 625) has the same quo- tation, but is copying the Roman Clement.
7. en avT@| i.e. TO pide, ‘wth our reward in view’. The position of é& oAns THs Kapdias is Opposed to such corrections as én’ avro TO or emt vo for the MS reading en’ avr@ ; nor does any alteration seem needed.
8. pndé mapeysévous x.t.A.| Comp. 2 Tim. il. 21 eis may €pyov dyadov nrouacpevoy, 20. lil. 17, Tit. ill. 1, and see above, § 2. The pyre after py in A was so suspicious (see Winer § lv. p. 513, A. Buttmann p. 315) as to call forth the suggestion in my first edition that it should probably be read pnée ; see the vv. ll. in Luke vii. 33, Eph. iv.
“27. Our new authorities have con- firmed the justice of this suspicion.
12. Mupiai x.t.A.] Dan. vii. 10 (Theo-
XXXIV | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 105
rogwucla Tw OeXnmaTL avTOU: KaTavonowpEV TO Tay TAnOos TwV ayyeéAwY avTOU, TwS TW OeAnpate avTou NELTOUPY OVE TApETTWTES* Never yap 1 ypagn > Myptat MYPIAAEC TTAPEICTHKEICAN AYTQO, KAI YIAIAl YIAIAAEC EAEITOYP- rOYN ayT@: Kai €xékparon: Arioc, drioc, drioc Kypioc ca- 15 Bawe, TAHPHC TAcCa H KTICIC TAC AdZHC AYTOY. Kat 1] [LELS ovv, €v Omovoia Eri TO adTO GuvaxOEevTEs TH TUVELdHCEL, ws EF éEvos oTOuaTos Bonowuev mpos adTov éxTEVWS Eis
\ / e GC E lo / | 5] / TO peTOXOUs nuas yeverOar TwY pEeyadrwy Kal EvooEwv
om.A. See i. p. 124. Toupyovow] iTovpyouow A.
both this word and zrapeoTrjkecay as presents.
Lxx and Hebr.
dot.) xAua xudiddes Ehecrovpyouv avTa@ (€Oepamevoy avTov LXX) kal pvpiae po- piades TapetoTnKeicayv avT@, the clauses being transposed by Clement. The order of the clauses in the Hebrew is the same as in the Greek versions. Yet Iren. Haer. ii. 7, 4, Euseb. Praep. Ev. vil. 15 (p. 326), Greg. Nyss. Hom. vitt-in Lccles. (1. p. 463), Cyril. Hier. Catech. xv. 24 (p. 237), and others, give the quotation with the inverted clauses as here; but, as it is quoted with every shade of variation in dif- ferent fathers and even these same fathers in some cases give the right order elsewhere, no stress can be laid on this coincidence which seems to be purely accidental.
14. Kat éxéxpayov| A loose quotation from LXX Is. vi. 3. "Exéxpayoy is an imperfect of a new verb kexpayo formed from xéxpaya ; see Buttmann Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. § 111 (Il. p. 37)-
15. Kat nets ovv x.t.A.] The con- nexion of this passage with the li- turgical services had struck careful observers, even before the discovery of the liturgical ending of the epistle (SS 60, 61) had furnished a solid ba-
8 pndé] C, and so probably S; uyre A. 13 €\ectovpyour] C3 ALTovpyoww A. S translates
I2 Aew-
15 xriow] AS; y# C with
16 TH cuvedjoer] AC; 22 una consctentia S.
sis for such conjectures. Probst more especially (Lzturg. d. adret ersten Fahrh. 41 sq) emphasizes this con- nexion. The phenomena which ex- pressly point to it are (1) the ‘ter sanctus’, and more especially the connexion of Is. vi. 3 with Dan. vii. 10; (2) The expressions émi 70 avro ouvaxbévres (comp. Ign. Ephes. 13, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 7, 8), €& évos oro- patos (comp. Rom. xv. 6), éxrevas (see I; p. 385); ete; (3) The’ quotation opOadpos «.7.A. For more on this subject see the introduction, I. p. 386 sq.
16. ry cuvednoer| ‘22 heart, in con- sctousness’; comp. Eccles. x. 20 kai ye ev cuverOnoet cou Baoréa pr) KaTapacn, i.e. ‘in your secret heart’, The pre- sence of their hearts, and not of their bodies only, is required. The com- mentators however either translate as though it were év ayaOn ovvedyoet, or give tn cvveOnoes the unsupported sense ‘harmony, unanimity’. This last is apparently the sense assigned to it by the Syriac translator ; see the upper note. Others have pro- posed to read ouvdjoe: or cuvedia.
106
ETayyeNtwy avTou,
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XXXIV
Neyer yap* "Opeadmdc oYK Elden
Kal OYC OYK HKOYCEN, KAl ETT] KAPAIAN ANOP@TMOY OYK ANEBH,
OC& HTOIMACEN TOIC YTIOMENOYCIN AYTON.
1 OpOaruds] A; a dfPOaruds CS (with 1 Cor. il. 9).
Tots wrouevovcw] A; Tots dyar@ow CS (see
nroiwacev] A; add. kipios CS. the lower note).
I. "OpOadrpos k.7..] This quotation occurs also in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. 9 (where it is introduced by kaos yé- ypamrat), in the form a o@Oadpos ovk eidev Kal os ovK HKOVGEY Kal emt Kapdiay avOpémov ovK aveBn oa Aroipmacey oO Geos rois ayamaéaw avrov. It is cited again in ii. § 11 (comp. § 14), Mart. Polyc. 2, Clem. Ep. ad Virg. i. 9; see also Lagarde’s Gesamm. Abhandl. p. 142. It is apparently taken from Isaiah lxiv. 4, which runs in the LXX amd Tov aidvos ovK HKovoaper ovdé of d6pOarpot nuay cidov Gedy my gov kal Ta epya gov a Tomoes Tots Umopévovow €deov, but more nearly in the Hebrew, ‘From eternity they have not heard, they have not heark- ened, neither hath eye seen a god [or ‘O God’] save thee (who) worketh [or ‘(what) He shall do’] to him that awaiteth Him’ (see Delitzsch ad loc.); combined with Is. lxv. 16, 17 ovk avaBnoeTar avT@v emt THY Kap- Siav...ov py éeméAOn avt@v emt THY Kap- diav. Clement mixes up S. Paul’s free translation or paraphrase from the Hebrew (the latter words oca nroiwacev k.t.A. being apparently the Apostle’s own explanatory addition) with the passage as it stands in the LXX ; just as above, § 13, in quoting Jer. ix. 23, 24 (or 1 Sam. ii. 10) he con- denses it after S. Paul. Fora similar instance see above § 34 idovd 6 Kupuos k.7.A. The passages, which Hilgen- feld suggests as the sources of the quotation (4 Esdr. x. 35 sq, 55 sq), diverge more from the language of S. Paul and Clement, than these words of Isaiah.
3. doa AC; om: a:
The passage, if we may trust S. Je- rome, occurred as given by S. Paul, both in the Ascension of Isaiah and in the Apocalypse of Elias (Hieron. zm Is. \xiv. 4, IV. p. 761; Prol.in Gen. IX. p. 3) And Origen, zz Matth. XXVIL. 9 (III. p. 916), says that S. Paul quotes from the latter, ‘In nullo re- gulari libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi (ef py, ‘but only’) in Secretis Eliae prophetae’. This assertion is repeated also by later writers (see Fabricius Cod. Ps. V. 7. 1. p.,to7a) doubtless from Origen, but combated by Jerome (ll. cc. and Zfzsz. lvii. § 9, I. p. 314), who refers the quotation to Is. Ixiv. 4. If it could be shown that these apocryphal books were prior to S. Paul, this solution would be the most probable ; but they would ap- pear to have been produced by some Christian sectarians of the second century, for Jerome terms them ‘Ibe- rae naeniae’ and connects them with the Basilideans and other Gnostics who abounded in Spain (Il. cc.; see also c. Vigzl. 11. p. 393, and comp. Fabricius p. 1093 sq). If so they incorporated the quotation of S., Paul in their forgeries. For a simi- lar instance of incorporation see the notes on Galatians vi. 15. At all events both these works appear from the extant remains to have been Christian. For the Afocalypse of Elias see Epiphan. Haer. xlii (p. 372), who says that the quotation in Eph. v. 14 (which is obviously Christian) was found there; and for the Ascen- szon of Isatah, this same father Haer. Ixviil. 3 (p. 712), where he quotes a
XXxv|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
107
XXXV. ‘Ws paxapia Kal Oavuarta Ta Swpa Tov
5 Oeov, dyarnrot.
passage referring to the Trinity. In- deed there is every reason to believe that the work known to Epiphanius and several other fathers under this name, is the same with the Ascension and Viston of Isaiah published first by Laurence in an A£thiopic Version and subsequently by Gieseler in a Latin. The two versions represent different recensions ; and the passage ‘Eye hath not seen, etc” appears in the Latin (xi. 34) but not in the “Ethiopic (see Jolowicz Aimmelfahrt u. Viston des Propheten Iesaia p. 90, Leipzig 1854). The Latin recension therefore must have been in the hands of Jerome ; though this very quotation seems to show clearly that the Athi- opic more nearly represents the ori- ginal form of the work (see Licke Offenbarung d. Fohannes p. 179 sq). Both recensions alike are distinctly Christian.
It was at all events a favourite text with certain early Gnostic sects, who introduced it into their formula of initiation and applied it to their esoteric teaching ; see Hippol. Haer. Beret 20, 27, vi. 24. ‘This perverted use of the text was condemned by their contemporary Hegesippus (as reported by Stephanus Gobarus in Photius 4z0/. 232), as contradicting our Lord’s own words pakdpio ot opOadpol vuey x.7.A. In other words he complained that they would re- strict to the initiated few the know- ledge which Christ declared to be laid open to all. But Stephanus Go- barus himself, writing some centuries later and knowing the text only as it occurs in S. Paul, is not unnaturally at a loss to know what Hegesippus means by this condemnation (ov oid 6 Tt kat Tabev parny pev eipnoOa TavTa héyer k.7.A.). On the use which some
b oy) ‘6 / / ’ } Cwn ev abavacia, NauTpoTns év Oi-
modern critics have made of this re- ference to Hegesippus in Stephanus Gobarus, see Galatians p. 320.
For the connexion of this quotation opOarpos ovK eidev x.7.A. with the earlier liturgies, see the introduction, I. p. 389 sq.
Fabricius (p. 1073) quotes a par- allel from Empedocles (Fragm. Phi- los. 1. p. 2, ed. Mullach) ov? émidepxra tad’ avOpacw ovr emakovaoTa, ovTE voO@ TepiAnnra.
3. vmopevovow] It is clear that Clement wrote vmopnevovow from the words which follow at the beginning of the next chapter riva otv Gpa éorly ra erormatomeva Tols Vropevovow; Where he picks up the expression according to his wont; see the note on § 46 Tov éxdextov pou StacrpéWar. On the other hand S, having broken the connexion by substituting dyaréow for vmopévovow, re-establishes it by the expedient of adding kai ayardyrev to vmopevovray in § 35. On this reading (vmopevovow) see also I. p. 390, note.
XXXV. ‘Great and marvellous are God’s gifts even in the present! How then can we conceive the glory that hereafter awaits His patient ser- vants? Let us strive to attain this reward. And to this end let us do what is well-pleasing to Him: let us shun strife and vainglory; let us lay aside all selfish and unbrotherly sins. Remember how in the Psalms God denounces those who hearken not to His warning voice, who persist in wronging their neighbours, count- ing on His forbearance. He tells us that the sacrifice of praise is the path of salvation’.
5. Aapmporns| ‘cheerfulness, ala- crity, strenuousness’, aS e.g. Plut. Vit. Cim. 17, Polyb. xxxii. 23. I (see
108 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxXXV
4 sae : ; : katocuvn, adyera év mappyoia, miaTis EV meTrollnoel, éykparea év dyiacu@’ Kal TaVTA UTeTITTEY TaVTA U7r0 Thy Slavolavy Huwv. Tiva ovv apa eat Ta ETOLUACO- meva Tols Uiromevovaly; oO OnMLoUpYoOs Kal TaTHP TeV aiwvwY 6 Tavaylos AUTOS YWwWOKEL THY TOTOTNTA Kal
\ \ > ~~ ¢ qn oR > / e a THv KaNNovyv avTa@V. pels OY dywvicwpeba evpEeOnvat
wn ant ~~ e / , c/ / év TW apiOuw TwY UTOMEVOYTwWY a’TOV, OTWS METAa-
~~ > / van lol N.’ of ~ Bwuev Twv éernyyeApevwy Owpewv. Tws d€ ExTat TOU-
> / aN 5) / Ss / € ~ \
TO, ayamnTol; é€ay eoTHplypEry 1 H Olavola nuwy ola / \ \ / oa | > lon \ > /
TicTews mpos Tov Oeov' éav ex(yTwWMEV Ta EVapEeTTa
Kal eUTpocoeKTa avTwM* Eay ETLTEMETWMEV TA dYnKOVTA
2 éyxparera] eyxparia A. tréminrey mavTa| A; vronimte. mavta C ; vTo- ninrovra S, some letters having dropped out, yrrortittte| ita] NTA. TaTnp Tov aiwvev o mavdy.s|] AS; Tay aiwvwy Kal marinp mavayos C. 7 viro- pevivtwy] AC; add. kal dyaravrwv S. For the reason of this addition see the note on § 34 6d0ahpos k.T.X. avtév] A; om. CS. 8 rdv éernyyeuever Swpeav] Tavernyyeduevwviwpawy A; Tv dwpeav Ta érnyyeduévwv C, and so probably S. g dyarnroi}] AC; om. S. n 7) nn A; 4 (om. 7) C. dia mistews] Young; fer fidem 8; miorews (om, 61a) A; misTas C. Io exgnrauev] A; exgnrnowper C. Ta evdpesta kal edmpdcdexta a’t@] AS; Ta dyabd Kai evdpecta air@ Kal edmpic-
4 Kal
Schweigh. Lex. s.v. XKaympos). Com- pare the similar word gaidporns. The position of Aaumporns here seems to require this sense, for all the words in the parallel clauses (wy, adjOea, mioris, eykparea, refer to the moral consciousness, not to any external advantages.
I. mlotis ev memoOnoe] See the note above, § 26.
2. kat ravra x.t.A.| ‘These,’ Cle- ment argues, ‘are already within our cognisance. What then are the joys in store for those who remain sted- fast to the end?’ Comp. 1 Joh. ui. 2 vov téxva Qeod eopev kal ovr@ écdave- pan Ti eoopeba.
5. mavaywos] Apparently the first in- stance of the word, which afterwards takes a prominent place in the language of Greek Christendom ; un-
less indeed the occurrences in4 Macc. Vil. 4, xiv. 7, are earlier.
9. d1a ricrews| The reading of the Syriac version is unquestionably right ; see I. p. 143. The omission of dua in A may perhaps be explained by the neighbourhood of dudvora. Hil- genfeld and Gebhardt read muords. Lipsius (p.15) defends wicrews, trans- lating ‘cogttationes fidet’, but this would require ai dudvovat THs TicTE@s.
II. evmpoodexra] See the notes on $7, 40.
13. macay adckiay x.t.’.]| The whole passage which follows is a reminis- cence of Rom. i, 29 sq movety ra py kaO@nkovta...7aon adikia movnpia m\eo- ve&ia...¢€prdos SdAov kaxonOeias, YrOupio- Tas kataddadovs Oeoorvyeis...umepnpa- vous ddatovas...emtyvovTes OTL of Ta Tolavta mpaccovtres a&tor Oavarov ciciv,
15
20
XXxv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 109
th duwuw BovAjoe avTov Kal dkoNovOnowpev TH O0@ n apopc 7 nownev TH 604 Con / > / 3 ¢ ~ ~ 5) / Ths dAnbeias, adroppivavtes ap éavTwy Taoay adikiay
\ > J , A / \ / Kal aVOMLAY, TAEOVEELAD, EDELS, KakonOelas TE Kal doXous, , ld (3 e Wibupispouvs Te Kal KaTadadias, Geootuyiay, v7eEpn- / > / J \ paviay TE Kai aaCovelar, Kevoooglavy TE Kal adido-
/ Co \ e / \ 7 a Feviav. TavTa yap ol TpaccovTes oTUYyNTO TH OEw
e / > / \ e / > / > \ \ UTapYoUTIW: OU OVOY O€ OL TPATTOYTES aUTA, d\NG Kat
/ \ e / = \ Neyer yao n ypadn’ Te de
AMAPTWAG eEiTEN 6 Oedc: “Ina Ti cy AIHPH TA AlKAI@MATA
OL GDUVEVOOKOUYTES Q@UTOLS.
MOY, KAL ANAAAMBANEIC THN AIOOHKHN MOY ETT] CTOMATOC COY;
cy A€ EMICHCAC TIAIAEIAN, KAl EZEBAAAEC TOYC AGLOYC MOY Eic
dexta C. 14 dvoulay] A; movnpiav CS (comp. Rom. i. 29). teoveclav | AS om: C. 15 Katahadids] Katadiiuao A. brepnpaviay te] AC; Kal vrepnpaviay S. 16 ddagovelay] adagovia A. apirokeviav] CS; pidokeriay A. 18 pdvov] pov A. 20 dunyn] A; éxdunyn C3; dub. S. This is a
v.l. in the Lxx also. 21 éml] A (as the Hebr. Sy); dua CS with the Lxx. cov] wou A. So the Ms seems clearly to read (as even the photograph shows),
though Tisch. gives it cov. 1. r) inclusive. Tadelav] maduav A,
ov povov avTa Trotovaw (Vv. 2. mowovvres) ad\Aa Kat cuvevdoxovow (v. 2. cuvevdo- Kovvres) Tols mpacoovow. On the reading mo.ovvtes, cuvevdoKxovrTes, SUP- ported by Clement’s language here, see Tischendorf’s note.
16. apwo€eviavy] This was the sim- plest emendation of the reading of A (see the note on pr arnpedeira § 38), and it is now confirmed by our new authorities. The word occurs Orac. Sibyll. viii. 304 tis apirokevins tavrny ticovot mpaneCavy. Other proposed readings were diAoripiav, pidrodogiar, irtoverxiav. The suggestion of Lip- sius (p. 115), that the Corinthians had failed in the duty of providing for others, appears to be correct. But the word seems to point rather to their churlishness in not enter- taining foreign Christians at Corinth, than (as he maintains) to the niggard-
22 ov 6€ k.T.X.] C omits all to 6 puduevos (p. 111, After the omission comes kal é&v T@ TéXNet Ovola aivéocews K.T.r. éféBaddes] eLaBadreo A; é&€Bares S; def. C.
liness of their contributions towards the needs of poor Christians abroad, though they may have failed in this respect also (see the note § 38). The duty of entertaining the brethren from foreign churches was a re- cognized obligation among the early Christians. In former times the Corinthians had obtained a good re- port for the practice of this virtue (S I TO peyadomperés ths iro€evias vpav nos), but now all was changed. Hence the stress laid on the fos- pitality of Abraham (§ 10), of Lot (§ 11), of Rahab (§ 12); for this virtue cannot have been singled out in all three cases without some special reference.
19. T@ d€ auaptod@ x.t.A.] From the LXxX Ps. 1. 16—23, with slight va- riations, of which the more important are noted below.
IIO THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxXXv
\ ' , ’ an \
TA OTTICW. €1 EDEMPEIC KAETITHN, CYNETPEYEC AYTH, KAl META MOIYON THN MEDIAd coy éTIBEIC’ TO CTOMA COY ETTAEONACEN KAKIAN, KAl H FA@CCA COY TEDIETTAEKEN AOAIOTHTA’ KAOHMENOC
A an > n ’ \ \ A c a n KATA TOY AAEADOY COY KATEAAAEIC, KAl KATA TOY YIOY THC MHTPOC COY ETIGEIC CKANAAAON’ TAYTA ETTOIHCAC Kal ECIFHCA’ 5 OT! €comal O6moloc’ €AE€PZ@ CE Kal
YTEAABEC, ANOME, col
TTAPACTHCM CE KATA TIPOCWTION Coy. CYNETE AH TAYTa, Ol
ETHIAANOANOMENO! TOY Ocof, MHTOTE APTACH @C AEN, Kal
2 émredvacey] A; émdedvagey S.
avoua A; dvouiay S. See the lower note. kaTa mpocwmdy cov Tas auaprlas cov S. See the lower note. see below; jv ACS (with some Mss of the Lxx).
Tov Oeot|] AS; pou C.
3. KkaOnpevos| Implying deliberate conspiracy ; see Perowne on Ps. i. I.
6. avope] LXX avopiay (B); but S has avope, though it is afterwards cor- rected into avopeay (dvopiay). *Avo- piay is read by Justin Dzal. 22 (p. 240), Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 14 (p. 798); but dvowe Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 24 (p. 634). The Syriac does not favour avope (as Wotton states), ex- cept that the existing pointing in- terprets it thus. The reading of our MS A here shows how easy was the transition from the one to the other, avoua: (dvowe) and avoyia (= avo- piav). See the notes on avaornocopa § 5, and 7 det€w just below. Though dyvoue makes better sense, the original reading of the LXx here must have been avopiay (not avope as Wotton thinks); for the translators must have misread {AN Ny ND ‘Thou thoughtest, I shall surely be’, as if max min not ‘Thou thoughtest destruction (or iniquity), I shall be’, since nj is elsewhere translated by dvopia, Ps. lvii. 2, xciv. 20; and Theo- dotion, whose version agreed with the Lxx (see Field’s Hexap/. ad loc.), must have read it in the same way.
7. mapaotnow oe Kt.r.] ‘2 well
13 acbevelas] acbenac A.
4 ddedpov] adeAgouc A. 6 dvope] 7 oe KaTa Tpbowmdy cov] A;
10 7] LxXx (BS) atr@| AC; adrots S.
14 TovTov] C; TOYTOY
bring thee face to face with thyself, show thee to thyself in thy true light.’ The oe is omitted in BS of the Lxx and doubtless had no place in the original text of this version which agreed with the Hebrew, ‘I will lay in order (the matter) before thee’. Justin Dza/. 22 (l.c.) and other wri- ters supply an accusative tas auaprias gov, which is found also in a large number of MSS (see Holmes and Parsons).
8. ws A€wv] i.e. ‘lest he seize you as tt were a lion’. The words os éov are absent from the LXx (and Justin Dial. 22 p. 402), as also from the Hebrew. They must have come from Ps. vii. 3, either as a gloss in Clement’s text of the LXX or as inadvertently inserted by him in a quotation made from memory.
10. 7 deté@] As 7 is read in the LXx (BS) and in Justin l.c., and as the parallelism in the opening of the next chapter (7 od0s év 7 evpopev TO cwTnpioy x.T.A.) Seems to require it, I have restored it for jv. For similar corruptions in the MS A see § 15 ava- otnoopey (note), § 36 ovary, § 41 cuver- dnow, ii. § 6 atypartoou. If qv be retained, carjpiov must be taken as a
XXXVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. Faia MH H O PYOMENOC. OyCIA AINE€CEWC AOZACEI ME, KAl kel OAOC H AEIZW AYT@ TO CWTHPION TOY Oecof.
XXXVI.
e/ € € / > / 5) © e/ \ Avtn 7 0d0s, dyamrnrot, év 1 EVPOMEV TO
cwTipiov nuwv ’Incovv Xpirrov Tov dpxepea TwY TpOC-
~ c = \ 7 \ \ ~ 5] / Popwy NUwY, TOY TWEOCTTATHY Kal Bonov Tis aaGevetas
a \ / > , 2 Wick a la N[LOV. Ola TOUTOU ATEVIOWMEV ELS Ta un TV oupavwry:
\ / / \ sf \ , dia TovTou évoTTpiCoueba THv apwuov Kal VrEepTaTny
af io / ~ > Ow aitov: dia TovTov jvewyOnoav juwv ot opbarpoi
~ / \ / € 9 / , ae / 7 TNS Kapolas* Ova TOVTOU 4 dovvETOS Kal éoKoTwpEN Sia-
(the superscribed y being prima manu) A; totro S, and so ll. 15, 16, but not 1. 17,
orp. 1x2 I. 2.
Twuevn| AC; éoxoticuévn Clem 613.
nominative in apposition with 6dds. XXXVI. ‘On this path let us tra- vel. This salvation is Jesus Christ our High-priest. Through Him our darkness is made light, and we see the Father: for He is the reflexion of God’s person. He has a place far above all angels, being seated on God’s right hand and endowed with universal dominion and made tri- umphant over His enemies. These enemies are theythat resist God’s will.’ I2. tov apytepéa] This is founded on the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 17, lil. 1, iv. 14, 15, etc.), of which Clement’s language through- out: this section is an echo. See again §§ 61, 64. Photius (4707. 126) alludes to these two passages in his criticism of Clement, dpyiepéa kal mpootatny Tov Kipiov nay Inoody é&0- vopateay ovde Tas Oeomperets Kal UWndo- tépas apike mepi avtov devas (see the note, § 2). The term dpycepeds is very frequently applied to our Lord by the earliest Christian writers of all schools; Ign. Phzlad. 9, Polyc. meee. 2) Fest) xe. Paty) Rub. ''6, Sym. 7, etc., Clem. Recogu.i. 48, Jus-
arevicwuev] A; contemplemur (or contemplabimur) S; arevigomer C. 15 evortpigoueba] AC; videamus (or videbimus) tanguam in speculo S. xXOnoav|] A; avewxOnoay C; et aperti sunt S.
16 qvew-
quev] AC; vue S. 17 €oKo-
tin Dial. 116 (p. 344).
13. mpooratny| ‘guardian, patron, who protects our interests and pleads our cause’. To a Roman it would convey all the ideas of the Latin ‘ pa- tronus,’ of which it was the recognized rendering, Plut. Vz¢. Rom. 13, Vit. Ma- vit 5. Comp. mpooraris Rom. xvi. 2.
ths doGeveias| In connexion with the work of the great High-priest, as in Heb. iv. I5.
15. evorrpiCopeba] Christ is the mir- ror in whom is reflected the faultless countenance of God the Father (av- Tov); comp. 2 Cor. ii. 18 rv doéav Kupiov katonrpiCouevot, Philo Leg. A U7. iil. 33 (I. p. 107) pydé xatonrpicaipny év G\i@ tii thy ony idéay 7 €v col TA Geo ; comp. John i. 14.
duwpoyv| ‘faultless’, ‘fleckless’, be- cause the mirror is perfect. For the meaning of duepos, see the note on popookomnber, § 4I.
17. Sua TovTov k.t.A.] Quotedin Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613) 6 &y TH mpos Kopwiovs emiotodAn yéeyparrat, Aut “Inootd Xpicrod n dovveros...jpas yevoao bat.
n dovvetos kT.A.}| Rom. i. 21 Kat
I12 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT [Xxxv1
an) , > \ \ lan lan A vora nuav avabarre els TO [Bavuaoctov avTov] dws: dia , sf)’ e / lon r) / Uf TovTou OéAnoev 6 SeamoTHs THS AOavaToV YyvwoEWS ey Md a 5) > ! A ’ > N|Las yevoad Gat Oc MN ATIAYPACMA TAC MEfAA@CYNHC AyY- TOY TOCOYT@ MEIZMN ECTIN ArfréAWN, Scw AlAmbopwTEPON wv ’ / e/ c an ONOMA KEKAHPONOMHKEN. YEYOaTTAL yap ouTws? ‘O TOIaN ToYc 4rréAOYe ayYTo¥Y TNEYMaTA Kal TOYC AEITOYPOYC ayTOY \ ’ \ \ = coe o) ~ e/ i mypoc @Adra. “Emt d€ Tw vim avTOUV oUVTWS EtTTEV O / cr , > \ 7 t ’ » OeamoTns: Yidc MOY €i CY, 6rd CHMEPON FEFENNHKA CE* Al- THCAl Trap €mO¥, KAl A@CW COl EONH THN KAHPONOMIAN COY, 1 7d Oavuacrov airod Pos] A (with 1 Pet. ii. 9); 76 Pas S with Clem; 76 Oavpactov dds C. 2 Ths dbavdrov ywooews] AC ; mortis scientiae S (Oavdrov -yvdéoews), where THs has been absorbed in the preceding syllable of deomérys and
For an instance of @dvaros for d@dvaros see il. 5 dvowa KexAn-
Gavdrov is written for d@avdrov. § 19, and conversely of d@dvaros for Odvaros Ign. Zphes. 7.
povouncev] A; KexNnpovdunkev dvoua C (with Heb. i. 4). A (with Heb. i. 7); ¢doya mupds C (as Rev. ii. 18).
7 mupds proya] 13. T@ Oedjpare avdTov]
CS; rwOeAnmaTiTwOednua...... A, as correctly read by Tisch. The lacuna has space for seven letters and should probably be filled up (with Tisch.) travrov, the words
T@ OedXnuare being written twice over.
ésxotic6n 1 dovvetos avTay kapdia, Ephes. iv. 18 éoxotapévor [v. 2. €oKo- Tigpevor| ty Suavoia. These passages are sufficient to explain how Clem. Alex. in quoting our Clement writes éokotiopeérn, but not sufficient to justify the substitution of this form for écxo- Topern in our text. See A. Jahn’s Methodius i. p. 77, note 453.
I. avaadvXer k.7.A.] i.e. ‘Our mind, like a plant shut up in a dark closet, had withered in its growth. Removed thence by His loving care, it revives and shoots up towards the light of heaven.’ Comp. I Pet. il. 9 Tov ex oKOorous vpas KadécayTos eis TO Oav- pacrov avtov das. See also Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 6 (p. 117) mpos To aidiov avatpexopnevov os and the note on § 59 below éxadeoey nuas k7.A. It is strange that editors should have wished to alter ava@a\Xer, which con- tains so striking an image.
3. Os av k.t.A.] The whole passage is borrowed from the opening of the
18 eikrik@s] éxtix@s C; lenzter
Epistle to the Hebrews, from which expressions, arguments, and quota- tions alike are taken: see esp. i. 3, 4, 5, 7, 13. For the meaning see the commentators on that epistle. On ovopa, ‘title, dignity’, see Philippians i. 30}
5. ‘O mov x«.t.A.| From LXX Ps. civ. 4. It is quoted exactly as in Heb. i. 7, mupos dAdya being substituted for mip pdéyov of the LXxX (BS, but A has swupoo ddeya which shows the reading in a transition state).
8. Yids pov k.7.A.] From LXX Ps. 11.7 word for word, after Heb. i. 5: comp. Acts xiii. 33 (in S. Paul’s speech at the Pisidian Antioch), where it is again quoted. In both these passages the 7th verse only is given; Clement adds the 8th, airnoai k.r.X.
II. Kaov x.7.A.| From LXX Ps. cx. I word for word, after Heb. i. 13.
XXXVII. ‘We are fighting as soldiers under our heavenly captain. Subordination of rank and obedience
Io KAl THN KATACYECIN COY TA TEpaTa TAC LAC.
r5
XXXVII]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ry
\ / Kat waXy
/ \ / ’ > a a ” A Aevyel 7 pOSs avTov: Kaesoy ék AEZION MOY, EWC AN OH
TOYC €YOpoYc cCOY YTIOTIOAION TON TIOAMN coy.
} > Tives ovv
eS ae e ‘a \ > / - y Ol €xOpot ; Ol pavAor Kal AVTLTATOOMEVOL TW GeAnuate
aUTOU.
XXXVII.
Crpatevowucba ov, avopes adedpoi,
A , / ~ / / META Traons EKTEVELAS EV TOIS AUWMOLS TPOTTAYPMacLW
> a / \ / a aQuTOU* KATAVOHOWMEV TOUS OT PATEVOMEVOUS TOLS nyou-
ir r ~ / ~ 5] ~ “~ MEVOLS NUMWVY, TWS EVTAKTWS, TWS ELKTLKWS, TWS UTOTE-
I (placide) TYND'D7S; eye... A, as I read it. The first part has originally been written E1€KT, but the 1 is prolonged and altered into an y, and an | is
superscribed between € and k, so that it becomes eveikr-. After this he reads w (‘non integra’); it seems to me
Tischendorf prol. p. xix.
So far I agree with
more like an | with a stroke of another letter which might be k, so that I read the
part before the lacuna evecxrek.
But the Ms is so worn, that it is impossible to
speak confidently. The lacuna seems too great for a single letter, and this again is an objection to evecxtw[o], the reading of Tisch. But the uneven length of the
lines diminishes the force of this objection.
to orders are necessary conditions in an atmy. There must be harmonious working of high and low. So it is with the human body. The head must work with the feet and the feet with the head, for the health and safety of the whole.’
15. Srpatevowpeba]2 Cor. x.3, 1 Tim. fis, 2 Lim. ti. 3, 4, len. Polyc. 6.
17. katavonowpey «.t.d.| So Seneca de Trang. An. 4 ‘Quid si militare nolis nisi imperator aut tribunus? etiamsi alii primam frontem tene- bunt, te sors inter triarios posuerit, inde voce, adhortatione, exemplo, animo, milita’.
Trois Hyoupevois npav] ‘under our temporal rz/ers. For this sense of of nyovpevor see the note §5. On the other hand of nyovpevos is used else- where of the officers of the Church: see § 1 (note). For the dative after otpareveoOa see Ign. Polyc. 6 apéo- Kete @ otpateveobe, Appian Lell. Czv.
CLEM. II.
See the lower note.
1. 42 rots év avTn “Popaiors...exnpvEev... otpatevoew éavt@ (where orparedoew is transitive).
18. eixtixds| ‘ concesstvely’. In my former edition I had proposed, with the evidence then before me, to read eveurixos. The adverb evetk- Tws is recognized in the Etym. Magn., and of the adjective evexros the Lexi- cons give several instances, e.g. Dion Cass. Ixix. 20. On the other hand of eveuktixos, -kas, though legitimate forms, no examples are given in the lexicons. But in the light of the recently discovered authorities, eik- TiK@s Seems to me more probable.
The alternative would be to read extikas With C. The word €xrixds means ‘habitually’, and so ‘fami- liarly’, ‘easily’, ‘readily’ (i.e. ‘as a matter of habit’); comp. Epict. Dass. ili. 24. 78 ovdAdoyiopods iv dvadvons extixotepov, Plut. A7or, 802 F éxrixos ) Texvixas 7 Suatpetixas, Porph. de
8
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxxvII
114
> CG \ / a Taypevws émiTeAovow Ta SiaTacoopEeva. OV TaVTES 3 \ sf 10e / 0G € / ioe ELOLY ETTAGYXOL OUVOE YIALAPYOL OVOE EKATOYTAPXOL OUOE y 2S \ \ ~ > Ber, > - TEVTNKOVTADY OL OUOE TO kabeEns: aNN e€kaovTos €v Tw \ r) / ~ / \ idlw TadymaTL Ta EWLTATTOMEVaA VITO TOU Bactrews Kal TOV HryouMevwy E7LTEAEL. 01 MErdAO! AlYA TAN MIKPANS > af c \ ' a ’ ’ OU OUVAaYT al ELVAL, OUTE O1 MIKPO! AlYd TON METAAQN: CY[-
' ! > > “ Lee / ~ , Kpacic tic éctin éy maou, Kal é€vy ToUTOLs xpyaots. AaBw-
1 émtedodow] A; Tedodo. C; dub. S. 2 émapxor] AC; S adopts the Greek word taapxo, but it does not necessarily imply any variation in the Greek text.
dvaracoomeva S.
Abst. iv. 20 TO atriov Tod cuppeve elzrois dy Kal Tov Exrixads Siapévetv, Diod. Sic. iii. 4 pedérn modvxpovia kal pyney yupvatovres Tas Yuxas éxrikas exaoTa TOY yeypaupévov dvaywedcKovol, 1.€. ‘fluently’ (where he is speaking of reading the hieroglyphics). So here, if the reading be correct, it will mean ‘as a matter of course’, ‘promptly’, ‘readily’. The adjective is used in the same sense, e.g. Epict. Déss. ii. 18. 4 et re mroveiv €O€deus Extixov. The reading of C confirms my account of A as against Tischendorf’s, though he still adhered to his first opinion after my remarks. There can be little doubt now, I think, that the account in my upper note is correct; for the reading of Tischendorf has no re- lation to the éxruxnés of C. The ey (altered from e1, as it was first written) must be explained by the preceding ey of evrdxrws catching the scribe’s eye as he was forming the initial letters of either ExTIKWC OF EIKTIKWC. He had written as far as e1, and at this point he was misled by the same conjunction of letters trwcey just before. Whether this e1 was the be- ginning of e1kTiKwc, Or an incom- plete ex as the beginning of exTikwe, may be doubtful. In the latter case we must suppose that the second 1, written above the line, was a de- liberate (and perhaps later) emenda-
Ta Staracocoueva] AC; mavra TH
4 émiracoomeva |
tion to get a word with an adequate sense; but on the whole it seems more probable that he had eikTiKkwec in his copy, and not extikwc as read in C. If so, eixrexos has the higher claim to be regarded as the word used by Clement. It is difficult to say whether the rendering in S repre- sents eixtixa@s or éxtiuxos. In the Pe- shito Luke vii. 25 s3°D9 stands for padakos, and in the Harclean Mark xill. 28 for dwadcs. Thus it seems nearer to eikxrixas than to exrikas. The word eixrikos occurs Orig. de Prine. iii. 15 (I. p. 124), and occa- sionally elsewhere. On these ad- jectives in -1cos see Lobeck Phryn. pe 226.
I. ov mavres x.t.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. Xil..29, 30.
2. émrapyouk.t.A.| See Exod. xviii. 21 kataotnoets [avrovs| ém avrav xu- apxous kal €xaTovtapxous Kal mevTNKOV- Tdapxous Kal Sexaddpyxovus (comp. ver. 25). The reference here however is to Roman military organization as the context shows; comp. Clém. Hom. x. 14 6vrep yap Tporov cis €or 0 Kaicap, éyer O€ Um avrov Tovds SiocKyTas (vraTt- Kovs, emapyous, xiALdpxous, €xaTovTap- xous, Sexaddpxous), Tov adrov tporov k.7t-A. The émapyo therefore are ‘prefects’, émapyos being used especi- ally of the ‘praefectus praetorio’, e.g. Plut. Galb. 13, Otho 7; comp. Dion
[0
XXXVIII] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
PTS \ ~ - \ / ~ ~ /
Mev TO THOMA Huw 4 KEepadry diya TwYv TodwY ovbEV / 2O\ / / fq An \ \
ETT, OUTWS OUOE ot Odes Siyxa THs KEpaAns’ Ta OE 4 7 lanl / ~ co \ af EAaylisTa péAn TOV GDwWUaATOS HuwY avayKala Kal ev~
eh fs ef a / > \ , a XenoTa elolvy OAW TW DwuaTL’ aNAA TaVTA GuVT VE!
: \ e -~ and ~ > \ ii / \ Kal u7oTayy pla xXonTaL Els TO cwCerbat oAOV TO
TWA.
XXX VITI.
7 oy e a / \ - 2 CwCecbw ovv nuwv drAov TO cwHpua év
A; vroraccoueva C. The converse error appears in the Ms of Ign. Zphes. 2 ém-
Tacodmuevor for vroraccomevot. Il ouvmvet] As cuumver C.
Cass. Fragm. (v. p. 203 ed. L. Dind.) aicxpov éott, Kaioap, éxatovrapy® oe diaréyeo Oa tav émapyov ¢éw éatorov. The xAiapyou, éxatovrapyou, again are the common equivalents for ‘tribu- ni’, ‘centuriones’, respectively. But for wevtnxovzapxos I do not know any corresponding term in the Roman army. If it represents the ‘ optio’ the lieutenant or the signifer ‘the ensign’ (see Lohr Zakttk u. Kriegswesen p. 41), the numerical relation of 50 to 100 has become meaningless.
3. €xaoros x«.7.A.] I Cor. xv. 23 Exaotos O€ ev tO idiw Taypate ; Comp. below § 41.
4. Baowhéws| Comp. | Pet. ii. 13 sq etre Baoidel...eire yeudow 3; Comp. Joh. xix. 15, Acts xvii. 7. The offi- cial title of the emperor in Greek was avtokpatap, but Bacireds is found in common parlance, though the cor- responding ‘rex’ would not be used except in gross flattery.
5. of peyador x.7.A.] See Soph. 47. 158 (quoted by Jacobson) kairo opu- Kpol peyddov xapis odadepoy mipyou pupa méAovrar x.t.A. (with Lobeck’s note), Plato Leg. x. p. 902 E ovdé yap dvev opixpdy Tovs peyddouvs hac of AvOodoyot AiBouvs ed keicOa, with the remarks of Donaldson, New Cratz. $455, on this proverb. I have there- fore ventured to print the words as a
8 ovd€év éorw] A and so prob. S; éorw ovdé C. 12 xpnTat] A; xparac C: see the note on ii. § 6.
quotation, and indeed Clement’s text seems to embody some anapeestic fragments.
6. guykpacts x.7.A.] This seems to be a reference to Eurip. Fragm. £ol. 2 a\WX’ €ore tis cvyKpacis Gor eyew kados, for Euripides is there speaking of the mutual cooperation of rich and poor: see the passage quoted from the context of Euripides on 6 mAov- gtos K.T.A. Just below § 38. Cotterill (Peregrinus Proteus p. 25) points out that this extract appears in close proximity to the passage from So- phocles quoted in the last note in Stobeeus FVorz/. xliii. 18, 20 (p. 82 sq, Meineke). Comp. 1 Cor, xii. 24 dAAa 0 Ocds ouvEKépaceY TO Topa.
7. AaBowev To odpa x.7.r.] Sug- gested by 1 Cor. xii. 12 sq (comp. Rom. xii. 4); see esp. ver. 22 ra 8o- Kovvta péAn Tov odparos dobevécrepa vmapxewv avayKata €or. For AdBapev see above, § 5.
XXXVIII. ‘So therefore let the health of the whole body be our aim. Let weak and strong, rich and poor, work together in harmony. Let each man exercise his special gift in humi- lity of heart and without vainglory, remembering that he owes everything to God and giving thanks to Him for His goodness.’
2
116 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxXxVHI
7° ~ \ A = is Xpista ‘Incov, Kae UToTacacécOw ExasTos TW WANTLOV ~ \ \ ? t > - ~ avtov, Kabws Kai éréOn év TO YapiouaTL avTOV. O O) \ \ > ln \ > la e A 2 \ > isyupos pn atnedeitw Tov acbevn, Oo oe aaOevys €év- \ b / € / > , ~ TpeTeaOw Tov iaxXUpoV' O TAOVOLOS ETLXOPNYELTW TH
~ ¢ Oe \ ’ i ~ o > / EO TTWVXW, O O€ TTWYVOS EUV ANLOTELTW TW EW, OTL EOWKEY 5
avtea dv ov dvarAnpwbn avTou TO VoTE } coos @ Ot ov avamtrAnpwln avToV TO VoTEPNMa. O po
7 \ / ~ \ p) , evoekvucOw tHv copiay av’tov py ev Aovots adr év af p) qa ¢e la A tne lm / Epos ayabois’ 6 TaTEwoppovev py EAVTM MAPTUPELTH, 5) 5) ras € b) e / € \ ~ € € \ avn éaTw vd érepov EéavTov paptupeicOa, oO ayvos > a \ oS \ \ / / / éy Tr TapKl NTW Ka PY dNaCoveverOw, yivwwoKwy OTL l
1 "Inood] A; om. CS. 2 kat] A; om. CS. 3 eH arnuedeitw] untepedecrw As; Tnwedecrw (omitting why) CS. Obviously the a of drnuedeirw had already disappeared from their prototype as it has from A, and the transcribers are obliged to erase the counterbalancing negative 7? in order to restore the sense; see above, I. p. 143. éevtperécbw] C; évrperérw A, retained by Gebhardt ; but it is a soloecism. év Nbyous] AC; Advyots pdvov Clem 613, év epyos] A; épyos C, thus omitting év here, while conversely Clem has omitted it in év \dyous. S has it in both, but no stress can be laid on the fact, as the translator repeats the preposition where it does not occur in the Greek;
7 évdexvicw] evdixvucdw A.
See 4. p-, 137- see above, § 19.
I. vmoraccécbw exaotos k.T-A.] Fopohes:'y. 21; comp. 1 Pet. v. 5.
2. Kabds kat eréOn| Sc. 6 mAncior, ‘according as he was appointed with his special gift’; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10 exaotos Kabas €haBev xapicpa, I Cor.vil. 7 €xaoTos tOlov éxet xapiopa €k Ceou, Rom. xii. 6 ¢yovres yapiouata Kara rv xapw tHv Sobeiaay ni Svaopa.
3. pn atnpedeiro] This reading makes better sense than wAnppedeiro (for Clement is condemning the depre- ciation of others) and accounts more easily for the corruption; see the omission of a in ddudokeviar § 35.
4. 6 mdovows x«.t.A.] See Eurip. Fragm. Aol. 2 (of which the context is cited above, § 37) a py yap €or. TO mévyntt, TAovows bidwo* a 8 of mdov- rouvres ov KexTnpeba, ToLoWw mTéevnoL xpopevor OnpdpeOa. The resemblance
8 ramrewvoppovav] A, and so prob. S; rarewoppwv C Clem; py éavr@ paprupelrw] AC ; waprupeirw py éavrg@ Clem.
here confirms the conjecture that in the earlier passage Clement has the words of Euripides in his mind.
6. avarAnpoby x.7.d.] For the ex- pression see 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30: comp. Col. 1. 24.
6 codes k.t.A.]| This passage down to rHv eykpdrevay is quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613) between extracts from §§ 40, 41 (see the notes there).
10. 7rw] ‘let him be zt’. For this emphatic use compare Ign. Ephes. 15 dpewov eotw ovwmar Kal eivat 7 da- AowrTa py etvat, Iren. ii. 30. 2 ovk ev TO héyew GAN’ Ev T@ evar o kpeitrov Seixvvtba odeider. I have preferred Laurent’s happy emendation jr to ovyare which has also been suggested, both because it better suits the vacant space in A, and because it is the
Io
15
TO THE CORINTHIANS. E17
XXXVIII]
c/ / a ? a \ > /
ETEPOS ETTLY O ETLY OPNYOV avTW THY éyKpateav. ’Ava- / ai / ? / J / Aoyiowpela otv, addeApoi, éx moias UAns éyernOnpuev: ~ \ / 2 7 > \ / , Tow Kat Tives elonNOamev Els Tov KOoMoV é€K ToloU
/ \ / e J lanl \ y a Tapou Kat okOTOUS 6 TAaGAas Huds Kal Onpuoupynoas > / > \ la ’ ~ / \ ELONYVAYVEV €ls TOV KOG MOV GaUTOU, TPOETOLUaAT AS Tas
/ a“ \ Css en = s evepyerias avTov mplv nuas yevvnOjva. TavTa oop / 2 ? ay a p) / \ / ? TAaVTA €& auTOU ExoYTES OPElAOMEV KATA TAaYTa Evya- ~ ~ e / > \ be com S5f PlOTELY aUTwW' Ww 7 do€a ELS TOUS Alwyas TWY alwywrY. / any. 9 édrw] ACS; & re Clem. eaurov vp’ érépov C; S translates the sentence sed ad aliis testimonium detur (uap- TupelaOw) super ipso. €avtov] AC; av’rov Clem. 1o €v] AC; om. Clem; dub S. 77] Laurent (his earlier suggestion had been éorw, Zeitschr. f: Luther. Theol. XX1V. p. 423). CS Clem omit the words 7jrw kal: see above, I. p- 142. In A the margin of the parchment is cut off, so that nothing is visible. There seems however to have been room for 7Tw, as the size of the letters is often diminished at the end of the lines ; see below.
13 kai tives] C3 katte... As om. S. eionOapev] ...onMOauev A; eiojAOouev C. 15 Tov Kdouov] AC; S has hunc mundum, but it probably does not represent a
up’ érépou éavrovy] A; adrov bd’ érépov Clem;
Ir éyxparevav] eyxpatiay A.
various reading ; see the critical note on ii. § 19.
kara mavta] AC; om. S.
form found elsewhere in Clement, § 48. Hort suggests ornrw, com- paring 1 Cor. vii. 37. At the end of a line it is not safe to speak positively about the number of letters to be sup- plied, as there the letters are some- times much smaller and extend be- yond the line; but ovydrw seems under any circumstances too long to be at all probable. Hilgenfeld’s reading, 6 ayvds év Tj capkt kat [avros] uy GdafovevéoOw, supplies the lacuna in the wrong place. For the senti- ment see Ign. Polyc. 5 et rus Svvara ev ayveia pévew eis Tipny THs TapKis Tov Kupiov, ev akavxnoia meveTw’ eay Kav- XNonTa, dmadderTo (see above, I. p. 149), Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 13 ‘Et sia Deo confertur continentiae virtus, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis’, pas- sages quoted by Wotton. Clement’s language is not sufficient to explain
17 OpetNouev] odiNomev A.
evxaptoTeiv] evyapiort A.
the allusions of Epiphanius and Je- rome (quoted above, I. pp. 170, 173), which doubtless refer to the spurious Epistles on Virginity; see above, I. p- 408 sq.
13. moto. kal rives] 1 Pet. i. II eis Tiva i) Trolov KaLpor.
elon Oapev| For the form see Winer § xiii. p. 86.
€k tolov tapou x.t.A.| Harnack re- fers to Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 15 ro dcrouv pov...emoinaas év Kkpup7 kal 7 UmocTacis pou ev TOls KaT@TATOLS THs yis.
I5. mpoerouwdoas «.t.A.]| See the fragment from ‘the 9th Epistle’ of Clement of Rome in Leontius and John Sacr. Rer. ii (Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. Vu. p. 84) given above, I. p. 189. Though it has some points of resemblance with this passage in our epistle, it cannot have been taken from it.
118 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxxIx
af XXXIX. "“Adpoves kal dovveror Kat pwpol Kat cdimaloevTor yAEVACOVTW Huas Kal puKTHpICovTLY, EavTOUS Tl yap , Lf 3\ / 2 \ a / / dvvatat OvnTos; 4 Tis laXUS YNYEVOUS; YEeypamTat yap"
/ 5) / qn } 6 2) ~ BovAomeEvot érraiper Oat Tals OLAVOLALS aAUTWY. O¥k HN mophH pd d@OaAM@N MOY? BAA’ H AYPAN Kal QO@NHN HKOYON. TI fap; MH KAdBAPOC EcTAal Bpotdc ENANTI Kypioy; H 4110 TON EpraN AYTOY AMEMTITOC ANHP; El KATA
TAIAMN AYTOY OY TIICTEYE!, KATA AE APFEAWN AYTOY CKOAION
1” Adpoves...dmaldevror] AS; dppoves kai dmaldevro kal wwpoi C.
6 xadapds] AC; xdan corruptor S, perhaps connecting
fovew] puxtipngovow A.
2 puKTnpl-
it with xaGalpew, as if kaOarpérns: see above, I. p.140. The translator however may
have had $6¢pos in his text. évayrioy C (with Lxx B).
XXXIX. ‘What folly is the arro- gance and self-assumption of those who would make a mockery of us! Have we not been taught in the Scriptures the nothingness of man? In God’s sight not even the angels are pure: how much less we frail creatures of earth! A lump of clay, a breath of air, the sinner is consumed in a moment by God’s wrath: and the righteous shall inherit his for- feited blessings.’
I. “Adpoves x.t.’.] Comp. Hermas Sim. ix. 14 adpev ef kat dovveros.
2. xAevdtovow x.t.dr.] Ps. xliv. 14 (v. 1), Ixxix. 4, puxtnpiopos Kal ydev- aopos; comp. Afpost. Cozist. iil. 5 wur- Tnpioavres xAevdcovot. In C éavrovs is connected with the preceding words by punctuation.
4. ynyevovs| As a LXX word, ynyemms is a translation of DON in Jer. xxxii. 20. In Ps. xlix (xviii). 2 of re ynyevets Kat ot viol Tov avOpdrov is a rendering of YN 132 DJ OFN 122 D) where the next clause of the verse has mAovauos kat mévns. In Wisd. vii. 1 Adam is called ynyevjs mpwromdactos. The word occurs Zest. xii Patr. Jos. 2,
éora] AC; éorw S. y ef] AC; 7S. this is due to the false pointing; see above, I. p. 138.
évav7t] A (with Lxx SA); 8 raidwy] AC; operum S, but
avrov] A; éavrod C.
Clem. Alex. Paed.i. 12 (p.156), Strom. iv. 6 (p. 577). In classical writers the ynyeveis are the fabled giants, the sons of Uranus and Gea, and rebels against the Olympians (e.g. Soph. Trach. 1058 o ynyevns orpatos y.- yavrev, Aristoph. Av. 824 of Geoi Tous ynyeveis...kabuTepnkorticav, See Pape Worterb. d. Griech, Eigennam. s. v.). Connected with this idea is the translation of DX, where it means ‘the shades of the dead’, by ynyeveis in the LXX of Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18 ; while in these and other pas- sages the other Greek translators (Theodotion, Symmachus) render the same word by yiyavres or Gecouaxor: see Gesenius 7hesaur. s.v. NDI on the connexion of ‘Rephaim’ and the giants. Altogether we may say that the word (1) signifies originally ‘hu- mility and meanness of origin’, and (2) connotes ‘separation from and hostility to God’.
yéyparrac yap] A long passage from the LXxX Job iv. 16—v. 5, the words ovpavos dé...avTov being inserted from Job xv. 15 (see below). The variations from the LXX are for the
XXXIX] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
119
Tl E€TENOHCEN* OYPANOC AE OY KAOAPOC EN@TMION aYTOY Ea IO AE, O1 KATOIKOYNTEC OIKIAC TTHAINAC €2Z @N Kal AYTO! ék TOF AYTOY THAOY ECMEN’ ETTAICEN AYTOYC CHTOC TPOTION, Kal ATO TP@IGEN Ewc EcTrépac OYK ETI E/ICIN® Tapa TO MH AYNACOal AYTOYC EAYTOIC BOHOACAI ATIOAONTO’ ENEDYCHCEN AYTOIC Kal ETEAEYTHCAN, TIAPA TO MH EYEIN AYTOYC COMIAN. €TMIKAAECAI I5 Aé, €l| TiC COl YTAKOYCETAI, H El TINA ATION APPéAWN OWH" Kal rap A@PONA ANAIPEl OPFH, TETTAANHMENON AE OANATOI ov] AC; om. S. Il émraev adrovs] AC (but
A erecev); érecov airod S; see above, I. p. 140. ontos| onrov stands in A (as I read it), by a transposition with the termination of the next word. Tischendorf
miorever] AC; misrevoec S.
gave ontoo, but afterwards acquiesced in my reading of the Ms. 12 érce] AC; om. S. go] A, and so prob. S (with Lxx BS); cou C (with Lxx A).
tpotoc A; see the last note.
most part slight.
5. Ovx nv poppy x.t.A.] The words of Eliphaz reproving Job. He relates how a voice spoke to him in the dead of night, telling him that no man is pure in God’s sight. The Lxx differs materially from the Hebrew, but the general sense is the same in both. The ov« is not represented in the Hebrew, and it may have been in- serted by the LXX to avoid an anthro- pomorphic expression ; but the trans- lators must also have read the pre- ceding words somewhat differently.
7. «i kata traidoyv xrtA.| ‘seeing that against His servants He ts dis- trustful, and against (to the discredit of) His angels He noteth some Ge- pravity,’
Q. ovpavos dé x.t-A.| From Job xv. 15 (likewise in a speech of Eliphaz) ei KaTa ayiwy ov muaTEvel, oUpavos S€ ov kaOapos évaytiov avtov. The fact that nearly the same words occur as the first clause of xv. 15, which are found likewise in iv. 18, has led Clement to insert the second clause also of this same verse in the other passage to which it does not belong.
€a d€, of Katouxovytes| ‘how much
Tpomov] CS; 15 ef pri] AC; 7S. 6Wy] A; dYe C.
more, ye that dwell’, In the LXx BS read tovs d€ xarotxovvras, but A éa de Tovs Kxatotkouvras ‘let alone those that dwell’. The latter is a better render- ing of the Hebrew and must have been the original LXxX text. Sym- machus has s0c@ padXov, to which éa with this construction is an equiva- lent, Job xv. 16, xxv. 6.
10. oikias mndivas| The houses of clay in the original probably signify men’s bodies: comp. 2 Cor. v. I 7 emiyeltos nu@y oikia Tov oxyvous, Called before (iv. 7) dorpakiwva oxevn. But the LXx by the turn which they give to the next clause, ¢€ dv kat adrol k.7.A.. seem to have understood it literally, ‘We are made of the same clay as our houses’; e& dy being ex- plained by é« rot avrov mndov.
II. Kal amd mpaidev x«.t.r.] Kal is found in BS but omitted in A. By amo mpatGey x.t.A. is Meant ‘in the course of a single day’; comp. Is. SXEVIN; 12; 17>
14. éredevtrnoay| In the LXx A so reads with all authorities here; but BS have é&npav@noapr.
16. dpyyn, (jAos] ie. indignation against God, such as Job had shown,
120 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXIX
‘ aA a
zAdoc. €r@ Aé EWpakaA Aponac Pizac BadONTAac, AAA eEY-
2 , ” c ! , c c \ Oéwc EBPWOH AYT@N H AlAITA. TOPp@ [TENOINTO O1 YIOI AYT@N ATO COTHPIAC’ KOAABPICOEIHCAN ETT] BYPAlc HCCON®N, KAl OYK €cTAl 6 EZAIPOYMENOC* A FAP EKEINOIC HTOIMACTAI,
AikAIO! EAONTAIT AYTO! Aé EK KAK@N OYK EZAIpETO! ECONTAI. 5
1 6é] AC; om. S. a present.
2. Otarral ‘their abode’; as e.g. xm JOD. vill. 6, 22, x1. 14, xxxix. 6,
3. KodaBpiobeinoay| ‘mocked, in- sulted’, as Athen. vill. p. 364 A kada- Bpigovar Tovs oikéras, ameiovot Tots mwoAdois. Suidas after others says Ko\aSpicbein*® xAevacGein, extiaxOein, dripacGein: Kodapos yap Kai kadaBpos, O puKpos xoipos* avTl Tov ovdEVvds Aoyou a&ios voy.cOein. And so _ Bochart Hieroz. ii. § 57, 1. p. 707, ‘ xodkaBpicew Hellenistis contemnere, quia porcello apud Judaeos nihil fuit contemptius’. But this derivation cannot be correct ; for (to say nothing else) the word was not confined to Hellenist Jews. The same Athenzeus, who furnishes the only other instance of the verb koAa- Bpi¢e, has also two substantives, xoAa- Bpos or KadaBpos (iv. p. 164 E, xv. p. 697 C) ‘a licentious song’, and kada- Bpicpos (xiv. p. 629 D) ‘a certain Thracian dance’. The latter is de- fined by Pollux (iv. 100) ©pakcxdy opxnpa kal Kapixov. Here therefore the derivation must be sought. The jeering sallies and mocking gestures of these unrestrained songs and dan- ces would be expressed by xkoAafpi- Ce. The reading of A in the Lxx oKxodaBpicbeinoay, compared with oxo- pakifew, might seem to favour the other derivation, if there were suffi- cient evidence that xdAaB8pos ever meant xorpid.ov.
ert Ovpais nooover| ‘at the doors of their tnferiors’. There is nothing corresponding to jyocover in the He-
Bandvras] A; Baddovras C (with Lxx), and S also has evdéws] A (with Lxx BS); ed@vs C (with Lxx A). qroiuacrar] AC; éxelvor nroiuacay S: for the LxxX see below.
4 €xelvots 5 é&alperor]
brew, where ‘at the gate’ means ‘in court, in judgment’.
4. a@ yap ékeivors x.T.A.] In the LXX (BS) a yap éxeivoe ovvyyayov (eb€épicav A), dixacoe eSovrat x.7.A. For é£aiperou ecovra A has e£epeOnoovra (i.e. €&a- peOnoovra). The LXX in this verse diverges considerably from the He- brew. e¢&aiperou here has the some- what rare sense ‘ rescued, exempt, as e.g. Dion. Hal. A. R. vi. 50.
XL. ‘This being plain, we must do all things decently and in order, as our Heavenly Master wills us. The appointed times, the fixed places, the proper ministers, must be respected in making our offerings. So only will they be acceptable to God. In the law of Moses the high-priest, the priests, the Levites, the laity, all have their distinct functions’.
The offence of the Corinthians was contempt of ecclesiastical order. They had resisted and ejected their lawfully appointed presbyters ; and— as a necessary consequence—they held their agape and celebrated their eucharistic feast when and where they chose, dispensing with the in- tervention of these their proper offi- cers. There is no ground for sup- posing (with Rothe Anfange p. 404 sq), that they had taken advantage of a vacancy in the episcopate by death to mutiny against the presby- ters. Of bishops, properly so called, no mention is made in this epistle (see the notes on §§ 42, 44); and, if the
XL] TO THE CORINTHIANS. E21
Ss ~ sf / \ 9 XL. [lpodnAwy ovv juiy OvTwy ToVTwWY, Kal éy-
/ > \ / ~ / / 7 Kexugotes eis Ta Baby ts Celas yywoews, TavTa ~ e/ ¢€ / ~ > / Tage Tovey dpeiNopev Ooa O deamoTHs EmLTENEL ExE- \ \ / Is y Nevoey KATA KapOUS TETAYMEVOUS' Tas TE TpOTopas
efeperou A. a&dedgpol S. A. dca] AC; stcut (ws?) S.
government of the Corinthian Church was in any sense episcopal at this time, the functions of the bishop were not yet so distinct from those of the presbyters, but that he could still be regarded as one of them, and that no special designation of his office was necessary or natural. On the late development of the episcopate in Co- rinth, compared with the Churches of Syria and Asia Minor, see the disser- tation in Philippians p. 213 sq, and Lgnat. and Polyc. \. p. 562 sq, ed. 1 (p. 579, ed. 2).
6. IIpodyA@v «.r.A.) This passage as far as xatpovs TeTaypévovs is quoted in Clem. Alex. Stvom. iv. 16 (p. 613).
eyxexuores] ‘peered into, pored over’. See below §§ 45, 53, Polyc. Phil. 3, Clem. Hom. iii. y. In all these passages it is used of searching the Scriptures. Similarly wapaxir- fey james 1-25, 1 Pet. 1.12.’ The word exkxexudres in Clem. Alex. must be regarded as an error of transcrip- tion.
7- ta Babn rns Oeias yreoews| The large and comprehensive spirit of Clement, as exhibited in the use of the Apostolic writers, has been already pointed out (notes on §§ 12, 915/33, 49). ‘Here it is seen froma somewhat different point of view. While he draws his arguments from the law of Moses and his illustrations from the Old Testament, thus show- ing his sympathy with the Judaic side of Christianity, he at the same time uses freely those forms of expression
6 hiv dvrwv] AC; dvtwy jyuiv Clem 613. éykexugores] AC; éxkexugdres Clem.
rovtwy] AC; add. 8 dgeiouev] ofiAouev
which afterwards became the watch- words of the Gnostic sects and were doubtless frequently heard on the lips of their forerunners his contem- poraries. To this class belongs ra Ban tHs yvdoews (comp. I Cor. ii. 10) : see S. John’s language in Rev. ii. 24 oirwes ovK €yvwoav ta Badéa Tov Sarava, ws NE€yovo vy, Which is illustrated by Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3 ‘profunda Dei adinvenisse se dicen- tes’, ii. 28. 9 ‘aliquis eorum qui alti- tudines Dei exquisisse se dicunt’, Hippol. Haer. v. 6 émexddeoay éavtovs yvwotikovs, packovtes ovo. Ta Baby ytv@oKetv; Compare the description in Tertullian adv. Valent. 1 ‘Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, A/tum est aiunt’, and see Galatzans p. 298. It is sig- nificant too that yvdaus is a favourite word with Clement: see $$ 1, 36, 41, and especially § 48 77 Svvarés yvoow e€eurey (with the note). Again in S 34 he repeats the favourite Gnostic text ‘Eye hath not seen etc.’, which they misapplied to support their prin- ciple of an esoteric doctrine. See the note there.
9. tas Te mpooopas x.t.A.] Editors have failed to explain the reading of the MS satisfactorily. Two modes of punctuation are offered. The main stop is placed (1) after ékéXevcev, so that we read kara kaip. ter. tds Te mpood. k.7.A.; but in this case we get an unmeaning repetition, xara xarpovs TeTaypmevous and wpicpevots KalpoisK.T.A. belonging to the same sentence: or
122
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XL
\ / > lan > an \ > cP a aN kat AELTOUVPYLas E7TLMEAWS é€miTeAcio Oat Kal OUK €LKNH 7;
? / Sl / ? I ie / ~ \ aTaxTws éxehevoev yiverOal, AN wpioepevois Kalpots Kal
c/ od \ \ / ’ = / ’ \ w@pais' TOU TE Kal dla Tivwy émiTEAEioOar Geel, avTOS
e/ ma € 4 ’ a id Ss See / WOLOEV TH UTEPTATW AUTOU BovAncer’ LY OOLWS TAaAVTAaA
ie > > / ] if of — / ylvoueva év evdoknoe evmpoovekTa ein TH OeAnmaTL 5
QUTOU.
I AeToupyias] NecTroupyerag A. for the insertion are given below. 2 G@dd’] A; adda C. Tov.
mavTa] mavrara A; mavra ta C. For S see below.
e Ss ~ / = q Oi OVY TOLS TPOTTETAYMEVOLS KQaLOOLS 7 OLOUVTES
émiued@s] conj.; om. ACS. The reasons émiTrehetoOat kal] AC; om. S: see below. 3 wpas rod Te] AC. S translates as if it had read wpas ré 4 vmeprary] A; breprarn C3; see the lower note, 2nd above, I. p. 127.
5 ev eddoxjoa] AC: S
translates the sentence, za wt, guum omnia pre fiant, velit ut acceptabilia sint volun- tati suae, thus apparently taking évevdoxjoe (one word) as a verb and reading
(2) after emiredetaOa, in which case emitedeioGar must be governed by opetdounev. But, with this construc- tion (not to urge other obvious objec- tions) there is an awkwardness in using the middle émiredcioda in the same sense in which the active em- teketv has occurred just before; though the middle in itself might stand. (In James iv. 2, 3 however we have airety and aireioOa side by side.) I have therefore inserted ém- peA@s, Supposing that the omission was due to the similar beginnings of the two words (as e.g. atwvoy for awov awwvioy ii. § 9; see also the note on ii. § 10 evpety); comp. I (3) Esdr. viii. 21 mavta Kata Tov Tov Geov vdpov emiTehecOnrw éemipedos TH C€@ TO vpiorm, Herm. Mand. xii. 3 rHv Siakoviav...reXer emisedhas. Thus the passage reads smoothly and _ intel- ligibly. An alternative would be to omit emitedcioOac (and this is done by the Syriac translator), as having been inserted from below (da rive emireAeioOar), and to take ras Te mpoogopas Kai Aeirovpyias in appo- sition with doa, but this does not seem so good for more than one reason. For the growth of the various
readings in our authorities, see I. p- 143. I should have preferred ras S€ mpoodopas, as Tischendorf de- ciphers A, but (unless I misread it) it certainly has re, as also have CS. On the Christian sense of rpoodopat see the note on mpoceveyxovras ta ddpa § 44.
2. Katpois kat apas| A pleonasm, as in Dionys. de Jsocr. 14 (p. 561) py ev kaip@ yiverOa pnd ev pa, Plut. Ages. 36 tod KaXov Katpov oikeiov eivat kai opay. The words differ only so far, that xarpds refers to the fizxess, epa to the apfointedness, of the time. Demosth. Olynth. ii. p. 24 pndéva Karpov pind @pav mapadetrwv shows that wpa does not refer to the ‘hour of the day’, as this use of the word was only introduced long after the age of Demosthenes.
4. vumeptarw| I have not ventured to alter the reading to vmeprarn, since even in classical writers compara- tives and superlatives are sometimes of two terminations; e.g. Thucyd. iii. $9, LOI, v. 7I, 110. See Buttmann Griech. Sprachl. § 60 anm. 5.
mavra ywopeva] I have struck out ta before yiwoweva aS a mere repe- tition of the last syllable of wavra
XL| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 123
eo. 2 / , \ / TAs mpoapopas AUTWV ev TpOTOEKTOL TE KL MaKkaplol,
n~ ~~ / ~~ Tois yap vopiuors tov SeomoTtov axoNovGouvTes ov
va \ cond yl /
Stamaptavovow. Te yap apxlEeper drat erroupryiae a aay af
Sedouévar eiciv, Kal Tots tepevo.w dios 6 Toros
, \ A 10 } / Fe TOOGTETAKTAL, Kal A€viTals LOLaL LAKOVLIAL ETTLKELV—=
ein] A; add. wavra C (thus repeating it a second time in the 6 mpoorerayuévos] A; mpoorayetor C,
elvac for ein. sentence) ; for S see the last note. g dpxepe?] AC; dpxepebow S. This is probably due to a misapprehension of the translator or of a scribe who supposed that the Christian bishops were meant. 10 6 rémos] A; rézos (om. 6) C. S translates as if it had read dios rézos. Ir Neviras...émixewTar] AC (but emexwrac A); levitae in ministeriis propriis po-
nuntur §. and as interfering with the sense.
The omission of ra is confirmed by the Syriac.
5. é€v evOoxnae| SC. ToU Geov. See the note on § 2. But possibly we should here for €YAOKHCEIEY-
IIPOCAEKTA read EYAOKHCEIOCY- TIPOCAEKTA ; asin Epiphan. Haer. Ixx. 10 (p. 822) evdoxnoer Geov.
9. TO yap apxiepet «.t.r.] This is evidently an instance from the old dispensation adduced to show that God will have His ministrations per- formed through definite fersozs, just as below (§ 41) ov mavtaxod x.r.A. Clement draws an illustration from the same source that He will have them performed in the proper Zlaces. There is therefore no dzrect¢ reference to the Christian ministry in dpytepevs, iepets, Aevira, but it is an argument by analogy. Does the analogy then extend to the ¢#ree orders? The an- swer to this seems to be that, though the episcopate appears to have been widely established in Asia Minor at this time (see Philippzanus p. 209 sq with the references given above, p. 121), this epistle throughout only recognizes two orders, presbyters and deacons, as existing at Corinth (see esp. the notes on émokdrer § 42, and on eay xownOdow, diadeEovrar «.7.A. § 44). It has been held indeed
by some (e.g. Lipsius p. 25) that, this being so, the analogy notwithstand- ing extends to the number three, Christ being represented by the high- priest (see the note § 36), the presby- ters by the priests, and the deacons by the Levites. But to this it is a sufficient answer that the High- priesthood of Christ is wholly differ- ent in kind and exempt from those very limitations on which the passage dwells. And again why should the analogy be so pressed? It would be considered ingenious trifling to seek out the Christian equivalents to évde- Aexirpod 7) evydv 7} mept awaptias Kal 7Anppedreias below (§ 41), or to érapxor, xAlapxot, Exardvrapxol, TEevTNKOVTApXOL, «.t.A. above (§ 37); nor is there any reason why a closer correspondence should be exacted from this passage than from the others. Later writers indeed did dwell on the analogy of the threefold ministry ; but we cannot argue back from them to Clement, in whose epistle the very element of threefoldness, which gives force to such a comparison, is wanting.
10. tdsos 6 Toros x.t.d.] ‘ The office assigned to the priests ts special’. On this sense of romos comp. below §$ 44 rot iSpupévov avtois tomrov, and see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 1 éxdixet jou Tov TOTOY.
124
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XLI
€ oe \ af qn oe ~ / Tau’ oO Aatkos avOpwros Tols Aalkols TOT TAayMacLV
O€OETAL.
XU.
2 dédera] A; dédorac CS.
I. Aaixds] Comp. Clem. Hom. E- pist. Cl. § 5 odrws éxaor@ atx apap- ria €oTw x.7.A., Clem. Alex. Sztvom. ili. 12 (p. 552) xiv mpeoBvrepos 7 Kay Sudkovos kav daikds, 26. v. 6 (p. 665) k@Avpa daikns amortias. In Tertul- lian ‘laicus’ is not uncommon, e.g. de Praescr. 41 ‘nam et laicis sa- cerdotalia munera injungunt’. In the LXX Aaos is used not only in contradistinction to ‘the Gentiles’ (see the note on § 29 above), but also as opposed to (1) ‘The rulers’, eee bron xkiv. 10, xxx. 24,).(2) ailine< priests’, e.g: Exod. xix. 24, Nenhiivil. 73 (vill...1), Is. xxiv. 25 comp. Jer. xxxlv (xli). 19 rous adpyovras *Iovda Kai Tovs Suvdatas Kal Tovs tepeis kal Tov Aaov. From this last contrast comes the use of Aaikds here. The adjective however is not found in the LXX, though in the other Greek ver- sions we meet with Aaikds ‘laic’ or ‘profane’ and Aaixovy ‘to profane’, Deutvxx 6, xxvill.. 30, Ruth ;1.\12, 1 Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. vii. 22, xlviii. 15.
XLI. ‘Let each man therefore take his proper place in the thanks- giving of the Church. Then again, in the law of Moses the several sacri- fices are not offered anywhere, but only in the temple at Jerusalem and after careful scrutiny. If then trans- gression was visited on the Israelites of old with death, how much greater shall be our punishment, seeing that our knowledge also is greater’.
4. evxaptoreit@| The allusion here is plainly to the public services of the Church, where order had been violat- ed. Thus evyapioria will refer chiefly,
3 tuwv] A; juav CS. A; evbapeoreirw CS. See the lower note.
J ¢ - 9 / b) Coney WANA / Exaoros vuwv, addedpoi, ev TH iWlw Tay-
4 evxapioTrelrw] cuverdjnoer] cuverdnow A. 5 Mn
though not solely, to the principal act of Christian thanksgiving, the celebra- tion of the Lord’s Supper, which at a later date was almost exclusively term- ed evyapicria. The usage of Clement is probably midway between that of S. Paul where no such appropriation of the term appears (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 2: Cor. ix. 11,12; Phil: iyo) ie il. I, etc.), and that of the Ignatian Epistles (Phzlad. 4, Smyrn. 7) and of Justin (AZol. i. § 66, p. 97 sq, Daal. 41, p. 260) where it is especially so applied. For the id.oy rdypa of the people at the eucharistic feast see Justin Afol. i. § 65 (p. 97 D) of (ie. TOU TMpoeaTaTos TaY adeAparv) cuvTEdE- gavtos Tas evyas Kal THY evyaploTiay mas o Aaos emevhnpet Aéyov *Apny... evxaptotncavtos O€ TOU mpoeaT@Tos Kal emeupnunoavros mavtos Tov Aaov x.7.A., and again zd. § 67 (p. 98 E). See Harnack Der Christliche Gottesdienst etc. (Erlangen, 1854).
Though the reading evapeoreira is simpler, evyapioreitw is doubtless correct; comp. § 38 with Rom. xiv. 6,11 Cor. ‘xiv. 17.) For anotites instance of confusion between evapec- rev and evxapiorety in our authorities, see § 62.
ev aya$n ovveidnoe.| Acts xxiii. 15:1) Tim. 1.:5,/ 19, ty Bet. mis aG ee comp. xaA7n ovveidnois, Heb. xiii. 18. For an explanation of the reading ovveldnow in A see above § 15.
6. «xavova] Compare the metaphor 2 Cor. x. 13, 14, kata TO pérpov rod kavovos and vzepexteivowev: see also the note on § 7.
mpoogpépovtat| The present tense
XLI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
i253
> / et LD > ~ / € , pate evyapioteitw Oew év aya ovvednoe vrapxwr, \ / \ e / ~ ~ 5 Mn TapeKBaivwy Tov woiouEevoy THS NELTOUPYias avTOU / / lan Kavova, év ceuvoTntt. Ou ravraxov, adeXol, tooaPe-
/ > Foe > ~ 5) € povTat Ouoia €VOEAEX LT LOU nN EVX WY i Tepl duapTias Kal
mapexBalywy] AC (but mapacxBawwwy A); et perficiens S. 6 mpoopépovra] AC; om. S.
yiac A.
has been thought to imply that the sacrifices were still offered and the temple yet standing, and therefore to fix the date of the epistle before the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. about the close of Nero’s reign. To this very early date however there are insuperable objections (see the intro- duction, I. p. 346 sq, and notes on §§ 1, 5,44, 47). Clement therefore must use mpoogepovra: as implying rather the permanence of the record and of the lesson contained therein than ¢he con- tinuance of the institution and prac- tice itself. Indeed it will be seen that his argument gains considerably, if we suppose the practice discon- tinued; because then and then only is the sanction transferred from the Jewish sacrifices to the Christian ministrations, as the true fulfilment of the Divine command. If any one doubts whether such usage is natural, let him read the account of the Mosaic sacrifices in Josephus Avy. ili. cc. 9, Io (where the parallels to Clement’s present tense mpoodépovra: are far too numerous to be counted), remember- ing that the Avtiguzties were pub- lished A.D. 93, i.e. within two or three years of our epistle. Comp. Barnab. 7 sq, Epist. ad Diogn. 3, where also the present is used. This mode of speaking is also very common in the Talmud; comp. Friedmann and Graetz Die angebliche Fortdauer des jiidischen Opfercultus etc. in the Theolog. F ahrb. XVII. p. 338sq (1848), and the references in Derenbourg L’ Hist. et la Géogr. de la Palestine
Necroupylas] AcToup- 7 evxwv] A; mpocevxav C.
p.- 480sq. Seealso Grimm in Zézésch.
J. Wiss. Theol, X11. p. 28 sq (1870) with reference to the bearing of this phenomenon on the date of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Comp. Apost. Const. il. 25 amo tev bvowy kal amo maons mAnppedeias Kal Tept duaptiav, where parts of the context seem to be suggested by this passage of Clement, though the analogies in the O: T. are interpreted after the fashion of a later age.
7 evdedextopod] ‘of continuity, perpetuzty’, the expression used in the LXxX for the ordinary daily sacri- fices, as a rendering of 7°9N (e.g. Exod. xxix. 42, Neh. x. 33); and thus opposed to the special offerings, of which the two types are the freewill offerings (evy@v) and expiatory offer- ings (wept ayaptias 7 mAnppedeias). Of the last two words ayapria denotes the sin-offering (AXON) and wAnppe- Aeva the trespass-offering (AWN). A similar threefold division of sacrifices is given by Philo de Vict. 4 (Il. p. 240) TO OAOKAUTOY, TO TOTNPLOY, TO TrEpl auap- tias, and by Josephus Azz. ili. 9. Isq 7 OXoKa’T@oLs, 4 XaptoTnpLos Ovaia, 7 UmTép duaptdadwy (passages referred to in Jacobson’s notes); see also Ewald Alterth. des Volkes Isr. p. 52 sq. Here the 6vaia évdeXexiopov stands for the cdoxavtépara generally, as being the most prominent type; and in the same way the Oucia evx@yv, as a part for the whole, represents the peace-offerings (cwrjpia in the LXX and Philo) which comprised two spe- cies (Lev. vii. 11—17), the vow or
126 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xur
mAnupereias, aN’ 7 €v ‘lepoveadnu porn? KeKet S€ ovK év TavTl ToTw mpormepeTat, AN Eurrpoocbev Tov vaov | moos TO Ovo.actnpiov, pwuorKkornbey TO mpoapepo- pevov Sia TOU dpxLEepews Kal THY TPOELONUEVWY NeLTOVp-
van 3S \ \ ~ lon / a ~ yov. ol ovy mapa to Ka0jKkov THs BovAncEews avToU 5
a / / \ / of TOLOVVTES TL Oavatov TO T POG TLUOV EXOUCLD.
I mwAnumeXNclas] tAnMpENLac A; mAnMMEAnUdTwY C. S has a singular. AS; om. C (as a pleonasm after dA)’ #). 4 Ttav] AC; ceterorum S.
sacrificia S. 5 BovAjnoews] A; BovrAtjs C; dub. S.
free-will offering (which Clement has selected) and the thanksgiving-offer- ing (which Josephus takes as the type). On the other hand, when speaking of expiatory offerings, Cle- ment gives both types.
evyov| The v. 1. mpocevyay has parallels in James v. 15, 16, Ign. Ephes. 10, Rom. 9. It is explained by the tendency to substitute a common word for a less common. Here evx@v is unquestionably right ; for more especially in the later lan- guage, while mpocevyn is ‘a prayer’ in the more comprehensive sense, evxn is ‘a vow’ specially. In the LXX mpooevy7 is commonly a render- ing of mbpn, but evxy Of I) or 1. For evyyn ‘a vow’ see Acts xviii. 18, xxi. 23. In the only other passage in the N.T. in which it occurs, James v. 15, the idea of a vow may possibly be present, though it is certainly not prominent, and in the context (ver. 14, and prob. ver. 16) mpocevxecOat is used of the same act. But, though evx7 might undoubtedly be said of a ‘prayer, supplication’, it is not so evi- dent conversely that mpooevyn could be used of a vow specifically. In Numb. vi. 4 sq, where a vow is distinctly meant, the word occurs many times in the same context and the form is evyf#s throughout, though an ill-supported reading mpocevyijs
‘Opate,
povy| 2 wpoogpéperat] AC; offeruntur
Aecroupyav] AcToupywy A. 7 dow] AC; add. yap S. KaTN- occurs in one instance. In Ps. Ixi (lx). 6, where the word is 193, the LXx (with Symmachus) have mpocevyoy, but Aquila more correctly evyév, thus preserving the fundamental meaning of the Hebrew word, though the con- noted idea of ‘ prayer’ is so prominent in the context as to explain the LXx rendering.
2. eumpoobev x.t.A.] The vads is here the shrine, the holy-place ; the O@votacrn prov, the court of the altar: see the note on Ign. Ephes. 5. The iepov comprises both. This distinc- tion of vads and iepoy is carefully observed in the N.T.: see Trench N.T. Synon. ist ser. § iii.
3. popookornber] ‘after inspection’, with a view to detecting blemishes. A flaw or blemish, which vitiates a person or thing for holy purposes, is in the LXX pépos. Doubtless the choice of this rendering was partly determined by its similarity in sound to the Hebrew 011, for otherwise it is not a very obvious or natural equi- valent. [A parallel instance is the word oxnyy, chosen for the same rea- sons, as a rendering of Shechinah, and carrying with it all the signifi- cance of the latter.] Hence duepos inthe LXx signifies ‘without blemish’, being applied to victims and the like, and diverges from its classical mean- ing. Hence also are derived the words
XLIT]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
127
/ e/ / / s / adeAol, dow mAEtovos KaTHEWEnUEV yywWTEWS, TOTOUTH
~ e f: / smaAAov UroKeiueOa Kivduve.
XLII. Of drooroXor jpyiv einyyericOnoav aro TOU
Kupiov *Incov. Xpiorov, *Incovs 0 Xpioros aro Tov P p p
Ocov éEereupOn.
€ \ > > \ > > \ e 6 Xpiotos ovy ao Tov OQeov, Kai ol
EwOnuwev] xarakiwhnuev A, as Tisch. (preef. p. xix) reads it, but I could not see dis-
tinctly. (om. 6) C.
popookoTos, popookKorrety, Which seem to be confined to Jewish and Christian writers: Philo de Agric. 29 (I. p. 320) ovs EvloL pOLOTKOTOVS Gvoyatovaty, iva duopa kal down mpocaynra TO Boye Ta tepeia xt... Polyc. Phil. 4 mavra popookoretra, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 18 (p. 617) joav dé kav tals TOY OvoLdy Tpocaywyais Tapa TH vou@ oi iepeiwov popooxora, Afost. Const. il. 3 ye- yparrat yap, M@pockoreiabe Toy pér- Aovta eis iepwavynyv mpoxerpicerOa (a paraphrase of Lev. xxi. 17).
4. dpxtepéws| Wotton suggests tepéws, ‘quum sacerdotum inferioris ordinis potius quam summi sacerdotis Sit tas Oucias popookoreiv’?; but dia ToU apxtepéws x.t-A. belongs rather to mpoopéperat than to popooKornber, as the order seems to show. The three conditions are (1) that it must be offered at the proper place, (2) that it must be examined and found with- out blemish, (3) that it must be sacrificed by the proper persons, the high priests or other priests. The dud Tov dpxtepéws k.T.A. is Comprehen- Sive, so as to include all sacrifices.
5. To KkaOnKov k.7.A.| ‘ the seemly or- dinance of His wll.’ For the geni- tive comp. Plut. Aor. p. 617 E éx ray ‘Ounpov To Oewpnua tovto AapBaver Ka@nkovTov.
6. TO mpootipoyv| 2 Macc. vii. 36. °Emitipiov *Attikos, mpootuyov “EXAn- vik@s Moeris S. v. emiripiov. This is one
g etnyyeNicOncav] AC; evangelizaverunt (active) S. Hilgenfeld wrongly gives the reading of C evayyeNicOncar. 11 éeréugpOn...d7d Tod Geot] AS; om. C (by homceoteleuton).
Io 6 Xpioris] A; xpioros
among many instances of the excep- tional character of the Attic dialect, for mpoorimov occurs as early as Hippocrates ; see for other examples Galatians vi. 6 and p. 92 (p. 89, ed. 1), Philippians i. 28, ii. 14. In the inscriptions it is a very common word for a fine.
‘Opare x.t.A.] This sentence is quoted by Clem. Alex. Stvom. iv. 16 (p. 613).
7. yvdcews| See the note on ra Ba@n ths Oeias yudcews § 40.
XLII. ‘The Apostles were sent by Christ, as Christ was sent by the Father. Having this commission they preached the kingdom of Godand appointed presbyters and deacons in every place. This was no new insti- tution, but had been foretold ages ago by the prophet.’
Q. evnyyedicOnoay| ‘were taught the Gospel’, as Matt. xi. 5 (Luke vii. 22), Heb. iv. 2,6; for the first aorist apparently is always passive, being used with a nominative either of the person instructed or the lesson con- veyed; and nyiv will be ‘for our sakes’. Itmight bea question however whether we should not read nudy, as in the opening of § 44.
Il. e&eméupOn| This is attached by the editors generally to the following sentence. Yet I can hardly doubt that it belongs to the preceding words; for (1) The position of ody
128 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLII
admoaToko amo tov Xpixtou" éyévovTo ovv auporepa evTakTws €x CeAnuatos Ocod. mapayyedias ovv NaBov- TES Kal mAnpopopybevtes cia THs avactacews Tov Kv- piov nuwv 'Incov Xpiotou Kal wlotwbevtes év TW oye Tov Oceov peta TAnpoHopias mvevpmartos aryiov éErOov, evayyeACouevo THY PBacielav Tov Oeov wéedrew Ep- yeoOu. KaTa Ywpas ovv Kai TodELS KNPVoTOVTES Kab-
/ \ > \ : lon / a“ , lOTAVOVY Tas aATTAPV AS QAUTWY, OOK MAT AYTES TW TT VEU-
3 > / \ / lan / atl, €ls émieKOTOUS Kal OlakOvous TwY MeANOVTWY
2 NaBévres] AC; add. of amécro\u S.
4 tov] A; om. C; dub. S
(1 being the common rendering of 6 Kvpios as well as of 6 Kupios quar).
seems to require this; (2) The awk- ward expression that ‘Christ was taught the Gospel by the Father’ thus disappears; (3) We get in its place a forcible epigrammatic paral- lelism 6 Xpiotos ovv x.7.A. For the omission of the verb to gain terse- ness, and for the form of the sentence generally, see Rom. x. 17 dpa 9 mioris €& axons, 7 S€ axon dia pnyaros Xpworov, 1 Cor. ill. 23 vets be Xprorod, Xpuoros b€ Geov; comp. also Rom. v. Beene Cor 19a) a 3; (Gal. ai, .9..) My punctuation has been accepted by Gebhardt and Harnack and by Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), and is now con- firmed by the Syriac version. For the thought see Joh. xvii. 18 kaos €ue améoreiias eis TOY KOTMOY, Kayo ameorei\a avrovs eis TOV KOT MOV, XX. 21 kaOos améoradkév pe 0 Tatnp, Kayo méumro vas. See also the notes on Ign. Ephes. 6; and comp. Tertull. de Praescr. 37 ‘in ea regula incedimus, quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit’ (quoted by Harnack).
2. mapayyedias| ‘word of com- mand’, received as from a superior officer that it may be passed on to others ; as e.g. Xen. Cyz. il. 4. 2, Iv. au278
4. miotwOevtes| 2 Tim. lil. 14 péve év ois euabes kal émiotwOns.
5- pera mAnpogopias x.r-A.| ‘with jirm conviction inspired by the Holy Ghost’: comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 év mvevpate ayi@ «Kat [ev] mAnpodopia ToAA7.
7. ka0ioravov] The same word is used in Tit. i. 5 xaraoryons kara modu mpeoButepovs. Both forms of the im- perfect xa@iocravoy (from icravw) and kadiorev (from ioraw) are admissible, at least in the later language; see Veitch Greek Verbs p. 299. But I cannot find any place for either of the readings of our MSS, kaGeoravoy and ka@uorav.
xepas] ‘country districts’, as op- posed to towns ; comp. Luke xxi. 21, Joh; iv. 35, Acts vit 1, James vin Hence the ancient title ywpemicxoros ; see Philippians p. 230.
8. ras dmapxas avtav] ‘the first- SJruits of their preaching’ ; or perhaps avtey refers not to the Apostles but to the y@pa kai wodes, and is like the genitives in Rom. xvi. 5 6s éorw amapx) ths “Agias, I Cor. xvi. 15 ore €otl amrapxn tis "Axatias, which pas- sages Clement may have had in his mind.
Soxiwacavres] 1 Tim. iii. 10 Soxe-
on
/ 10 TLOTEVEL).
a5
>
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
XL] 129
Kal TOUTO OU KalVws, Ex yop On Tow xpovwy éyéyparto mepl émioKOTWY Kal ClaKkovwy* OUTS yap TOU Never 1 ypagn* KatacTHc@ ToyYc émI- CKOTIOYC AYT@N EN AIKAIOCYNH KAl TOYC AIAKONOYC AYTA@N EN TICTEl.
XLII.
M4 \ ~ / ~ , moTevlevTes mapa OQeov epyov To.wvTe KaTeETTHOAY
\ VA \ ? e > ~ Kat ti @avyuactov ae ot & Xpirro
\ / TOUS 7 POELONMEVOUS ;
»
TON EN OAD TH OIK®
7 Kabicravoy] kabectavoyv A; kadiorav C. sancto (or rather sazctos, for the word has 726272) S.
e/ \ , \ ' O7oV Kal O MaKapLlos TICcTOC bEps-
oe ~~ % / an Mwvons Ta dvaTeTaypeva avTo
8 ro mvevpart] AC; spiritu 10 Kawws|] AC; kevas S.
12 ottws] AC, but Bryennios tacitly writes oJrw; see the note on § 56.
patécOwoav mparor, eira Siakoveir@oay : see below § 44 SdiadeEwrtar erepor Sedoxiysacpévor avdpes.
To mvevpari] ‘by the Spirit’, which is the great searcher, 1 Cor. 11. Io.
9. eémiokdmous| i.e. mpeaBurepous ; for Clement thrice mentions ezioxozrot kat Sudkovor in conjunction (as in Phil. ji. I ody émickorots kal Siakdvors), and it is impossible that he could have omitted the presbyters, more especi- ally as his one object is to defend their authority which had been as- sailed (S$ 44, 47, 54). The words €miakorros and mpeoBurepos therefore are synonymes in Clement, as they are in the Apostolic writers. In Igna- tius they first appear as distinct titles. See Philippians p. 93 Sq, Pp. I9I sq.
12. Katraornow|Loosely quoted from LXX Is. lx. 17 d@0@ Tovs Gpyovras cov €v eipyvy Kal Tovs émlioKOTOUsS Gov eV Sixatoovvy. Thus the introduction of the didkovos is due to misquotation. Irenzeus also (Haer. iv. 26. 5) applies the passage to the Christian ministry, but quotes the Lxx correctly. The force of the original is rightly given in the A. V., ‘I will also make thy officers [magistrates] peace and thine exactors [task-masters] righteous-
CLEM. II.
ness’; i.e. ‘there shall be no tyranny or oppression’. For émicxomos, ‘a task-master’, see Phz/ippians p. 93.
XLIII. ‘And no marvel, if the Apostles of Christ thus ordained mi- nisters, seeing that there was the precedent of Moses. When the au- thority of the priests was assailed, he took the rods of the twelve tribes and placed them within the taber- nacle, saying that God had chosen the tribe whose rod should bud. On the morrow when the doors were opened, Aaron’s rod alone had bud- ded, and the office of the priesthood was vindicated.’
16. murrevOévres| ‘entrusted with’. The construction moreveoOai re is common in S. Paul: Rom. iii. 2, B Cory i':17;Gal.it. 7; ¥9thess, 1 E Pina ry Tit. iF
17. motos Oeparev x.t.r.] From Heb. ill. 5 Motojs pev moris év dro T@ olk@ avTov os Oeparwv, where there is a reference to Num. xii. 7 ovy ovTws 0 Oepdrav pov Maions év do T@ OlK@ pov TLoTOs eoTw. On Oeparav see above § 4. For the combination of epithets here comp. Justin Dza/. 56 (p. 274) Motions odv 6 paxdptos Kal motos Oepamrwv Geod k.T.A.
9
130 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLII
( éonuewoato év Tats iepais BiBAos, wo Kal TavTa nye Ss LEp ye | / \ n qn émnkoAovOnoay ot NoiTrot TpOPHTal TUVETTLLAPTUPOUYTES nn ~ / ~ / / Tols Um avTou vevomoleTnpEevols. €KELVOS yap, (nou > \ ~ / Pant ~ EUTETOVTOS TEDL THS LEepwovVYs Kal TTAaTLAaCoVTwWY THY ~ , a sf PES / Wha! / = gurAwv oroia aitav ein TO EvdoEw dvomati KEKOopNME- 5 Ce id \ / ? ~ vn, €kéAEvoEev Tous OwoEKAa puAapyous mpoceveyKelv ITw palo : : EKaT vAnS Kav avTw pafdous Eemuyeypaupevas ExaorTns dvdr / \ \ > a of \ > y a ovouas Kat AaBwy avTas EdncEv Kal éExdpayioev Tots / a 7 \ 9 nf ’ \ > \ dakTvAlos Twv pvrapxwv, Kal dmwéBeTO a’Tas Eis THY \ ~ / \ \ / ~ rl oKnYNV TOU MapTUpLoU él THY TpawECav Tov OeéeouU: 19 \ ¥ \ \ 9 / \ a rd / Kal KAEloas THY oKHYNnY EcppayioEV Tas KAElOas Woau- \ \ / \ LO 5) a ov] ? ' Tws Kat Tas Oupas* Kal eirev avTois’ “AnApec ddedol,
Hc AN yAfic H pdBAoc BAacTHCH, TAaYTHN €KAEAEKTAI 6
\ > \ c , \ tal > a Deoc cic To IEPATEYEIN KAI AEITOYPFEIN AYTO.
I éonmewmoaro] eonutwoaro A.
5 gviwv] AC; add. racay [rod] Icpayd S.
8 avras] AS; adros C. éoppdyiev. See I. p. 140.
I. eonuevooato|] ‘recorded as a sign’: comp. § II els kpiua kat eis Onpelwow Tacals Tals yeveais yivovrat. So in the narrative to which Clement here refers, Num. xvii. 10 does ryv paBdov ’Aapaov...cnpeiov trois viois Tay avnkooy.
iepais| On this epithet see below, § 53.
2. oi Aowrot mpopyra] Moses ap- pears as the leader of the prophetic band, who prophesied of the Messiah, in Deut. xviii. 15, as emphasized in Acts iii. 21 sq, vii. 13.
3. éxeivos yap x.t.A.] The lesson of this narrative is drawn out also by Joseph. Azz. iv. 4. 2, and by Philo Vit. Moys. iii. 21 (Ul. p. 162).
5. ovopart] i.e. ‘dignity, office’, sc. Tis tepwaovuns ; aS § 44 emi rod dvoparos ms emurkonjs. On this sense of dvoua
Towtas
2 érnkodovOncav] A; AKod\ovOnoav C, Kekoounuéevn| Kekoounuevw A.
Tots] A; é Tois C, a repetition of the last syllable of II KAeloas] kXuoac A. 15 Tov] A; om. C.
12 Ovpas] S; paBdous AC, 16 émedelEato] ...delEaTo A;
see above § 36.
7. €kaotns pvdjs| For the geni- tive of the thing inscribed after ém- ypapew comp. Plut. Mor. 400 E rov €vravOa rovrovi Onoaupoy emtypawa THs moAews. Here however dvds might be governed by kar’ dvoua.
8. ednoev x.t.d.] This incident, with the following éogpdyev rds kXetdas woatras, is not given in the biblical narrative (Num. xvii). It seems however to be intended by Josephus (1.c.) rév tore (re?) avdpav KaTaonunvapevov avras, olmep exourCov, kal Tov m7Oous, though his language is obscure. Comp. Xen. We//, iii. 1. 27 katéxhewoev avta Kal KaTeonunvaro kat dvdakas Katréatyoev.
II. waavtas kai] So also poles kai Ign. Ephes. 16, 19, Tradl. 13.
18. mpoethev] ‘Zook out’. For this
XLIv] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
131
\ / / , \ > 7 \ 150€ yevouerns cuvexadecey mravta Tov ‘Iopanr, Tas
\ af 20 KQO7rOV Exyouod.
, lon “ \ / ~ éEaxooias yiiuadas Twyv avopwv, Kal éredeiEaTo Tois / \ TO \ J \ \ ~ QuAapyxots Tas opeayt aS Kal nvoreev THY OKHVyV TOU , \ ~ \ Sf } : ( ef e fapTuplov Kal mpoeiAev Tas paBdous: Kai evpeOn 7 , / ~ \ paBdos ’Aapwy ov povov BeBAacTnKvia dANaA Kal / ~ > , 9 Ti OoKEiTE, adyamnTOL; ov ponder é oe a ~ , s/ / a/ Mwions tovto pedrAew evecbar; pardiota joery arAN e/ \ - / a € iva pn akatactacia yevnta ev Tw ‘loparjrA, ovTws > / > \ “ \ 7 ~ ’ ~ \ ETOINTEV ELS TO dogacbrjva TO OVoMa TOU aAnOwov Kat / wn ~e e / > \ 3 es ~ be 4 povov Qeov: w 7 do€a ELS TOUS alwvas TwWY alwywY. / apn. \ > / € ca / \ a XLIV. Kal ot a@rootoXo jnuwv éyvwoav dia Tov y _ oo _ / oy af a Kupiouv nuwv “Incov Xpiotov, btu Epis ExTar emi Tov 17 Tas cppayidas] AC; om. S. 18 mpoethev] mpoe.... AS mpoethe C; sustulit S. 23 eis TO] A;
wore C and so apparently S. The variation is to be explained by the uncial letters, EICTO, WCTE. 24 Qeot] S; def. A; Kupiou C. S translates as if it had
eréderée C, 20 Soxetre] doxecra A.
read Tod udvouv adyOwod Oeod.
sense of the active mpoarpety see Judith Xlii. 15 mpoeAovoa thy Kepadny ek THs mnpas. Though it occurs compara- tively seldom, it is a strictly classical use, ¢ penu promere; see the com- mentators on Thucyd. vill. 90. The much commoner form is the middle voice with a different sense, wpoaipeto- 6a pracferre, eligere.
20. ov mpondet x.7-A.] This passage is loosely quoted or rather abridged and paraphrased by one Joannes. The quotation is given in Sfzc7/. Solesm, 1. p. 293 (see above, I. p. 187).
23. Tov adnOuov x.t.A.] Comp. Joh. XVil. 3.
XLIV. ‘So likewise the Apostles foresaw these feuds. They therefore provided for a succession of tried persons, who should fulfil the office of the ministry. Thus it is no light
27 Kupiov] ky CS; yy A. éstat] AC; but S seems to have read éoruv.
Epis] epero A. éml] A; mepi C, and so app. S.
sin of which you are guilty in ejecting men so appointed, when they have discharged their duties faithfully. Happy those presbyters who have departed hence, and are in no fear of removal from their proper office.’
26. nyov] Comp. 2 Pet. ili. 2 ris TOY aTooTO\@y vpeav evToAns, Where vpov (not nuey) is the correct reading, as quoted by Hilgenfeld; so that it is an exact parallel to Clement’s expres- sion. See the note on rovs ayadovs amooroNous § 5.
27. €pts e€orat x.t-rA.] See Tert. de Bapt. 17 ‘ episcopatus aemulatio scis- matum mater est’, quoted by Har- nack.
Tov odvopatos k.T.A.] On dvoua see above §§ 36, 43. The émioxom here is of course the ‘ office of presbyter’, as in I Tim, ili. 1.
9—2
132
J ~ OVOMATOS THS ETLTKOTNHS.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XLIV
A , Ss \ nN hee 0 Ata tTavrTnv ovv tHv aiTtiav
, 5] / , / \ Tpoyvorw etAnpores TENELAVY KATETTHOAV TOUS TPOEL-
1 otv] AC; om. S.
3 meragd] mweroév A.
émipovav | erwounr] A;
érdounv C. S translates e¢ 2x medio (interim) super probatione (émt Soxiuhv or émt
Soxiuy) dederunt etiam hoc ita ut st homines ex iis ete.
2. Tovs mpoetpnuevous] SC. émioKd- mous Kat Stakovous, § 42.
3. pera&d| ‘afterwards’; comp. Acts xili. 42 eis TO pera&d caBBaror, Barnab. § 13 eidev d¢ “IaxaB rimov TO mvevpartt TOU Aaov Tov perak&V, Theoph. we aiol. i. 8, Wi. 21,'23. See also the references in Meyer’s note to Acts l.c.
eryornvy Sedexacw] ‘have given permanence to the office’: comp. Athenag. de Resurr. 18 deira Se dra- Soxis Sua THY Tov yévous Staporny. For émyovn (which occurs occasion- ally also in classical writers of this age) see Epist. Gall. § 6 in Euseb. v. 1, Tatian ad Graec. 32. This read- ing was adopted by Bunsen, but he wrongly interpreted it ‘life-tenure’ (see Jenat. von Antioch, etc. p. 96 sq, Hippolytus 1. p. 45 2nd ed); and it has consequently found no favour. The original author of this emenda- tion émiovny is mentioned by Ussher (Ignat. Epzs¢. proleg. p. cxxxvil) who quoting the passage adds this note in his margin; ‘émpovny D. Petrus Turnerus [Savilian Professor at Ox- ford, t 1651] hic legit, ut comtinuatio episcopatus ab apostolis stabilita significetur; quod Athanasiano illi, kai BéBaa pever, bene respondet’. Other suggestions, émuoyny, émirpo- THY, ETLOKOTINV, ETLETOANVY, ATOVOUNY, ETL vopov, are either inappropriate or di- verge too widely from the authorities. It seems impossible to assign any fit sense to the reading eémwopny con- formably with usage or derivation. The word elsewhere has two mean- ings only; (1) ‘encroachment or rav- age’, e.g. of the spread of fire (Plut.
See the lower note.
Alex. 35) or poison (Elian A. A. xii. 32), (2) ‘a bandage’ Galen XVIII. I. p.791(Kuhn)and frequently (see Hase in Steph. Thes.). It might also consis- tently with its derivation have the sense ‘distribution, assignment’, like émuvéunots. If it is to be retained, we have the choice (1) of assuming a secondary meaning ‘injunction’, de- rived from the possible (though un- supported) sense ‘assignment’ (so Lipsius p. 19 sq); or (2) of giving to emwvoun the known meaning of em- vouis, ‘an after enactment’, ‘a codicil’ (so Rothe Anfange p. 374 sq; see the note on xoiunddow). Of these alternatives the former is preferable, but both are unwarranted. I have the less hesitation in making so slight a change in the reading of the chief MS, because peroév before and eOwxaci after show that the scribe of A wrote carelessly at this point. Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), not knowing the reading of S, conjectured ei Sox, which he explains kat pera&d (‘jam conditis ecclesiis’) émi Sox édwkay (TO dvoua THS éemLoKOTAS) OTwS (‘hac ratione inducta’) x.7.A., adding ‘jam ecclesiarum ai amapyai spiritu probati episcoporum et diaconorum munera susceperunt, post eos sola probationis ratione episcopi con- stituti sunt’. But notwithstanding the coincidence of this conjecture with S, I do not think that a reading so harsh can possibly stand. The word émwwopny is retained by Laurent, who explains it ‘adsignatio muneris episcopalis’ (a meaning of émuwopy which though possible is unsup- ported, and which even if allowable
XLIV |
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
133
4 \ : \ 7 4 > \ pnuevous, Kat peTagu émmovyy dedwKkaci Omws, éav
kounOacw, SiadéEwvTar ETEpor SedoKisacpEvor avdpes
dedwdxacw] edwxacw A; @dwxay C. and similarly S inserts homines ex tis.
in itself would be very awkward here); and in their first edition by Gebhardt and Harnack, where it is interpreted ‘dispositio, praeceptum’ (a meaning which would be adequate indeed, but which the word could not, I think, possibly have). In ed. 2 however Harnack expresses a be- lief that the word is corrupt and suggests émBodnv. Hagemann (fo- mische Kirche p. 684) conjectures erwopiv, ‘d. h. wenn diese Form des Accusativs von emwopis nachgewiesen werden koénnte’; and Hort quite independently suggested to me ‘ ém- vouida, or conceivably but improbably emrivouw, aS we have both yapira and Xap, ynorida and vot, kdeida and kAew’, and refers to Philo de Creat. Princ. 4 (Il. p. 363 M.) where Deu- teronomy is so called (comp. Quzs ver. div. 33, 51, 1. Pp. 495, 509). Donaldson conjectures éidowa ‘an addition’ (Zheol. Rev. Jan. 1877, p. 45), and Lipsius émirayny (Jen. Lit. 13 Jan. 1877).
The Latin quotation of Joannes Diaconus (I. p. 187) contains the words ‘hanc formam tenentes apostoli etc.’, and Card. Pitra (Spzczl. Solesm. 1. p. 293) considers that ‘forma’ here repre- sents émwoun (so too even Ewald Gesch. Vil. p. 269), congratulating himself that the sense of emvoyn is thus decided. A late Latin para- phrase would be worthless as an au- thority, even if this view of its mean- ing were correct. But a comparison of the order of the Latin with the original of Clement shows that the words mean ‘the Apostles following this precedent set by Moses’, and that ‘forma’ there- fore has nothing to do with éemvopy.
4 Koiundwow] A; Twes KounOwow C, dvdpes] AS; om. C.
For edexaow it is a question whe- ther we should read dcdexacw or édwxav. The former involves a less change, and the transition from the aorist (karéornoav) to the perfect (Sed@xacw) may be explained by the fact that the consequences of this second act are permanent.
4. Kowunddcw] sc. of mpoeipnuevor, i.e. the first generation of presbyters appointed by the Apostles themselves; and avroéyv too will refer to these same persons. Rothe (lc.) refers both to the Apostles themselves. He assumes Clement to be here de- scribing the establishment of episco- pacy properly so called, and supposes émwvoun, Which he translates ‘after- enactment’, to refer to a second Apostolic Council convened for this purpose. I have discussed this theory at length elsewhere (PAzlipfians p. 199 sq). Of his interpretation of this particular passage it is enough to say that it interrupts the context with irrelevant matter. The Apostles, says Clement, first appointed approved persons to the ministry (ka@icravoy Soxyuacavtes § 42), and afterwards (weraév) provided for a succession so that vacancies by death should be filled by other approved men (€repou SeOoxtwacpevor avdpes). The presby- ters at Corinth, who had been rudely ejected from office, belonged to these two classes: some were appointed directly bythe Apostles (karacradévras vm ekelvoy); others belonged to the second generation, having been ap- pointed by the persons thus immedi- ately connected with the Apostles (kataotabévras vp érépwv eddoyipov avdpav).
134 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
| XLIV
\ - \ Ss U ? THY NELTOUPYiav av’TwV. Tous OW KaTacTabevTas UT 2 / 3\ aye lems Re / ? / ? a éxelvwy n peTacy vp éErépwy EAdOYipwY avdpwv, TuVEV- / CG / / \ / Ooknoaons THs €KKAnoLas Taons, Kal AELTOVPYNTaYTAS 'd lam a ~ \ dueuTTWs TH Troywiw Tov XpioToU peTAa TaTrEwoppo- lé € / ? ld / auns jovxws Kal dBavavows, ME“apTUPHEVOUS TE TOA- na \ / , / if Nols xpovors UO TavTwY, TOUTOUS OU diKalws vouLCopEV
2 peTasd] werogv A. ynoavras| \uroupynoavtac A. pévous] mewaprupnmevors A.
I. tods ovv xaractabévras k.t.A.] This notice assists to determine the chronology of the epistle. Some of those appointed by the Apostles had died (of rpoodouropjcartes), but others were still living (of xaracraOévres Ur é€xeivov). See the introduction, I. p. 349. Here again pera&d means ‘after- wards’, as above.
2. ovvevdoxnodaons k.t.A.] Wotton quotes Cyprian’s expression ‘plebis suffragium’ referring to the appoint- ment of Church officers, Zfzs¢. lv (p. 243), Ixvili (p. 292). Add also the more important passage £#zsv. Ixvii (p. 288), where the part of the laity in such appointments is de- scribed. See also the account of the appointment of Polycarp to the epis- copate in the spurious Pionius, 77. Polyc. 23.
4. TO Toyvig tov Xpicrod|] The phrase occurs again S$ 54, 57 (comp. § 16). See also Acts xx. 28, 29, 1 Pet. ¥. 2,3;
5. dBavavoas |‘unassumingly’. The adjective occurs AZost. Const. ii. 3 gata d€ evormAayxvos, aBdvavoos, aya- mnrikos, Where again it refers to the qualifications for the ministry. See below § 49 ovdév Bavavoov év ayann, ovdev vrepypavoy, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 6 (p. 273) petradoréov dhidrav- Opwmas, ov Bavavows ovde aalovikas, Job xli. 26 (Theod.) viot Bavavotas (Heb. 7M’ ‘pride, arrogance’). In
dvipwrv] AC; add. éxdedeypévous S. 5 aBavatcws] aBavdows C.
re] ACs om, S.
3 AevToup- pewapTupy- 6 rovrous] AC; add.
Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 7, iv. 2, Bavav- cia is the excess of peyadomperesa ‘lavish profusion’, the result of vzd- garity. Somewhat similar is the sense which the word has here and in the passages quoted, ‘vulgar self- assertion’.
8. dpéumres kat doiws| So 1 Thess. li. 10.
mpoceveykovras ta Sapal What does Clement mean by sacrifices, by gifts (Sépa) and offerings (mporpopas)? In what sense are the presbyters said to have presented or offered the gifts? The answers to these questions must be sought in the parallel passages ; § 18 évoia TH OeS mvedpa ovyrerpiype- vov, S$ 35, 30 Avaia aivécews do€acer pe kali exet 000s 7 SeiEw atT@ TO TwTH- ptov Tov Geod: adrn 7 600s, ayamnrol, év 7) EUpopev TO GaTnpLoy nav “Inaody Xpiorov Tov dpxvepéa THY mpoopopor nav, TOY mpooTaTny Kat PBonOov THs dobeveias nuov, § 41 exactos vpar, adedhoi, ev TH idim Taypare evxapio- reiro TO Oc@ ev ayaby cuvednoe dmdpxor, pi) TapekBaivwv Toy wpLoMEevor tis ecrovpyias avrov kavova, § 52 Gicov 7H Ged Ovolay aivécews kal todos TO VWioT@ Tas Evxas Cov K.T.A. These passages are illustrated by Heb. xiii. 15, 16, d¢ avrov ody (i.e. dua ToD apxtepéws “Invov, VV. II, 12) dvapépopev Ovoiav aivécews Sta trar- TOs T@ Oe, TouréaTiv, KapTov xeLéov GpodoyovvT@y TH ovomatt avTov" Ths
to
XLIV| TO THE CORINTHIANS.
135
4 \ > \
auapTia yao ov puiKpa ~ af \ / \ ¢ /
noiv EoTaL, éav TOUS AMEMTTWS KaL OTLWS TPOTEVEY-
amoBarAeo Oat Ths NELTOUpYias.
'g \ ~~ lan a > / 7 KovTas Ta Owpa THs éEmioKoTNs aToBahwuEV. jakdpLoL € t / c/ a} oi mpoodoropncavTes mperBuUTEpOL, oOLTLVES EyKapTrOV \ / af \ ee 4 b) \ b) a kal TeAElay Exyov THY dvadNvow* ov yao evAaBouYTaL
ouv S. in S. See the lower note. AS; éoriv C.
dé evmotias Kal Kowevias pr émidavOd- veoGe, Toravtas yap Ovoias evapeoret- Tat 0 Geos, to which epistle Clement is largely indebted elsewhere. The sacrifices, offerings, and gifts there- fore are the prayers and thanks- givings, the alms, the eucharistic elements, the contributions to the agape, and so forth. See esp. Cozst. A post. i. 25 ai tore Ovoia viv evyal Kat Oenoets Kal evxapiotiat, ai Tore dmapxyai kal Oexata kal ddaipéuara kat d@pa viv mpoodopal ai dra trav Ogl@yv éeTLoKOT@Y Tporhepope- vat Kupio «r.A., § 27 mpoonker ovy
kal vpas, ddeAdoi, Gvoias vue roe
mpoopopas To éeTLTKOT@ TpOTHE- pety ws apyxeper x.t.A., § 34 Tods KapTovs Uuav Kal Ta epya TOV xELpaV vua@v eis evAoyiay vuav mpoodpéportes avT@ (SC. TO emiokoT@)...Ta SOpa vuav diddvres avT@ ws iepei Oeov, § 35 py- KéTL €aoas vpas (6 Oeds) Ovew Gdoya (da...00 Snmov Kal Tay eiahopav vyas nrevOepwcev ay odeirere Tois iepevow kal TOV eis Tous Seopevous evmoi@y K.T.A., § 53 Oa@pov dé eat Ge@ 1 Exdorov mpooevx7 Kal evxapiotia. These pas- sages show in what sense the pres- byters might be said to ‘offer the gifts’, They led the prayers and thanksgivings of the congregation, they presented the alms and contri- butions to God and asked His bless- ing on them in the name of the whole body. Hence Clement is careful to insist (§ 40) that these of- ferings should be made at the right
7 amoBd\rXecPar] C; amoBarerOat A. NecToupylas] Acroupyiac A. Q makdpio.] AC; add. yap S.
It is rendered by an active verb 8 écrat]
time and in the right place and through the right persons. The first day of the week had been fixed by Apostolic authority not only for com- mon prayer and breaking of bread (Acts xx. 7) but also for collecting alms (1 Cor. xvi. 2); and the pres- byters, as the officers appointed by the same authority, were the proper persons to receive and dispense the contributions. On the whole subject see Hofling de Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer etc. p. 8 sq (Er- langen 1851).
10. @yxaprov x.t.’.] The same com- bination of epithets occurs again § 56 €ora avrots €ykapros kal Tedeia 7 mpos Tov Geov K.T.A.
II. redelav] ie. ‘22 mature, ripe age’, so that it has borne fruit (¢yxap- mov). Comp. the compound redevo- kaptretvy Which occurs several times in Theophrastus (e.g. Hzs¢. PZ. i. 13. 4, Caus. Pl. iii. 6.9). The work of these presbyters had not, like those Corin- thian elders whose cause Clement pleads, been rudely interfered with and prematurely ended.
mv avarvow| ‘their departure’; comp. Phil. i. 23, 2 Tim. iv. 6. The metaphor seems to be taken from the breaking up of an encampment (see Philippians \.c.), so that it is well suited to mpoodoiropnoarrtes.
ovk evAaBovvra py] ‘they have no fear lest’: comp. 1 Macc. iii. 30, xii. 40 (v.1.). In Acts xxiii. 10 evAaBn- Geis is a false reading.
136
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XLIV
lg > \ / \ ~ / ~ pn Tis avTOUS meTaTTHON aro TOU idpumEevou avTots
, TOT7TTOU.
eel \ ed DP igh € ~~ , -~ OpwMEV yap OTL Evlovs Vues METHYaYETE Kas
(é - >’ / qn / TONLTEVOMEVOUS EK TNS AMEUTTWS AUTOS FTETLUNMEVNST
NEtTOUpYias.
XLV. Pirovexo Exrte, ddedpol, kal CrrAwTal TreEpl
~~ 9 , 3 / TWVY AVYKOVTWVY ELS OWTIHPLAV.
9 / > \ EVKEKUPAaTE Els Tas
ypapas, Tas adneis, tas [dia] Tov mvevpatos Tov
2 pernyayeTe] merayaryere A.
3 mwoNdurevouevous] AS; modurevoapévous C,
aueurTws| AC; om. S, perhaps from a feeling that it was not appropriate with
TETLULNMEV NS. éore] esta A.
S inserts a negative. See the lower note. Tas ypapas] A; Tas iepas ypadds CS. This is probably
C; ef éyxexvqate S.
taken from § 53 émicracde ras iepas ypadpas...xal éyxekUgare K.T.X. 7 No better way of filling the lacuna in A
Tov] CS; def. A: see the lower note.
2. tomov] On the Jlace of the de- parted see the note on § 5. There is here also an allusion to the other sense, ‘office’; see § 4o (with the note).
3. tretysnwernst| ‘respected by them’. So all the authorities. But I am disposed to read rernpnpévns: comp. I Thess. v. 23 auéurras...tnpn- Ocin. My emendation was accepted by Gebhardt (ed. 1), and indeed it seems to be required notwithstand- ing the coincidence of our existing authorities. In their second edition however Gebhardt and Harnack re- turn to reriunuévns, explaining it ‘offi- cio quo inculpabiliter ac legitime honorati erant’, and supposing that Tipay Twi Te Can mean ‘aliquid alicui tamquam honorem tribuere’. But the passages quoted by them, which seem to favour this meaning, Pind. Ol. [l. Pyth.] iv. 270 aay ré cou tipa aos, Soph. Azz. 514 exeiva SvoceBn Tyas xapw |comp. also 47. 675], are highly poetical. Moreover even in these the expression must be referred to the original meaning of ripay, ‘to respect (and so ‘to scrupulously ob-
4 Aecroupylas] Acroupyeac A. 6 r&v dvnkévrwy] C (as I had conjectured); ...avykovrwy A.
5 Pirdverkor] didovixar A. EVKEKUPATE] EV...... Te As éyxextgpare
Tas 01a
serve’) a thing for a person’ (comp. e.g. Eur. Ovest. 828 marp@ayv tipov xapw with Soph. Azz. l.c.); and thus they afford no countenance for a pas- sive use TiynacGai run ‘to be bestowed as an honour on a person’. The in- stances of the passive, which are quoted in their note, all make against this interpretation ; e.g. Euseb. H. Z. X. 4 yepapa hpovnoe: mapa Cecod rtert- pnpéve, Const. Ap. il. 26 6 émiokomos ...Geov a€ia retiunuévos. If rerisnpeé- yvns can stand at all here, it must mean ‘respected’, i.e. ‘duly dis- charged’. Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) speaks favourably of rernpnpevns.
XLV. ‘Your zeal is misplaced, my brethren. Search the Scriptures. You will indeed find that God’s ser- vants have been persecuted, but their persecutors are always the impious and unholy. Did pious men shut up Daniel in the lions’ den? Or cast the three children into the fire? This was the deed of the wicked who knew not that God mightily shields His faithful people. And so He has crown- ed the sufferers with everlasting re- nown and honour.’
on
Io
XLV | TO THE CORINTHIANS.
137
Be ft x hee 4 i0e a) ioe ayiov: émictacbe ST ovdey adikoy ovde TrapaTreToln-
a / / pévov yéyparta év av’tais. ovx evpyoeTe diKatous E ~ / / admroBeBAnuévous aro Ooiwy avopwuv’ édiwy Onoay Ol- > \ / ~ / 5) e \ Kalol, GAN’ vo avouwy’ éedvAakicOnoav, add v7
> Ls 2 / e \ / ? / dvociwy: é\OacOnoav vo Tapavouwy: amextavOnoay
¢ \ a A af _ / UTO TWY LapoV Kal adLKOY CnAOV aveLAnpoTwr.
occurred to me in my first edition than ras Tov.
TAUTA
I saw that the pjoes of all previous
editors could not stand, as the usual expression is either mvevuatos aylov or Tov
TvEvpLaTos TOU aylov.
Oe evphoere] C; ...upnoerac A; zuvenitis (a present) S. vouwr] C; vromra..vouwy A; add vd wapavduwv S: see l. p. 142. tov] A; amo trav C; adX’ bd (or dd) Trav S. See the last note. (as I had conjectured, ed. 1); miapwv AS.
143. tavta] AC; kal ratra S.
5. idoverxor ore x«.t.A.] By read- ing tev avnkovrar, instead of py avn- kovrev (by which previous editors supplied the lacuna of A), I changed éore from an indicative to an impera- tive; ‘Contend zealously, if you will, but let your zeal be directed to things pertaining to salvation’; comp. Gal. We t7, 16, ¥ Pet. ili. 13. There is a Gcov (jos, and in some sense also a Gcov didroverxia. My conjecture was approved by Tischendorf and ac- cepted by Gebhardt, and is now con- firmed by C. S translates gore as an indicative, and is obliged in conse- quence to insert a negative with dv7- xovryr, thus falling into the same trap as the editors. Compare Barnab. S$ 17 Amive pou n uxt TH émiOvpia fou p17 TapadeAourévat TL TOY GynKOVT@Y eis cwTnpiay. For avnkew eis see also Ign. Philad. 1, Smyrn.8, Polyc. Phzi. 13. For ra ayjxovra with a dative see S§ 35, 62.
6. évxexudare| See the note above § 4o.
7. Tas Oia Tov mvevpatos| The emen- dation tas tot mvevparos, which I pro- posed somewhat hesitatingly, was adopted by Gebhardt in place of the pyoeis mvevparos of previous edi-
8 émictacbe] eriracba A.
9 yéyparrat] A; yéypamro 12 Urd Tapa- 13 Umd pucapov] C ddtxov] AC; ddlkwy S: see I. p.
tors. It is confirmed to a greater extent than I could have hoped by CS, which have ras 61a rov mvevparos. It is difficult however to see how there was room for so many letters in the lacuna of A; for the space left for tagdvarov is at most half a letter more than is taken up in the next line by orvovd, i.e. six letters. Since the lacunz here are at the beginnings, not (as commonly) at the ends of the lines, there can be no un- certainty about the spaces. I have therefore placed é.a in brackets.
8. mapamerompévoy| ‘ counterfeit, spurious’. For the metaphor see Basil. (?) 22 saz. 1. 22 (I. p. 416 E) pnmou KiBdndos 7 Spaxun, TovTéott, py- TOU doypa Taparemoimpévoy, With the whole context in which the metaphor is developed. So maparoeiy Justin Dial. 69, 115, waparoinors Iren. i. 9. 2.
II. épvdaxic@ncay| Many editors read evepuAakia Onaayr, but this is open to objection, for there seems to be no authority for a verb éeudvaAakila; and indeed such a compound is hard- ly possible, for dvAakig¢o is derived not from @vAakn but from dvAaé.
13. papov] The emendation (uapov for prapwv) which I made in my first
138 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xiv
/ > lan + / \ of 2 TAT XOVTES EVKAEWS HYEyKaV. Ti Yap ElTwpuEV, adEA- / ‘ \ € \ lan , \ \ / got; Aavindr vo Twv PoBousevwy Tov Oeov EBANOn Eis tA Ud \ / / A Aakkov NeovTwy; 7H ’Avavias kat “ACapias kai Mioanr c \ land / \ ~ ae4 uTo Twy OpnoKevovTwy THv peEeyaroTpETTH Kal evoo£ov , Poe lf > / A Oonoxeiay Tov VWioTov KaTeEipyOnoay Eis KapLVOY TrUpOS$ ~~ at \f 3 lat ‘g MnPauws TovTO yevoito. Tives ovv ot Ta’Ta dpacay- \ \ / / / ~ TES} Ol OTVYNTOL Kal TAaGHS Kaklas TANPELS Els TOTOUVTO 5) / ae ef, \" ’ / \ / / eEnpioav Oupov ware Tous év Ooia Kal duwuw mpobere , ~ la > cde id qn \ ? ’ OovAEevoyTas TW Ocew Els ALKLAV trepiBareivt, My ELOOTES
I evKAews| evkawo A.
elmwpev] ecrouev A; elrouev C3 dicam (eirw) S.
5 Tov vyicrov] AC. The present text of S has NDT rod Kupiov, but this is
doubtless a corruption of NWT rod bicrov. 7 oTvyntol] CS; crunra A. the last syllable of the preceding word -ets).
cav C.
edition is now confirmed by C. For the confusion of o and » in A com- pare evropuer Just below, and see above, I. p.120. Here the immediate neigh- bourhood of ray would suggest the change to a transcriber. Compare S$ I puapas kal dvociov oraceas, § 3 (prov adtkov Kal doeBn dveAnporas.
5. Opnoxeiay| The word is here used in its correct sense (see Trench N. T. Syn. ist ser. § xlviii); for the incident turns on an act of external worship.
6. pnOapes x.t.Ar.] ie. ‘Let us not entertain the thought, let us not so pervert facts’.
8. e&jpicay] ‘persisted in strife’. So Plut. Pomp. § 56 ovk« e&epicas dA oiov nrtnOeis, Appian. Bell. Civ. ii. I5I idovetkdtrepor Sé trois e&epicovaow évres. SO too e€epiotns Eur. SupPl. 894, efepiorixds Diog. Laert. x. 143. For the whole expression comp. § 1 els TocouTovarrovoias €&€xavoay. Hilgen- feld reads éEnpéO:c-ay, but this, besides being unsupported and unnecessary, would give a wrong meaning, for épe- Gifw, e€epeOifw, are transitive.
9. mepiBareiv] ‘to drive round’,
katelpx@noav] A; KabelpxOn- eis] AS; om. C (owing to 9g mwepiBarew] AC; jaciant S.
If the reading be correct, the idea of the preposition (as in mepimimrew) must be ‘sudden and complete change’. But I cannot find any parallel; for in Eur. Hel. 312 PoBos yap és TO Seiwa mepiBardy p aye the meaning of the word is wholly differ- ent. Elsewhere (see Schweighauser Lex. Polyb. s.v. mepiBdddeoOat) repi- Bade has been substituted for mapa- BdArew, and this may possibly have been the case here. So Heb. xili. 9 mepipeper be and rapadepecbe are con- fused. Comp. § 55 mapéBadev. Our Greek Mss however are agreed in reading mepiBadeiv here.
IO. vmépuayos k.r.A.| “Yréppaxos is said of God, 2 Macc. xiv. 34 (comp. Wisd. x. 20): vmepaomiotys is fre- quently so applied (especially in con- nexion with Sonos), Ps. xvii. 2, XxViil. 7, 9, XXXlll. 20, CXIV.) 17, 18, 10; Gime comp. § 56 wécos Umepaomicpos oT.
II. ev kadapa ovverdnoer| The same expression occurs I Tim. iii. 9, 2 Tim. i, 33 comp, Ign. 27a/7.07-
mavapér@| See the note on § 1.
14. eyypaho] ‘vecorded, notable, Jamous’. The word occurs also ina
on
Io
15
XLV1|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
139
/ e/ , \ e / 9 ~ OTL O UbirTos UTEPMAYOS KQL UTEPATTIAOTYS ETTLY TWY
a / , lo / 7 év kaBapa ouvednoe NATPEVOYTWY TH TavAapEeTW OVO-
? = © ¢ / > \ as a IP pat. a’tou: w 4 dog€a els TOUS alwyas THY alwywr.
any.
e 4 ¢ / > / / \ ot 6€ vmomevovTes év mremrowWnoeL dogav Kal
\ 2 / 2 / / Ne ah aren ahi Tiny ExAnpovouncav, éemnpOnoav TE Kal Eyypahor EeyeE-
> \ vo a 4 {2 lo > ¥ vovTo amo Tov Oéeov ev TW [YNnM“OTUYW aVTWY Els TOUS
nw wn 7 QLWVAS TWV ALWVwWY.
XLVI.
°’ / aun.
Vi ey € , aA \ Totovrois ovv UTOOELY MaGLy KoAAnOynvat Kal
nuas Sei, dEAMOL. yéeypaTTat yap" Kord&cOe Toic Sriolc,
12 Twv aiavwv] S; rwva.... A; om. C. See above, § 32.
14 &yypagor]
C (as conjectured by Laurent p. 424); eradpo A. For éyypapoe éyévovto S has
scvriptit sunt. 17 ovv] AC; om. S.
fragment ascribed to our Clement in Joann. Damasc. clog. i. 49 (II. p. 752 ed. Lequien) 66ev yypadov rept avrod (i.e. rod “ABpadw) icropiay yevéo da @kovopnoev ; but see especially Herm. S7m. V. 3 €ora n Ovoia cov Sekt) mapa TO Gem kai eyypahos Eorat 7 vynoTeia avtTn (comp. Vzs. 1. 3 evypadpyoovrat eis Tas BiBAous ths (wns), Apost. Can. § 19 6 yap éumumAGy ara pr voodvyTos eyypaphos AoyicOnoerar Tapa TH Cea, § 29 6 yap Onoavpivey év tH Bacirela éyypahos éepyarns oyirOnoera mapa T@ Oc@ (Lagarde’s Rel. Fur. Eccles. pp. 78, 79, see Hilgenfeld ov. Test. gir. Can. IV. pp. ‘102, 1045; this writing elsewhere bears traces of the influence of Clement’s epistle, e.g. in § 23 which reproduces the language of Clem. § 40). It is however un- necessary to substitute tao for azo with Hilgenfeld; e.g. in this very chapter we have amoBeBAnpévous azo ogiwy avdpeav: see also I Cor. i. 30, James i. 13, with the examples in Winer § xlvii. p. 389. The phrase TO pyNnmocvvoy avTov, OF avToy, is com- mon in the LXx. It might be a question here whether we should read avrov or avroy, but § 26 Td pyn-
15 avtwv] A; avrod CS.
18 KodA\dode] ko\Nacba A.
16 aunv|] AC; om. S.
pocuvoy adray (and indeed the general use of the genitive with pynudovvoy in the Lxx of the persons whose memo- rial is preserved) points distinctly to auTov.
XLVI. ‘Copy these bright exam- ples. Cleave to the righteous, to the elect of God. To what end are these strifes and divisions? Have you for- gotten that, as there is one God, one Christ, one Spirit, so also there is one body? Would you rend asunder its limbs? Remember how the Lord de- nounces the man through whom the offences shall come. Already have your feuds been a scandal to many, and yet they continue.’
18. KodAaoée x«.t.A.]| This quota- tion is no where found in the Old Testament. The nearest approach is Ecclus. vi. 34 tis coos; avt@ mpoo- Ko\AnOnrt. Similar words however occur in Hermas V7zs. ili. 6 pndeé Kod- A@pevor Tois ayiows, Sz. Vill. 8 of ev Talis mpaypateias eumeduppévoe Kal 7) Ko\A@pevoe Tots ayiow, S272. 1x. 20 ov KoAA@vtat Tots SovAots Tov Geo. It is perhaps another of those apocry- phal quotations to which Photius alludes (see the notes on §§ 8, 13, 17,
140 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLVI
o c ’ > a c ' \ / , OT! O!1 KOAA@MMENO! AYTOIC APIACOHCONTAIL. KL TaXw ev
/ / / \ > \ ? ' 5 i=sarx Py \ ETEpw Tomw Neryetr* Metd dnApdc AOMoy AO@oc EcH Kal
META EKAEKTOY EKAEKTOC ECH KAI META CTpEBAOY Ala- , ~~ Ss ~~ / \ / e ctpéyeic. KOoAAnO@pev ovv Tois aOwots Kal OuKaloLs
\ e p) \ a an e/ / } \ eiaiy O€ ovToL éxAeKTOL Tov Ocov. “Iva Ti Epes Kat \ \ / \ / / / Guyot Kai dityootaciat Kat oxiouata moEMos TE EV ey fis 3\ : \ \ sf Were a \ , Wea = Umiv; 7 OVX Eva Oeov Exouev Kal Eva XpioTov Kal EV 6 médeuds Te] AC; S has the plural (as determined by rzduz) médeuot re and
adds et contentiones SNVS81D), which probably represents cai udxat, since the same word elsewhere stands for wdxat (e.g. James iv. 1, Pesh., Hcl.; 2 Tim. ii. 23,
23, 29); or possibly Clement is giving from memory the sense of some ca- nonical text or texts. This passage is imitated by Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 8 (p. 677) yéypamrat dé, Mera avdpos aOdov abg@os €on Kal peta exdexToU ekAexTos €on kal peta otpeBAod dia- otpéewes’ KodAAacba ovy Tois ayiots mpoonkel OTL of KOAA@peEVOL avTOIS aylac- O@noovra, where the change of form suggests that the Alexandrian Cle- ment did not recognise the source of the quotation in his Roman name- sake. Part of this passage is loosely quotedalsoby Nicon thus: coAAnOdpev ovy Tois aOdous Kal dixaious* eiot dé ov- Tou €kAEKTOL TOU Oeov" yéypamrat yap’ KodAaoGat (koAAaobe) Tots ayiots, dre of KoAA@pevot avTots ayvac Ono ovra (see above § 14).
2. Mera dvdpos x.t.A.] An accurate quotation from Ps. xviii. 25, 26: but the application of the passage by S. Clement to the influence of good or bad companionship is wholly wrong. The ‘Thou’ of the Psalmist is God Himself, and the passage teaches that He deals with men according to their characters.
5. €peus x.t.A.] The words are ar- ranged in an ascending scale; see the notes on Galatians Vv. 20,21. Ov- pot are ‘outbursts of wrath,’ as in l.c. Atyooracia is weaker than oyxiopa, as
it is stronger than otaois § 51: as araots developes into dtyooracia, so dtxooTacia widens into cxicpa.
6. soAepos Te ev vpiv] comp. James Wy Bs
7. ovxt €va Geov k.t.A.| From Ephes. iv. 4 Sq €v oOpa kat ev mvedpa, kabods Kal éexrAnOnre ev pia eAmids ths KAN Ges vpov’ eis Kuptos, pla mio- tis, ev Banticpa, eis Ceds...€r be EKATT@ HuGv €O06n 7H xapts K.T.A. | comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6, xil. I2 sq. See also Hermas Sz. ix. 13 €covtat eis Ev mvevpa, eis EV. copa...kal Hv avTav ev mvedpa Kal ev oopa, ix. 18 éora 7 éxkAnoia Tov Geov Ev capa, pia Ppovn- gis, €is vous, pla miotis, pla ayamn, Ign. Magn. 7.
This mention of Geds, Xproros, mvevpa, has a parallel in the reference to the Trinity quoted by S. Basil (de Spir. Sanct. xxix, 1. p. 16) as from our Clement, but not found in our MS and probably belonging to the lacuna from § 58, (7 yap 6 Geos kal Cn 0 Kupuos "Inoovs Xptoros kal TO mvevpa TO Gytop. Owing to this parallel, I have taken &v mvevpa aS an accusative and connect- ed it with the preceding words, rather than as a nominative, in which case it would be attached to the following clause, kai pia KAjow ev Xpior@; but the construction is doubtful. The construction and punctuation has
XLVI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
IAI
- ~ , \ > be Ct ae e eee \ / WVEUMA THS YaolTos TO Exkyuvlev EP Huass Kat pla
~ Cant / \ =~ A KAjow év XpicTo ; iva Ti OueXKouev Kal SlacTMOMEV TA
, al ~ \ 7 \ A ~ \ MéeAn Tov Xpirtov, Kal oTAaTLAaCOMEV TOS TO THUA TO
J \ 3 / > / > / / 9 LOLOV, Kat ELS TODAUTHV ATOVOLAV Epxomueba QO FE ‘e7t=
Aabéobat juas tt péAn é€opev AAAHAWY; jpunoOnTeE
- / > “ ‘on / € eee J / A — Twv Noywv ‘Inco Tov Kupiov nuwv* eimev yap? Of¥ai
Tit. iii. 9, Hcl.).
The connecting particles in the Greek are favourable to such
an addition; but it is suspicious, as being perhaps borrowed from James iv. 1.
Q déAxopwev] AS; diéAkwmev C. huav inood xpiucrod CS.
been confirmed by the Syriac, since I first proposed it.
12. péAnéopev| Rom. xii. 5 of roAXot a es EE TS > a A \ > év c@pa ecpev ev Xpiot@, TO Oe Kal eis GAAnA@v peAn.
13. Ovaix.r.r.] Two different sayings of our Lord are here combined. The first is recorded in Matt. xxvi. 24, Mark xiv. 21, ovai S€ to dvOpa7@ éxeiv@ Ov ov 6 vids Tod dvOpemov mapa- didorau’ Kadov nv adt@ ei ovK eyervnOn 0 avOpemos exeivos; and more briefly in Luke xxii. 22, rAjy oval T6 dvOparre exeiva Oe ov mapadidora. The second runs in Matt. xviii. 6, 7, 6s & dv oxav- dation &va Tay pLKpey TovT@Y ToY TLioTEvOVT@Y Eis Ee, TVUEpEL AUTO iva KpewacOn pvAXos ovkos mept TOV Tpa- xXnAov avTod kal KxatarovticOn ev TO
, - , en fey ee , mehayet THs Oaddoons...ovai Te avOpana d¢ ov TO oxavdadov épyerar: in Mark 1X. 42, Os Gv ox. €. T. p. T. T. 7. Eis wie , > tee GX > , ene, KaXov eotw avt@ waAXov ei Tepi- KEeLTaL LL. OV. 7. T. TP. AUTO kal BEBANTAL
> \ U a -*
eis tHv Oadacoav: in Luke xvii. 1, 2, avevdextov éoTw Tov Ta oKavdada p) €Oeiv, mANY ovat SV od EpxeTac’ Avort-
Teel avT@ ef AiOos pudtKos TeEpikertar.
7. T. Tp. avTovd Kali @ppimta eis tH O6ddaccay, 7) wa cxavdadion TOY piKpav touroy eva. Hermas Vs. iv. 2 has oval Tois dkovcacw Ta pnyata Tatra Kal Tapakovoacw" aipeT@tepov Hv avtois TO pn yevynOnva.: and in Clem. Hom. xii. 29 a saying of our Lordis quoted,
13 “Inoot rod Kuptov quay] A; 70d Kxuplov
ra ayaba édOciv Sei, paxaptos Sé Ot ov EpxeTar’ opoiws kal Ta Kaka avayKn edGeiv, oval dé dv od epyera. S. Cle- ment here may be quoting from our canonical gospels (confusing them together), or from oral tradition, or possibly (though this seems the least probable supposition) from some written account no longer extant, e.g. the Gospel of the Hebrews. The first solution presents no difficulties; for the insertion of} eva rév éxNexrav pov ckavOaXioa is not a more violent change than is found in many of his Old Testament quotations; eg. the perversion of Is. lx. 17 at the end of §$ 42. See also the fusion of different passages in §§ 18, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 50, 52, 53. The quotation of Clem. Alex. Strom. ili. 18 (p. 561) is not an independent authority, for it is evi- dently taken from the Roman Cle- ment.
I have no doubt that the Syriac has preserved the right reading ; and this for three reasons. (1) This reading is farther from the language of the canonical Gospels and there- foremorelikely to have been changed; (2) Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ili. 18 (p. 561), so read the passage in the Roman Clement ; (3) The word duactpewar explains the sequel 16 oXigpa Vay ToAXods SiéaTpeev (‘per- verted not one, but many’), it being
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLVI
142
T@ ANOPOTIG EKEINGD’ KAAON HN AYT@ ei OYK @feENNHOH, H ENA T@N €EKAEKTON MOY CKANAAAICAI* KPEITTON HN AaYTH TEPITEGANAI MY AON KAl KATATIONTICOANAL EIC THN BAAACCAN, Ho Ena TAN EKAEKT@N MOY AlacTpéyal TO oXlTMa VuwY moAXous SueaTpeWev, ToAAous eis dOupiav EBarev, TOA-
\ 5) 7 \\ / e ~ > 4 \ Aous Els duo Tay OV; Tous TavTas ynuas els AUTTHV* Kal
co ry ‘A ETiMLOVOS UMW ETTLY H OTAGLS.
1 otk] A; wy C,
pov oxavdadicac AC. See the lower note.
mdvras S. nuds|] AS; vmas C.
after Clement’s manner to take up and comment on a leading word in his quotations; e.g. $14 ANOpwTTw eipHNIka@ followed by § 15 KodAn- Oa@pev tois pet evocBeias eipnvev- oval, § 27 @N OYX! AKOYONTAI followed by § 28 mavrwv ody Brero- pevov Kal akovopevar, §29€fFENHOH Mepic Kypfoy...arla Af{WN fol- lowed by § 30 ‘Ayiov ovv pepis, § 30 Oedc...AfAWCIN XAPIN followed by ois 7 yapts avo Tov Ocod Séborat, § 34 Oca HTO{MACEN TOTC YTIO- MENOYCIN dYTON followed by § 35 tiva ovv dpa eoTl Ta éTo.patopeva
= ¢
Tots Umropevovaw; § 35 dAOC A AEiZW AYT@ TO CWTHPION TOY Ocoy followed by § 36 avrn 7 dbs... év 7 eUpopmev TO GeTHpLoy por, § 36 ewe &N OB TOYC €xOpoye x.7.A. followed by rives ody of € x Opot, § 46 (just above) meta ANAPpOC AOWOY AOMoC ECH Kal meETA EKAEKTOY EKAEKTOC ECH followed by KodAnOdpev odv rots dOdors... elo O€ ovro. ékdEKTOL TOU Geod, § 48 ANO{ZaTE MOI TIYAAC AIKAalO- CYNHC k.7.A. followed by moddav ody TUAGY ave@yviay 7 ev Sixatoavyy avtn eoriv, § 50 ON APEOHCAN al ANOMI{AI «7. followed by § 51 dca ovv mapeméoapev...dkidcopev ape O7- vat npiv, §57 KATACKHNWCEI ETT €ATfAt TEeTTIOIOWC followed by §
4 Tov é€xXexTwv pov Siacrpéyar] S Clem; Trav puxpav
6 rods mavras| AC; Tovs dé Ir avrod re...’AmoANw] A; éavTod Kai
58wakatacknvdcaper TeToLOoTes x.t.A. I have collected these ex- amples, because this characteristic determines the readings in three passages of interest (here and §§ 35, 57; comp. also § 51), where there are variations,
6. diocraypov|] The word is rare, but occurs in Hermas Sz. ix. 28, Plut. Mor. 214 F.
XLVII. ‘Read the epistle which Paul the Apostle wrote to you long ago. See how he condemns strife and party spirit in you. Yet then you had this excuse, that you chose as leaders Apostles and Apostolic men. Now even this palliation of your offence is wanting. It is sad indeed that two or three ringleaders should sully the fair fame of the Corinthian Church and bring dishonour on the name of Christ.’
8. rnv émustoAnv] It must not be inferred from this expression that Cle- ment was unacquainted with the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians; for exactly
in the same way Irenzeus (i. 8. 2)
writes év rj mpos Kopw6ious (where the present Latin text specifies ‘in prima ad Corinthios epistola’), and again (iv. 27. 3) ‘in epistola quae est ad Corinthios’, and (iv. 27. 4) quotes 2 Thessalonians as ‘ea quae est ad Thessalonicenses epistola’. So also
Io
XLVII]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
143
XLVI. ’AvaraBere thy émiotoAny Tov fakaplou
/ : nn / / ~ ~ ’ > rand =~ [lavXov Tov aroaToXov. TI TPWTOV UY EV apxn TOU é
> 7 Sf 5 ea 5) / ~ PY , evaryyeAlou eypaver ; é7 adnleias TVEUMATLKWS €ETTE-
~ b - \ im V5 / OTENEV Uy TEDL AUTOU TE Kal Knpa Te kal AroAXo,
\ \ \ 7 / ¢ ~ om > > t dla TO Kal TOTE TpocKAiaeEs Uuas TeTojoOa arN 7
amo\\w kat Knda, C, thus conforming the order to 1 Cor. i. 12 (comp. iv. 6). the same order as A, but omits re in both places.
S has It also repeats the preposition
before each word, but no stress can be laid on this (see above, I. p. 137). 12 mpockNices] A; divisionesS; mpooxdyjoes C. For this itacism see above § 21.
Orig. c. Cels. 1. 63 év ry mpos Tipddedv not, iii. 20 TH mpos Seacadonrikels, Method. Sym. iii. 14 (p. 22 Jahn) AaBera dé pera yetpos 6 BovAopevos THY mpos KopwOiovs émuctoAnv, Macarius Magnes Afocr. iii. 36 (p. 131 Blondel) kal €v TH mpos KopwOlovs dé éemurroAn Reyer Ilepi dé trav mapbévev émirayny Kupiov ovk éyo x.t.A., Hieron. £pzst. lii. 9 (1. p. 264) ‘lege Pauli epistolam ad Corinthios, quomodo diversa mem- bra unum corpus efficiunt’, Anast. Sin. Hodeg. 12 (p. 97) ex THs mpos Kopw6iovs, and Chrysostom in his preface to the Colossians (XI. p. 322 B, ed. Bened.) refers to 2 Timothy as 7 mpos Tyuodbeov (emiatoAy). Where the context clearly shows which epistle is meant, no specification is needed. On the other hand I have not observed any distinct traces of the influence of 2 Corinthians on Clement’s language or thoughts. paxapiov| Polyc. P27. § 3 rod paka- piov kat évddEouv TlatvAov, 7b. § II ‘beatus Paulus.’ This passage of Clement is perhaps the earliest in- stance of the specially Christian sense of paxapios: comp. Rev. xiv. 13 pakapioe of vexpot of ev Kupio drobvn- okovtes amaptt. In § 43 he applies the epithet to Moses; in § 55 to Judith. The word continues to be used occasionally of the living, e.g. Alex. Hieros. in Euseb. H. £. vi. 11
dia KAnpevtos tov pakaplov mpecBv-
Tépov, and even in later writers.
Q. mparov| ‘first and foremost’, re- ferring to the position and promi- nence assigned to this topic in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It does not seem to be quite correct to explain the word with different com- mentators either (1) Of ¢zme purely, in which case it adds nothing to ép apxn Tov evayyeXiov; or (2) of guality purely, as if it signified the primary value and excellence of the injunc- tion.
ev apxn «.T.A.] i.e. ‘in the first days of the Gospel, soon after your con- version. The expression occurs in S. Paul himself, Phil. iv. 15. See also the note on Polyc. PAzéZ. 11 ‘in principio’. It is quite impossible that apxn Tov evayyediov can mean (as Young, Cotelier, and others suppose), ‘the beginning of his epistle’ as containing his evangelical teaching (Iren. iv. 34. 1 ‘legite diligentius id quod ab apostolis est evangelium nobis datum’).
II. mept avtov te «.t.A.] I Cor. i. Io sq. The party whose watchword was é€y® Xpiorod is passed over in silence by Clement, because the men- tion of them would only have com- plicated his argument. Moreover it is not probable that their exact theo- logical position was known to him or his contemporaries.
12. mpookdices] See above on § 21.
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLvII
144
.e / ~ / A TpooKALOsS EKELVN NTTOV auapTiay UMlY mMpoTHVvEyKEV Uh \ TpooeEKALONTE yap drooToXols peu“apTupnpevols Kat a \ \ / cdvopt dedokiyuacpuevw map avTois. vuvi d€ KaTavonoaTeE ~ 7 \ \ \ - / Tives Uuas SueaTpEevav Kal TO GEuvoy THs TEpLBoNTOU / € ~ 5) / > , > / \ piraceApias Vuwv euelwoav. aloxpd, ayamnTol, Kal / lal 9 a a Nav aioxpa, Kat avagia trys év Xpiotw dywyns, / \ / 4 dkoverOa Thy BeBaotatny Kal dpyaiay Kopiwbiwv éx-
/ Sete) \ - / ic \ \ KAno Lay OL E€V VW Ovo TPOCTWT Aa oTacLa Ce 7 pos TOUS
Uf mpeo BuTEpoUs.
I mpockXuo1s] mpdokAnors C3 mpookdrAnoes A. mpoonveyxev] A; émiveyxe C, and so apparently S.
so apparently S. 2 mpocexNiOnre] A; mpocexdAnOnre C.
e/ \ / > ~ Kal avTN H Akon Ov MOVOY Els Huas Exw-
nrrov] A; yrrova C, and
pewaptupnuévois]| AS; dedoximacpévors
C, which reads conversely pewaprupnuévy for dedoxiuacuévw in the next line.
3 map avrots] AS; map’ airav C. BeBaorarny, as if BeBaoryra. moe som.
2. pepwaptupnuevors| ‘attested, fa- mous’: see the note on §17. So Ign. Eph. 12 Wiavdov...tov pewaptupynpevov.
3. avdpt deSoxiuacper@| Apollos therefore is not regarded as an Apo- stle; see Galaizaus pp. 96, 98.
4. TO oeuvoy k.7.A.] Comp. § I dote TO oepvoy Kal TEpiBinrov Kal macLy av- Oparos akvayarnroy dvopa tuay peya- Aas BraohnpenOjva.
5. aicxpa kai Alay aicypa] Comp. § 53 émioracde Kat Kadds emiotacée. See also Theoph. ad Aufol.i. 17 kaha kal kada Aiav, Hippol. p. 36 (Lagarde) mavra pev Kada kat Kada Alay Ta Tov cov, Clem. Recogn. iii. 25 ‘ Ignoras, O Simon, et valde ignoras’, and per- haps Hermas Mand. vili. ov Soxet oor ravTa Tovnpa etvat Kal Aiay rovnpa Tots dovAots Tov Geov; (if this be the right punctuation). The very words aicypa kal Aiav aicxypa occur in Maximus (?) on Jude 7 in Cramer’s Catena p. 157
6. ayeoyns| ‘education’, ‘training’, as below § 48. The word is used
5 euelwoav] euiwoav A.
6 Xpicrg] AC; add. inaod S.
4 wep.Bojnrov] AC; om. S translating aicxpa, ayamnrot| aywyns] AS; dydans C.
commonly of any systematic disci- plinary or scholastic training.
7. axoverOa]| i.e. ‘It is a disgrace- ful state of things, that z¢ should be reported, the word axoveoOa being dependent on aicypa...xkai avaésia. I mention this, because the construc- tion is generally mistaken; some editors wanting to understand def and others substituting dkovera: for axovecOai. For the plural aicypa k.7.A. see Jelf’s Gramm. § 383.
dpxaiav| This epithet seems not to be consistent with the very early date which some critics would assign to Clement’s epistle: see I. p. 364 sq, and the notes on §§ 5, 44.
8. mpocwral ‘persons’, or rather ‘vingleaders’; as in § 1. See the note on Ign. Magu. 6.
g. axon] Thus it was a rumour or report which had reached the ears of Clement and the Roman Church re- specting the feuds at Corinth; like those earlier accounts of irregularities in the same Church which reached
Io
XLVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
145
5 \ \ ~ / pnoev adda Kal €lS TOUS ETEPOKALVELS UTapYOVTAS ap e ~ 4 \ / 2 U Cee Me BTA Huov, wore Kal PAacdnyulas émipeper bar Ta GvopaTt I \ \ ¢€ / > VA e ~ \ / Kupiouv dia Thv vueTepav adpoovrny, EavTots 6€ KivOuvoy lis érreFepyaCeo Oa. 4 Ss ~ / \ XLVI. *€£apwpyev ovv tovto év Taye kal Te0c- / and i) \ / / TETWUEV TH OETTOTH Kal KNaVT WEY LKETEVOVTES AUTOD, J ef fe ? FP Oy am Nid be ea \ omws ithews yevomevos emikaTad\Aayn nuly Kal Emme THY \ > / (ing a ¢ 4 ? \ ? cEeunv THs PiradeAPias juwv ayyyv aywynv atoKaTa-
THON Huas.
7 kal] AC; om. S. te C; et vobis ipsis S. AS; tyiv C.
11 muav] AS; bear C. 16 idews yevduevos] A; yevduevos ttews C. émt Ti K.T.r.] S translates loosely vestituat nos ad priorem wlam
/ \ / > lo > A TuAn yap SiKalocuvns avEewyuta els Cwny
12 éaurots 6€] As; éavrois t ra Tw]
modestiam nostram amoris fraternitatis et ad puram illam conversationem, but this
probably does not represent a various reading. dvewyvia eis fwhv] A; els fwhv dvewyvia CS.
18 juds] AS; buds C.
the ears of S. Paul (1 Cor. v. I dd@s dkovetat k.T.A., Xi. 18 axkovo oxiopata k.7.A., Comp. i. 11). It is quite a mis- take to suppose that the Church of Corinth had formally and by letter asked advice; see the note on § 1 vouicopey K.T.X.
10. érepoxdAweis| See the note on § 11.
II. oorte...Bracgnulas emupéper Oar} ‘so that you heap blasphemies’; ém- dépecba being middle as frequently elsewhere, and the subject being vpas or possibly rovs érepoxAweis vrapxor- ras. Comp. Rom. il. 24 76 yap ovopa Tov Qeov Ov vuas BArAaodnpetrar ev rots eOvecw, kaos yéypanrat.
I2. xivduvov] i.e. the danger of in- curring God’s wrath, as § 14 kivduvoy vmoicopev peyav, § 41 TocovT@ paddov vrokeipeba kivdvve.
13. émeEepyatec Oa] ‘wzthal to cre- ate’; for this is the force of émi, as in Demosth. de Cor. p. 274 év © émeEeip- ydoato TowvToy 0 macau Tols mporépors eméOnxe Tédos. Here éavrois will be equivalent to tvyuiv avrois: see the note
CLEM., II.
17 Muay] AS; tua C.
on § 32 and Winer § xxii. p. 163.
XLVIII. ‘Let us put our sin away. Let us fall on our knees and implore God’s pardon. Righteousness in Christ is the only gate which leads to life. Is any one faithful, wise, learned, energetic, pure? He should be the more humble in proportion as he is greater. He should work for the common good.’
16. emtkataAdayn| While no other instance of the verb émixcaraAd\dooew is given in the lexicons, the sub- stantive appears in Theophrast. Cha- ract. 26 rod xadkod Thy éemixaradXayny, where it seems to signify ‘the dis- count’.
Thy ceuyny x.t.r.| The expression is copied by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 613) 7 cep ovv THs hirarOpo- mias Kat ayy) aywyn Kata Tov KAnpevra To Kotvagedes (yret, where the insertion of cai relieves the sentence. Comp. the words at the close of this chapter. "Ayoyn is ‘conduct’, as in § 47: see also. 2) Tim: iy 10; “Esthi in ‘20; x3, 2 Mace) iv. 16, vi.'8, x1. 24,
IO
146 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[XLVI
avtn, KaOws yeypamrat’ "ANoiZaTE MOI TYAAC AIKAIOCYNHC, INA EICEAOON EN ayTAIC EZOMOAOPHCHMAI TH Kypiw: aYTH H myAH TOY Kypioy, Aikaior eiceAeYcoNTai €N AaYTH. 7OA- Awy OV TUAWY dvEwyULOV, 1H Ev OiKALOTUVN avTH EOTLY
crys o > = / ¥, € > / \ yn év Xpiore@, Ev n pakaptor TravTes ol EtoeNOovTES Kat 5 é t
1 avrn] A; éorlv atrn C, and so apparently S. 2 wa] S Clem; om. AC. See the next note. ynooua C with Clem. See above, I. p. 143. g Siaxpicer] C3 dvaxpraxpioer A, as read by Tischendorf; see prol. p. xix.
dvolgate] AC; aperi S. é£ouoroynowuac AS; é£ouodo- 5 7) AC; om. S apparently. As far
as the c he appears to me to have deciphered the Ms correctly. Jacobson, instead
of cel, reads it CIN.
This seemed to me more like the traces in the ms, but I could not see it distinctly. See below.
Tw yopyds év épyos, ATw ayvos|
Clem (see below); 7j7w dyvds AC. S has sit homo (quispiam) fidelis, sit validus,
I. “Avot€ate x.7.A.] From the LxXx Ps. cxvili. 19, 20, word for word. This passage, as far as jr yopyds év epyots, is loosely quoted with interpolations of his own by Clem. Alex. S¢vom. i. 7 (p- 338 sq), who gives his authority as 6 KAnuns év tT mpos Kopwdiovs ém- otoAnj. Elsewhere Szrom. vi. 8 (p. 772), after quoting Ps. cxvill. 19, 20, he adds (by a lapse of memory) é&n- youpevos S€ TO pyTov Tov mpodyrov BapvaBas émipéeper, Tod\kov muddy dvewyulav...oi eiceAOovres, though a few sentences below he cites the words €oT® Toivuy muoTos... wadAov pelCov eiva, as from ‘Clement in the letter to the Corinthians’. His two quota- tions do not agree exactly either with the original text of Clement or with one another. These facts make it clear that he cites chiefly from me- mory, and this must be borne in mind in using his quotations to cor- rect the text of the Roman Clement.
2. €Eoporoynowpya] The best MSS of the Lxx have ¢£opodroyncopa, which is substituted for the conjunc- tive by most editors here, but é£o- poroynowpa: will stand; see Winer § xli. p. 300. Hilgenfeld inserts wa before eiaeA Oar, following Clem. Alex. Strom. \.7 (p. 338); but the quotation
of the later Clement is much too loose to be a guide here, and he pro- bably inserted the iva to improve the grammar of the sentence.
3. woAXOv ovv muAdy «.7.d.] Per- haps a reference to our Lord’s saying, Matt. vil. 13, 14.
5. 7 ev Xpiota]| John x. 9 eyo cis n Ovpa, Hermas Sz, ix. 12 9 mvAn 6 vids Tov Geov eoti (and the whole sec- tion), Ign. Phz/ad. 9 airés av Odpa Tob matpos, Clem. Hom. iil. 52 dia rovro adros adnOns av mpopntns edeyev, Eyo elute 1 7UAN THs Cons k.T.A., Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. £. 11. 23 dmayyedov nu tis 7 Ovpa Tov “Inco.
6. ogvornre x.t.A.] The usual com- bination of 6avs and Oikaws. See the note’on ii. § 5.
7. tw Tis micros K.TA.] i.e. ‘If a man has any special gift, let him employ it for the common good, and not as a means of self-assertion.’ The same gifts of the Spirit are enu- merated, though in the reverse order, in 1 Cor. xil. 8,9 @ pev yap dia Tod mvevpatos dSidora Adyos copias, add@ d€ Aoyos yyWoews KATA TO AUTO TrEdpA, eTép@ Tiotis ev TO avTe mvevpare. Unless Clement is using this lan- guage without warrant, the temper of the factious Corinthians of his
XLVIII|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
147
ff A / ~ . / KaTevOuvovTes THY Topelavy avTwWY EV OOLOTHTL Kal
7 / / r diKkaloovrvyn, aTapayws TavTa émiTeourTEs.
By TW TIS
/ sf \ = > ~ >} \ > TlETOS, NTW OvVAaTOS YyYwoW E€ELTELY, NTW Godos EV / li af \ af 7 diakpioe: NOywv, Tw Yyopyos ev Epyols, Tw ayvos: / \ ~ ~ > / e/ TocTouTwW yao padXov Tarewodpovery odeiAa, oow
sctentiam possideat ( possidebit), laboret (laborabit) sapiens in interpretatione verb-
orum, sit purus in operibus.
This represents substantially the same Greek with
AC, except that 7rw divaros yrGow ékeureiv, nrw copds x.T.X. must have been corrupted into 7rw dvvaros, yywouw Efe, movetrw codpds, as Bensly points out. Io TocovTw yap] AS; Clem rogot7w (om. yap) C; Tosotréy tis Anton Max.
yap] AS; om. C. Anton Max.; dub. S.
time must have closely resembled that of their predecessors in S. Paul’s age.
8. yvaow e€eumetv] ‘to utter, ex- pound a yveois’, i.e. ‘to bring out the hidden meaning of ascripture’. For this sense of yydous see the note on Barnabas § 6. The possession of yvdors was an old boast of the fac- tious Corinthians, I Cor. vili. I, Io, II, xiii. 2, 8; and the vaunt has not without reason been attributed espe- cially to the party among them which claimed as its leader Apollos, the learned Alexandrian, ‘mighty in the scriptures’ (Acts xviii. 24).
g. dsaxpices] The reading of A (if it be correctly given dcaxprakpiow) is a corruption of dvaxpiow (= d.a- kptot) which itself arose out of d.a- kptow and this out of deaxpioer: see for other instances of a like error the note on dvacrnoopa § 15. Otherwise Suaxpiceow might be read (see above, I. p. 120, for similar corruptions), as the plural dvaxpicers occurs Rom. xiv. I dcaxpioess Stadoyiope@y, I Cor. xii. 10 Suaxpicers mvevparav.
nt@ yopyos| ‘let him be energetic’.
In later writers yopyos is ‘active,
quick, strenuous’; e.g. Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. p. 133 (Reiske) ro
pev avtav [trav Kodwv| yopydrepoy TO
Tatewogppovery ddeiha] AC Clem; ddeihec tramewodppoveiv odeirer] ogirer A.
daw] AC Clem; écov Anton Max.
dé Bpaditrepov, Epict. Dzss. 11. 16. 20 éy pev TH GXOAR yopyot Kat Kara- yA@ooo, ili. 12. IO aoxnoov, ei yop- yos el, NowWopovpevos avexyerOa xk.T.X., M. Antonin. xii. 6 ei odv yopyos i, tavtny Oepamevoov. The departure in the later usage of the word from its Attic sense ‘terrible’ is noted by the old lexicographers. The pas- sage is twice quoted by Clem. Alex., Strom. i. 7 (p. 339) avrixa 6 KAnpns ev TH mpos KopuGiovs emuorodn Kata hééw noi, tas Siahopas éxriOéwevos Tav kata thy exkAnolay Ookipev, "Htw tis TLoTOS, 7Tw SuvaTos Tis yy@ouy EkeuTreiv, qt@ aodos ev diaxpicer Adyov, Aro yopyos ev epyos, and Strom. vi. 8 (p. 722 Sq) €otw Toivyuy motos O TOLOvTOS, gata Suvatos yvoow e€eireiv, 7T@ To- gos év dtaxpioes Adyar, 7Tw yopyos €v epyos, jT@ ayvdos: ToTOUT@ yap wahdov ramewvoppovety dpeidet, dow Soxet par- Aov peifwov eivat: 6 KAnuns ev TH mpos KopiwvOiovs gnoi. The correction adopted in the text (after Hilgenfeld) seems to be justified by these two quotations. It does not however find any support in our existing au- thorities. The reading of the MS may be explained as arising out of a confusion, the transcriber’s eye pass- ing from one similar ending to an- other,
Lo
148 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xvi
a ~ Sy \ a A Ooxet padAov pelCwy eivat, Kal CnTelv TO Kowwenes ae \ \ \ A TaACW Kal MN TO EaUTOU. / Vd ~ lé \ XLIX. ‘O éywv adyarnv év Xpiote TroncaTw Ta ~~ rl / \ \ bes / tov Xpictov TapayyéAuata. Tov deauoyv THs ayarns - a , , ) he A \ ~ - tov Oeov Tis duvata eEnynoacbar; TO MeyaNeEloy THs 5
“ > ~ , > \ 5) casi Sey: > ra KaNXovys avToU TIS aPKETOS €LETELY 5 TO Uvos Els O
> / e b) Id > y / ry advayel 4 ayarn dvexdinyntov éoTwy.
€ ~ ~ ~ nuas To Ocew
ayarn Ko\rNa
5 / / ~ e ~~ ayarn KadvrrTer Anos auapTiWY*
5) / / SOL. / a »Q\ / adyarn TavTa avexeTat, TavtTa wakpoOuuet* ovdev Ba-
tT pel~wv] AC Clem; om. Anton Max. Tischendorf reads A, but other collators give it rypycaTw.
myself. TOLNTATW.
Dayan... 2 but this is a lapse of the pen.
I. paddov peifov|] See Matt. xxiii. 11. For the double comparative see the note on Phzlippians i. 23. An- tonius Melissa Loc. Comm. ii. 73 (34) and Maximus Sevm. 49 both quote this sentence as from Clement in a somewhat different form, rocovréy Tis uadrrov odeiher ramewodpoveivy, ocov Soke addXov eivac: but they cannot be regarded as zudependent authori- ties for omitting peifwr, since in such collections of excerpts the later com- piler generally borrows directly from his predecessor: see Philippians p. 251, note 2. The Syriac connects paddov with dokei.
(nreiv x.r.A.] I Cor. x. 24 pdets TO €avtov (nteit@ adda TO Tov Erépou, and 2d. ver. 33 pn (yrov To éwavTov atppopov adda TO Tov ToAAOY. For (ntew To €avrov see also I Cor. xiii. 5, Phil iu 21.
TO Kowwpedés| ‘the common ad- vantage’; comp. Philo de Foseph. 11. p. 47 M. dia 7d Kkowaeres POdvorvta tovs dAdous, M. Anton. iii. 4 yopis peyadns kat KowwopPedovs avaykns, A fost. Const. vi. 12 ou nrotvres mpos ro
3 tmooatw)] CS. So also I could not satisfy
On the first two inspections I inclined to tnpynoarw, but on the last to There are various readings rower, Tnpouev (both well supported) in 6 dpxerds] ACS. Bryennios represents C as omitting dpxerds,
G ’
7 éotlv. ayanwn] A; éorly dydmrn C.
kowadenés.
XLIX. ‘Who shall tell the power and the beauty of love? Love unites us to God: love is all enduring: love is free from pride and vulgarity: love brooks no strife or discord. In love all the saints were perfected. In love God took us to Himself. In love Christ gave His body for our bodies and His life for our lives.’
3. ‘O eyo x.7.A.] This resembles our Lord’s saying in John xiv. 15 éay dyarraré pe, Tas évtodas Tas eas THpN- oere (v.1. rypnoare): comp. I Joh. v. I—3.
4. tov dSeoporv] i.e. ‘the binding power’: comp. Col. iii. 14 ryv ayarny 6 é€orw avvdeopos Ths TedELOTNTOS. — This clause is quoted by Jerome ad Ephes. iv, 1 (VI. p. 606) ‘Cujus rei et Clemens ad Corinthios testis est, scribens Vinculum charitatts Det qui (guis) potertt enarrare 2’
6. apkeros e&eureiv] Previous edit- ors had misread the Ms A, and writ- ten dpkei, ws ee, eimetv. For the construction of apkerés see I Pet. iv. 3. The word occurs also Matt. vi. 34,
XLIX |
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
149
> ’ |g xA\ e , > , , 10 vavoov €v ayamy, ovdev UTEepnpavoy: ayarn cyiopa
a7 / / - / ~ OUK EXEL, ayaTN Ov OTaTIaCE, ayaTn TavTa Tole év
€ / 5) ~ > / 5) / / e > \ Omovola* EV TH aYaTTY eTeNELWOnTay TavTES Ol éKNEKTOL t
~ ~ / 5) / 29 \ EIA / > > > Tov Qeov: diya ayarns ovdev evapertov éotw TH Oew:
? ? / / ¢ ~ € / \ A év ayarn mpooehaBeTo yuas oO deamoTns* Sia THY
/ aA af \ € an \ er 5) ox) al I5ayanny, iv ETXEV TPOS Huas, TO aipa avTOU EdwKEV
vmep nuwv Incovs Xpiotos 6 Kupios nuwy év OeAnpate
= \ ~ \ > \ Ocov, Kal THv GapKa Vmrep THS TapKOs Huw@Y Kal THY \ \ la and a Wuyny uvmep Twov Wuyey juov.
The whole of the preceding passage is disturbed in CS by false punctuation.
8 rd7j00s] AC; but S translates NNW ‘ murum.’
13 ovdév...7T@ OBew] AC,
and so Clem (except that he omits ésrw); Deo placere nemo potest (as if ovdevi
evapecTeiy éoTWw T@ Oeq@) S. dédwkev C. 18 tov Yuxwr] AS; THs pux7s C.
x. 25, Hermas Vzs. iii. 8.
TO Uwos x«z.A.| See the elabo- rate metaphor in Ign. Ephes. 9 ava- pepopevar cis TA VY Oia THs pnxarijs “Inoov Xpicrod x.r.A. The passage of Clement from this point, as far as Ths Baowreias Tov Xpiorod (§ 50), is loosely quoted and abridged by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 613 sq).
8. ayann Kadvmret k.t.A.] ‘throws a veil over, omits to notice, forgets, Jorgives’, The expression is taken from I Pet. iv. 8 (comp. James v. 20), which again seems to be a loose quo- tation from Prov. x. 12, where the original has pywH-d> ‘all sins’ for ‘a multitude of sins’, and the Lxx rendering is still wider, wavras Sé Tovs ju) Pidoverckodvras Kadvrret idia. For this Hebrew metaphor of ‘cover- me? see Ps; xxxiix 1, lxxxv. 3, Neh. ili. 37 (iv. 6).
Q. ayarn mavra avéxerac] An imi- tation of 1 Cor. xill. 4, 7, 7 dyamn pakpoOvpel...mavra oréyel...7avta vTo- péver: and indeed the whole passage is evidently inspired by S. Paul’s praise of love. The juxtaposition of
14 nuas] AS; tuds C. 16 brép Nua "Inoods Xpiotds] AS; inoods xpioros brép juwv C.
15 €dwkev] A;
the language of S. Paul and the lan- guage of S. Peter is a token of the large and comprehensive sympathies of one who paid equal honour to both these great Apostles (§ 5),though rival sectarians claimed them for their respective schools. See Gadatzans p. 323, with notes above §§ 12, 33.
Bavavoor] ‘ coarse, vulgar, self-as- serting, arrogant’. See the note on adBavaicoas § 44.
10. oxiopa ovk exer k.7.A.] The ex- pressions are in an ascending scale (1) ‘knows nothing of outward schisms’; (2) ‘does not even foster a factious spirit’; (3) ‘nay, preserves entire and universal harmony’.
I2. éreXewdOnoav| I John iv. 18 ode hoBovpevos ov TeTeNeiwrat ev TH Ayan.
14. dca tTHv dyanny x.t.A.] Comp. John xv. 12, Gal. 11..20, Ephes. vez:
17. Kat tTHv capxa] Wotton quotes Iren. v. I. 1 t@ iSi@ aipate AuTpacape- vou nas tov Kupiov kal ddvtos thy Wuyny trép Tov nueTépav Wuxer kal THY OapKa THY EavTOU avT TOY NLETEPOV capkay, which seems to have been taken from this passage of Clement.
150 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [L
e ~ , lad 7 \ / L. ‘Opate, dyamntol, mws péya kal Oavyaotor 5) ¢ ? / \ ~ / Sin ate! sf EOTLY ayamNn, Kal THS TENELOTNHTOS AUTHS OUK ETL 5) / , € \ om ¢ lo \ ra \ éEnynots* Tis lkavos €v avTn evpeOnvat, EL un oOvS ap L € y, / ; > \ > / > | KaTatwwon 6 OQeos; dewueOa ovv Kal aitwpeba dro ey ES , 5) Ay ee b) ? / c - / TOU €NEouS avTOU, iva €v ayarn evpeOwpev Oiya Tpoc- / > / of € \ - A KAicews avOpwrivns awuol. al yeveal aca ao \ e/ = e , ~ ? / "Adau éws THodE nuepas mapndOov, GAN ot ev ayarn 2 ) ayarn)] A; ayarn C. avris A; atrod C. S translates ejusdem (ipsius) perfectionis. It seems to have had ai’rns and made it agree with rededrnros. ovK €or K.T.X.] AC; S translates 2on est sermo ullus suffictens ut inventatur, thus
reading éjyyols tts and making ixavés feminine. 3 €énynots] eEnynoeo A. ei uy] AC; S apparently adds év ayarn kai, but a false punctuation has confused
the translation of the whole context.
ous av kataéwwon] Tischendorf seems to N
have rightly deciphered A as reading OYCAKATAZIWCH, though the superscribed
N is not distinct. the last note.
L. ‘In this marvellous love let us pray God that we may live. We can only do so by His grace, ‘Past generations, thus perfected in love, now dwell in the abodes of bliss, awaiting His kingdom: for He has promised to raise them again. Happy are we, if we pass our time here in harmony and love. For then our sins will be forgiven us: we shall inherit the blessing promised to the elect of God through Christ.’
2. ths TeAevoTnTOS k.T.A.| See I John iv. 18 ov rereAelwTat ey TH Gyan, above § 49 erededOnoay, and below ot ev dyann TeAe.wOevres ; Comp. I John ii. By IVs (12.
3. €v avtn evp.] Comp. Phil. iii. 9.
6. ai yeveat raca] Comp. §7 els Tas yeveas Taoas.
8. x@pov evocBav] ‘the place as- signed to the pious’, like rov dewdope- vov tomov ths doéns § 5, or rou iSpv- pévov avtois Torov § 44. See the note on § 5,and comp. Iren. v. 31. 2(quoted by Wotton here) ai Wuyai arépyovra eis Tov [ddparov] Tomov Tov wpiopévor
4 Kkatakiwon] S; katadwwén C. For the reading of A see dewueBa] supplicemus S; .....0a A; deoueba C; I had conjec-
avtais amo Tov Ocov, KaKet pexpL THS dvactdcews Poitact, mepiyévovear THY avagtacw «.7.A. See also Afost. Const. viii. 41 y@pos evocBav avet- pevos «.t.A., Lebas-Waddington Asie Mineure Inscr. 168 evoeBewv xapov deEaro maor pirov. For xadpov evoeBov the existing text of Clem. Alex. has xepav evoeBov, ‘the country, the realms of the pious’, which suggests a more sensuous image, conveying a notion similar to the ‘Elysian fields’. The one might be translated ‘locus piorum’, the other ‘campus piorum’. But y@pos, rather than y#pa, accords with the language of the Roman Clement elsewhere. A place in Si- cily, named after two brothers famous for their piety, was called indiffer- ently EvocBav xopa and EvoceBav x@pos; see Bentley’s Dissert. on Pha- lar. v (I. p. 238, ed. Dyce).
9. é€v TH emickory K.T-A.] Luke xix. 44 Tov Katpov Ths émtaKoms cov, I Pet. ii. 12 do€ac@ow Tov Gedy ev juépa em- oxomns, Wisd. ill. 7 kat ev Kaip@ ém- okoms avTav dvadduovow, Polycra-
Io
L| TO THE CORINTHIANS. I51
/ -~ ~ / of ~ TeAewlevTEes KaTa THY TOU OEov yap EXxovaL ywpor 3 C ec 7 5 > a evoeBwv? ot pavepwOncovta év TH é€muoKkoT THS Ba- ~ 7 / / > ’ > \ aiNeias TOU Oceov. yeypamTa yap: EjicéAgete cic A
c
TAMEIA MIKPON OCON OCON, EWC OY TApeAOH H OPrH kal
G6yYMOC MOY, KAl MNHCOHCOMAI HMEPAC AfABAC KAI ANACTHCW c aA > A a c a / a / YMAC €K TWN OBHKWN YMMN. [PAKAPLOL NMEV, ayanrnTol, > \ / ~ land > - ¢ / él Ta Tp0TTAayMaTa Tov Oéeou EmrolovpEv Ev Opovoia ? / 2 \ 5) ~ Cle a eS / \ € f ayamns, €ls TO apebnvat Huiv OL ayamns Tas aLAOTLas. tured dewuefa (ed. 1). obv] AC; add. dyamnrot S. aitwueba] AS; airovmeba C. 5 avrov] AC; Tov Geot S. mpookNicews] A; mpooxAnoews C; adhaerentia S. On this itacism see above, § 47. 7 Thode nuépas] A; THS Huepas THode C; while Clem has rjcde THs Nuépas. The reading of S is inde-
terminable. g ot] AS; of dé C. 10 Geod] CS; .y A; Tischendorf reads yy; but I could only see y, the first letter being hopelessly blurred.
eicéhOere] CS; euoed.... A.
LXx, but the other authorities point to eicé\Gere. 12 Oupuds] Ov... A; 6 Ouuds C.
Tapueta C, 15 nuiv] AS; vu C.
tes in Euseb. H. £. v. 24 mepipéevor THY GTO TOV OVpavar emioKoTHY ev 7 EK VeKp@v avaoTnoeTal.
10. EioeAGere x.t.A.] A combination of passages. The opening is taken from the LXX Is. xxvi. 20 eloedOe eis Ta Tapeta Gov, arokAEicov THY OUpay cov, droxpvBnOt pixpov dcoyv ocov, €ws ay mapedOn 7 6py) Kupiov: the close pro- bably from Ezek. xxxvii. 12 avaf&o Upas €K TOV pynuatoyv vuov. The in- termediate words kai prynoOnocopa nuépas ayadns are not found any- where. They may possibly be in- tended to give the general purport of the promise which they introduce: see a parallel instance in § 52. The combination of the two passages from different prophets was probably suggested by the verse in Isaiah which immediately precedes the words quoted, dvacrncovrat of vexpol Kat eyepOnoovrat ot ev Tots pynpetors (Is. Exvi..19).. Comp. 5 Esdr. a. 16,‘ et resuscitabo mortuos de locis suis et de monumentis educam illos etc.’
It is quite possible that A read eiseNOe with the
II Tamela] Tama A; 13-quev] CS; éouey A.
II. rapeta| ‘the inner chamber’, q1n. Onthe form see Lobeck Phryn. p. 493, Paral. p. 28. The same ten- dency to elide the « before ec appears in vyela $20. In § 21 however our chief MS writes tapueva.
daov daov| Comp. Heb. x. 37 (with Bleek’s note).
opyy Kat Oupos] opyn is the settled temper, ‘auger’; Oupos the sudden outburst, ‘wrath’. See the distinc- tion in. /Trench’s , 1V.. 42s Syst ser. § xxxvil, and to the passages there collected add Joseph. 2. F. ii. 8. 6 dpyns tapiar Sikavoe Oupod Kabex- tiukol, Hermas JZand. v. 2 ék dé ths muikpias Oupos, ek Se Tod Oupov dpyn, K.T.A.
14. émovodpev|] If the reading be correct, the point of time denoted in egpev Must be the second advent, so that the deeds of this present life are regarded as past.
€v opovoia ayarns| § 49 ayarn mavta TOLEL EV OMovoia.
15. d¢ ayamns |‘ through God’s love’,
152 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [L
yeyparrat yao" Makapiol GN AMEBHCAN al ANOMIAL Kal GN ETTEKAAYDOHCAN al AMAPTIAIT MAKAPIOC ANHP OY OY MH AoricHtal Ky¥pioc AMapTian OYA€ ECTIN EN TH CTOMATI aYT[OY] AdAoc. OUTOS 6 Makapiomos éyevEeTo Emi ToUs éxNEAEY- pevous U0 ToU OQceov dia “Incot Xpiotov tov Kupiov 5 MOV, 1 do€a Eis TOUS AlwYAaS THY AiwywY. ayND. I pakdpior] makaxapio. A. 2 00] A; @ CS. There is the same v. l. in the Lxx:; 5 Tov Qeov] A; Qeod C.
CS ; mape...uev A. See the lower note. bably A. See the lower note.
7 Twapevécamev Kal érorjoaper | 8 apeOjvar juiv] CS, and so pro- 10 THs €Amldos] AC 3 spez nostrae S, but it
probably does not represent a different Greek text.
of which we become partakers by ourselves living in love. There is the same transition from the _ be- liever’s love to God’s love in § 49 dixa ayamns k.T.A.
I. Maxdpioe x.t.A.| From the LXx of Ps. xxxll. I, 2, word for word, as read in A (S writes agetOnoav). For ob B has o. In Rom. iv. 8 it is a question whether ov or @ is the cor- rect reading.
4. otros 0 pakapicpos| Suggested by Rom. iv. 9, where after quoting the same passage from the Psalms S. Paul continues, 6 paxapiopos ody ovTos emt THY TeptTounv «x.t.A. For pakapiopos see also Rom. iv. 6, Gal. iv. 15 (note).
7. Taperecauey Kal emouoaper| There can be no doubt about the reading of our two new authorities; for though the last word indeed, as
now read in the Syriac MS, is pias
transgresst sumus, the diacritic point has been altered and it was originally
Ia jecimus, But what was the
reading of A? The editors have hitherto given mapéBnuev; but the older collators Young and Wotton professed only to see zape...uev, and after’ C was discovered, Gebhardt (ed. 2), observing that nothing was said either by Tischendorf or by my-
11 pdPov] AC; add.
self ‘de litera B adhuc conspicua’, suggested that the reading of A was not mapeBnuev but waperéoapey and that the following words kai émoiumoa- pev were omitted owing to homceote- leuton, for there certainly is not room for them. I believe he is right. Having my attention thus directed to the matter, I looked at the MS again. I could not discern a B but saw traces of a square letter which looked like tr followed by a curved letter which might be e. Not satisfied with my own inspection, I wrote afterwards to Dr E. M. Thompson, now chief librarian of the British Museum, to obtain his opinion. He read the letters independently exactly as I had done, and says confidently that the reading was mapemécapev. This reading is favoured by the words which follow Kadov yap avOpdr@ €&o- podoyeioOa Tepi TOY TapaTT@paTaY (see the note on § 46), as also by the loose paraphrase of the younger Clement Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614) jy de kal TEpLTeoH Akwv Tova’Tn Til Tept- ordoe Oia tas mapepnt@cets TOU avTt- keyevov, Where mepiréon seems to have been suggested by the associa- tion of sounds.
LI. ‘We must therefore ask par- don for our sins. Above all ought the leaders of these factions to deny
LI]
LI.
lo ral / TLWOS TWVY TOU GYTLKELMEVOU,
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
153
/ Ss , \ Le / “Oca ovv qaperecauev Kat érromoapey Ola
agwowuev adeOnvar juiv
AA) themes / e/ \ / \ / KQ@L EKELVOL O€, OLTLVES aoxynyor OTAGEWS Kal dryooTtacias
5) / ? / \ \ lon 5) / =~ evyernOnoay, opetAovew TO KOLVOV TNS €NTLOOS GKOTELD.
e \ \ / \ > / / e \ ol yap META ofou Kal ayarns TOALTEVOMEVOL EAUTOUS
/ lanl > / / 3\ \ / GéXovew pardov aikiats TEOLTLATELV H TOUS TANCLOV,
de S.
12 OéXovew] AC; cogunt (coarctant) S.
aikias] ovxwao A.
Tischendorf (prol. p. xix) considers that it is altered into atxiaca prima manu, but
I could not distinctly see this correction.
Tovs mAnolov] AC ; Tots rAnoior S,
which also omits 6¢ éavréy, thus throwing the syntax into confusion.
themselves for the common good. It is well always to confess our wrong-doings, and not to harden our hearts. Let us take warning by the fate of the factious opponents of Moses who were swallowed up alive in the pit, and by the fate of Pharaoh and his host who were overwhelmed in the Red Sea, because they har- dened their hearts.’
7. O.a tivos k.t.d.] ‘dy any of the wreles (or of the ministers) of the ad- versary’.
8. Tov avtixeysévov] So o avtidiKxos I Pet. v. 8, and perhaps o avtevepyov Barnab. § 2. ‘O avrixeipevos itself is not so used in the New Testament (except possibly in 1 Tim. v. 14), but occurs Wart. Polyc. 17, and in later writers.
ape@nvat nuiv] So the lacuna in A is now supplied in our new authorities in place of ovyyvopny. Among other suggestions I had pro- posed dpeOjvac in my notes ; comp. § 50 els 7d adeOjvar nyiv...yéypanrat yap: Makadpiot bv adpeOnoay x.7.d. It is entirely after Clement’s manner to take up the key word of a quotation and dwell upon it; see the instances collected above, § 46. There can be no doubt therefore that Tischendorf misread A. Nevertheless he re- iterated the statement to which I -
took exception and said ‘Emen- datione veteris scripturae vix opus est [ovy}yrvop[nv]; literarum yop pars superior in codice superest, quapropter de vera lectione vix du- bito: dubitat vero Lightf. et dicit etc’ “ He’ took’ no’ notice of “my grammatical objection to this con- struction of a&odyv. I had urged that the instances where a&wdyv appears to govern an accusative of the thing claimed (e.g. Dan, ii. 23, Esth. v. 6, ix. 12, Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 12) are not decisive. I might have added a further lexical objection ; for neither in the LXX nor in the N.T. nor in the Apostolic Fathers are ovyywookey, cvyyvepn, ever said of God. The fact is that the MS is eaten into holes here and nothing can be vead. The letters can only be conjectured from the in- dentations left. Dr E. M. Thomp- son of the British Museum whom I consulted and whose practised eye I should trust much more than my own, gives it as his opinion that cuyyvepny would not fit into these indentations but that ade@nvainpl[uv] might.
9g. dtyooracias| See the note on § 46.
IO. Td Kowvov ths eAmidos] Comp. Ign. Ephes. 1 vrép Tod Kowod dvouaros kal eA7ridos with the note.
154 THEY PIST GE OF) SeCLEMENT [LI ~~ ys e 4G / ¥. aN = MaNhov 0€ EavTwY KaTayvwow epovolw n THS Tapa- Ne On. tr ~ c \ dedoperns juivy Karws Kal SiuKcalws Omodwrias. KaNov \ > iA ~ \ ~ / yap avOpwrw EEomoAoyeto bar rept Tw TAPATTWUA~ \ a“ \ / > lan) \ > / TwY 4 OKANPUVaL THY Kapdiay avTov, Kabws éxkAnpuvOn / ~ / \ \ / ~ Hy Kapdla Tw TTATLACOVTWY TpPOS TOV Oepatovta Tou ~ et Lone e \ if / ° , / Ocou Mwvonv: wy To Kpiua mpddnrov éyevnOy. Kate- \ ) e/ ~ ’ al Bnoav yap eis ddou CWUTES, Kal OANATOC TIOIMANE! 2 ' \ \ ¢ A > ~ id aytoyc. Papaw Ka 7 GTpaTla avTOU Kal TayTEs . / > / ’ a \ c ? ! OL nyoumevoe Atyumrou, Td Te kpmata Kal of dNaBATAl an > af \ > V4 5) : auTwV, ov Ot aAAnY TWA aiTiav éBvOicOycay eis Oa-
\ \ > Sf > \ \ \ Aacoav épvOpav Kai dmwAovto, a\Aa Sta TO CKAN-
5 oraciagovrwy] A; oracidvtwy CS, but there is a tendency in S in these cases
to translate by a past where the principal verb is a past, as here. movta] AS; avOpwirov C. See the lower note.
depa- g Alyirrov] S; ...vrrov A;
avrod C. Perhaps the archetype of C was partially erased here and ran a..v.Tov.
dvaBdrat] avaBdaras C.
2. kadov...7] Matt. xviii. 8, Mark ix. 43,45; see Winer Gramm. § xxxv. Pp. 255.
4. oxkAnpova x.t.A.] Ps. xcv. 8; comp. Heb. iii. 8, 15, iv. 7.
5. tov Oepdarovra| See the various reading in C. Moses is called a@- O@peros Tov Geov, Deut. xxxiii. I, Josh. miv.|).6,/4,°Chron.. xxiii, .14,.2 Chron. xxx. 16, Ezra 11. 2. Familiarity with the phrase (which is_ especially prominent in Deut. xxxiii. I, where it prefaces the Song of Moses) would lead to its introduction here. Else- where (§ 53) C alters the designation Oepamwy tov Ocov in another way. On the other hand @eparwyv tot Gcod is itself a common designation of Moses (see the note on § 4), and might well have been substituted for the other expression here. But the preponderance of authority must be considered decisive as to the reading.
6. KkatéBnoav yap x.t.A.] Num. xvi.
1o ov] oa A. 13 yH Atydrrov] ynavyv... A; Alyirrw CS.
12 a’rwy] here A; after xapdias C. 14 Mwicéws] pwvcew AZ
32, 33 nvolxOn n yn Kal Karémuev avdrovs ...kal katéBnoay atrol kat doa éoTw avtay (evra eis adov. Comp. Afost. Const. 1. 27 AaOay kat ’ABeipodv Cortes katéBnoay eis ddov kal paBdos Bdao- Tyoaoa x.t.r. (comp. § 43); see also 205 Wis. 3s
7. towmavet] Clement is quoting from Ps. xlvili (xlix). 14 os wpoBara ev d0n €Oevro, Oavatos Tmoimavet avTous. The reading could not have been foreseen, and the lacuna in A was supplied with xarézuev, before our new authorities revealed the true reading.
Q. Ta Te Gppara kal of dvaBara]| The expression is borrowed from the Mosaic narrative, where it occurs several times, Exod. xiv. 23, 26, 28, comp. xv. 19, Jer. li (xxvili). 22, Hagg. Li, 22.
12. Tas aovvérous kapdias| As Rom.
1. 21 éoxoticOn 1 daovveros avTav kapOla. LII. ‘The Lord of the universe
Lu]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
P53
- ~~ \ / / \ \ / puvOnvar avTwy Tas aoVVETOUS Kapdlas META TO YEVET-
Gai Ta onueia Kal Ta Teopata év yn AtyurrTouv sia nie p yn Airy
TOU OeparrovTos tou Qeov Moicéws.
LIL.
"Ampoodens, addeApoi, 6 SeamoTns vrapyel
Co € / oT \ 5) \ 7 > \ \ > TwWY aTravTwy, ovdEev oUvdEVOS ypnCEL EL pn TO E£O- ra
~ >] la poroyetcbar avTw.
gnoiv yap o ékNextos Aaveis:
*EZomoAorHcomal T@ Kypiow, kal apécel aYT@ YMEP MOCYON
NEON KEPATA EKMEPONTA KAI OTTAAC™
> /
iAETWCAN TIT@YO! KAl
> ’ \ , f fa) a) n ' 20€YPPANOHTWCAN. Kal TaAL Eye? Ofcon TH Dew Oycian
> ! \ > ' a c t \ > ’ P \ > f AINECEWC KAI ATIOAOC TW YYICT@ Tac Eyyac COY* Kal ETT
pwoéws C.
16 ovéév} ..dev A; om. CS.
To] A; rod C. The ovdév
has obviously been omitted by carelessness before ovdevds, and thus has necessitated
the further change of 76 into Tod. dad AC. See above, § 4. twoav] AS; om. C.
21 émixddecar] emixadece A.
wants nothing. He demands of us only confession. He asks no sacri- fice, but the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; for so the Psalmist teaches us.’
15. “Ampoodens| ‘wants nothing be- sides’. Comp. Joseph. Azz. viii. 4. 3 ampoodees yap TO Oeioy amavrwy (with the context), Act. Paul. et Thecl. S$ 17 (p. 47 Tisch.) Geds dmpocdens, Clem. Hom. xi. 9 6 Geds yap dvevdens ay avtos ovdevos Seira, Epist. ad Diogn. 3 6 rowuoas Tov ovpavov Kat THY yiv kal wavtTa Ta €v avtois...ovdevos av avtos mpoadéoito TovT@y kK.t.rA., A- thenag. Sufpl. § 13 6 rovde rod mav- Tos Onp.ovpyos Kal matnp...avevdens Kai ampoodens, § 29 advevdecs...Td Oeior, Resurr. § 12 mavtos yap éotw ampoo- dejs, Tatian ad Graec. 4 6 yap mav- Tov avevdens ov SiaBdAnréos ih’ nudy ws evdens, Theophil. ad Aut. ii. 10 dvevdens @v. See also Acts xvii. 25 with the passages from heathen wri- ters collected there by Wetstein. This was a favourite mode of speak-
17 avtT@m] AC; add. povor S. 1g véov] vatov A. 21—2 Kal émixdderm...doédces pe] AS; om. C.
Aaveid] 19, 20 Képara...evppavd7-
ing with the Stoics. The parallel passages quoted above would sup- port the connexion of tov amavrwy either with dzpoodejs or with o deo- motns. The latter seems more forcible and more natural here, besides that o Oeométns Tay adravTay is a Common phrase in Clement, S§ 8, 20, 33. It is however connected with 6 deamorns in the Syriac.
18. ’E€opodoynoopat x.r.A.] Comp. Ps. Ixix. 31, 32, kat apéoer r@ Oe@ vTEp poaxov véov Képata exPépovra kal on- Ads’ id€rwoay x.t.’. The introductory words éfouoroynoowa. T@ Kupi@ are not found in the context, though they express the sewse of the preceding verse aivéow TO Ovoya k.T.A., and occur frequently elsewhere.
20. ©Ovcov «.7.A.] The first part Gvoov...d0€aces we occurs in Ps. xlix (1). 14, 15 word for word, except that the second gov is omitted in some MSS: the last clause is taken from Ps, li. 17 @vcia TH Ge@ mvevpa ovv- TETPLULLEVOY.
156 THE EPISTLE OF S, CLEMENT [ui
KAdAECAl ME EN HMEPA BAIYEMC COY, Kal EZEAOYFMAI CE, Kal AozZAcelc Me’ OycIA rap TH Oew@ TINEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON. / lanl , \ LIT. ’Erioracbe ydp cai ckadws ériotacbe Tas € \ / ’ , §. (4 > \ / lepas ypadas, ayamnrtol, Kal eyxexupate eis Ta OYA Mwv-
/ \ vA > \ af \ / gews yap avaBaivovTos els TO Opos Kal TomoayToS
~ q > > / > ~ / Tov Qeov: els advauynow ovv TavTa ypapouer.
TETTEPAKOVTA NMEpAasS Kal TETTEPAKOVTA VUKTAaS Ee WNOTELA Kal TaTEWwWoEL, Elev TPOS aUTOV O Oeos: Moy¥cf, Moc, kaTABHOI TO TAyoc ENTEYOEN, OTI HNOMHCEN 6 Aadc coy oYc €ZHrarec €k rAc Airymtoy: mapéBHCAaN TAyY
1 gov] A; om. S. 3 émlaracbe] emrotacba A. addeApot S, omitting dyamyroi 1. 20; see above, § I. 4 kal éykexvgare] CS; ...exupare A. 5 ypagmouev] CS. In A.only the final stroke 1, being part of the N, is visible (though Tischendorf says ‘ante Mwvoews praecedit punc- tum, non | quod Jacobsonus videre sibi visus est’). 6 avaBaivovros] A, not dvaBdvros as Jacobson would read; for the | is distinct and cannot have formed the first stroke of N as he supposes; dvaBdvros C. S has a past tense, but on such a point its authority cannot be urged. As usual C alters the tenses where they do not seem appropriate ; see above, I. p. 126. eis] C3 ...6 Aj; ws mpos (or ws eis) S. 7 TecoepdxovTa] TecoapdxovTa C in both places. In either case the word is mutilated in A, so that we cannot determine the form, but the preference of this Ms for the forms in € can leave little doubt.
yap] AC; add.
I. é€eAodpa] For this future see Buttmann Gv. Sprachl. I. p. 100, Winer Gramm. § xciv. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614), after dia ras TAapeUMTOoELS TOU avTikemevou (already quoted p. 152), goes On pupnoduevos tov Aavid yaret E€opodoynoopar k.T.A. Tore cuvreTpyipevor, stringing together the same quotations as in this chap- ter of the Roman Clement.
LIII. ‘You are well versed in the Scriptures. I therefore quote them only to remind you. Remember how Moses entreated God for the people, how he would accept no honour for himself, but asked to be blotted out with them, if they might not be for- given.’
3. émictacbe x.t.’.] For the form of the sentence see the note on § 47 aigxpa, dyamnrot, kat Aiav aioxpa.
tas tepas ypadas] Comp. Polyc. Phil. 12 ‘Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis et nihil vos latet?. So 2 Tim. ii. 15 [ra] icepa ypdupara, the only passage in the New Testament where this epithet is applied to the Scriptures. It occurs above § 43, and in 2 Macc. viii. 23, and is so used both by Philo and by Josephus.
4. éyxexupare| See the note on § 4o.
6. momoartos| ‘spent, as several times inthe N.T. See the references in Grimm’s Clav. Nov. Test. s.v. rove It. d, p. 527 (ed. Thayer).
8. elev mpos avrov k.t.A.] The first part, as far as padXov 7) rovro, is taken from Deut. ix. 12—14, which how- ever commences somewhat differently kat ele Kuptos 7pos pe* “Avaorn@t, kata- Bn@ ro raxos, the remainder following
Io
Lut] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
157
ék thc 6Aof Fe éneTeiAM AYTOIC, EMOIHCAN EayTOIC Yo-
> , / : : NEYMATA. KQL €L7reV Kuptos mpos avTov* NeddAuka tpdc
cé &t1az Kal Alc Aér@N, “E@paka TON AAON TOYTON, Kal IAOY ECTIN CKAHPOTPAYHAOC* EACON ME EZOAEOPEYCAl AYTOYC, Kal E€ZaAElyw TO GNOMA AYTON YTOKATMOBEN TOY OYPANOY Kal ’ > ” ’ \ \ \ \ n TOIFCWM Ce EIC EBNOC MELA KAI BAYMACTON KAI TIOAY MAAAON
a \ 3 *. lal sie = H tToYto. Kal eimen Mwycic: MxHdbamadc, Kypies adec TEN
AMAPTIAN T@ AA@ TOYTW F KAME EZAAEIYON EK BIBAOY ZON-
N\ / p) / \ , p) , TWN. @& MEvyaArns ayamns, wW TEAELOTNTOS dvuTrepBAnTovu"
9 Mwaiic#, Mwiicf] ...cnuwvon A; won, uwon C (this MS is most capricious, and both before and after this uses the other form pwrofs); om. S. Aiytbrrov] C3 exyno....... v A; é€& Alydrrou S, with the Hebrew. II €rolncav] AC (Lxx A with the Hebr); kal érolncay S. The xal appears in B of the LXX. xovetuata] AC; xwvevua (owing to the absence of 77buz) S. In the Lxx A has xwvevrd, B xwvevya with the Hebr. 14 éoTw] def. A; éore CS with Clem. The editors (myself included) following Young had supplied the lacuna in A with dads from the Lxx (i500 ads cxAnporpdxnréds éoriv), though Potter (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 19, p. 617) had warned them that Clement of Alexandria supplied the right word (éo7vr). éacov] AC; kal éacov S. In the Lxx B has xai viv éforeOpevoa] ....ceApevoae A; efodoBpetoa C ; éfodeOpevow (or -oPpedow) S apparently. 17 elrev] def. A; etre C. Thy dpaptiav] AC; peccatum hoc S. 19 @ weyddrns] A; meyddns (om. @) C.
TO €k Ys
éacov.
the LXxX very closely (compare also Exod. xxxii. 7, 8). After paAdov 4 rouro the parallel narrative in Exod. Xxxli is taken up, and the substance of vv. Io, 31, 32 1S given in a com- pressed form. See Barnab. § 4 Aéyer yap ovtas Kupios, Movon, Mavon, xa- raBnOs TO Taxos, OTL HYOunoEY 6 dads
both writers from Exod. iii. 4.
16. @avpacrov] So quoted also by Clem. Alex., but it is icyvpov in the LXx. The combination péya kai Oavpacrov occurs also §§ 26, 50.
mov paddAov 7 TovTo] i.e. mXetov rovrov, an attempt to render the Hebrew idiom 339) 34, ‘greater than it’.
gov ous eEnyayes €k ys Aiy’mrov, and again § 14 eimev Kupios mpds Moionpr, Motion, Moion, xataBnO to Tayos ort 6 Aaods cov ov eEnyayes ex ys Aiyimrou nvopnoev. The coincidence in the repetition of the name Maton, Mavon, is not sufficient to show that the one writer was indebted to the other (as Hilgenfeld seems to think, here and p- xx); for, though the name is not repeated at this place in either of the Mosaic narratives, it may very easily have been inserted independently by
See 11. § 2 from Is. liv. 1.
Clem. Alex., Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617) avtika ovx 6 Mavons «.t.A., para- phrases the remainder of this chapter from kal ecimev «.r.X., giving the same quotations as the Roman Clement.
19. ® | According to the rule of the grammarians the interjections should be so accentuated, not 3, é6; see Chandler Greek Accentuation § 904, p. 246 sq. The editors here vary.
158 THE EPISTLE OF S$. CLEMENT [art
/ / \ v 3 ~ oy Tappno.aceTat Oeparwy mpos Kupliov, aliTeiTar apeow ~ / s\ \ ~ cr > ~ Tw ANGE 4 Kal EavToOV EEarerpOjvar per avTwv a£LOl. / > > ad ~ of LIV. Tis ovv év vmiv yevvaios; Tis evomAayxXvVos § / / > / > / > > > \ Tis memAnpoopnuevos ayamns; ElTaTwr Ei oc épe / af \ lo sf . oN OTATIS Kal Epis Kal TYITMATA, EKYWPW, ATTELML OU Ea 5 / \ qn \ \ ~ BovAncOe, Kal Tow Ta TpoTTaTocOMEvVa U7TO TOU / , \ a = / mAnGous: povoy TO Toiunov Tov Xpiorov EtpnveveTH
\ rot lA i Cn £ pera Tov kaleoTauEevwy TpETBUTEPwWY. TOUTO O ToOLN-
1 Oepdrrwv] AS; deorérns C.
éyw €xxwp® (apparently) S. kXatoo A. 10 Témos] ToTwo A.
I. Oeparwv] Bryennios adopts the reading of C Seomorns, i.e. Sas a master’; but this does not represent the fact and cannot be right.
LIV. ‘Is any one noble, tender- hearted, loving? Let him declare his willingness to withdraw, that the flock of Christ may be at peace. He will not want a place of retirement. The whole earth will be ready to receive him, for Zhe earth zs the Lorad’s and the fulness thereof. This has been the conduct of the true citizens of God’s kingdom in all ages.’
3. Tis ovv x.7.A.] This passage, as far as xalecrapévav mpecBuTépor, 1S quoted in a collection of extracts preserved by an anonymous writer in Syriac ; see above, I. p. 183.
Epiphanius also (aer. xxvii. 6, p. 107) quotes a few words, but incor- rectly and at second hand (see above, I. p. 408 sq). He had read them in certain vaoprynpatiopoi, which I have elsewhere (I. p. 327 Sq) given reasons for supposing to have been the ‘ Me- moirs’ (vropvnpata) of Hegesippus. The passage suggests to Epiphanius a solution of the difficulty attending the lists of the early Roman bishops. He conjectures that Clement, after
3 vutv] AS; juiv C. pnuevos] AC; plenus (impletus) S. See the lower note. 6 Botd\nobe] BovrAncOa A.
4 tem)Anpogo-
5 éexxwpo] AC; g kréos]
12 moNTelav TOO Oeod] A; Tov Oeov
being consecrated by S. Peter, may have acted as he here advises others to act, and have refrained from active ministrations (sapaitnodpevos npyet) till the deaths of Linus and Cletus. Compare Cic. pro M7l. § 93 (to which Fell refers) ‘Tranquilla republica cives mei (quoniam mihi cum illis non licet) sine me ipsi, sed per me tamen, perfruantur; ego cedam at- que abibo. It would seem (from the reference to patriotic kings and rulers in the next chapter) as though Clement had read this passage.
There are several echoes of this passage in John of Ephesus (iv. 13, 48, 60), as pointed out by Bensly. If these be not accidental he probably got them from the vzopynpaticpot which supplied Epiphanius with his quotation, orfrom the collection which the Syriac writer had before him.
4. memAnpopopnpevos| In the New Testament this verb has only the following senses: (1) ‘to fulfil’, 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17; (2) in the passive ‘to be fully believed’ (e.g. Luke i. 1), or ‘to be fully persuaded’ (e.g. Rom. iv. 21). Here, if the reading be cor- rect, it must be equivalent to wemAn- popevos, ‘ filled full’; but of this sense, though natural in itself, the lexicons
Io
Lv]
e la) / 7 5) ln / oas EaUTW Meya KAEOS EV X pio TEPLTTOLNGDET AL, Kal
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
159
\
~~ ts / 3 / rn \ , c an \ \ Tas TOTOS defer at avuTov' tof yap Kypioy F rA kai T6é
’ a aes = € / \ > / TAFPOMA AYTAC. TAaVUTA OL TOALTEVOMEVOL THY AMETAME-
if a“ ZN ES. / \ i AnTov rwoAtTelav Tov Ocou érroinoay Kat TolmooveLy.
LV. “Iva S€ Kal Vrodeiypata éOvwev éveyKwper"
\ ~ \ 7 la > / mo\Aol Bacirels Kal rryoupevot, NOLpuKOU TLVOS EVO TAaV-
TOS Kalpov, xXpnomodoTnbevTeEs TaApedw@Kay EaUTOUS EIS
qmoduretav C. para C.
13 brodel-ypara] AS (7ibuz however being omitted) ; bropv7}- evéyxwpev] AC; add. vobis S.
14 ToAXol...Kacpod] C3; multi
veges et magnates e principibus populorum, qui quum tempus afflictions vel famis alicujus instaret populo S. This is unusually paraphrastic, but perhaps does not
represent a various reading.
do not furnish any example nor have I succeeded in finding a distinct instance. In the only passage how- ever where it occurs in the LXx, Eccles. viii. I1 émAnpodopynOn xapdia viav Tov avOparrov ev avrois Tov ToLAoat To tovnpor, the corresponding Hebrew is 35 xdv, ‘the heart was full to do etc.’ The word seems to be confined almost exclusively to biblical and ecclesiastical writings.
8. Kxabecrapevor| ‘duly appotnted, as described in the earlier chapters, § 43,44 (rovs karaoradevras im éxeivor).
IG. tov yap Kupiov x.t.A.] A noble application of Ps. xxiv. 1. He retires in God’s cause, and there is room for him everywhere on God’s earth.
II. moAcrevdpevor...modureiav| The idea of a spiritual polity to which the several members owe a duty is pro- minent in the context (e.g. vo rod mAnOovs), and is still further developed by the comparison with secular states andstatesmen inthe following chapter.
12. moXtreiav TOU Oeov | Comp. Aart. Polyc. 17 thy averiAnrtoy avtod to- Aureiav.
LV. ‘Even heathen nations have set bright examples of this self-denial. Kings and rulers have died for the common weal: statesmen have of their
There is however a confusion of Noiuds and Aros.
free will withdrawn into exile to lull factions. Among ourselves many have become slaves to ransom or to feed others. Even women, strength- ened by God’s grace, have been brave as men. Judith and Esther by their patriotic courage delivered the people from slavery and destruction.’
14. moAAol Baowwets x.7.A.] Such feats of patriotism as were exhibited by Codrus, by Bulis and Sperthias, by M. Curtius ; ‘Quantus amor patriae Deciorum in pectore, quantum dilexit Thebas, si Graecia vera, Menoeceus.’ The Aommexos Tis Karpos is a type of the sort of crisis which called forth these deeds of heroic self-sacrifice. Origen (22 Foanm. vi. § 36, IV. p. 153) refers to this passage, peywaptrvpynrat dé kal mapa tots ¢Oveow dtu modXdoi Ties, owuKav evoxnavtay ev Tas éavrav matpict voonudray, éavrovs opayia imép Tod Kowvod trapaded@xace™ Kal mapadéyerar Tav@ ovTws yeyovevat ovK dddéyws muaTevoas Tats ioropiats oO motos KAnuns vo Tavdov paptupov- pevos. In several other passages also (c. Cels. i. 31, I. p. 3493 2 Foann. xxvill. §14, IV. p. 393; ada Rom. iv. § 11, IV. p. 541) he uses similar lan- guage, but without mentioning Cle- ment’s name,
160
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[Lv
/ / shld \ ~ ~ / \ Oavatov, iva pvowvTal dla TOU éavTwV QlpkaTOS TOUS
is TONLTaS.
3 lA > lA e/ 4 TOAAOL E€EXwWoNnTay iWlwy ToEWV, Wa MY
if \ qn / A a oTaciaCwow él mAElov. emietauefa mroNXous Ev Hpty
/ e \ > / e/ e , , TapaceowkKOTas EAUTOUS ELS dEopa, OTTWS ETENOUS AUTPW-
OOoOvYTal.
, \ \ > ~ e / > / AaBovtes Tas Tisas avTwWY ETEPOUS EYYwMLOaD.
\ A > , \ TOAAOL EavTOUS TrapedwKay Els OoVAEiaV, Kal
TOANaL
~ qn la / Can) ~ yuvatkes évouvapwbeioa dia THs xXapitos Tov Oéeov
5 mapédwxav] A and so S (apparently) ; é&édwxay C. S has a singular. 12 Ov dydrnv...d\aod] AC; propter amorem
C (see Bryennios Didache p. py’). Q THs TOAEws] AC ; urbe sua S.
2. moddoi e€exapnoay x.t.r.| Like Lycurgus at Sparta, or Scipio Afri- canus at Rome. Of the latter it is remarked by Fell that ‘ Clementis nostri fere verbis urbi valedixit, di- cens Exeo, st plus quam tibi [tbe guam| expedit crevi’? (Seneca Efpzst. 86).
3. ev nuw)| Gundert (Zeztschr. f. Luther. Theol. 1853, p. 649 sq) ex- plains this ‘among us Romans,’ sup- posing that Clement is still referring to examples of heathen self-devotion. This view is adopted by Lipsius (p. 155), Hilgenfeld, and others. But, whatever may have been the miseries inflicted on the Roman citizens by the civil wars and by imperial despotism, the mention of slavery and ransom seems to be decisive against this in- terpretation. Here, as in the parallel passage § 6, ev nuiv may refer indeed to Romans but to Christian Romans, of whom a considerable number be- longed to the slave class and the lower orders. The ransom of slaves and the support of captives were re- garded as a sacred duty by the early Christians generally, and the brethren of Rome especially were in early times honourably distinguished in this respect: see the notes on Ign. Smyrn. 6 and on Rom. 1.
4. Avrpe@covra| This construction
dovrelay] A; dovrelas 8 "Iovdid] covded A.
of dws with a future is possible (see Winer § xii. p. 304), though it does not occur in the New Testament, where iva is several times so used. But we ought perhaps to read Autpe- covra, though both our Greek MSS have Aurpeaovra..
6. ras tuysas adrav| ‘the value of themselves” The form adroy (adopt- ed by Hilgenfeld) must certainly be rejected from the New Testament, and probably from Clement also: see above 9, 12, 14, 30, 32.
éyroptcav| The word is used se- veral times in the LXxX and gener- ally as a translation of 53x71 ‘to give to eat’: comp. also 1 Cor, xine Like so many other words (e.g. xop- ratecOa, see the note Philippians iv. 12), it has in the later language lost the sense of ridicule or meanness, which belonged to it in its origin; and Coleridge’s note on its ‘half sa- tirical’ force in 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (quoted in Stanley’s Corinthzans |.c.) seems to be overstrained. On the other hand, it is especially appropriate of feeding the poor and helpless, the sick man or the child.
moAAal yuvaikes x.7.A.] The whole of this passage about Judith and Esther is paraphrased by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617), immediately after the paragraph relating to Moses
on
TO
Lv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 161
émeTeNeoavTo woAAa avopeia. “lovdiO 4 paxapia, év TVYKNELT Mw ovans THS TOAEWS, HTNTATO Tapa TwV mperButépwv eabyvar aitny €€edOetv eis THv TapeuBo- ANY TOV a\NopuAwv’ Tapacovaa ouv éauTny TW KLV- due eEnOev Ov dyarnv THS TaTpiOos Kat TOU Naov TOU dvTos év GuyKAELTU@, Kal TrapedwKev Kuptos ’OXo-
’ 2 \ / ? e/ Nee / \ Peovnv EV YELpL OnXelas. OVX NTTOV Kal y TEAELA KATA
civitatis patrum suorum et propter populum S.
14 Onrelas] Oncac A,
(already quoted p. 156); and some- times he gives the very words of the elder Clement, e.g. 7 reXeia kata riotu ’EoOnp. But he does not acknow- ledge his obligation in this passage, though in the preceding chapter he has directly quoted the Roman Cle- ment.
8. “Iovdid] This passage has a critical value as containing the ear- liest reference to the Book of Judith, which was apparently unknown to, as it is unmentioned by, Josephus. Volkmar (Theol. Fahrb. 1856 p. 362 sq, and 1857 p. 441 sq, Ezul. in die Afokr. 1. I. p. 28, and elsewhere), followed by Baur (Lehrd. der Christi. Dogmeng. ed. 2, p. 82, and in other places), Hitzig (Zettschr. fiir Wis- sensth. Theol. 1860, It. p. 240 sq), and Graetz (Gesch. der Fuden vom Untergang etc. p. 132 sq, ed. 2, 1866), places the writing of that book after the Jewish war of Trajan, and as a consequence denies the authenti- city of the Epistle of Clement. More sober critics however date the Book of Judith about the second century be- fore the Christian era, e.g. Fritzsche Pagl. Pp. 127 Sq, in the « Kavege/. flandb. zu den Apokr., Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 1V. pp. 396, 541 sq, Westcott in Smzth’s Dictionary of the Bible 1. p. 1174, besides R. A.
OIBENE. TT,
13 ovykAetoug |] cvykriouw A.
qTrov.] nrrovee A; yrTov CS.
Lipsius (Zeztschr. f. Wessensch. Theol. 1859, II. p. 39 sq) and Hilgenfeld (zd. 1858, I. p. 247 Sq, 1861, IV. p. 335 sq), who both have directly refuted Volk- mar’s theory; and indeed the date and authenticity of Clement’s Epistle are established on much more sub- stantial grounds than the shadowy and fanciful argument by which it is attempted to postdate the Book of Ju- dith. On this book see also an arti- cle of Lipsius Fiidische Quellen zur Fudithsage (Zeitschr. f. Wessensch. Theol. 1867, X. p. 337 Sq). Formore on this subject see the introduction, I. p. 353 Sq.
I2. tov Aaov]| ‘the chosen people’ (see the note on § 29), and thus op- posed to adAodvAc.
14. év xeupl Ondelas| Taken from Judith xiii. 15 émdragev avrdv 6 Kipuos év xeipl Ondelas, Xvi. 5 Kvpios mavro- Kparap nOernoev avtovs év xerpt Ondeias. The expression éy yepi therefore would seem to be the common Ara- maism, equivalent to dua: see the note on Galatians ili. 19. On the other hand the construction mapa- Sodvac ev xeupi (or év xepoiv) is com- mon in the LXX as an equivalent to mapadovva eis xetpas: e.g. the same expression J) jn} is translated) first kal mapédexey év xeupi (A) and then kat mapédaxev eis xetpas in Josh. x. 30, 32.
tT
162 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LV
miatw Eobip xwovvw éavtyy rapéBarev, iva TO dwoe- kadurov Tod *lopanA péAdAov dmodéoOa pyonTat’ dia yap THS VNOTELAS KAL THS TATELWWOEWS AUTNS iElwoev Tov TavTerontyy SexToTHy, Oeov THY alwYywy Os LOwY
\ \ a ~ 3 ~ 3 A \ / re TO TaTrewov THS Wuyns avTys épveaTo TOV Naov, wy 5
yapw EKLVOUVEUCEV.
LVI.
\ Con oy a \ Cae) / Kat nueis ovy évtuywpev rept Tw Ev TLL
/ / e/ ~ 5) n 5) , TAVATTWMATL UTAUPKOVTWY, OTT WS 606 QUTOILS €E7TLELKELA
\ / > \ Ss 9 \ \ eC U- ’ \ KQL TaTrevvoPppocuvy ELS TO ELE al auTous py yp ada
I TO dwiexddurov] A; Swiexdgurroy C ; tribum S.
As; rarewacews C.
3 THs Tatewuoews|
4 Oeorérnv] A; om. C obviously by homceoteleuton. S
has sfectatorem universi et dominum saeculorum deum, as if the order had been
Seorétny Tov aidvuey Oedv.
5 éptvoaro] A; épptoaro C.
av xdpw
éxwdvvevcev] AC (but éxwddvevoe C); ex its propter quae erat [ populus| in pert-
culo S, probably only a mistranslation.
I. 10 dadexapvrov] So Acts xxvi. 7, Protev. Facob. § 1; see above 76 Swdexacknntpov § 31 with the note.
3. n&iocev| ‘desired, entreated’, with an accusative of the person and without any dependent case or clause expressing the thing asked: as e.g. 1 Macc. xi. 62 kai 7£i@cay oi amo Tans Tov “Iwvabav Kai edwxev avrois Seas, Clem. Hom. iii. 55 mpl avrov aéio- onte. With an infinitive or a final clause added this use of a£cody tua is more common. On another more questionable construction of a&.dy see above § 51.
4. mavteromtnv| So below § 64, Polyc. Phil. 7, Clem. Hom. iv. 14, 23, v. 27, villi. 19. The word is not found in the LXX or New Testament. In the Orac. Sibyll. procem. 4 maverdmtns occurs; and in heathen writers zap- omtns is a common epithet of Zevs.
Gcdv trav aidver] ‘the God of all the ages’: comp. marnp tav aidyev § 35, 6 Bacrdeds Sy aidvoy I Tim. i. 17; comp. Ps. cxlv. 13 7 BaowWeia gov Baciteia Tavrav Tov aiovev. The devil on the other hand is the god
7 Tov...brapxévrov] AC; gui appre-
(2 Cor. iv. 4) or the ruler (Ign. Ephes. 19) of this age or zon (rov aidvos rovTov). See also the passage in Clem. Hom. xx. 2 sq.
LVI. ‘Let us intercede for offen- ders, that they may submit in meek- ness and humility. Let us be ever ready to give and to take admonition. The Scriptures teach us that chas- tisement is an instrument of mercy in the hands of God, that He inflicts it as a fatherly correction, that it isa blessing to be so chastised, that the man who endures patiently shall be restored again, shall be delivered from all perils, shall end his days in peace, and be gathered into the gar- ner like the ripe sheaf, in due season.’
7. € TW TapanTepate K.T.A.| See Gal. vi. 1, of which this passage is perhaps a reminiscence. The npeis and jpiv seem to refer especially to the rulers of the Church and to con- trast with the vyeis, the leaders of the feuds, at the beginning of § 57.
8. émeixera] ‘a spirit of concession’, See the notes on § I émeskyn and § 13 emveikeca, The context here points to
Io
LVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 163
T@® OeAnuatt TOU Oeov. ovTWws yap ~oTar a’Tots éy- Kap7ros Kai TeNEla 4 TOs TOV OeEov Kal ToUs dyious MET’ OiKTIpUMY pvEela. dvataBwuev madelav, Ef’ 7 ovdels opeirda dyavaxTelv, ayaryntol. 1 vovlernots, jv moLov- pba eis dAAnAOUS, KaAY EoTW Kal UTEpayay wWpéALpOS"
KOAAa yap nuads Tw OeAnuate TOV OEov. ovTWs yap
c
/ / t 2 ' ! Qyow O aytos Novos? Tlaidey@n érraideycén me 6 KAl TM OANAT@ OY TApEAWKEN Me. “ON rap draTd K¥proc
Kyploc,
hensi sunt S (comp. Gal. vi. 1). 8 émelkera] emeckia A. 10 otrws] AC. Bryennios here, and again six lines below, tacitly reads ofrw, and is followed by
Hilgenfeld. C however has its usual contraction for -ws, not for -w, and therefore
agrees with A in both places.
sanctos S, as if it had read #)...% for xal...xat. madeiav| maduay A.
Tipuav pvela] orxTepuwvuvia A. 7. vovdérnots] voulernoes A.
its derivation and primary meaning, eis TO efEau avrovs k.T.A.
IO. @ykapmos kal Tedeia] See the note on § 44, where there is the same combination of epithets.
II. 1 mpos Tov Gedy k.r.A.] i.e. The record of them before God and the Church will redound to their benefit, and they will receive pity. The ex- pression 7 mpos tov Gedy pyeia is al- most equivalent to the Old Testa- ment phrase pynpocuvoy evavtt Kupiov, x00. Xxvill; 23, xxx. 16; Is. xxii. 18, Fcclus. |. 16, comp. Acts x. 4. See also § 45 eyypadoa éyévovto amo Tod Gcod ev TO pynwoovry@ avTor.
Tovs dyious| ‘the Christian brother- hood’, as in the Apostolic writers: comp. Ign. Smyrna. 1, Mart. Polyc. 20. See 2 Cor. vill. 21. Two other interpretations have been proposed : (1) ‘the saints’, i.e. the beatified dead, in which case 7 mpos Tovs ayious pveia is supposed to refer to invocation of saints. It is needless to say that this idea would be an anachronism in Cle- ment and for some generations after. (2) ‘the holy angels’, a sense which
II 7 mpos...aylous] AC; sve in deum sive in
Tov] A; om, C. 12 Oik- 13 dpelher] ofirer
of aye frequently has, e.g. Job xV...15, Zech. xiv, 5,: Ecclus:, xiv a Tobit viii. 15, 1 Thess, ili. 13 (pas- sages quoted by Hilgenfeld). This is a possible interpretation (comp. I Tim. v. 21 Scapaprvpopat évemioy Tov Geov xat Xpicrod “Incod Kai Tov €exNextav dyyédov), but the com- mon usage of oi ayo in the Apostolic writings is a safer guide.
I2. dvaddBopev madeiav] ‘let us receive correction’, comp. Heb, xii. 7 eis mratdelay vropéveTe K.T.A.
13. 7 vovdernows| On the difference between vovOecia (vovOérno.s) and matoeia, see Trench /V.7. Syz. Ist ser. § xxxll; comp. Ephes. vi. 4. On the forms vovGecia, vovbérnots, see Lobeck Phryn. p. 512.
16. ITadevov x.7.A.]| From the Lxx Ps. cxviil. 18 word for word.
17. “Ov yap ayara «.7.A.] From LXx Prov. iii, 12 word for word, as SA; but for wawdever B has éAéyyer. The Syro-Hexaplar text wavers, giving the equivalent to wadeveu in the text and to éhéyyes in the margin. In Heb. Bil.) @ 1b. is quoted with madever as
fit-¢@
164 THE EPISTLE (OF 5S) }CLEMENT
[LvI
TAIAEYE!, MACTIFOIL AE TANTA YION ON TIApadEyeTal Tlaideycel me rap, Pyolv, Aikaloc EN EAEEl Kal EAErzZE1 Me, FeAcoct AE
c ra \ ’ ’ \ / AMAPTMAON MH AITTANATO THN KEMAAHN MOY. Kal TaN
revel’ Makdpioc ANO@pa@toc ON HAerzZeN 6 Kyploc, Noyde- c
AATEIN A , > ,
KAI TIAAIN ATTIOKAOBICTHCIN’
7
IACANTO.
TIOIEl, ETTAICEN, Yelpec
AYTOY EZAKIC €Z ANAPKO@N EZEAEITAI Ce, EN AE TO c U > a U , > a © ' > U EBAOM@ OYY AYETAI COY KAKON’ EN AIMW PYCETAI CE EK BANA
> , ‘ > \ , , \ > A TOY, EN TTOAEM®@ AE EK yeElpoc cIAHPOY AyYCel cEe° KAI ATTO
MACTIFOC FA@CCHC CE KPYYEl, KAl OY MH MOBHOHCH KAKON
ETTEPYOMENWN* AAIKMN KAI
2 dlixaos] AS; kdpuos C. See the lower note. depends on the absence of xzdz07. sent ay in S.
AN OMO)N
KATATEAACH, ATTO AE
éNeos] ehavor A; édeor (i.e. Earov) C and so S. 3 auaprwrov] A; duaptwrdod C, and so S, but the singular 4 ov] A; ov ay C. There is nothing to repre- 5 amavaivov] AC; vrejzctat (or rejzciamus) S, and so the Pesh.
8 ovx aera] oveoera A; od wh dnrar C; non attrectabit S. Both readings
are found in the mss of the Lxx.
évy Nyu@] AC; add. 6é S. I2 ov py
poBnOys] A; ob poBnOyon C. Both readings are found in the mss of the Lxx.
here: in Rev. iii. 19 both words are combined, eyo ocous éav dida, ehéyyo kat madevo. Clem. Alex. Paed. I. 9 (p. 145) has waidever, but his quotation is perhaps not independent of the Roman Clement. On the other hand Philo de Conj. Erud. grat. § 31 (I. P- 544) quotes it with éAéyye. This, which corresponds with the Hebrew, was probably the original reading of the LXxX, and all the texts with wa devec may perhaps have been derived directly or indirectly from the quota- tion in the Epistle to the Hebrews. I. Tadevoer x.7.A.| From Ps. cxli. 5, word for word, if we read ¢Aaopy. Our chief MS however has eAauog, i.e. édeos (for so thescribe generally writes the word; see I. p. 121). On the other hand, the original reading of the LXX was unquestionably ¢Aaoy édaov is the oz/, ¢daws the olve- tree and therefore out of place here) as it is in SBA, and apparently in
all existing MSS of the Lxx, the He- brew being jw ; but €Aaros (i.e. €Aeos) might not unnaturally be substituted by some early transcriber on account of the preceding ev édéer. It is there- fore not impossible that Clement found this reading in his text of the LXX; see another instance of the same error above, § 18 (note). For the curious confusion of @deos (€Aauos) and €Aaoyv (é€Aeov) in the liturgies see Swainson’s Greek Liturgies pp. xllii, 90, 127, 265, 331; where the answer of the people, ¢Aeos, eipnyn, becomes by expansion ¢Aecov (€Aauov) eipnyns, Ovoiay aiveréws. The sym- bolism of the o/zve as denoting peace, and the manifold ritual uses of oz/ (see Smith-Cheetham Dic?. of Christ. Antig. p. 1453 sq) would assist in this confusion.
4. Makdpwos x.r.A.] From LXx Job v. 17—26 as read in BS, with slight and unimportant differences. The
Io
Lv11]
OHPION APPIWN OY MF MOBHOHC.
COYCIN COI’ €lTA FN@CH, OT! ElPHNEYCE! Coy O
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
165
ei
OApec rap Arplol eipHNey-
) O1KOC’ F Ae
\ a
AialTaA TAC CKHNAC COY OY MF AMAPTH, FN@CH AE STI TOAY
I5 TO cmépma coy, TA AE TEKNA COY McTIEPp TO TIAMBOTANON
To¥ &rpof: édeycu A€ EN TAdw Actep citoc @pimoc Kata
KAIDON QEDIZOMENOC, H @CTIEP OHMM@NIA AAWNOC KAO pan
a / ° i. / cyNkomicdeica. MAETETE, AyaTNTOL, MOTOS UTEpaTTIC-
/ ~ / ¢ \ ~ / \ Mos €OTW TOs TaLdEVOMEVOLS UO TOU deaTOTOU’ TaTHP
\ > Ao x\ } / 5] \ b) On ¢c ~ } N land 20yao ayavos wy Taloevel Els TO eAenOnvat nas Ola TNS
€ / / 2 a“ oolas WALOELAS QUTOU.
Ev LT.
yap] AC; de S. ACS em, 5. Taupyravov C.
18 cuvkomicbetca] ov.....cOeca A; ovyKkomucbetoa C.
13 elpnvedoer] AC; eipnvever S. 14 gov] AS; om. C. 16 édevon] AC; but Bryennios tacitly prints éAevce.
c a > ¢ \ \ a / Ypeis ovv, of Thy KaTaBoAnv THS TTATEWS
n 6€ Siaira...auapry] 15 mwauBdravov] LXX; ...... Tavov A;
20 €NenOjvat] CS;
...n@nvac A. Tischendorf justly remarked on the common restoration voudern7-
vac; ‘id vix recte, quum syllabae non ita dirimi solent [i.e. vovder|nOnvat]. quiritur potius simile verbum ac mro|n@qva.’
text of A presents considerable varia- tions, chiefly in adding clauses which are found in the Hebrew but wanting in BS. The points in which Clement’s quotation agrees with A, as against BS (e.g. ovx aera: for ov pn anrat), are insignificant.
7. €€axis x.T.A.| For this Hebraism where two successive numbers are given to denote magnitude and in- crease, see Prov. vi. 16 Hebr. (six, seven, as here); Micah v. 5, Eccles. oi 2 (seven, eight) ; Exod. xx. 5, efc. (three, four); Job xxxili. 29 Hebr. (two, three).
10. kakov| The LXX text prefixes amo (SBA). In the Syriac version adikev is made dependent on xaxoy ‘the evils of the unrighteous’.
12. Ojpes yap x.t.A.| As in the vision of Hermas /Vzs. iv. I, 2, where the wild beast is thus pacified.
13. 7 d€ Sara] ‘the abode’; see above § 39. The Hebrew is quite
Re- 21 madelas| C3 m..drao A.
different.
15. To mapBdoravov| ‘the manifold herbage’. It seems to be a amaé Aeyouevoy till quite a late period. There is nothing in the Hebrew (awy) to explain the adoption of so unusual a word.
16. ev rapw] A Hebraism for eis tapov ; see another instance on § 55 mapéOwxkey ev xeupl.
17. Onwova| A word, it would ap- pear, almost confined to the Lxx, though @nuey is as old as Homer, Od. v. 368.
18. vumepacmicpos| ‘protection’, 2 Sam. xxil. 36, Ps. xviii. 35, Lam. iii. 64, Eccles. xxxi (xxxiv). 19. It does not occur in the New Testament. See the note on vrepaomicrys above, § 45.
20. dyabds dy] ‘of His kindness’ (as e.g. Ps. Ixxiil. 1), corresponding to ov yap ayara x.t.A. above.
LVII. ‘And do you leaders of the schism submit to the elders, and ask
166 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lvir
/ , ~ lA \
TOMNGAVTES, UTOTAYNTE TOs mpeaPuTEpOIs Kal Tal- / / / A / ~ devOnTE Els peTavolav, KauwayTes Ta YyovaTa THS VA ~ / / / \ Kapolas Umov: pabere VrotaccecOal, arolEuevor THY / \ J cal 6g lal / aNaCova Kat vmeonpavoy ths yAwoons Uuwv avla- / / land “~ / me delay cauevov yap éoTw vply ev TH TOLMYLW TOUS a) x \ 2 is € 6n aN @’
XpisTov puikpovs Kat €AAoyimous evpEeOnva, n Ka € \ - 2 oy ? o 2 / ? ~ UTEpoxny SoKouvTas éxpipyvar éx THs EAmLOOS aUTOU.
e/ A / e / / > \ ’ ouTws yap Evel n TavapeTos Godia* *lAoy Tporcomal
4 adrdfova] AC; ddagovelar S.
yiuous] A; add. tuds C. S is doubtful.
10 vrnkovcate] AC; tankovete S.
ddéw] AS; duddéar C. Cie a A3 si (fv) S. A; om. S. dtay] orap A.
pardon of God on your knees. It is far better that you should be of no account, so that the flock of Christ may have peace. Remember how sternly Wisdom rebukes the dis- obedient in the Book of Proverbs. She will laugh them to scorn when destruction cometh as a tempest. They mocked at her counsels before, and she will not hear them then.’
I. vior. Trois mpeoB.| The same ex- pression occurs, I Pet. v. 5.
2. Kdp\yavres x.t.X.] Compare the expression in the prayer of Manasses (Apost. Const. ii. 22) viv krtivo yovu kapdias. So too Greg. Naz. Carm. ii. 50, ver. 58 ovmoré cou Kdyapo yovvar €uns Kpadins (II. p. 946, Caillau), and similarly Sir C. Hatton to Q. Eliza- beth (Froude’s /Zzs¢ory X1. p. 166) ‘I can use no other means of thankful- ness than by bowing the knees of my own heart with all humility’ etc. A strong oriental metaphor like ‘ gird- ing the loins of the mind’ (1 Pet. i. 13), or ‘rendering the calves of the lips’ (Hosea xiv. 2).
4. dddgfova kal vmepnpavoy| See Trench WV. 7. Syn. 1st ser. § xxix.
7. Ooxovvtas| ‘held in repute’; see the note on Galatians ii. 2
14 vu pri.] AC; duo S.
6 é\)o-
Q o-
13 qvika av] 15 mapy] Cs
add. kal crevoxwpla C, a
yrdoons] As yAwrrys C. 8 dod] AC; add. yap S.
16 Ortfis] A;
Ths éAmidos avtov] i.e. Tov Xpu- orov, either a subjective or an ob- jective genitive, ‘the hope which He holds out’ or ‘the hope which reposes in Him’,
8. 1 mavapetos copia| The Book of Proverbs, besides the title com- monly prefixed to the LXx Version, Tlapoipiae or Tapormiar Sadopertos, is frequently quoted by early Christian writers as 7 mavapetos copia ‘the Wis- dom which comprises all virtues’ (for mavaperos comp. § 1); see esp. Euseb. A. £. iv. 22, where speaking of Hegesippus he says, od povos de outros dAAa kal Eipyvaios kal o was TOV apxaiov xopos mavaperov cotiav Tas Sohopa@vos mrapotmias ekadovy. Some- times it bears the name oodia sim- ply; e.g. in Just. Mart. Dzad. § 129 (p. 359 A), Melito in Euseb. 4.2. iv. 26, Clem. Alex. Protr. § 8 (pp. 67,68), Paed. ii. 2 (p. 182 9 Ocia codia), Strom. li. 18 (p. 472), Orig. Hom. xiv in Gen. § 2 (Il. p. 97), besides others quoted in Cotelier. It is a probable inference from Eusebius (ll. cc.) that both Melito and Heges- ippus derived the name from Jewish sources, and this is borne out by the fact that the book is called nmDDN,
LvIt]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
167
YMIN E€MAic TINOAc PACIN, AIAdZ@ AE YmM&c TON EMON AGFON:
\
Kal
\
n c
IO€melAF EKAAOYN KAI OYYXY YTHKOYCATE, KAI EZETEINON AGroyYce OY Tpocelyete, AAAA AKYpOYC ETOleITe TAc émadc Boy- Adc TOIC Aé Emoic EAErYOIC FIEIOHCATE’ TOITApOYN Karo
TH YMETEPA ATIMAEIA ETTITEAACOMAI, KATAYAPOYMAI AE ENIKA
7 2 c f By] \ c ” > ! c Lo. W AN EPYHTAl YMIN OAEOPOC KAI WC AN AMIKHTAL YMIN ADN®W
I5 60pyBoc, F AE KATACTPpOmH OMOIA KaTairidl TapH, F 6tan
EPYHTAl YMIN OAIVIC KAI TOAIOPKIA.
E€CTAl fap, OTAN ETTIKa-=
familiar combination in S. Paul, Rom. ii. 9, viii. 35. S has affictio (xrsdoy) et angustia (W*WIAN) guae a proelio (NAP }OF); where afiictio represents OALYis
and angustia quae a proelio is a paraphrase of moNopkia.
The alternative that
angustia quae a proelio represents orevoxwpla kal modopkia, treated as a év did Svoiv,
is not likely. wanting also in the LXx.
‘Wisdom’, by rabbinical writers (see Furst Kanon des Alten Testaments, 1868, p. 73 sq). The personification of Wisdom in the opening would lead naturally to this designation; e.g. Iren. iv. 20. 3, v. 20. 1, Philo de Ebr. 8 (I. p. 362), though Philo himself quotes the book as rapoupiar 7. § 20 (I. p- 369). Whether the epithet mavapetos Was first used by Clement and derived from him by later writers, Or not, it is impossible to say. At the same time the title 7 mavaperos copia is given, not only to the canoni- cal Book of Wisdom, but also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (Method. Symp. i. 3, u. 7, noted by Hilgenfeld; Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. § 4, 11. p. 162 ed. Petau; Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. vii, U1. p. 638, Paris 1638; [Athanas.] Syzops. § 45, II. p. 132 F, tTys codias Sodouavtos ths de- youéevns mavaperov; and others: and its title in the list of books prefixed to A is copia 7 mavdperos), and to the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus or Wis- dom of Jesus the son of Sirach (Euseb. Chron. Ol. cxxxvii ‘quem vocant Panareton, Dem. Evang. viii. 2 p- 393 Incovs o Tov Seupay 6 rH KaXoupeévny tavapetoy codiay cuvtd€as,
The space in A will not admit cal orevoxwpia, and these words are émikanéonobe] emixadeonofar A.
Hieron. Prot. 2a I 20r.. Sai. Ip. 1293, etc.). Joannes Damasc. de Fid. Orth. \v. 17 (1. p. 284) says 7 mavdpe- TOs, TouTéaTLv 7 Sopia Tod SoAopavtos kat 7 Sodpia rov “Incov, thus including both these apocryphal bocks under the term, but excluding Proverbs which he has before mentioned as mapotmia; and so Jerome Praef. ix Libr. Salom. (1X. p. 1293) ‘ Fertur et mavaperos Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius Wevderiypapos qui Sapientia Sa- lomonis inscribitur’, Moreover the name of ‘ Wisdom’ is occasionally given also to Ecclesiastes (Fiirst l.c. p. 91) and to the Song of Songs (Furst lc. p. 85, and Cotelier here). And still more generally the third group of the Old Testament writings, the dyiwypapa or ypadeia, is some- times called 7IND3N ‘ Wisdom’ (Fiirst l.c. p. 55), because it comprises Pro- verbs and the allied books, as it is elsewhere called yadpoi or vuvor (see above § 28) from another most im- portant component element.
*Idod ~=k.t.A.] A close quotation from the LXxX Prov. i. 23—33. The variations are unimportant, and not greater than between one MS and another of the LXx.
168 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LVII
AE€CHCOE ME, EF AE OYK EICAKOYCOMAl YM@N* ZHTFCOYCIN ME KAKOI Kal OYY €YPHCOYCIN’ EMICHCAN [dp COdIAN, TON Aé OBoN TOY Kypioy oY TpoelAanTo, OYAé FOEAON Emaic Ul n > ‘ A > \ > t 8 TIPOCEYEIN BOYAAIC, EMYKTHPIZON AE EMOYC EAELYOYC* TOIFAP- ofN €AONTAI TAC éayT@N OAOY TOYC KApTOYc, Kal TAC c al > ' , . > > a \ > U EAYTON ACEBEIAC TIAHCOHCONTAI® ANG OWN FAP HAIKOYN NH- TIOYC, ONEYOHCONTAI, Kal @ZeETACMOC AacEeBelc GAEI* O AE
> Lad > , Uy > > > ! ’ \ c EMOY AKOYWN KATACKHNOCE! ET EATIIAL TETIOIOWC, KAI HCY- Ul > , ? \ \ n yacel APOBwC ATO TANTOC KAKO¥. 1 (nthoovew] Snrncovet C3 ST.....4 A; §nrodow (?) S. 3 rou] A; om. G
mpoethavro] mpoetia... A (as in the Lxx; Tischendorf who formerly read zpooiha afterwards accepted my reading of A); mpoeidovro C (see above, I. p. 127)3 elege-
runt S.
7 éLeracuds doeBets det] C3 tnquisitio ctmpiorum perdit ipsos S.
8 mero.Ows] confidens S, using the same expression which occurs just below (§ 58)
as the rendering of zremoufdTes; om. C: see the lower note.
6. mAno@nocovra] Our principal MS (A) fails us at this point. The letters mAnoOnoov occur towards the end of the last line in a page, fol. 167 b. The margin is torn, so that a few letters have disappeared. It resumes again at the beginning of § 64, a leaf having been lost; see the introduc- tion, I. p. 118.
7. e&eracpos| ‘enguiry’, ‘investi- gation’, i.e. ‘trial and judgment’, as in Wisd. iv. 6. The Hebrew however is mSw, ‘security’, ie. ‘false confidence’; which the LXx translators seem either to have mis- read or to have connected with 2nNw, ‘to wask; ‘enquire’... In the ‘earlier part of the verse the Lxx departs widely from the Hebrew.
8. memoi8ds| This word does not occur in the great MSS of the Lxx (SBA); nor indeed, so far as I know, is the reading xaracknvoce em (v. 1. ev) eAmids wemotOes found in any MS of this version, though dvamavceta év eipnyn memovOws appears in place of it in no. 248 (Holmes and Parsons), this last being a Hexaplaric reading (see Field’s Hexapla ad loc.). Clem.
10 Tavayiw] C;
Alex. however clearly so quotes it, Strom. ii. 22 (p. 501 sq) 7 mavdperos Sodia Aeyer* “O S€ ewov axovav Kata- oKnvecer €m éAmids retolOws" 4 yap THs eAmidos amokaracTacis opavipes éAmis eipntat* dua [1. d10] tod Karacknydce Ty A€Eeu TayKddws mpoceOnke TO Ile- moles ; though elsewhere, S¢vom. ii. 8 (p- 449), iv. 23 (p. 632), he has avaravoetat én eipnyns (-vn) memolbos. It is clear that wemordes is genuine in the text of our Clement; since he dwells upon it in the beginning of the next chapter, xatacxnvéocaper merrovOores k.t.A. For other examples of this manner of emphasizing the key-word of a quotation see the note on § 46. From the manner in which Clem. Alex. begins his quota- tion from Prov. i. 33, it may perhaps be inferred that the passage of his elder namesake was in his mind. LVIII. ‘Let us therefore obey, that we may escape these threatened judgments, and dwell in safety. Re- ceive our counsel, and you will never have occasion to regret it. As surely as God liveth, he that performeth all His commandments shall have
Io
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 169
LVI]
/ S on / > f LVI. ‘Y¥aaxovowuey ovy Tw Tavayiw Kat évooEw 7 land / \ , \ qn OvomaTt avTov, puyovTes Tas mpoElonmevas dia TIS iE lo “ / J / codias Tots drebovow ameras, a KaTaoKnvwow"EY / \ / ~ / > 4 memro.loTeEs ETL TO OTLWTATOV THS MEeyaXwouvyns avTOU sf / \ \ - \ af dvoua. d€€acbe THv cupBovAny Huwv, Kal EoTat > / Cr, es —~ \ ec \ \ ~~ e Lg dueTamednta vulv. Cy yap oO ae Kal Ci 0 glee: land \ A \ al \ ¢ c ‘Incovs Xpiotos Kat TO TvEUAa TO aYLOY, N TE TIOTIS \ ? \ ond la iA / b) Kal 4 €Amis TwWY EKAEKTWY, OTL O TOLNTAaS EV TATEI- / x 39 a 5) / ? / \ voppoovrvy per ExTEvoUS ETLELKELaS amETaMEANTWS TA
S translates as if dyiw. In § 35 mavd-yos is fully rendered. Il guyovtes] C; gevyovtes (?) S. 13 dcuwrarov] C; S renders as if dovov, but the translator’s practice elsewhere in rendering superlatives is so uncertain, that no inference can
be drawn as to the reading. (| CS; Basil omits this second 7. and the beginning of the next.
a place among them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever.’
10. mavayio] So also above, § 35 ; see the note there.
II. tHs oodpias] Wisdom is re- presented as the speaker in the pas- sage of Proverbs just quoted. More- over this name Sodia was given to the whole book ; see above, p. 166.
12. katacknveceper|‘dwellin peace’. As the common LxXxX rendering of jaw, for which purpose it was chosen doubtless in part owing to the simi- larity of sound (see the note on papo- oxonnéev, § 41), it implies the idea of ‘rest, peace’.
I5. dperapéAnta]| A somewhat favourite word of Clement, S§ 2, 54. So dpetapeAntos, below. For the plural see Kuhner Gramm. Il. p. 59 sq.
(7 yap x.t.A.] This passage is quoted by S. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. 29 (II. p- 61); see above, I. p. 169, where the quotation is given. For the form of adjuration (7 6 Geds...d71, ‘As surely as God liveth...so surely’, comp. @ Kupwos d7t...which occurs frequently
14 Hudv] add. adedgoi [uov] S.
15 Kal Kvpios] twice in S, at the end of one line
in the’ LXX,. ee) © Sam 5143) wee 16, xxix. 6, 1 Kings xxii. 14, 2 Kings vi 20; etc. \¢ So! too: Romi) xiv. aia (a éyd, eyes Kupios, dre emot xK.T.A. (where S. Paul is quoting loosely from Is. xlv. 23, combining it how- ever with the (@ eyo «.r.A. of Is. xlix. 18); comp. 2 Cor. i. 18, and see Fritzsche Rom. Il. p. 242 sq, III. p. 187. For a similar reference to the Trinity see above, § 46. Here They are described as ‘the faith and hope (i.e. the object of faith and hope) of the elect’; for 7 re wiotis K.T.A. are obviously in apposition to the preceding words. For éAmis, meaning ‘the object of hope’, see the note on Ign. Magn. 11 "Inoot Xpiorot THs eAmidos nuev; comp. I Tim. 1. I. On the other hand the sense of riotis is different in Ign. Smmyrn. 10 7 Tedkela mlatis, Inoovs Xpuotos (see the note there).
I7. tov exdrextov| A_ favourite word with Clement, §§ 1, 2, 6, 46, 49, 52, 59.
18. per éxrevovds émetxeias]| The phrase occurs again below, § 62. It
170
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[Lvin
c \ ~ on / / \ / vo Tov Qeou Sedopéva OiKalwWpmaTa Kal TpOTTAYyPaTa,
© ? / Ae / yA > \ 2 \ ouTOS évTETaYpEVOS Kal EANOYLMOS EaTaL Els TOY adoLOuoV
Tov cwCouévev Sia “Inoot Xpiotov, d¢ ov éotw aiT@
€ / > \ > io la Dal A n O0€a Els TOUS alwyas TWY alwywr.
LIX.
auny.
> \ / > / n ens > - Eav 6€ tives advreOyowow Tots Um avToU
4 “ 4 id e/ / \ oc HIL@V ELONMEVOLS, YLVWOKETWOAYV OTL TAVATTWOEL Kat
/ > ~ e \ > I ¢e ro \ > ~ KLVOUV@ OU pKpG EéauvTOUS EevOnTovELY, nMeELs dé a&0wor
I kal mpoordymara] C; om. S.
is a sort of oxymoron, or verbal para- dox, like ‘strenua inertia’, ‘lene tor- mentum’: for émeixera involves the idea of ‘concession’; comp. 1 Thess. iv. II wdoripetoba novxdgew. So Greg. Naz. Orvat. iv. 79 (I. p. 116), speaking of Julian’s persecution, says émuetkas eBtacero. The substantive ém- eikeca occurs also §§ 13, 30, 56: the adjective emenkns, 1, 21, 29. The fre- quency of these words aptly indicates the general spirit of the letter; see the note on § 1, and the introduc- tion, I. p. 97.
2. éAAoyos| Used here, as in § 57, for those who have a place among the elect of God: see also §§ 44, 62. Comp. Plato Phzleb. 17 E ovK €AGytpov odd evapLOpor.
tov dpiOpov] As above §§ 2, 35, and below § 59, with the note.
3. tTav colopévav] ‘of those that are in the way of salvation’, as Luke xiii. 23, Acts ii. 47, 1 Cor. 1. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15. The opposite is oi dmo\Avpevot, I Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. il. 15, iy-uc,)2 Lhess. u. to... Comp. also Clem. Hom. xv. 10, Apost. Const. viii. 5, 7, 8. In the Afost. Const. viii. 5 (comp. v. 15) the words are roy ap.Opov Tav c@fopéver as here.
LIX. ‘If any disobey our counsels, they will incur the greatest peril ; while we shall have absolved our- selves from guilt. And we will pray that the Creator may preserve intact
11 GOpavorov] C; add. deus S.
the number of His elect through Jesus Christ, who called us from darkness to light. Open our eyes, Lord, that we may know Thee, who alone art Holiest of the holy and Highest of the high ; who settest up and bringest low; who bestowest riches and poverty, life and death ; who art the God of all spirits and of all flesh; whose eye is all-seeing, and whose power is omnipresent; who multipliest the nations and gatherest together Thine elect in Christ. We beseech Thee, Lord) assist the needy, the oppressed, the feeble. Let all the nations know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people, the sheep of Thy pasture.’
5. vm avrouv| i.e. tov Gcov. In the same way they again claim to be speaking with the voice of God below, § 63 rois id’ nuay yeypappe- vos Sua Tov ayiov mvevmatos; Comp. § 56 py nuty adda T@ OeAnpate Tod @cov. See also Ign. Phzlad. 7. 16 mvevpa ov mAavatat, awd Ceod GY... eAddovv...... Gcod dovn, where a simi- lar claim is made.
6. mapanrrdce] ‘fault’, ‘ trans- gression’; Jer. xxii. 21. Comp. Justin Dial. 141 (p. 371). It does not occur elsewhere in the LXX, nor at all in the N.T., though mwapamrwpa is common. Polybius uses it several times: comp. also Sext. Empir. adv. Math, i. 210.
LIX] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
171
écoucOa dro TavTNS THS duapTias* Kai aitnooueba, éxtevn Thy Sénow Kal ikeciay TroltovpeEvol, OTWS TOY dp.Quov Tov KaTnpiOunpevov Twv éKNEKT@V aUTOU EV Sw TH Koouw SiapvraEn aOpavorov 6 SnpLoupyos TOV dTavTwy Sia TOU Hyamnpévov Taidos avTou *Incov Xpiorov, 8 ov éxadecev nuas dro oKOToOUs Els Pas,
A > / 5) > / / , / > - aro ayvwolas Els EmiyvwoL do€ns OVOMATOS GUTOU.
13 Xpicrod] C; add. domini nostri S. a clerical error in transcribing the Syriac suffix.
7. dda] As above, § 46. For the whole expression, d@dos «ivat do dpaprias, comp. Num. v. 3I.
Q. Tov adpiOuov x.7.A.| See Rev. vii. 4. sq. The same phrase roy apié- pov Tav é€kXexTav avrovd has occurred already § 2. In one of the prayers in the last book of the Afostolic Constitutions (viii. 22) we have o rhv Tov KOgu“ov avoTacw dia TaY Evepyou- pévov haveporroujcas Kal Tov apLOwov TOV ekexTay cov dSiapvAdrtwr, where the expression here is combined with another which occurs below (§ 60) ; thus clearly showing that the writer borrows directly or indirectly from Clement.
II. G@Opaverov] The word does not ercur in, the Lxx or N.T., It is however not uncommon in classical writers: e.g. Dion Cass, lili. 24 @Opavorov Kal odoKAnpoy TO Siaddx@ THY woAw mapéd@xev, Which passage
illustrates its sense here. Comp. Apost. Const. vill. 12 Srapvdagys aoeiorov.
6 Snuuoupyos k.T.A.| The same phrase occurs above § 26; comp. § 33. For Snpsoupyos see the note on § 20.
12. Tod nyamnpévov mratdds k.7.A.] So again lower down in this chapter, dia "Incov Xpiotod Tov yyamnpevov mados cov, and Ingots Xpioros 6 ais gov. It is worth observing in con- nexion with the other coincidences,
nuds| C3; meS; but this is doubtless 14 dd] C3 xal-d7o S.
that these expressions 0 nyamnpévos (ayamnros) mais cov, 6 mais gov, OCCUr several times in the prayers in the Apost. Const. Vill. 5, 14, 39, 40, 41. Comp. also List. ad Diogn. 8, and Mart. Polyc. 14, where it is twice put into the mouth of Poly- carp, who was certainly a reader of Clement’s Epistle. This designa- tion is taken originally from Is. xli. 1, quoted in Matt. xii. 18 idov, o mais pou ov npérica, 6 ayamntos pov [eis] ov evdoknoeyv 4 Wx pou ; where mais is ‘servant, minister’ (33). Comp. Acts iil. 13,26, iv. 27,-305,, Buble higher sense of vids was soon im- ported into the ambiguous word sais: e.g. Apost. Const. vill. 40 Tov povoye- vous cov matdos “Incov Xpiotov, LPzst. ad Diogn. 8, Tren: aii, 12, 5; (6, ehe; and probably Mart. Polyc. 14 6 rod dyanntod maidds cov “Incov Xpiorod mamnp. And so Clement seems te have used the word here.
13. éxadecev x.t.A.| From 1 Pet. il. 9 Tov ék GKOTOUS Upas KadécarTos Els To Gavpacrov avtod das. The epithet @avpaocroy which is wanting here is supplied by § 36 (as read in the Greek MSS) avaOa\X\et eis TO Oav- paotoy [avrov| das, where however the epithet is omitted in the Syriac and in Clem. Alex.
14. ayvecias| ‘stubborn ignorance’, a stronger word than dayvoias: comp.
172 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LIx
\ \ ae ky ’ i? ’ \ \ r) / , [Aos jutv, Kupre], eATLCEW ETL TO GpxXEYyovo TacNHs id sf / ’ / \ 9 \ ~~ te KTIOEWS OVOMA TOU, avol~as Tous dpUadmous THs Kapdias
qt 2) \ / \ / o > c aN HUMOY ELS TO YWWOKELY DE, TOV MOVOY fYICTON EN YYHAOIC,
[eral 4 > \ Lal a ATION EN APIOIC ANATIAYOMENON, TOY TATIEINOYNTA YBPIN
1 Ads fuiv, Kupe] om. CS; see below.
sanctum S 3 see below. vwicros C; see the lower note.
Pore i. 15. It occurs also Job axa. 16, Wise. xiii. 1,°1) Cor ‘xv. 34. See also Clem. Hom. ti. 6, ii...47, iv: O, XVili, 13, 18.
eis emlyvaow So€ns| Comp. Afost. Const. vill. 11 6 d1a Xpiorod Kypvypa yroceas Sovs nuiv eis emiyvaauy tis ons Oo€ns Kal Tov OvopaTos Gov. The language of Clement here seems to be inspired by Ephes. i. 5 sq.
I. e€Ami¢ew] Some words have been omitted in the Greek MS, as the first editor has correctly seen. The words supplied in the text, Ads nuiv, Kupie, will suffice. The same omission existed also in the text from which the Syriac Version was made. In consequence of this, cov, oe, ce, cov, erraidevoas, nyiaoas, ertunoas, are there altered to avoid the abrupt transition from the third person to the second ; and at length words are inserted before ’Aéwodpev to introduce the second person. On the recurrence of lacunz in our authorities see above, I. p. 145 sq. Hilgenfeld gets over the difficulty in part by substituting avotEov for dvoigas: while Gebhardt and Harnack deny that the text is either defective or corrupt, and at- tempt to justify the transition by such passages as Acts i. 4, xxlil. 22, etc. (see Winer § lxiii. p. 725). But the phenomena of our two authorities show that Bryennios was right.
apxeyovov| i.e. ‘Thy Name which was the first origin of all crea- tion’, maons xricews being governed by dpxeyovov. As an active sense
Kapdlas] cordium S.
2 dvoud cov] C3 nomen ejus
3 o€] C3 eum S. bwnnrois] 5 duadvovra] dissipantem S. éOvev |
is obviously wanted, it must be accented adpyeydvoy, not dpxéyovor, as by Bryennios: comp. [Aristot.] de Mund. 6 (p. 399 Bekker) da TY TpeTnv Kal apxatdyovoy airiay, where again we should accentuate dpxaoyovovy, for the expression is synonymous with 6 ravtav nyepov te kat yevétrwp which follows imme- diately after. So too perhaps even in Clem. Alex. Stvom. vi. 16 (p. 810) THY apxeyovov juepav, for just below it is defined as mparny T@ dvtt horos yéveouv: but in Clem. Alex. Proér. 5 (p. 56) 76 wip ws apxéyovoy céBorres it may be doubtful whether the fire is regarded as a principium prin- cipians (apxeyovov), or a principium principiatum (dpxéyovov). In Greg. Naz. OZ. I. p. 694 we have ro apxéyovoyv oxotros. The word occurs also Iren.'i. I, 1 (twice); 1 5.;2)en 9. 3, in the exposition of the Va- lentinian system, where likewise the accentuation may be doubtful. It is not found in the LXx ory Nie Editors seem universally to accen- tuate it adpxéyovos (see Chandler’s Greek Accentuation § 467); but, I think, on insufficient grounds.
2. tous opOadpors x.7.A.] suggested by Ephes. 1. 17 sq ev émtyveoe: av- Tov, mepwticpévovs Tovs oddGadpovs THs KapOlas vuav eis TO eidévae vpas x.7.A. See also above § 36 jvewxOn- cay nav ot odOadpol rhs Kapdias. Comp. JZart. Polyc. 2, Apost. Const. Vii. 39.
3. ywookew x«.t.A.] Comp. John
LIx|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
173
c U \ ’ \ > al \ 5 YTEPHMANWN, TOV AIAAYONTA AOLPICMOYC EBNON, TOV TIOl-
a > a \ c \ la) OYNTA TATIEINOYC E1C YYOC Kal TOYC YYHAOYC TATIEINOYNTA,
\ ' \ ' TOV TAOYTIZONTA KAl TIT@YIZONTA, TOV ATIOKTEINONTA KAl
a a J / VA ZAN TolofNTa, MOVOY EvEpYyETHY TvEevMaTwY Kal Oeéeov
i / > ’ > a > , TAGYS DTAPKOS, TOV €TIBAETIONTA EN TAIC ABYCCOIC, TOV
C3; dvOpdrwv (=arvwv) S. THv| C3 ebperyy S.
xvii. 3 a ywodocxoolvy oe Tov povoy adnOwov Cecor.
Tov povov k.t.r.| Apost. Const. viii. 5 0 ay povos tnpioTos...0 ev vndois KQTOLKO@V.
tyuoroy x.7.A.] From the Lxx Is. Ivii. I5 6 UWuoros 6 ev VYndols KaT- ouKGy Tov aiava, dys év ayiows dvowa alta, wuoTos év dyiows ava- mavopevos. So in the prayer AZost. Const. viii. 11 bore ev tYndois, ayte év dyiows dvaravopeve, doubtless taken from Clement. Similarly the ex- pression 6 é€v dylous dvamavopevos in other liturgies, D. Marc. pp. 178, 189, D. Facob. p. 49 (comp. p. 29), S. Chrysost. p. 94 (ed. Hammond).
I have substituted vwrAois, as the reading both of the Lxx and of the Apost. Const. Moreover the Syriac here translates by the same words, NDINID. NOW, which render vyoros, ev vWndois, in the Hexaplaric Version of Is. lvii. 15: thus using two differ- ent words. This however is not de- cisive in itself.
4. tov ramewodvtra x.t.A.] From Is. xiii. 11 UBpw vmepnpaver taret- YOoo.
5. tov Osadtvovra|] Probably from Ps. xxxiii. 10 daokedager Bovdas evar, aGeret 5é Aoytopovs haar.
Tov tmoovvrTa «t.A.| Job v. II Tov TowvvTa Tarewovs eis Vos Kal dmodwdotas e&eyeipovta, Is. x. 33 Ta- mewaOnoovrat oi VWndoi, Ezek. xxi. 26 érareivwoas To vWnddv Kal vyooas TO Tamewoyv, 20. XVil. 24 eyo Kupios 6 tarewav Evdov vyndov Kal v Wav Evdov
8 hv mrowtvral] redimit et vivificat S.
evepye-
rarewov. See also Matt. xxill. 12, Luke xiv. I1, xvill. 14.
7. tov mAourifovra x.T-A.] From 1 Sam. ii. 7 Kvpsos mr@xi¢er Kat mov- rite, Tamrewwot Kal avuot. Comp. also Luke i. 53. See Greg. Naz. Orat. 42 § 5 (I. p. 751) 6 mrwxif@y Kat mdov- titov Oeds, 0 Oavarav Kai (woyovar K.T.A.
Tov amokreivovta k.T.A.| Deut. xxxii. 39. eyo amoxtevd Kai Hv Totnoe, 1 Sam. ii. 6 Kuptos Oavarot kat (woyovet: comp. 2 Kings v. 7 0 Oeds eye row Gavardoa kal Cworoijoat;
8. evepyérnv] Comp. Ps. cxv. 7 émi- otpepov, Wuxn pov...dTe Kupuos evnp- yernoé ae. So too Liturg. D. Mare. p. 188 Wuyijs evepyera.
mvevpdteov x.t.A.] Modified from Num. xvi. 22, xxvii) 16. Seevalse § 62 Seonorns Toy mvevpaTeY kal kdplos maons capkos, with the parallels in the note. Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. Pp. 45 punoOnti, Kvpre, 6 Geos Tay mvev- parev Kal mdons oapKos.
Q. Tov émBdérorta «.7.A.]| Ecclus. xvi. 18, 19, aBvocos Kat yn oadevby- govra €y TH émurkomH avTov, dua Ta 6pn kat Ta Oepedca THS yns eV TO eriBrevat eis avta Tpdu@ cvoceiovrat. Comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 106 0 kaOnuevos emt Opovov Soéns kal em- Brérov adBvooovs. For the unusual emtBrerew ev, ‘to look into’, or *at’, compe Eccles. i; 11,2. Chron. XVI. 9.
Tov enomtny k.t.A.] See Ps. xxxii (xxxili). 13, which passage Clement may perhaps have had in mind, as
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx
174
2 uf ? / sf \ la / éromTny avOpwrivwy epywyv, Tov TwY KLWOUVEVOYTwY / \ a“ > ' in A \ Bonfov, Tov Twv smHATICMENWN CHTAPA, TOV TaVTOS / / \ y \ b TVEUMATOS KTIOTHY Kal éioKoToY, Tov mAnOvvovTa sf > \ ~ \ > / 3 / \ ’ €0vn émi yns Kat €k TravtTwy ékNeEEapevoy Tous aya- qn , \ ~ ~ ~ > / , mavras o€ dia “Incov Xpiotov Tov Hyamnuevou raidos 5 3 ¢ ~ / / / : cou, Ol ot nas érraldevoas, nylacas, ETIMnoas. aEt-
a , / \ / \ > , OUMEeV Oe, S€aTOTA, BOHOON yeverOat Kai ANTIAHTITOPA
HWY.
\ > / e a Ca ‘ \ \ tous €v O@AiWer juwv Twoov* Tous Ta7reLvoUS
1 TOv KwévvevévTwr] tllorum qui affliguntur S, but it is probably a loose para-
phrase. 5 oe] C; eum S.
nylacas, ériunoas] tnstruxit nos et sanctificavit nos et honoravit nos 8. pev K.T.X.] S prefixes e¢ dicemus ili cum supplicatione. It seems to be required, as Hilg. and Gebh. have seen.
Ss: om. C.
he has already adopted an earlier verse of the same Psalm in this con- text. For érémrns comp. 2 Mace. vil. 35 Tov mavToKpatopos emomtov Geod, Esther v. I rov wavrov éromtny Gecov.
I. Tov Tov KivdvvevovToy xk.T.A.] Judith ix. 11 eAarrdvey ef Bondds, avTiAnrrap aobevovvtav, aTreyverpevav oKerraoTns, amnAniopévoy caTnp. For adnnAnicpévo. comp. Is. xxix. 19, Esth. iv. ad fin. See also Liturg. D. Marc. p. 181 4 ais trav admnd- mopevoy (comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 122), Act. S. Theodot. § 21 (in Rui- nart) ‘Domine Jesu Christe, spes desperatorum’.
3. mvevpatos ktiornv] Zech. xii. 1 Kupwos...tAdocev mvetpa avOpemov ev avr@, Is. lvii. 16 mvevpa map’ €mod efeXevoetal, Kal mvony macapy émoinoa. In Amos iv. 13 we have eyo ...KTiC@y mvedpa, Where it apparently means ‘the wind,’ but might easily be understood otherwise.
ériaxorov| Job x. 12 7 dé éemicxorn gov edvAaké pov TO mvedpa, I Pet. il. 25 Tov moyweva Kat emioKoroy Ta Wuxev tpav, Wisd. i. 6 6 Geos...ris kapOlas avrov éeriakorros addnOns. Comp. Liturg. D. Marc. p. 181 érickore wagons wapKos.
> A Ey@
6 cov] C3; cus S. quas émaldevoas, aéLov- 7 oe] so apparently déorrora]
6. a&sodpev x.t.r.] See the prayer in the Afost. Const. vili. 12 €r aéwoipév oe...07@s TavT@Y émikoupos yevn, wavtav BonOos Kai avrinnTep (with the context), which is evidently indebted to this passage of Clement. Comp. Ps. cxvili (cxix). 114 BonOes pov kal dvTiAnmT@p pov El ov.
8. rovs ev Oder x.7.A.] Compare the prayer in Liturg. D. Marc. p. 185 AvUtpw@cat Seopiovs, e&édAov Tovs €y avayxas, TetvavtTas xOopTagcop, 6AtyoWvuyxyovvTas mapakadecoy, TemNavynpévous emiatpeWoy, €oKo- Tirpévovs PaTtaywynoov, TETTMKOTAS €yerpov, oadevouévovs otypigov, ve- voonkotas tagal...... dpovpos nuav kal dytiAnmT@p Kata mavTa yevo- fevos, where the coincidences are far too numerous and close to be accidental. See also Afost. Const. il. 6.
10. doeBeis|] Comp. § 3 (HAov AdiKov kal doeBn avewknporas. The reference in aoeBeis is not to unbelievers, but to factious and unworthy members of the Church. For this word Geb- hardt (Zeztschr. f. Kirchengesch. I. p. 307, and ad loc.) conjectures daGeveis ; and this may have been the reading of S. But the occurrence of rovs
LIx]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
175
7 # \ r of 2 / eAXenoov® TOUS TWETTWKOTAS EVELOOV ; TOS d€oMevors
’ 7 \ p) lon a] \ , = éeripavntu* TOUS aoe (Ets lagal*’ Tous 7 NAVO)ULEVOUS TOU
~ ys / \ a 7 Aaouv wou em loTpewvov* YopTacoy Tous TeLvwYTAas* Nu-
\ / ~ > / \ TpWOaL TOUS d€oMLOUS Hwy * é€avacTynoov Tous aaGe-
~~ / \ cy ~ , vouvTas* mapakahewoy Tous oNyoWuYoUYTAasS* PNaTw-
' / \ Py e/ \ =) c \ ' \ CAN GE TAaVTA TA EONH, OTL cy ei 6 Oedc mONOC, Kat
cond N ~ \ c a ! \ ‘Incovs Xpioros 6 mais Gov, Kal imeic dadbc coy kal
TPOBaTA TAC NOMAC coy.
domine bone S. 1o émiddvnh] C3 émiotpddnd S. S; see the lower note. presented in S.
doOevovyras just below is a serious difficulty, and on this account I have hesitated about accepting it. It is not sufficient to answer with Harnack, ‘aoOevodvres animo, doOeveis corpore imbecilles sunt’; for both words are used indifferently either of physical or of moral weakness. Supposing that doeBeis were the original read- ing, the rendering of S may repre- sent either doGeveis (a corruption of doeBeis) Or vevoonkdras (a substitu- tion of a familiar liturgical form, as appears from Lz¢. D. Marc. p. 185, quoted above). The Syriac word here, NA 3, is the same as in the Peshito Luke ix. 2 ia@oat rots doGe- vets (Vv. 1. doOevotvras). Comp. Polyc. Phil. 6 émiotpépovres ta arrorerdayy- péva, emlioKkenTopevor Tovs acbeveis, which, so far as it goes, is in favour of Gebhardt’s emendation.
Tovs TAav@pEvoUS k.T.A.] Ezek. xxxiv. 16 To wemavnpévov emiotpéwo (where B has ro wAavdpevor arootpéwa).
II. Avtpwcat Tods Secpiovs| The re- ference in this and the neighbouring clauses is doubtless to the victims of the persecution under Domitian; see the note on § 1. The care of the ‘prisoners’ naturally occupied a large space in the attention of the
8 rods Tarrewwovs Ehénoov] om. S, owing to the homceoteleuton. aceBeis] C3 aegrotos (acbevets or vocotvras ?)
14 ge] See Bryennios Didache p. py. It is unre- 15 0 wats cou] add. ailectus (6 Ayamnuévos) S.
early Church in the ages of per- secution: comp. Heb. x. 34, xiii. 3, and see the note on Ign. Smmyrz. 6. A prayer for those working ‘in the mines’ is found generally in the early liturgies; comp. Afost. Const. Vill. IO vmrep Tav ev perdddols Kal ée£o- , \ - % = a4 plats kat qvAakais kal Seopois ovT@v dua TO Gvoua Tod Kupiov denOdper, Liturg. D, Marc. p. 181 robs év puda- Kats 7) év eTadXols...KaTeyouevous mav- Tas €Xénoov, mavtas édevOepacoy, Lit. D. Fac. p. 44 prnoOntt, Kupre...... Xpistiavayv tav ev Secpois, Tav ev vAakais, Tov €v aixpad@cias kal > , los > , A s e€opias, Tov ev petaddots Kal Bacdvois kal mixpais SovAeias OvT@y TaTépey Kat adeAhar nuar.
12. efavactnooyv x.t.d.] Comp. I Thess. v. 14 mapapvOetobe rods ddtyo- Wuxous, avréxerbe rdv do bevar, quoted by Harnack.
, © eee
13. yvorecay x.7.d.| I Kings viii. 60 dras yydou Tavtes of Naot THs yijs o / c \ KN \ \ > ott Kuptos 0 Geos autos Geos Kai ovK eat ért, 2 Kings xix. 19 yveoorra maca ai Baotdeiar THs yns OTe ov Kupuos 6 Geds pdvos (comp. Is. xxxvil. 20), Ezek. xxxvi. 23 yyooorra ra €6yn ére eye eiys Kuptos x.7.A. Comp. John XVil. 3.
I5. mpets x.7.A.] From Ps. xcix (c).
176 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx
\ \ / ~ J / XN LX. Cu tnv aévaov tov Koopov avoTtacw dia ~ b) / b) e if v, \ Tw évepyouuevwy éedaveporoincas’ av, Kupie, TH 3 y af \ / ~ ~ OLKOUMEVNY EKTLIOaS, O TIOTOS é€v TaGals Tais yeEvEais, / ~ 7 \ Tee \ dikatos Ev Tos Kpiuaciv, OavpuaoTos év taxi Kal peya- / € \ > “ / \ \ > > Nom perrela, 0 Gocdos év TH KTICELY Kal DUVETOS EV TW 5 \ f / 3 A ~~ / A Ta yevoueva édpacat, 6 ayabos év Tols dpwuevols Kal \ ~~ / \ / > a \ > U motos év Tots memolWoaw emt GE, é\EfmMon kal OiKTIP-
sf ¢ on A 5) / e ~ \ \ 5) / \ MON, aQDES uly TAS avOMlas HMwWY Kal Tas aOLKias Kal
1 Xv] add. yap S. word in the same way. 5 6 copds] C; codds (om. 6) S. nus), probably xpyorés, S.
dévaov] dévyvaov C 3 comp. § 20, where C writes the Tov Kécpuou] add. Aujus S, as in other passages. kai] C; om. S.
10 Kaddpicov] kaBapeis C; purifica S: see below.
= sof : 7 mats] mites (benig-
12 Kal Sixaocivy Kal dmdérynTL] om. C; restored by Bensly from S, which has e¢
2 yvare ore Kuptos avTos €oTW 0 O€ds... npets [d€| Naos avrov Kal mpoBata THs vous avrod: comp. 20. Ixxviii (Ixxix). ig, xCiV (xe). 7.
LX. ‘Thou didst create all things in the beginning. Thou that art faithful and righteous and marvellous in Thy strength, wise and prudent in Thy creative and sustaining en- ergy, beneficent and stedfast to them that put their trust in Thee, merciful and full of compassion, forgive us all our offences. Reckon not every sin against Thy servants: but purify us with Thy truth and direct our steps in holiness. Make Thy face to shine upon us, and protect us with Thy mighty hand and Thine out- stretched arm from them that hate us. Give peace to us and to all the inhabitants of the earth, as Thou gavest to our fathers when they called upon Thee’.
I. 30 rv dévaov k.t.A.| The main part of this sentence is borrowed in Apost. Const. viii. 22 (quoted above on § 59 Tov dpiOuor x.t.d.). Comp. Wisd. vii. 17 eid€var ovoracw Kdopov kal €vépyelay OTOLX ELOY.
Sia Tay evepyoupévey KT.A.] 1.
‘didst reveal the inherent constitution of the world by the succession of external events’; comp. Rom. i. 20. The word gdaveporoeiy is late and somewhat rare.
3. oO murtos k7.A.] Deut. vil. 9 Geos motos 0 hvAdocoay SiaOyknv...eis xXtAlas yeveas.
6. ێdpaca] Comp. Prov. villi. 25 Tpo Tov Opn eOpadOnva.
6 dyads «.7.d.] i.e. ‘He is benefi- cent where His operations can be
seen, and He is trustworthy where |,
faith takes the place of sight’. The contrast here is between the things which are actually seen and the things which are taken on trust; comp. Heb. xi. I éorw 6€ miotis... Tpayparav éheyxos ov Pderopever. For opepéevors Hilgenfeld has épa- pévots; Harnack and Gebhardt (fol- lowed by Lipsius Yen. Lit. Jan. 13, 1877) read cwfopévors, the latter having previously conjectured owpis- pevors (Zeztschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p. 307); Zahn proposes dcvovpevors (Gott. Gel. Anz. 1876, p. 1417). There is no sufficient reason however for questioning the text. The idea, and in part the language, is taken from
Lx]
\ / \ / Ta TapaTTwpaTa Kat TAnMpEAELAS.
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
177
\ / a Mn Noyton Tacay
auaptiav dovAwY Gov Kal Taiwickav, d\Xa Kabapiooy
e lm A \ a ~ / \ , nas Tov Kafapiouov THs ons adANOEias, Kal KaATEYOYNON
\ ! ex > G ' \ , TA AIABHMATA HILO EN OCIOTHT! K@l OuKaLOGUYY Kal cf
¢ / ’ 7 \ a \ \ \ amTNOTHTL KAPAIAC TOpEeyEecOAl KGL TIOIEIN TA KAAA KAI
2 ,
ENWITION
/ Val,
EYAPECTA ao ou MOV.
\ 2 sd
\ Kal
> / ~ ’ / EVWT7TLOV TWV AON KOVTWV
/ > ’ \ t ’ > O€o7T0Ta, ETIMANON TO TTPpOCWTON Coy ed’
c al > > / > \ ~~ . ~ A HMAC €I1C AfPADA EV Elonvy, ELS TO oKeTrac Onjvat yMasS TH L ‘
in justitia et in simplicitate.
The omission is due to homceoteleuton.
I have
not inserted the prepositions, because it is a common practice of S to repeat
them, where they are not repeated in the Greek ; see I. p. 137.
16 ێv eipyvn|
pacts S; but this is probably due to an error of Syriac transcription, since a single letter (7 for 1) would make the difference.
Wisd. xiii. 1, ek Tay dpwpevav dyabav ovK ltoyuoay eidévat TOY OVTA OvTE ToIs Epyols mpooyovrTes ETeyv@oay TOV TEX- vitnv. The language in the latter part of the sentence is suggested by celus. iv. 10°-sq_ Tis Kupia Kat karnoxvv6n;...dvore oikrip- pov Kal eAenpoy o Kupuos, kat apinow apaprias.
7. édejpoy x.t.A.| A very frequent combination of epithets in the LXx.
10. kxaOapicov] This is perhaps the simplest emendation of xadapeis, the reading of the MS, which cannot stand ; xaddapicov having been written kaOdpevoov, and the two last letters having dropped out. Otherwise we might read xa@dapns. Bryennios, Hil- genfeld, and Gebhardt tacitly retain xaOapeis. For the expression comp. Num. xiv. 18 xafapiop@ ov kabaprei Tov évoxov, quoted by Bryennios.
II. tHs ons adnOeias] See John XViil. 17 dylacov avtovs év TH adnOeia K.T-A.; COMP. XV. 3.
karevOuvov x.T.A.] Ps. xxxix (xl). 3 katevOuve Ta SiaBnuata pov, CxXviii (cxix). 133 Ta StaBnward pov karevbu- voy Kata TO Adyiov gov. The phrase katevOvvewy Ta SuaBnpata occurs also
CLEM:. 11,
> EVETTLOTEVOE
Ps. 3xxvi° (2xxvil). 23, (FP row ae. oe The word dsaBnpara, ‘steps’, is rare, except in the LXxX and writers influ- enced by it.
12. é€v oovdtnte k.7.A.] I Kings ix. 4 av €av TropevOns evemuov epyov, Kabads erropevOn Aaveid, ev ooLoTnTe Kapdias.
13. mow «7.A.] Deut. xiii. 18 Toueiv TO KaAOY Kal TO apeaTov évavTiov Kupiov rov @cov cov: comp. 2d. vi. 18, Mile D5, 20, XXi-. O
I5. eripavov | Ps. Ievi (Ixvii). I emipavat TO Tpdcwmoy avtov ed npas : comp. 2b, xxx (xxxi). 18, Ixxix (Ixxx). 35 Fs KO, CSNill (CXIR) Tans Sopeaiog Liturg. D. Marc. p.179, Apost. Const. Vill..18, 37:
16. eis dyada] See Jer. xxi. 10 €oTnpikKa TO Tpocwmov pov emi TH ToOAW...ovK eis adyaba; comp. Amos ix. 4, Jer. xxiv. 6. For eis dyaOa see alsoi.Gen~ |..20;,.Deut.. sox, cet. Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. p. 44 puna Onre...ravtav els ayaov.
oxerracOnva| For this connexion of oxera¢ew comp. Is. li. 16 vad thy OK THS YELpoS pov okKEeTaT@ Ge (comp. Wisd. v. 17, xix. 8), Deut. XXXill. 27 oKxerdoer oe...uT0 loydy Bpaxtovev devawy: and for the anti-
12
178 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[Lx
! a n \ ec ~ \ / yelp! coy TH Kpatalé Kal pucOjvat aro maons apuap- ‘ a ! ' rat c na \ en ~ Tias tH Bpayioni coy TO YYHA@: Kal puogar nas \ 4 / lo / \ \ dmo TwY pucoVYTwWY Huas ddikws. dos Omdvolay Kat
/ ~~ \ la) qn a »\ a Elonvny ruiv TE Kal TaoW TOls KaTOLKOVoW THY YY, \ af ~ / € ~ > kaQws EdwKas TOLS TATPATW NMBV, ETIKAAOYMEN@N GE c> > ' wy ! ef is / a avTov bolws én Tictel Kal dAHOeElA, [WoTE TWCETBaL Huas|
/ / wn / \ / UINKOOUS ylVOMEVOUS TW TAVTOKPATOPL Kal TAVADETW
6 éctws] S; om. C. This use of the adverb is characteristic of Clement; other-
wise I should have hesitated to introduce it on such authority. S renders ef 2m veritate oboedientes fuerunt nomint tuo
nuds| om. CS; see below.
ev I Ss worTe cwferbar
etc., thus connecting év dAnOela with the following clause. 7 ™WavTo- kpdropt kat mavapérw| The words are transposed in S, but this does not imply
thetical yerpi kparara, Bpaxion vWnro, Exod. vi. 1, Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vil. 19, ix. 26, xi. 2, xxvi. 8, Jer. xxxix (xexI1)) 2 Fs) Fzele,' xx. 93; 34.
3. Tov pucovvrey «x.t.A.]| Comp. Justin. Aol. i. 14 (p. 61) rods adixas pucovvras meidew meipdpevor, quoted by Harnack.
5. emekadoupeverv k.7.A.] Ps. cxliv (cxlv). 8 maou rots émixadovpevors avrov év ddnOeia. For ev miorer kat adneia comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7.
7. wmnkdovs «7.A.| This might be a loose accusative, referring to the datives nyiv re kai maow «k.7.d.; comp. Ephes. i. 17, 18 d0 vpiv mvedpa codias...... TEePoTLapEevous rovs 6Oarpovs x7... Acts xxvi. 3 emi cov péAAov onpepoy arodoyeic Oat, pddticra yroortny ovra oe k7.d., and see Winer § xxxiii. p. 290, § Ixiii. pp. 709 sq, 716, Kiihner II. p. 667 sq. But a double transition, marpdow, émikadovpéevav, yevouevous, would be very harsh; and for reasons which are stated in the introduction (I. p. 145 sq), I cannot doubt that some words have dropped out, such as I have inserted. Bryennios supplies kai caoov nuas; Gebhardt reads imnkoos yevonevors ; and Hilgenfeld alters the whole sentence. Lipsius
(Fen. Lit. Jan. 13, 1877) would insert émikadovpéev oe puoat tovs before ev TLOTEL K.T.A.
mavroxparop.| So Hermas V7s. iil. 3 TO pnmate TOU TavToKpaTopos Kal ev- dd€0v ovopatos. At first it had oc- curred to me to read zravroxparopika, as it occurred to Gebhardt, and as Hilgenfeld actually reads; comp. § 8 T® TavtTokpatoptk@ BovAnpate avrTov. The expression travroxparopixoy évopa occurs in Macar. Magn. Agocr. iv. 30 (p. 225). The omission of -x@ before kat would be easily explained, es- pecially as the archetypal MS is shown to have been mutilated in this neighbourhood. But the parallel pas- sage from Hermas quite justifies the reading of the MS. Inthe LXxX zapro- Kpatwp seems to be always applied directly to God either as an epithet of Geos or Kvpuos, or independently ; and so in Clement himself, inscr., 2, 32. But the sense of ro dvopa, as almost an equivalent to 6 Gecs (see [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13, and the note on Ign. £phes. 3), explains the ex- ceptional usage here and in Hermas.
mavapét@ k.t.\.] For this expression comp. § 45, and for the word mavdpe- ros the note on § 1.
8. ois te adpyovow x.r.r.| The
IO
LXxI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
179
a / \ / A OvouaTi GoU, Tots TE apyovcW Kal NYOUMEVOLS HmMeoV
éml THS Yis.
LXI.
Cu, déo7roTa, eOwKas Ti €€ovclav tis Ba-
hs > a \ Le Zs \ > / aiNelas avTots dia TOU peyahorperrous Kal avexdunyn-
/ > \ / eon \ \ TOU KpaTous GOV, €ElS TO YLYWOKOVTAS Mas THV UO
= - pe , / \ \ e , gov avtois dedouevny So€av Kal Ty VroTracocerbat
5] ~ \ 3 / ~ 7 / 2 <r P) ; auToIs, pndev évavTioupéevous TW OeAHpaTi cov" ois Os,
any different Greek text: see above, I. p. 137. Also Tavapérw is translated as if
evTiu@, NPD (see § 3).
But a single letter would make the difference, NIMD
excellenti. Elsewhere $53 IN" is the translation of ravdperos (see §§ 1, 2, 45,
57); and the translator might here consider himself excused from the repetition of
mav- which occurs in both words. See also on mavayiy above, § 58. 10 €dwxas]| add. zW/zs S.
Te] C3; Kal Tots S.
punctuation, which I have adopted, was suggested to me by Hort. It accords with the preceding words evapeota €VOTLOV aov Kal EV@TLOV TOY apxovrev nav; it disposes of the superfluous avrois (see however § 21, note); and it throws Sv into its proper position of prominence; e.g. §$ 60 30 tiv dévaov «rd. and S 61 just below, 30 ydp, Séomora xr. See Athenag. Suppl. 1 evdacBécrara Ovaxeevous kal Sukadrata mpds te Td Oeiov Kat thy dvperépay Baowreiar ; comp. Theoph. ad AvxfZol. i. 11, who quotes Prov. xxiv. 21 Tiva, vie, Oedy kat Baowéa x7.A. The previous edi- tors have all connected the words Tots Te Gpxovow k.r.d. with the follow- ing sentence, as apparently does C. LXI. ‘To our earthly rulers, O Lord, Thou hast given the power, that we may render them due obe- dience in entire submission to Thy will. Therefore grant them health, peace, stability. For Thou, O Sovereign of heaven and King of Eternity, givest honour and authority to the sons of men upon earth. So guide their counsels, that they may administer well the power thus en- trusted to them, and may obtain
8 rots 14 dos] precamur ut des S.
Thy favour. O Thou, who alone art able to do this and far more than this, we praise Thee through our High-priest Jesus Christ, through whom be glory unto Thee for ever’.
10. ths Baotdreias] ‘of the sove- rergnty’, i.e. ‘of the secular power’. For the genitive comp. Dan. xi. 20 mpacoay dofav Bacwrelas, 20. 21 ew- kev em avrov dd€av Baoirelas. The BaoiXeia is the secular as contrasted with the spiritual power; and, as such, it is frequently opposed to icpoovm, e.g. Apost. Const. ii. 34 b0@ Wux7 oduatos Kpeirrar, ToaoUT® tepw- avn Paodeias (comp. vi. 2), Test. Duod. Patr. Jud. 21.
13. vmordooerOa avrois x.t.X.] See I Pet. ii. 13, 15 drordynre Tan avOperivy ktice. dia tov Kupwov...6re ovtws eotly TO OéXnpa Tod Ocod; comp. Rom. xiii. 2 6 dytiraccdpevos ™ e€ovcia tH Tov cod Siatayp av- béornkev.
14. dds «.7.A.] In accordance with the Apostolic injunctions, Rom. xiii. Tisq, oPite alts 45, h) Pety iin Igese comp. Wisd. vi. 1 sq. See also Polyc. Phil. 12. For other passages in early Christian writers relating to prayers for temporal rulers, see
|
180 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LXI
/ € / apy e 6 9 , ’ \ Kupie, veytetav, etpnvnv, opovoiar, evoTaberav, Els TO / \ A A lo 4 ~ / OlemELY AUTOUS THY UTO wou SEdopmEvnY avTOIS nyEmoviay
/ \ / Vd > / ~ dmpockoTws. ov yap, OecroTa émoupanle, Baoirev an > ¥ / _ ¢ ~ ~ 5 J / \ TwY aiwvwy, Sidws Tots viots THY advOpwrwy SoEay Kal \ \ / ~ \ “ la e / Pe Tyuunv Kal E€ovTlavy TwY ETL THS YNS UTTAaPXOVTWY" GU, / / \ \ 5) al \ A \ \ Kupie, SuevOuvoy tyv BovAnv av’Twy KaTa TO KaXov Kal > / e/ / > / \ evapEer Tov evwriov Tov, Sws OLéTrovTES Ev ELpnYN Kal aA 5] ~ \ € \ ~ 5) a / mpavTnTe evoeBws THY VITO TOU avTOIS dedouevny é£ou- e/ / / c li \ > ciav iNew Gov TUYYaVwWoLV. O povos duVAaTOS TOINT aL
TavTa Kal TepiccoTepa ayaba pe nuwv, cor E€oMO-
9 ted cov tuyxdvwow] tranguille compotes fant auxilii quod (est) a te S, ob-
viously a paraphrase.
13 yevedv] C3; yeveas S.
16 xal] S; om. C.
The clause is translated in S ‘et de dis (vebus) scilicet (13) quae in ea (religione), quae maxime utiles sunt illis qui volunt dirigere vitam (conversationem) excellentiae et pietatis et juste, as if the translator had read rév whediwwrdrwv 67 (?) €v avr Th
. " A évdperov...dvevuvew.
At all events he must have had a text which a corrector
had emended by striking out or altering e/s, so as to govern lov by dtevduvew:
Bingham Azz¢. xiii. 10. 5, Harnack Christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 218 sq (Justin Martyr), p. 378 sq (Tertullian). The Apologists naturally lay stress on the practice, as an answer to the charge of sedition.
I. evoraberav|] ‘stability’, ‘tran- guillity’, comp. § 65. The word may mean either ‘firmness, steadiness’ as a moral quality, or ‘stability’ as a material result. The latter seems to be intended here: comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 6 otk éavres thy Baoweiay evora- Geias tuxeiv, Wisd. vi. 26 Baowevs ppovipos evorabera Sypov.
3. ampookoras| ‘without stum- bling’, ‘without any jar or collision’ ; as § 20 ry Aevroupyiav avrav ampoo- KOT@S emLTEAOVOW.
Bacwet Tav aidvev| The phrase occurs only 1 Tim. i. 17 in the N.T.,, and as av.l. in Rev. xv. 3; but it is found in the Lxx, Tobit xiii. 6, 10; see also Liturg. D. Fac. p. 40. Comp. § 35 marnp trav aidver, § 55
Gcds Tav aidywy. Here the Eternal King is tacitly contrasted with the temporary kings, the Baoweds trav aidvev with the Baouwels Tov ai@vos rovrov (comp. Ign. Rom. 6).
6. dvedOuvov] As above § 20. Other- wise it is not a common word, and does not apparently occur at all in the Lxx or N.T.
10. ped’ nuov| As Luke i. 72 Toujoat €AEeos META TOV TATEPOV NLOY, 2b. x. 37, and so probably Acts xiv. 27, xv. 43; comp. Ps. cxviil (Cxix)age xpnorotnra émoinoas petra Tov Sovdov gov. It is the Hebraism Dy mAwy.
II. apytepéws x.t.A.] See the note on § 36.
12. 7 Oda x.7.A.| See the note on § 20. It is a favourite form of dox- ology in Clement.
13. «is yeveay yeveav] i.e. ‘the generation which comprises all the generations’; as Ps. ci (cil). 24 ev yeved yevedy Ta ern cov : comp. Ephes. lil. 21 Tov aidvos trav aidverv. This is
me NR,
Lx] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 181
/ \ - > / ~
Aoyouucba Oia TOU apxLepews Kal TpoTTaTOV TeV
onl ¢€ can) af | ~ ~ > "er ¢ / \ Wuyev nuwv “Inoov Xpistov, o& ov ool 7 doFa Kal
rd / \ ~ \ > \ ~ n meyaXwourn Kal vUV Kal Els Yyeveay yEevewy Kal Eis A + io va 7 TOUS GlWYaS TWY AlWYwWY. any. \ \ - > / ~ / € -
Is LXIL. [lept ev tev dvyxovtwv ™ OpnoKeia jpov,
\ a ’ , > > , / ~ /
Kal TwV wPeEAwWTAaTwY Els EvapEeTov Biovy Tots BéNovow > ~ \ Fi / \ , > ~ evoeBws Kal OiKaiws drevOvvery [tv mopeiav avtwr |,
€ land ’ / ~ 7 ?
LKaVWS ETETTELAGMEV UML, aVvopES adedpol. Tepl yap / \ / \ / > / > TLOTEWS KAL METAVOLAS Kal Yyynolas ayamns Kal éy- see above, I. pp- 144, 145. In the Syriac we should probably read MIWDW3 for
NIVSW, i.e. 2 pretate (=evoeBds) for et Pietatis. om. CS: see below.
17 Thy wopelav av’Ttov] 19 €yKpateias] NNVIY by super continentia (as if umep eyKpareias) S, for another preposition (20% de) has been used before for mept. Perhaps however the insertion of a different preposition is a mere rhetorical device of the translator; or by may be an accidental repetition of the first syllable of the following word, as the Syriac forms of the letters would suggest. We cannot
safely infer a different Greek text.
a rare mode of expression, the com- moner forms being eis yeveds yeveov Or eis yeveay kal yeveav, which are quite different in meaning.
LXII. ‘Enough has been said by us however concerning the things pertaining to our religion and neces- sary for a virtuous life. For we have left no point untouched concerning faith and repentance and the like, reminding you that ye ought in all righteousness to pay your thanks- giving to God, living in harmony and peace and love; like as our fathers behaved with all humility towards God and towards all men. And we have done this with the more pleasure, because we knew that we were speaking to faithful men, who had made a diligent study of God’s oracles’.
15. Tov adynxovrwy| With a dative as in § 35; see the note on Ign. Philad. 1. It has a different con- struction, avykew eis, § 45. See the
note there.
tT Opnokeia nuov| Comp. § 45 rev Opnokevovr@v THY peyadompera kal evdogov Opnokeiav tov bWicrov. This passage explains the force of the words here: ‘that befit men who serve the one true God’.
16. evaperov] See the note on Ign. Phitad. i.
17. SvevOdvew]| The MS is ob- viously defective here ; and we must supply some such words as rp mopeiay avtav (see § 48), or ra dtaB7- para (§ 60), or perhaps with Bryen- nios tyv BovdAny aivtav (§ 61). See the introduction, I. p. 145 sq.
18. txavos emeoreidapev| Bryennios has called attention to the similarity of language used by Irenzeus, when describing this epistle, ili. 3. 3 émt TouTov ovv tov KAnpevtos, ordcews ouk oAtyns Tots ev KopivO@ yevomnevns adeAdois, eméotetAev 4 ev “Popn eK- kAngia ikav@tratny ypadny trois Ko- pwOiors.
182
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[Lx
/ \ / a / “ KpaTelas Kal Twhpoovvns Kal Vromovns TavTa TOTOV
évnrAapnoapev, vrouyuvnoKovTes Oetv Umas ev OiKaLo-
/ \ ? , \ / cam / ouvyn Kat adAnOeia Kat pakpoOupia TW TAaVTOKPATOPL
“ / -~ € ~ , > Oew OTlLWS EVAPETTELVY, OMOVOOUYTAaS AUVNOLKAKWS EV
/ \ > / \ > “ / \ \ ayarn Kat €lonvy PETA EKTEVOUS ETTLELKELAS, Kadws Kat
, / lod / ol 7 POOEONAWMEVOL TATEPES HLwY EUNPET TNO AY TATELVO-
A \ povovyTes Ta 71 pos TOV TATEpa Kal Oecov KaL KTLO-
1 Tomov] add. scripturae S. same confusion above, § 41. 5 ka0ws Kal] Kaws (om. kal) S.
deum (Ocov wayKtiarny 2?) S; comp. § 19.
4 evapecteiv] S3 evdxapireiv C: see the The reading of S was anticipated by Hilg. and Gebh.
7 Ocdv Kal Krlornv] wniverst creatorem 8 mpds] S; om. C. The authority
of S in such a case is valueless in itself (see I. p. 137), but the preposition seems to
be required here.
tanto sint (erunt) per ea quae monuimus. has translated it word for word, regardless of sense.
I. mavta tomov x.t.A.] ‘we have handled every topic’; Bryennios adds by way of explanation, paduora d€ rev ayiov ypaper, thus taking mdvta to- mov to mean ‘every passage’; and so it is rendered in the Syriac Ver- sion, ‘place of Scripture’. In this sense tomos occurs above in the ex- pression ¢v érép@ tome, SS 8, 29, 46. But this meaning does not seem at all natural here, where the word is used absolutely. For rémos ‘a topic, argument’, comp. e.g. Epict. Dass. i. 7. 4 éemiokxeiv Tia Townréoy Tov TOT@Y TOUT@Y, Il. 17. 31 Grav TovToy €xmovnon...Tov Torov, and see other references in Schweighzeuser’s index to Epictetus, s.v. For wndradav comp. e.g. Polyb. vill. 18. 4 macay € mivovay ewnrapa.
4. evapeorteiv| Doubtless the cor- rect reading, as it explains the sub- sequent evnpéornoav. For another example of the confusion of evapec- reiv, evxapiorety, in the authorities, see § 4I.
dpynotxaxws| See § 2 durnoixaxor (with the note). This word involves an appeal to the swferers from the
g Hdvov] 7 d¢ wy S, which translates the clause, e¢ haec The translator has had a corrupt text and
éredy capes jdeimev
schisms, who are bidden to harbour no grudge.
5: pera exrevods x.t.A.]| See the note on § 58, where the same ex- pression occurs.
6. of mpodednrAwpevor k.t.A.] See S$ 17, 18, 19; comp. also § 30 €d06n [7 paprupia] tois matpaow nuav Trois Sixaiors, and § 31 advarvAiEwpev ra amr apxns yevopweva’ Tivos xapw nu- oynOn o matnp nuov ABpaau; k.T-d. For this use of warépes in speaking of Jewish worthies, see the note on S 4.
Io. eAdoywraros| See the note on § 58 edAoyipos.
eyxexupoow] Comp. § 53 Karas eriotacGe tras iepds ypadds, ayarnroi, kal eyxexvbate eis Ta Adyta TOU Qeoi, with the note. For the word éykvr- rey see the note on § 4o.
LXIII. ‘We ought therefore to regard so many great examples, and to bow the neck in submission; that laying aside all strife we may reach our destined goal. Ye will make us happy indeed, if ye obey and cease from your dissensions in ac- cordance with our exhortation to
LXx1I1| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 183
Thv Kal Tpos TavTas avOpwrovs. Kal TavTA TOTOUTW c/ e / > \ ~ af / nowov vTEeuvynoauev, €7rElon capws nO€LEV ypapew
10 jas dvopacw mioTois Kal EAAOYIMWTATOLS Kal éYKE-
/ > \ / ~ 7 q qf kupoow és Ta NOYLA THS qatelas Tou Oéeov.
LXIUL
/ e ie: / ec ~ \ ToTOUTOLS UTovEiypacw mMpoceNGovtas v7obeivat Tov
\ > ~ / \ Oeurtov ovy €oTw Tots TolovTOLs Kal
/ A \ ~ ¢ a / ? / Tpaxnrov Kal TOY THS UTTAaKONHS TOTO avaTTAYNWOAVTAS
ypapew] guia scilicet manifeste est tis; oportuit enim (uev) ut scriberemus S, i.e. éred}) capes 7° Set (or ber) ev yap ypddew x.7.’. Again a corrupt reading, or rather a false division of the words, has been translated almost verbatim. For the facility with which yap might be omitted or inserted before ypdgw, see Ign. Lone. 7. 10 €A\Noytmwrato.s] doctis S. 13 Urobevar Tov Tpdxnrov] cnclinemus collum nostrum et subjiciamus nos 8. 14 avatAnpdoavras...nuav] implentes in- clinemur illis qui sunt duces animarum nostrarum S; dvawdynpdca C, omitting
all the other words: see the lower note.
peace. And we have sent to you faith- ful men who have lived among us unblameably from youth to old age, to be witnesses between us and you. This we have done, to show you how great is our anxiety that peace may be speedily restored among you’.
12. Ocwirov | The use of this word seems to be extremely rare, except with a negative, ov Oemirov (e.g. Tobit li. 13) Or a@éprov (see below).
Tots TotovTois k.T.A.| § 46 Tovovrors ovv vmovelypacw KoAAnOnvar Kat mas Sei «.r.A. For rowvrois Kat tooovro.s comp. § 19.
13. mpooedOovras| ‘having acceded to, attended to, assented to, studied’, as in § 33; comp. I Tim. vi. 3 «¢ Tis €repodiOackaNe Kal py mpooépxeTat vytaivovaw Adyos. So we find mpco- épxerOar apetn ‘to apply oneself to virtue’, Philo de Migr. Abr. 16 (I. p. 449); mpowépxerOar Trois vopors ‘to study the laws’, Diod. i. 95; mpooépxecOa tH copia, TH pirocopia, ‘to become a follower of wisdom, of philosophy’, Philostr. Vz¢. Ag. 1. 2 [pidtz)aiis 187 (p.. 50), comp. -LXX
Ecclus. vi. 26 6 mpoceAOay ary (i.e. TH copia); mporépxer Oar PoB@ Kupiov ‘to give heed to the fear of the Lord’, LXxX Ecclus. i. 30; mpooépxeo@at py- devi Tav eipnuéevov Philo de Gig. 9 (I. p. 267); mpooéepxecOar TH oye, Orig. 6 Cel. m1. 48. > These sensesiare derived ultimately from the idea of ‘approaching a person as a disci- ple’; eg. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 47 avmep évekev kal Swxparer TpoaHAGov.
vrobeivat tov tpaxndrov] ‘submit your, neck}, 1.e ‘too the yoke; comp. Ecclus. li. 26 tov rpaxndov vpav vmobere bro Cvyov (comp. 20. vi. 2A, 1 25)), Hpictets (Dass) veo ag gcautov OovAov, vmébnkas So too Acts xv. Io emiOeivas Cuyoy emi Tov Tpaxndov. The expression is used in a different sense in Rom. xvi. 4 umep ths Wuxis frou TOY é€avT@y TPaxnAov vréOnkKar, where it means ‘laid their neck on the block’, net ‘pledged their lives’, as Wetstein and others take it.
14. Tdmov avarAnpecartas| ‘ fo oc- cupy the place’, ‘fulfil the function’ ; comp. I Cor. xiv. 16 0 dvamAnpov where the
Tapedwkas Tov Tpaxndop.
‘ , ~ °. , TOY TOTOY TOU idLwTOU,
184 THE EPISTLE ‘OF Si CLEMENT (Lx
moockANOnvar Tols Vrapyovow adpynyots Twv Wuxev UOV, OTWS HOVYAaTAVTES THS paTaias oTATEWS ETL TOV TpoKElMevov Huiv év dAnOEla TKordv Siva TavTos [AW [LOU KaTaVTNOWMEV. Yyapayv yap Kal dyadNiaow july TapeE- Eee, éav Vrnkool yevouevor Tois UP rudy yeypaupevors 5 Sia TOU dylov mvevmatos éxkdWnte Thy adOémTov TOU
/ € ~ 5) A \ A sf A > / é CXous UMwWY Opynv KaTa THY EVTEVELV nv erroioapeta
> / / 3 lanl q 4 ~~ TEDL ELYHVNS Kal Ofovolas Ev THOE TH EMLTTOAN. é 4
2 novxacavtes| guéescentes et tranguilli S.
4 ayadXNlacw] add. magnan S.
choice of this elaborate expression is probably a studied’ paradox to bring out the honourable character of a private station; romos denoting official position or dignity (see above, S 40, and the note on Ign. Polyc. 1), while idvwrns implies the opposite of this. So too here the object may be to enhance the important /uzctzon of obedience. See Clem. Hom. iii. 60 roy euoyv dvarAnpovrta rorov, and comp. Joseph. B. F. v. 2. 5 orpari- Tou Ta&w amomAnpovrta.
I. mpookdOnva k.T.A.| These words are wanting in the Greek Ms, and I have restored them by retranslation from the Syriac: see the critical note. The true pardzsan- ship is here tacitly contrasted with the false; the rightful Zeaders with the wrongful. The language is ex- plained by what has gone before; S 14 puoepod (ndous dpxnyois é&a- Kodovbeiv, § 51 ekeivor olruves dpxnyot Ths oTavews Kal Otxyooracias eyevnOn- cav, § 47 dia ro kal rore mpookXicets Upas tmemoiujcOa... mpoceKAlOnre ‘yap K.T-A., § 50 Wa ev ayarn evpeOapev Sixa mpookricews avOpwrivns duopor (comp. S 21 py Kata mpookXices). The com- mand to choose the right partisan- ships here has a parallel in § 45 iroverkot €OTE...7EPL TOY aYNKOVT@Y els gatnpiay (see the note). The
5 yeypauuevois] add. vodis S.
Erréu- 3 pwpouv] add. et scandalo S. 7 &vrevéw)
Syriac is pnt pnd yqns INWDIT NII. ~=For j39n3 I cannot think of any word so probable as mpookdOnvat, Since }37 is a common translation of xAivew, and in § 21 mpookXicers isrendered NON7T NID; though mpookdiveo Oa, mpdokduots, are rendered otherwise, but variously, in S§ 47, 50, Acts v. 36,1 Tim. v. 21. On the other hand S72 ‘ductores’ might be variously rendered. It most commonly represents 6 nyovpevos(S§ 1, 32, 37 in a double rendering, 55, Heb. xlil. 7, 17, 24); but elsewhere nyepor, KaOnyntns, odnyos, etc., even BovAeuTys. I have given apynyés, because it brings out the contrast which Cle- ment seems to have had in his mind. In §§ 14, 51, however, dpynyds is ren- dered otherwise, NW", NIW™, and so commonly.
2. oracews|] Comp. Clem. Hom. 1. 4 TOY TowWvT@Y oyicpav novyxacew. This construction follows the analogy of verbs denoting cessation, etc. (see Kuhner II. p. 341 sq). It is un- necessary therefore to read novyaca- ons, as Gebhardt suggests.
3. okorov| Comp. § 6 emi rov ris miatews BéBacov Spomoy Karavrncwper, and § 19 eravadpapoper emi Tov €€ apxns mrapadeSopévoy nuiv THs eipnyns oKoTO?r, which explains the idea in the wri- ter’s mind here. The expression
LXIV|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
185
‘ Li WEL \ i) / > \ , Vrapev d€ Kal avdpas miaTous Kat Gwhpovas, amo vEo-
> / 4 , / > Chi lo THTOS avacTpapEevTas EWS YNpoUS ameuTTTWS Ev Huty,
c / sf \ _ \ = olTwes Kal fapTupEs EDoVTaL MEeTaEV UVMw@V Kal HuwY.
~ \ ’ / TouTO o€ €7oljoapeEV
af > A ? / :ppovtis Kal yéyovev Kal EoTW Els TO Ev TAaxEL
ELONVEUT AL.
e/ tva
3 ~ «/ — ~ ELONTE OTL TATA 7MiV
U[LasS
LXIV. Aourov 6 rwavteromrtns Oeos kai SexroTns
lanl / \ / Tov mveynatwy Kat Kupros
supplicationem et exhortationen S. Twes kal] S; otrwes (om. kal) C.
itself is perhaps suggested byt Eleb: Xll, I Tpéy@pev Tov TpoKeiwevov new adyova. For oxomoy comp. Phil. ili. 14.
popov|] ‘fault, defect’: see the note on popockxomnbéy § 41. In the Old Testament it is always a trans- lation of D\% ‘a blemish’.
4. xapay x.t.A.] As in Luke i. 14 (comp. Matt.’v. 12, Rev. xix. 7); see also Mart. Polyc. 18. This combi- nation of words yapa kali dyadXiacts does not occur in the LXx.
6. ia Tov ayiov mvevpatos] See the note on § 59 rois vm avrov ov nuav eipnuévors. Harnack takes these words with éexkoWyre, but this does not seem so natural.
dOéuirov| Acts x. 28, 1 Pet. iv. 3; and so too 2 Macc. vi. 5, vii. I, x. 34.
7. ¢ndous| See the note on g A.
evtrevéw| This should probably be explained of the ‘appeal’ to the Cor- inthians oe see the note on [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 19. Itmight how- ever refer to thes foregoing ‘prayer’ to God for concord; comp. e.g. 1 Tim. Maiev. §, Ferm. Mand.x.'2:;
9. avdpas| Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, whose names are given below, § 65. For the light which this notice throws on the early history of the Roman Church see the in- troduction, I. p. 27 sq; and for its bearing on the date, see I. p. 349.
/ {¢ € > , TaOnS TAaPKOS, O exAeEa-
g 6€ kal] S; dé (om. Kal) C. 15 Aourdv] C;
II ot- ..cov A; dourdv dé S.
10. ynpovs] So Luke i. 36 yype (the correct reading), and in several passages in the LXX, e.g. Ps. xci (xcii). 14 ynpet, I Kings xiv. 4 ynpous, Ecclus. viil. 6, etc., with more or less agreement in the principal Mss; so also Clem. Hom. iil. 43. On this form see Winer Gramm. § ix. p. 73 Sq, Steph. Zhes. s.v., ed. Hase. Our MS has also ynpet above in § 10, where A reads ynpa.
LXIV. ‘Finally, may the God of all spirits and all flesh, who hath chosen us in Christ Jesus, grant us all graces through Christ, our High- priest, through whom be glory and honour to Him. Amen.’
15. Aourov] For Xourdy or 76 dor- mov, with which S. Paul frequently ushers in the close of his epistles, see Philippians ii. 1. The happy conjecture of Vansittart which I adopted in my first edition is con- firmed by our new authorities.
mavterontns| See the note on § 55.
Geds...T@y mvevpatyv «.T.A.] Num. XXV1l. 16 Kupwos 6 Geos Trav mvevpat@v Kal t1aons aapkds (Comp. Xvi. 22): see also Heb. xil. 9 r@ marpi Tov mvevpd- tov, Rev. xxll. 6 Kupios 0 Ocds tov TVEVLATOY TOV TpopnTav.
16. 0 &€kAeEauevos| See Luke ix. 35 O vios rou 6 ékXedeypévos (the correct reading, though there are wv. Il.
186
\ / > “A mevos Tov Kuprov *Incour > \ / / ets Aaov TeEpLovaLoY, dwn
\ \ e/ MeyaNorpeTes Kal ayLov
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
[LXIV
\ \ € a > 3 = XpirTov Kat yuas Ov avTou maon \ruxyn émikekAnpevn TO
2 es eae tt ag 1 > = 7 / OvOMa avTOU TIOTLY, poBor,
2 / / / ’ lf ¢€ / Elonynv, vmouovnv, pakpoOumlay, eyKpaTelav, ayvelrav
\ / > > / ~ > / lo kat Gwppocvyny, Els EVAPETTHOLW TW OVOMATL AUTOU 5
1 nas] AS; nets C.
plav] A; Kat waxpodupiav CS. éyKpareav Kal ayvelav S. évouatt] AC; add. sancto S.
exAextos and dyamnros). So too Luke XXlill. 35 0 Xpioros 6 Tov ©Oeov ek- Aextos : comp. I Pet. il. 4sq. Harnack refers to Hermes Sz. v. 2 éxde&a- pevos SovAdv Twa moro Kal evapedTov evriywov, where the servant entrusted with the vineyard represents Christ. It is clear from Enoch xl. 5, xlv. 3, 4, li. 3, lit. 6, xii. 1, that 6 éxAexros was a recognized designation of the Messiah.
I. npas de avrov] Ephes. i. 4 xaé- os e&eheEato nuas ev avT@ (i.e. ev XpwioT@).
2. els adv meptovowov| Deut. xiv. 4 kal oe e&ehéEato Kuptos 6 eds cov yevéoOa oe aov av’T@ Tepwovorvov ; comp. 20. vii. 6, xxvi. 18, Exod. xix. 5, Ps. cxxxiv. 4, Tit. i. 14 xadapion €auT@ aov meprovowov. In the LXX ads meptovovos is a translation of abip Oy, the expression doubtless present to S. Peter’s mind when he spoke of Aads cis mwepuroinow (1 Pet. ii. 9). In Mal. iii. 17 mS9p is trans- lated eis mepuroinow in the LXx, and meptovotos by Aquila. As mbip is ‘peculium ’, ‘opes’, (bap ¢ acquisivit’), meprovavos Would seem to mean ‘ac- quired over and above’, and hence ‘specially acquired’ with a meaning similar to the classical é£aiperos. It was rendered at once literally and effectively in the Latin Bible by ‘peculiaris’. See my Revzston of the
3 meyadomperés kal dy.ov] AC; sanctum et decens (tx) magnitudine et gloriosum S; see above, I. p. 137. povnv] AC; et cimorem et concordiam et amorem et patientiam S.
poBov, eipnvnv, viro- 4 paKpodu-
éyKpareav, ayvelavy] AC (but aynav A); kai 5 Kal cwhpoavvnv] AS; cwppoctvny (om. kal) C. 6 apxrepéws] AC; add. magni S.
7 50g] English New Testament p. 195 sq (édi-2).
emuxexAnuery | ‘which hath in- voked his name’; comp. Acts ii. 21, ix. 14, 21, xxil. 16, etc. So it is trans- lated actively in the Syriac. Or is it rather, as the perfect tense suggests, ‘which ts called by his name’? This latter makes better sense, especially in connexion with Aads mepiovoros ; but with this meaning the common constructions in biblical Greek would be ef nv (or ef 7) emixéxAnrae TO dvona avrov (e.g. Acts xv. 17, James ll. 7, and freq. in the LXX), or rH éae- KekAnwevn TO Ovoparte avrov (Is. xlili. 7).
4. dyveiav kai cwhpocvynv| So too leon. Ephes. 10; comp. ‘Tit! aig a@ppovas, ayvas.
5. evapeotnow| The word occurs Lest. git Pair Vsiias
6. apxtepéws kal mpoorarov| See the note on § 36 above, where the expression is expanded.
7. Oo€a kai peyatwavvn| See the note on § 20, where also these two words occur together in a doxology : comp. also § 59, where nearly the same combination of words as here is repeated. In Rev. v. 13 we have 7 Tin Kal y Soa kal TO Kpatos els Tovs ai@vas TOY aiaver.
LXV. ‘We have sent Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito to you. Let them return to us quickly accom-
LXv| TO THE CORINTHIANS.
187 1a TOU caipy Lepews Kal T POG TATOV yuwv *lnoov XpirTou* &’ ov avt@ ddfa Kal meyadwourn, KpaTos, Tyuy, Kal aunv.
LXV. Tous d€ drextaduevous ad’ nuwv Kravduov
“ \ / \ SN lon ba VUV Kal ELS TWAVTAS TOUS ALWVAS TWV ALWVYWY,.
? 2 lé , ‘ \ ‘4 10” EgnBov cai Ovadépiov Bitwva cuv kat Poptovvatw év AC; maca 56a S, which omits the following words kai weyadkwovvn, Kpdtos, TLLh, kat] om. C, Tin] A; Kal rin C. 8 mavras] AC; 10 Kal Ovadépiov] AC; Valerium (om. kal) or e¢ Alerium S; but this is doubtless owing to the accidental omission of a } before prands) by a Syrian
Kal voy Kal. om. S.;
scribe.
avy (om. kai) S.
panied by Fortunatus, and bear glad tidings of harmony and peace re- stored among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all. Through Him be glory to God for ever.’
9g. KaAavdiuv x«7.A.]| These two names, Claudius and Valerius, sug- gest some connexion with the im- perial household ; as the fifth Czesar with his two predecessors belonged to the Claudian gens and his empress Messalina to the Valerian. Hence it happens that during and after the reign of Claudius we not unfre- quently find the names Claudius (Claudia) and Valerius (Valeria) in conjunction, referring to slaves or retainers of the Cesars. It is not impossible therefore that these two delegates of the Roman Church were among the members of ‘ Czsar’s household’ mentioned in Phil. iv. 22, and fairly probable that they are in some way connected with the palace; see the dissertation in Phzliphians p. 169 sq. On this subject see also the introduction, I. p. 27 sq. Of the two cognomina Ephebus is not so un- common, On the other hand Bito is rare in Latin, though commoner in Greek (comp. Pape-Benseler Worterb. ad. Griech. Eitgennamen s.v.
Birov). For instances in Latin of
Birwva] AC; om. S. The punctuation of both C and §S is faulty here, in separating names which belong to the same person. Poprowvatw] A; Povprowdatw C; Frutunato S.
avv kal] AC;
this and allied names see above, I. p. 28. In Muratori, 1367 no. 12, it occurs as awoman’s name, LONGINVS. BITONI. VXORI. AMENTO.
10. guy kai oprovvdra| For the position of kat comp. Phil. iv. 3 pera kat KAnpervtos (quoted by Laurent p- 425). Hilgenfeld adds ‘from the Assumption of Moses’ Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 15 (p. 806) oy kai To XadeB. The clever emendation of Davies ctv Tai boprovvare is there- fore unnecessary ; and moreover the testimony of A is now reinforced by one other Greek MS. The form of expression seems to separate Fortu- natus from Ephebus and Bito: and, if so, he was perhaps not a Roman who accompanied the letter, but a Corinthian from whom Clement was expecting a visit. In this case there is no improbability in identifying him with the Fortunatus of 1 Cor. xvl. 17; for Fortunatus seems to be mentioned by S. Paul (A.D. 57) as a younger member of the household of Stephanas, and might well be alive less than forty years after, when Clement wrote. It must be remem- bered however, that Fortunatus is a very common name. See above, I. p-,.29, nate 3, p..62,, note. 1,
ev eipnvy k.t.A.] I Cor. xvi. II mpo- mépvare S€ avtov ev eipnyn.
188
THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT. [LXV
5] / \ land VA / \ € ~ Elpnyn META Xapas ev TaXEL advaTEUyaTE TPOS 1Mas, / a \ , ores r = ea Omws Oattov Thy EevKTalay Kal érimoOnTHY Helv Elpnyny \ / / > \ / \ € a“ Kal OMOVOLav amrayyeAAwol* Els TO TAaYXLOV Kal Nas 4 \ ~ / = xapnvar mept THS evoTalelas UMD. / lol / cond a ~ c ~~ ‘H xapis Tov Kupiov juwv Incov Xpiorov pel vuwv 5 \ \ / ~ ~ / Gy \ ~ Kal META TavTWY TavTayHn TwY KEeKANMEVWY VITO TOU oe \ ? ? = b) G 3 Toa / / Ui \ Ocou kai Ov avrov: Si ov avTw So€a, TYun, KpaTOS Kal / Vf MIR \ ~ A 6 > \ peyadwovrvn, Opovos aiwvios, ao TwWY alwywy Els TOUS aes as ay / ALWVAS TWY ALWYwWY. any. I dvaméuparte] averewpare A. kal oudvoravy] AC; ouovoray kal envy S.
e(pnvnv 3 amayyé\\wow] A (the first \ being supplied above the line but prima manu); amayyeidwow C. TaxLov] Taxero A. 4 evoTabelas] evoratiac A. 7 Kal d¢ adrod] AS; 6¢ av’rod (om. kat) C. TUN ...a70 Tov aidvwv] AC; om. S. As the general tendency of S is rather to add than to omit, the omissions in this neighbourhood (more especially in the proper names) suggest that the translator’s copy of the Greek was blurred or mutilated in this part. It must be observed however that the omissions of S, here and above § 64, reduce
2 émimoOynrnv) A; émvrddnrov C.
the doxology to Clement’s normal type; comp. e.g. §§ 32, 38, 43, 45, 50-
AS; kai es C,
8 eis]
For the subscriptions in our authorities see above, I. pp. 117, 122, I3I-
2. @Oarrov] This form is doubly strange here, as it does not occur in the New Testament, and Clement uses the usual taysoyv two lines be- low. O©arrov however is found in Mart. Ign. 3, 5, Mart. Polyc. 13, in which latter passage Oarroy and ra- xvov occur in consecutive sentences as here. Both our MSS agree in reading Oarroyv here, and rayvoy just below.
evxtaiav| The word does not oc- cur in the LXxX or New Testament, though common in classical Greek.
exuroOnrnv| As an adjective of three terminations; comp. Barnab. S 1 » eémuroOntn ovis vpov, where Hilgenfeld unnecessarily reads émuro- Ontos. The feminine does not occur in the LXX or New Testament. For similar instances of adjectives of three terminations in the New Tes- tament see A. Buttmann p. 22 sq; and on the whole subject refer to
Lobeck Farad. p. 455 sq, especially P- 473 Sdq-
4. evotabetas | ‘tranguillity’ ; comp. Wisd. vi. 26, 2 Macc. xiv. 6. On ev- orale see the notes to Ign. Polyc. 4.
6. kal peta mavroy x«.t.rA.] For a benediction similarly extended see I Cor. i. 2 odv mace Tots emiKadoupEvors TO Ovopa K.T.A.
8. Opovos aiwvos| This doxology is imitated in JZart. Polyc. 21 "Inaov Xpicrov © 9 Soga, Tin, peyakoovrn, Opovos aiwvios, amd yeveas eis yevear. Here Opoves aiwvos seems to be thrown in as an after thought, the ascription having ended with kat peyadkwovrn ; and the idea of aiwmos is prolonged by the thrice repeated aidvwy, aidvas, aiaver.
For the obligations of the begin- ning and end of this same document to the Epistle of Clement see Zgvaz. and Polyc. 1. p. 610 sq, ed. I (p. 626 sq, ed. 2).
THE SO-CALLED
2 OND EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENS
ee Oo RIN TANS
oo oi ioe ka) a Ake an Ue fu Ny a oe hs ae ia : ; : ral ree Mf Mire
a ihe a Pita
AN ANCIENT: HOMILY.
I.
E have seen that ihe table of contents prefixed to our leading ms (A) ascribes to Clement the Second Epistle equally with the First. On the other hand it ought to be noticed that there is no heading tpoc kopinéioyc B, as the corresponding title of the First would lead us to expect. If we could feel sure that this phenomenon was not due to the mutilation of the ms (see above, I. p. 117), the fact would be significant. ‘Though the scribe held the Second Epistle to be not only a letter of Clement, but also (as we may perhaps infer) a letter to the Corinthians; yet the absence of such a title might have been transmitted from an earlier copy, where the work was anonymous and not intended to be ascribed to this father. But the alternative supposition that the title has disappeared by mutilation is at Jeast not improbable (see below, p. 199). In the later Greek ms (C) the second Epistle is entitled ‘Of Clement to the Corinthians’, like the first (see above, I. p. 122).
On the other hand the Syriac Version makes a distinction between the two (see I. p. 131 sq). The First Epistle is described as ‘The Catholic Epistle of Clement the disciple of Peter the Apostle to the Church of the Corinthians’; where not only is the epistle not numbered, but a distinguishing epithet is prefixed. In the case of the Second however, though the scribe makes no difference in the authorship and designation of the two, the title is given more simply ‘Of the same (Clement) the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.’ This distinction may be accidental; but a probable explanation is, that in some Greek ms, from which the Syriac Version was ultimately derived, the First Epistle stood alone, the Second not having yet been attached to it.
While the First Epistle is universally attributed to Clement, the balance of external testimony is strongly opposed to his being regarded
IQ2 THE EPISTLES OF S CLEMENT.
as the author of the Second. It is first mentioned by Eusebius, who throws serious doubts on its genuineness (77. Z. iii. 37). After describing the First he adds, ‘I should mention also that there is said to be a Second Epistle of Clement (icréov 8 ws kat devrépa tis etvar A€yerar Tod KAyjpevtos érictoAy) : but we do not know that this is recognised like the former (ov pv €f opoiws TH tpotépa Kal Tadtyv yvwpysov erictapeOa) ; for we do not find the older writers making any use of it (67t nde Kal Tovs apxaiovs avtT Kexpnuevous topev). Then after summarily rejecting other pretended Clementine writings, because ‘ they are never once mentioned by the ancients’ and ‘do not preserve the stamp of Apostolic orthodoxy intact’, he concludes by referring again to the First Epistle, which he calls ‘the acknowledged writing of Clement (7 tod KAjpevtos ouodoyov- pevn ypady). And in other passages, where he has occasion to speak of it, he uses similar expressions, ‘¢ie Epistle of Clement’, ‘the acknowledged Epistle of Clement’ (ZZ. £. iii. 16, iv. 22, 23, vi. 13). The statement of Eusebius is more than borne out by facts. Not only is a Second Epistle of Clement not mentioned by early writers ; but it is a reasonable inference from the language of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth’ (as reported by Eusebius), and of Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria (as read in their extant writings), that they cannot have known or at least accepted any such epistle*. Rufinus and Jerome use still more decisive language. ‘The former professedly translates Eusebius, ‘Dicitur esse et alia Clementis epistola cujus nos notitiam non accept- mus’; the latter tacitly paraphrases him, ‘ Fertur et secunda ejus nomine epistola guae a veteribus reprobatur’ (de Vir. Ill. 15). These writers are not independent witnesses, but the strength, which they consciously or unconsciously add to the language of the Greek original, has at least a negative value ; for they could not have so written, if any Second Epistle
1 Hegesippus, A. Z£. iii. 16, iv. 22: Dionysius, H. Z. iv. 23. The words of the latter are Thy ofmepoy otvy KuptaKny dylav nuépay dinydyouer, ev 7 dvéyrwpev Wav Thy éemioToNnv, jv eEomev del more dvaywwoKovres vov0ereicOar, ws Kai Ti mpotépay huiv dua KdXnuevros ypadetcar. He is writing in the name of the Corin- thians to the Romans, acknowledging a letter which they had received from the brethren in Rome written apparently by their bishop Soter; and he declares that his Church will preserve and read from time to time this second letter from the Romans, as they do the former which
was written by Clement. Thus he seems to know of only one letter of Clement to the Corinthians. The passage however has been strangely misinterpreted, as though ri mporépay meant ¢he former of Clements two epistles —a meaning which the context does not at all favour and which the grammar excludes, for then we should require ry mpotépar rav dud Kdjuevtos ypapeoav.
* The passages from these, and later fathers, to whom I shall have occasion to refer, are given in full above, I. p.
153 Sq.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 193
of Clement which might be accepted as genuine had fallen within the range of their knowledge.
Early in the 9th century Georgius Syncellus still speaks of ‘the one genuine letter to the Corinthians’ (CZronog. a.D. 78, 1. p. 651, ed. Dind.); and later in the same century Photius (472. 113) writes, ‘ The so-called Second Epistle (of Clement) to the same persons (the Corinthians) is rejected as spurious (ws vofos aodokialerar).’
Meanwhile however this epistle had been gradually gaining recog- nition as a genuine work of Clement. The first distinct mention of it as such is in the ms A, which belongs probably to the fifth century ; but the notice of Eusebius implies that even in his day some persons were disposed to accept it. Ata later period its language and teaching made it especially welcome to the Monophysites and from the close of the 5th century it is frequently quoted as genuine. Thus citations are found in TIMOTHEUS of ALEXANDRIA (I. p. 180 sq) in the middle of the 5th century and in Severus of ANTIOCH (I. p. 182 sq) during the early decades of the 6th, besides certain anonymous Syriac collections (1. p. 183 sq), which may date from this latter period or subsequently. The doubtful reference in the PSEUDO-JuUSTIN has been discussed above (I. p. 178 sq). To the 6th century also may perhaps be ascribed the AposToLicaL Canons, where (can. 85) ‘Two Epistles of Clement’ are included among the books of the New Testament (see above, I. p. 187). About the opening of the 7th century again it is quoted by DororHEus the ARCHIMANDRITE (see I. p. 190); in the 8th century by JoANNES DaMASCENUS (see I. p. 193), if indeed the passage has not been interpolated’; and in the 11th by Nicown of RH#THUS (see the notes, § 3). If in the Stcchometria attached to the Chronography of NicepHorus (ta.D. 828) it is placed with the First Epistle among the apocrypha, this classification does not question its genuineness but merely denies its canonicity.
But what is the external authority for considering it an “fzs¢le to the Corinthians? We have seen that it is called an Afzst/e from the first ; but the designation fo the Corinthians is neither so early nor so universal. It was not so designated by Eusebius or Jerome or Timotheus. But in SEvVERUS of ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 520) for the first time a quotation is distinctly given as ‘from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians’. The Syriac s itself which contains the extract from Severus ‘can hardly,’ in Cureton’s opinion, ‘have been transcribed later than the commencement of the 8th century and might have been
1 See the investigation above, I. p. 373 Sq- CLEM. II. "3
194 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
written about the end of the 6th.’ In other Syriac extracts also which perhaps belong to the 6th century, it is quoted in this way. In the copy used by Photius again it appears to have been so entitled (B70/. 126 BiBrWaprov év @ KAnpevtos éxiotoAal pds KopwOiovs B" évedépovto, compared with Bibl. 113 7 Aeyopévn Sevtépa pds Tovs avrovs) ; and John Damascene twice cites it as ‘the Second Epistle to the Corinthians’.
Passing from the external to the internal evidence, we have to seek an answer to these several questions; (1) Is it truly designated an Epistle? (2) Was it addressed to the Corinthians? (3) What indi- cations of date does it give? (4) Who was the author, Clement or another ?
2.
Having considered the external testimony, we are now in a position to interrogate the internal evidence.
The questions suggested by the common attribute, ‘The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,’ are threefold; (1) Was it an epistle? If not, what is the nature of the document? (2) Was it addressed to the Corinthians or to some other Church? (3) Was it written by Clement or by some one else? In order to answer this last question we have to enquire what indications we find of date and authorship ?
(i) The answer to our first question is ready to hand. If the First Epistle of Clement is the earliest foreshadowing of a Christian liturgy, the so-called Second Epistle is the first example of a Christian Aomz/y.
The newly recovered ending has set this point at rest for ever. The work is plainly not a letter, but a homily, a sermon’. The speaker addresses his hearers more than once towards the close as ‘brothers and sisters’ (§§ 19, 20). Elsewhere he appeals to them in language which is quite explicit on the point at issue. ‘Let us not think,’ he says, ‘to give heed and believe now only, while we are being admonished
1 Grabe (Spzc. Patr. 1. p. 268, 300) in Clement’s name. The event has supposed it to be a homily forged in shown his conjecture to be right as to Clement’s name. He referred to Anas- the character of the document. In all tasius (Quaest. 96), who quotes from the other respects he is in error. The Cle- sacred and apostolic doctor Clement in ment of Anastasius is not the Roman, his first discourse (Aéyw) concerning but the Alexandrian; and our homily ‘providence and righteous judgment,’ as__ bears no traces of a forgery or of pre- showing that such homilies were forged tending to be Clement’s.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 195
by the presbyters; but likewise when we have departed home, let us remember the commandments of the Lord, etc.’ (§ 17). And again a little later he speaks still more definitely; ‘After the God of truth, I read to you an exhortation to the end that ye may give heed to the things which are written (i.e. to the scriptures which have just been read), so that ye may save both yourselves and him that readeth in the midst of you’ (§ 19). These words remind us of the language in which Justin, who wrote within a few years of the probable date of this homily, describes the simple services of the Christians in his time. ‘On the day called Sunday,’ he says, ‘all remaining in their several cities and districts, they come together in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles [i.e. the Gospels, as he explains himself elsewhere] or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time admits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president (6 zpoeorws) in a discourse (da Adyov) gives instruction and invites (his hearers) to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise in a body and offer up our prayers’ ‘(Apol. i. 67, quoted in the notes on § 19). Here then is one of these exhortations, which is delivered after the ‘God of truth’ has been first heard in the scriptures’; and, this being so, the preacher was doubtless, as Justin describes him, 6 zpoeotus, the leading minister of the Church, i.e. the bishop or one of the presbyters, as the case might be. A different view indeed has been taken by Harnack. He supposes that the homily was delivered by a layman’, drawing his inference from the mention of the presbyters (in § 17 just quoted) as persons whom the preacher and his hearers alike were bound to listen to. But this language can only be regarded, I think, as an example of a very common rhetorical figure, by which the speaker places himself on a level with his audience, and of which several instances are furnished by the genuine Epistle of Clement, who again and again identifies himself with the factious brethren at Corinth (see the note on $17). On very rare occasions indeed we read of laymen preaching in the early Church ; but such concessions were only made to persons who had an exceptionally brilliant reputation, like Ongen*. Asa rule, this function belonged to
1 Exception has been taken to this expression meta Tov Ocdv THs adnOeias. Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. p. 1418) and Donaldson (Z%eol. Rev. January, 1877, p- 46) propose dédyov for Oedv, while Gebhardt suggests rovwy or Tévov (TONON or TONOY for TONON). But it is difficult to see why our preacher should not have used this phrase, when he elsewhere in-
troduces an evangelical quotation with Aéyet 0 Oeds, § 13; see the note on the passage. We do not even know whether the lesson to which he here refers was taken from the Old or the New Testa- ment.
2 See p. Ixxii, note 11, p. 138 (ed. 2). So also Hilgenfeld, p. 106 (ed. 2).
3 The objections raised in his case
13—2
196 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. the chief ecclesiastical officer in the congregation. A presbyter did not preach when the bishop was present; a deacon was for the most part regarded as incompetent to preach on any occasion’.
The question therefore respecting the class of writings to which this document belongs is settled beyond dispute. The homiletic character of the work was suggested long ago by Grabe and others; and in my own edition I had regarded the opinion that it was a sermon or treatise rather than a letter as prima facie probable, though so long as the end was wanting this view could not be regarded as certain. On the other hand the theory propounded by Hilgenfeld, that we had here the letter of Soter bishop of Rome to the Corinthians, mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth about a.D. 170, was eagerly accepted by subsequent critics and editors. In a courteous review of my edition which appeared in the Academy (July 9, 1870) Lipsius espoused this theory as probable. And still later, on the very eve of the discovery of Bryennios, Harnack in the excellent edition of the Patres Apostolict of which he is coeditor had confidently adopted Hilgenfeld’s opinion; ‘Nullus dubito quin Hilgenfeldius verum invenerit,’ ‘mireris...neminem ante Hilgenfeldium
verum invenisse’ (prol. pp. xci, xcil, ed. 1).
show that the practice was rare. Alex- ander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Ceesarea (Euseb. 1. £. vi. 19), writing to Demetrius of Alexandria, defend them- selves for according this privilege to Origen, as follows: mpooé@ynxe dé Tots ypdupmaciw, br. TovTo ovdé ToTE HKovTOn ovde viv yeyévyTal, 76 TWapévTo émicKoT OD Aaikods Outrelv, ovK 016’ Orrws mpopavds ovK GAnOHR A€ywv. Strov yodv eEvpicxovTar oi EmLTNOELOL TpPds TO WHEAEW Tos ddeAgors, kal mapakadobyrat TO Aaw Mpocoptdely bd THv aylwy émickdTav, woTep ev Aapdy- dors Evers bd Néwvos cal &v “Ikovip IlavAtvos bd Kédoov kcal €v Zuvvddors Ocddwpos bd ’ArTikod Trav wakaplwy dbed- puv: eikds 6é cal €v GdXos TéTos TolTO ylvecOa, nuas dé un eidévar.
1 See Bingham Azftzg. xiv. 4. 2, 4; Augusti Christl. Archdol. V1. p. 315 sq; Probst Lehre u. Gebet pp. 18 sq, 222.
2 See esp. pp. 177, 178. I cali at- tention to this, because my view has been misrepresented. Thus Lipsius (Academy, July 9, 1870) wrote of me, ‘ He holds
This view was highly
strongly with Hilgenfeld that the docu- ment is really a letter, not a homily.’ So far from holding this view strongly, I have stated that we find in the docu- ment ‘nothing which would lead to this inference,’ and again that it ‘ dears no traces of the epistolary form, though it may fossibly have been a letter’; but I did not consider that in the existing condition of the work certainty on this point was attainable, and I therefore suspended judgment. When my able reviewer goes on to say of me ‘ He also agrees with Hilgenfeld in the opinion, that the epistle was composed during the persecution under Marcus Aurelius,’ he imputes to me a view directly opposed to that which I have expressed (p. 177, ed. 1).
I think also that the reader would gather from the manner in which I am mentioned by Harnack (p. lxvi, note 2, p. lxxv) as ‘ refuting’ Grabe, that I had maintained the document to be an epistle and not a homily; though probably this was not intended.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 197 plausible and attractive; but it was open to one objection which I pointed out as fatal to it. It did not satisfy the primary conditions of the letter mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, which was written in the name of the whole Roman Church, whereas our author speaks in the singular throughout’.
(iil) As regards the audience addressed by the preacher Corinth has highest claims. Ifthe homily were delivered in that city, we have an explanation of two facts which are not so easily explained on any other hypothesis.
first. The allusion to the athletic games, and presumably to the Isthmian festival, is couched in language which is quite natural if addressed to Corinthians, but not so if spoken elsewhere. When the preacher refers to the crowds that ‘land’ to take part in the games (cis rods POaprods ayavas katamdéovew, § 7) without any mention of the port, we are naturally led to suppose that the homily was delivered in the neighbourhood of the place where these combatants landed. Other- wise we should expect eis tov "IoOyov, or eis KopuvGov, or some explana- tory addition of the kind’.
Secondly. ‘This hypothesis alone satisfactorily explains the dissemi- nation and reputed authorship of the document. It was early attached to the Epistle of Clement in the mss and came ultimately to be attri- buted to the same author. How did this happen? The First Epistle was read from time to time in the Church of Corinth, as we know. This homily was first preached, if my view be correct, to these same Corinthians; it was not an extempore address, but was delivered from a manuscript*; it was considered of sufficient value to be carefully pre-
1 Wocher (der Brief des Clemens etc. p- 204) suggested that the author was Dionysius himself. This theory had the advantage of connecting it with Clement’s genuine letter (though not very directly) ; and it explained the local colouring. But it has nothing else to commend it.
2 Thus in Plat. Zuthyd. 297 C veworl, foot Ookewv, KaTamemAevKoTL, Where the word is used absolutely, we naturally under- stand the place in which the speaker is at the time.
3 § 19 mera Tov Ocdy Tis ddnOelas dva- yivaokw buiv évreviw eis TO tpoodxew Tos yeypamméevors, iva Kal éavTo’s cwonTeE
Kal Tov avayliva@aoKkovTa év tuiv. It is
possible however, that the homily was originally delivered extempore and taken down by short-hand writers (raxvypagor, notarii), and that the references to the reader were introduced afterwards when it was read in the Church as a homily. The employment of short-hand writers was frequent. We read of discourses of Origen taken down in this way (Euseb. H.£. vi. 36): and Origen himself on one occasion (Comm. in Zoanm. vi. praef., IV. p. 101) excuses himself for not having gone on with his work by the fact that the ‘customary short-hand writers’ were not there, kai of cuv7bes 6é Taxvypddor bn TapovTes TOO €xecOa Tw VTayopetcewr
198 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
served; and (as we may venture to suppose) it was read publicly to the Christian congregation at Corinth from time to time, like the genuine Epistle of Clement. The fact that these Corinthians took for public reading not only the Epistle of Clement, which might be thought to have acquired a peculiar sanctity by its venerable age, but also the much later letter of the Romans under bishop Soter, shows the practice of this church in reference to uncanonical documents. In this way it would be bound up with the Epistle of Clement for convenience. In such a volume as is here supposed, the Epistle of Clement would be numbered and entitled thus:
rN KAHMENTOC TIPOC KOPINOIOYC
with or without the addition emictoAu ; while the homily which stood next in the volume might have had the heading
B TTPOC KOPINOIOYC with or without the addition Aoroc or omiAia, just as Orations of Dion Chrysostom bear the titles tpoc adeZaNApeic, Trpoc atrameic; the author of the sermon however not being named. In the course of transcription the enumeration a, 8, would easily be displaced, so that the two works would seem to be of the same kind and by the same author’. Asa matter of fact, indications are not wanting in our existing authorities, that after this homily had been attached to S. Clement’s Epistle it re- mained anonymous in the common document which contained both works. In the Alexandrian Ms there is no heading at all to the so- called Second Epistle (see above, I. p. 117). This fact however cannot
€xwdvov; comp. Photius Azb/. 121. At alternative is suggested by Harnack
a later date this became a common mode of preserving pulpit oratory: see Bing- ham Ant. xiv. 4. 11. It was not un- common for sermons and lectures to be taken down surreptitiously: see Gaudent. Praef. p. 220 (Patrol. Lat. Xx. p. 831 Migne) ‘notariis, ut comperi, latenter ap- positis’ (with the note). On stenography among the ancients see Ducange G/os- savium IV. p. 642 sq (ed. Henschel) s. v. Nota, together with the references col- lected in Mayor’s Bib/. Clue to Lat. Lit. p- 175 sq. See also Contemporary ke- view October 1875, p. 841 note. This
Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p. 268. The hypothesis would at all events have the merit of explaining the incoherence and looseness of expression which we find in this work; but in the absence of evi- dence it is safer to assume that the ser- mon was committed to writing by the preacher himself.
1 This opinion was arrived at indepen- dently of the remarks of Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. Nov. 8, 1876, p. 1430 sq), and I am the more glad to find that he accounts for the common heading of this sermon in a similar way. See also I. p. 371, note I.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 199
be pressed, for it seems not unlikely that the title has been cut off’. But in the case of the Syriac version the testimony is free from suspicion. Here the genuine letter is called in the heading not ‘ The First Epistle of Clement’ but ‘The Catholic Epistle of Clement,’ as if it were the only known letter written by this father (see above, p. 191). In both cases however the scribes themselves have in some other part of their respective Mss designated our work the Second Epistle of Clement ; and this fact renders the survival of the older form only the more signi- ficant.
For these reasons I adhere to Corinth as the place of writing. On the other hand Harnack has with much ability maintained the Roman origin of this document’; and it is due to his arguments to consider them.
The external evidence seems to him to point in this direction. He remarks on the fact that this writing appears to have been very little known in the East during the earliest ages. It is first mentioned by Eusebius, and Eusebius himself, as Harnack argues from his language, only knew it from hearsay*. It is very far from certain however, that this is the correct inference from the historian’s words, ioréov 8 ws Kat devrépa tis etvar Néyerar ToD Kdypevtos émiotoAn’ ot pv 6 opolws TH TpoTépa Kal TavTnv yvwpiynov émiotapeOa, ote pnde Tovs apxaiovs avTH Kexpnuevovs iopev (ZZ. £. iii. 38). The hearsay implied in déyerat may refer equally well to the authorship as to the contents of the
1 This possibility was overlooked by me in my first edition pp. 22, 174. My attention was directed to it by a remark of Harnack (Z. f. K. 1. p. 275, note 1), who however incorrectly states that in A the First Epistle has ‘ page-headings over the columns.’ There is only one such page-heading, which stands over the first column as the title to the work. Having omitted to inspect the Ms myself with this view, I requested Mr E. M. Thompson of the British Museum to look at it and to give me his opinion. His report is to this effect:
The title to the First Epistle has small ornamental flourishes beneath. Between the bottom of these and the text there is a space of ~ of an inch. Over the first column of the Second Epistle (where the title should be, if there were any) the top of the leaf is cut obliquely so
that the space left between the top of the leaf and the text varies from 4% to # of an inch. Thus the space is quite con- sistent with the supposition that the title has been cut away. Moreover there is a single spot at the top of the page, which may have been the end of an ornamental flourish under the title, though this is doubtful.
The photograph for the most part represents these facts fairly well.
2 In two careful and valuable articles in the Zectschrift f. Kirchengeschichte 1. p. 264 sq, p. 329 sq, as well as in the prole- gomena to the 2nd ed. of the atres Apostolict Pt. 1, p. lxiv sq. He stated this view first in a review of the edition of Bryennios in the 7heologische Literatur- zettung Feb. 19, 1876.
& Zefa Miley We 200 Sq 4 Proll .iaee note 2.
200 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
book. In other words, Eusebius does not throw any doubt on the existence of such a work, but on its genuineness; and the language which follows suggests that the historian was himself acquainted with it. If the testimony of Eusebius be set aside, the earliest reference to its contents is found in the Quwaest. et Resp. ad Orthodoxos § 74, falsely ascribed to Justin Martyr’. This work is supposed to have been written at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and, as Harnack says, unless all appearances are deceptive, to have emanated from the Syro-Antiochene Church*®. Our next direct witness in point of date is probably the Alexandrian ms, about the middle of the fifth century. From that time forward the testimonies are neither few nor indistinct®.
This evidence is somewhat slight ; but it cannot be alleged against the Eastern origin of the work. Such as it is, it a/7 emanates from the Last. Neither early nor late do we hear a single voice from the West testifying to the existence of this Clementine writing, except such as are mere echoes of some Greek witness. External testimony therefore, though it may not be worth much, is directly opposed to Harnack’s theory.
From the zzternal character of the work again Harnack draws the same inference. He remarks on the close resemblances to the Shepherd of Hermas, and thence infers that it must have emanated ‘ex eadem communione ac societate*.’ Thus he makes it a product of the Church of Rome.
If these resemblances had referred to any peculiarities of the Roman Church generally, or of the Shepherd of Hermas in particular, the argument would have been strong. But this is not the case. The most striking perhaps is the doctrine of the heavenly Church (§ 14). But the passage, which is quoted in my notes, from Anastasius shows that this distinction of the celestial and the terrestrial Church, so far from being peculiar, was a common characteristic of the earliest Christian writers. And the statement of Anastasius is borne out by extant remains, as will appear from parallel passages also cited there. Again the pre-incarnate Son is spoken of in both documents as ‘Spirit’; but here also, though such language was repugnant to the dogmatic precision of a later age, the writers of the second century and of the
1 See 1. p. 178 sq, and the notes on 3 The references in my notes seem to § 16. show that it was known to a very early
2 See the article by Gass in Illgen’s writer, the author of Afost. Const. i—vi. Zeitschr. f. ad. hist. Theol. 1842, 1V. p. 143 4 Prol. p. lxx sq: comp, 2. J; iam sq, quoted by Harnack Z. f, K. 1. p.274- pp. 340, 344 Sq; 363-
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 201
earlier part of the third constantly use it without misgiving (see the note on § 9). Again both writings speak of baptism as ‘the seal,’ and the exhortation to purity of life takes the form of an injunction to ‘guard the seal.’ But in this case likewise we have an image which is common in Christian writers of the second century (see the note on § 7). Nor are other coincidences wanting, though less striking than these.
On the other hand the two writings present marked contrasts on points of special prominence. ‘There is a wide divergence for instance between the rigid, almost Encratite, view of the relations between the sexes which our Clementine author enunciates!, and the reasonable position of Hermas, which led the fierce Tertullian to denounce him as ‘pastor moechorum’.’ And again the difference of language regarding the relations of the two covenants is equally great. I cannot indeed regard the author of the Shepherd as a Judaizer, any more than I could regard our Clementine writer as a Marcionite: but the tendency of the one is to see in the Church a development of the Synagogue, whereas the other delights to set them in sharp contrast. And alto- gether it may be said that the points of difference in the two documents are more fundamental than the points of coincidence.
(iii) The third question, relating to the daze and authorship, receives some illustration from the newly discovered ending, though not so much as might have been hoped. Generally speaking the notices in this portion confirm the view which was indicated in my first edition, that it belongs to the first half of the second century, nor do they contain anything that is adverse to this view. MHarnack, as the result of a
1 § 12 Toro éyer iva ddedpos K.T.r. On the other hand Hermas (JZand. iv. t)
TH MEANOVTH gov 4bENP7, as showing that Hermas looked upon the single life
writes “EvréANopai co, Pact, pudrddocew Thy ayvelav: kal wn avaBawéTrw cov én Tiy Kapdlay mepl yuvatxos dAXoTpias 7 wept mopvelas Twos H Tepl ToLOUTwWY TeV OMoLwudTwY Tovnpav* TovTO yap Today apaptiay peyddnv éepydgn’ THs O€ offs fvnmovetwv avToTEe yuvackos ovdé- In this same sec- tion the husband is enjoined to take back into his society the wife who has been unfaithful, and just below (§ 4) second marriages are permitted to Christians, though the greater honour is assigned to those who remain in widowhood. On the other hand Harnack (Z. fi. X. 1. p- 348) quotes Vs. ii. 2 77 oupBiw cov
TOTE GUAPTHCELS.
as the ideal state, and he concludes that neither writer ‘thought of stopping mar- riage among Christians for the present.’ It is not clear what the words in zs. ii. 2 may mean; nor again is it certain that our Clementine preacher intended to en- force an absolute rule or to do more than give counsels of perfection. But the fact remains that the direct language of the one is in favour of latitude, of the other in favour of restraint.
2 Tertull. de Pudic. 10 ‘scriptura Pas- toris quze sola moechos amat...adultera et ipsa et inde patrona sociorum,’ 2d. 20 ‘illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum.’
202 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
thorough examination of the whole epistle, sets the limits of date as A.D. 130—-160; and, if it emanated from Rome (as he supposes to have been the case), he thinks that it must have been written within the first two decades of this period, i.e. within A.D. 130—150".
This view is reasonable. If it were necessary to mention any limits of date, where so much uncertainty exists, I should name a.D. 120—140}; but, as there is nothing in the work which militates against a still earlier date, so again it is impossible to affirm confidently that it might not have been written a few years later. The two main points in which the recently recovered portion strengthens the existing data for determining the age of the document are these.
First. We are furnished with additional information respecting the relations of the author to the Canon of the New Testament. He distinguishes between the Old and New Testament: the former he styles ‘the Books,’ ‘the Bible’ (ra B.BAla), while the latter (or a part of it) is designated ‘the Apostles’ (§ 14). This distinction separates him by a broad line from the age of the Muratorian writer, of Irenzus, and of Clement of Alexandria, i.e. from the last quarter of the second century. The fact also that he uses at least one apocryphal Gospel, which we can hardly be wrong in identifying with the Gospel of the Egyptians (see the notes on § 12), apparently as an authoritative document, points in the same direction. The writers just mentioned are all explicit in the acceptance of our four Canonical Gospels alone, as the traditional inheritance of the Church. This argument would be very strong in favour of an early date, if we could be quite sure that our homily was written by a member of the Catholic Church, and not by some sectarian or half-sectarian writer. On this point there is perhaps room for misgiving, though the former seems the more probable supposition. The general acceptance of this homily and its attribution to Clement certainly point to a Catholic origin ; and in its Christology also it is Catholic as opposed to Gnostic or Ebionite, but its Encratite tendencies (not to mention other phenomena) might suggest the opposite conclusion.
On the other hand our preacher quotes as ‘scripture’ (§ 6) a saying which appears in our Canonical Gospels. But this same passage is quoted in the same way in the Epistle of Barnabas, which can hardly have been written many years after A.D. 120 at the very latest, and may have been written much earlier ; and even Polycarp (§ 12), if the Latin text may be trusted, cites Ephes. iv. 26 as ‘scripture.’ Stronger in the same
2. fo. de. ep 363.2, comp. Prol. to be of Roman origin, he places it not p- Ixxiii sq (ed. 2), where, supposing it later than a.D. 135—140 (145).
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 203
direction is the fact that in the newly recovered portion our anonymous author introduces a saying of our Lord in the Gospels with the words ‘God saith’ (§ 13), having immediately before referred to ‘the Oracles of God’ in this same connexion, and that he elsewhere describes the reading of the Scriptures as the voice of ‘the God of truth’ speaking to the congregation (§ 19). As regards this latter passage however we do not know whether the scriptural lessons which had preceded the delivery of this homily were taken from the Old or from the New Testament.
Secondly. The relations of the preacher to Gnosticism furnish an indication of date though not very precise. He attacks a certain type of this heresy, but it is still in an incipient form. The doctrinal point on which he especially dwells is the denial of the resurrection of the body, or (as he states it) the ‘resurrection of this flesh’ (§§ 8, 9, 14, 16). As the practical consequence of this denial, the false teachers (§ 10 kaxod:- dacxaXodvres) were led to antinomian inferences. They inculcated an indifference (advadopia) with regard to fleshly lusts, and they permitted their disciples to deny their faith in times of persecution. This anti- nomian teaching is denounced by the preacher. But his polemic against Gnosticism does not go beyond this. There is no attack, direct or indirect, on the peculiar tenets of Valentinus and the Valentinians, of Marcion, or even of Basilides. And not only so, but he even uses language with regard to the heavenly Church which closely resembles the teaching of Valentinus respecting the zon Ecclesia (see the note on § 14), and which he would almost certainly have avoided, if he had written after this heresiarch began to promulgate his doctrine’. In like manner the language in which he sets the Church against the Synagogue would probably have been more guarded, if it had been uttered after Marcion had published his Antitheses in which the direct antagonism of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations was maintained. As it is a reasonable inference from the near approaches to Valentinian language in the Ignatian Epistles that they were written in the pre-Valentinian epoch’, seeing that the writer is a determined opponent of Gnosticism, and would not have compromised himself by such language after it had been abused, so also the same inference may be drawn here.
These considerations seem to point to a date not later than a.p. 40: and altogether the topics in this homily suggest a very primitive, though not apostolic, age of the Church. Whether we regard the exposition of doctrine or the polemic against false teachers or the state of the Christian
1 This argument drawn from therela- 2Z./f. X.1. pp. 359, 360. tion of the writer to Gnosticism is justly 2 See Jenat. and Polyc.1. p. 374, ed. 1; insisted upon by Harnack Pro/. p. Ixxii, __p. 385, ed. 2.
204. THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
society or the relation to the Scriptural Canon, we cannot but feel that we are confronted with a state of things separated by a wide interval from the epoch of Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria. At the same time other arguments have been alleged in favour of an early date, which will not bear the stress that has been laid upon them. Thus it is said that the preacher betrays no knowledge of the writings of S. John, or pos- sibly even of S. Paul’. As regards S. John, I have called attention to an indication that our author was not unacquainted with the Fourth Gospel (see the note on § 17), though the inference is not certain. As regards S. Paul, I cannot see any probable explanation of his appeal to ‘the Apo- stles’ as supporting his doctrine respecting the heavenly Church, except that which supposes him to be referring to S. Paul, and more especially to the Epistle to the Ephesians—not to mention echoes of this Apostle’s language elsewhere in this homily*. But even if it be granted that he shows no knowledge of the writings of either Apostle, does it follow that he had none? What numbers of sermons and tracts, published in the name of authors living in this nineteenth century, must on these grounds be relegated to the first or second! And again, if he says nothing about episcopacy’, does it follow that he knew nothing about it, and therefore must have written before this institution existed ? This argument again would, I imagine, remove to a remote antiquity a large portion, probably not less than half, of the theological literature of our own age.
But, while criticism suggests probable or approximate results with regard to the locality and the date, it leaves us altogether in the dark as respects the authorship; for the opinions maintained by the three editors who have discussed this question since the recent dis- covery of the lost ending, must, I venture to think, be discarded. All three alike agree in the retention of Clement as the author, but under- stand different persons bearing this name.
(x) In the first place Bryennios (p. pv’) maintains that the homily is the work of none other than the famous Clement whose name it bears, the bishop of Rome’. This view however has nothing to recom-
Prenack Pro. p. ixxili, Z. 7. K. 1. p- 361 sq. He regards it as uncertain, though probable, that our author had read S. Paul’s Epistles. At the same time he considers it strange that S. Paul’s name is not mentioned. As most of our author’s quotations (even when
taken from the Old Testament) are ano- nymous, this fact can hardly surprise us.
2 See the notes on § 14.
3 Harnack Prol. p. Ixxii, Z. f- K. 1. p. 359-
4 This had been the view of Cotelier, Bull, Galland, Lumper, and others; who
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 205
mend it, and has found no favour with others. Indeed all the arguments which, even when we possessed it only in a mutilated form, were suf: ficient to deter us from ascribing it to the author of the genuine epistle or indeed to any contemporary, are considerably strengthened, now that we have it complete.
(i) The writer delights to identify himself and his hearers with Gentile Christianity. He speaks of a time when he and they worshipped stocks and stones, gold and silver and bronze (§ 1). He and they are prefigured by the prophet’s image of the barren woman who bore many more children than she that had the husband, or, as he explains it, than the Jewish people ‘who seem to have God’ (§ 2). On the other hand the genuine Clement never uses such language. On the contrary he looks upon himself as a descendant of the patriarchs, as an heir of the glories of the Israelite race; and (what is more important) he is thoroughly imbued with the feelings of an Israelite, has an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures (though not in the original tongue), and is even conversant with the apocryphal literature of the race and with the traditional legends and interpretations. In short his language and tone of thought proclaim him a Jew, though a Hellenist. (11) On the difference in style I do not lay great stress; because, where there is much play for fancy, there is much room also for self-deception, and criticism is apt to become hypercritical. Yet I think it will be felt by all that the language of this Second Epistle is more Hellenic and less Judaic, though at the same time more awkward and less natural, than the First. (iii) The argument from the theology is stronger than the argument from the style, but not very strong. ‘There is a more decided dogmatic tone in the Second Epistle than in the First. More especially the pre-existence and divinity of Christ are stated with a distinctness ($$ 1, 9) which is wanting in the First, and in a form which perhaps the writer of the First would have hesitated to adopt. (iv) The position of the writer with respect to the Scriptures is changed. In the First Epistle Clement draws his admonitions and his examples chiefly from the Old Testament. The direct references to the evangelical history are very few in comparison. On the other hand in the Second Fpistle the allusions to and quotations from gospel narratives (whether canonical or apocryphal) very decidedly preponderate. ‘This seems to indicate a somewhat later date, when gospel narratives were more generally circulated and when appeal could
wrote without the light which the dis- the question, and still regarded it as an covery of the lost ending has thrown on _ epistle.
206 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
safely be made to a written Christian literature. This last argument more especially has received a large accession of strength by the re- covery of the lost ending, and would be conclusive in itself. The gulf which separates our preacher from the genuine Clement in their respective relations to the New Testament Scriptures (see above, p. 202) has been widened by the additional evidence.
(2) On the other hand Hilgenfeld (p. xlix, ed. 2) surmises that the author was not the Roman Clement but the Alexandrian. He argues that our preacher was not a presbyter, but a catechist’. He points to the passage (§ 19) in which (as he reads it) the duty of studying ‘philosophy’ is inculcated*. And, as Dodwell had done before him’, he imagines that he sees resemblances in this sermon to the style and thought of the Alexandrian Clement. He therefore suggests that this was an early production of the Alexandrian father.
The inference however with regard to the preacher’s office is highly precarious, as we have seen already (p. 195); nor does it materially affect the question. The mention of ‘philosophy’ again disappears, when the passage is correctly read. The Syriac Version shows clearly that giAorovetiy is the true reading, and that irccodget, as a much commoner word, was written down first from mere inadvert- ence by the scribe of C and afterwards corrected by him*. Nor again is it possible to see any closer resemblance to the Alexandrian Clement in the diction and thoughts, than will often appear between one early Christian writer and another; while on the other hand the difference is most marked. The wide learning, the extensive vocabulary, the speculative power, the vigorous and epigrammatic expression, of the Alexandrian Clement are all wanting to this sermon, which is con- fused in thought and slipshod in expression, and is only redeemed from common-place by its moral earnestness and by some _ peculiarities of doctrinal exposition. Where there is want of arrangement in the Alexandrian Clement, it is due to his wealth of learning and of thought.
1 See pp. xlix, 106.
§ 17 el yap évroNds éxouer...d3d Twv eidw-
He explains
hwy aroomady kai kaTnxety as referring to the official position of the preacher ; but compare e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 19, Gal. vi. 6. 2 See pp. xlix, 84, 106.
3 Dissert. in Tren. i. § xxix p. 53.
4 Compare the note on this word ¢totrovetv § 19 with that on peradjwerat
§ 14. In both cases the scribe has cor- rected the word which he first wrote down, and in both the correction is sup- ported by the Syriac Version. Hilgen- feld has consistently adopted the scribe’s first writing in both cases. On p. 84 he has incorrectly given ¢tAomoetv as the correction in C. It should be ¢udo7o- velv.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 207
In our author on the other hand the confusion is the result of in- tellectual poverty. Nor again is the difference between the two writers less wide as regards their relation to the Canon of the New Testament. It is true that both alike quote the Gospel of the Egyptians, and (as it so happens) the same passage from this Gospel. But this very fact enables us to realize the gulf which separates the two. Our author uses this apocryphal work as authoritative, and apparently as his chief evangelical narrative ; Clement on the other hand depreciates its value on the ground that it is not one of the four traditionally received by the Church. Our author interprets the passage in question as favouring ascetic views respecting the relation of the sexes: Clement on the other hand refutes this interpretation, and explains it in a mystical sense’.
(3) Lastly ; Harnack is disposed to assign this homily neither to the Roman bishop nor to the Alexandrian father, but to a third person bearing the name of Clement, intermediate in date between the two.
In the Shepherd of Hermas (Vs. ii. 4) the writer relates how he was directed in a vision to send a copy of his book to ‘ Clement,’ and it is added, ‘Clement shall send it to the cities abroad, for he is charged with this business’ (réuper odv KAnjuns cis tds e€w odes’ exetvo yap As Hermas is stated to have written this work during the episcopate of his brother Pius (c. A.D. 140—155), it is urged that the Clement here mentioned cannot have been the same with the illus- trious bishop of Rome (see above, I. p. 359 sq). Thus the notice in the Shepherd gives us another Roman Clement, who flourished about the time when our homily must have been written. Here, argues Harnack, - we have an explanation of the phenomena of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement. If we suppose that towards the end of the third century a homily known to have emanated from the early Church of Rome and bearing the name of Clement was carried to the East, it would not unnaturally be attributed to the famous bishop, and thus, being attached
2 , émiTérpamrat).
1 Strom. iii. 13, p- 553 (quoted below, p- 236 sq). Julius Cassianus, like our preacher, had interpreted the passage as discountenancing marriage ; and Clement of Alexandria controverts him, substitut- ing another interpretation. While the
The discovery of the conclusion of the passage however decides in favour of the former.
It is in reference to this very passage from the Gospel of the Egyptians, that Clement of Alexandria urges in answer
passage was still mutilated, the opinion was tenable that it was doubtful whether our author’s explanation was more closely allied to the interpretation of Cassianus or to that of Clement of Alexandria, though I inclined to the latter supposition.
to Cassianus, év Tots mapasdedouévors nuty rérrapow evaryyeNlous ovK éxouev 7d pyrdv, GAN év to Kar Alyumriovs. Thus he is diametrically opposed to our preacher on the one point where we are able to com- pare their opinions.
208 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
to his genuine epistle, might easily before the close of the fourth cen- tury be furnished with the incorrect title KAyjpevtos mpos Kop 6iovs érisToAn [2’.
This view has much more to recommend it, than the two which have been considered already. But the foundation on which it rests is inadequate. The existence of this second Roman Clement is un- supported ; and as I have shown above (I. p. 359 sq), the reference in Hermas must be explained in another way’.
As all these hypotheses fail us, we must be content to remain still in ignorance of the author; nor is it likely now that the veil will ever be withdrawn. The homily itself, as a literary work, is almost worth- less. As the earliest example of its kind however, and as the product of an important age of which we possess only the scantiest remains, it has the highest value. Nor will its intellectual poverty blind us to its true grandeur, as an example of the lofty moral earnestness and the triumphant faith which subdued a reluctant world and laid it pros- trate at the foot of the Cross.
3. The following is an analysis of the fragment :
‘My brethren, we must look on Christ as God. We must not think mean things of Him who has been so merciful to us, who has given us life and all things (§ 1). In ws is fulfilled the saying that the barren woman hath many children. The Gentile Church was once unfruitful, but now has a numerous offspring. We are those simners whom Christ came especially to save (§ 2). Therefore we owe all recompense to Him. And the return which He asks is that we should confess Him in our deeds. ‘The worship, not of the lips only, but of the heart, must be yielded to Him (§ 3). He has denounced those who, while they obey Him not, yet call Him Lord. He has declared that, though they be gathered into His bosom, He will reject them (§ 4). Let us therefore remember that we are sojourners here, and let us not fear to quit this world. Rather let us call to mind His warning, and fear not those who kill the body, but Him who can destroy body and soul together. All
1 Hagemann (Ueler den zweiten Brief the fiction, being the letter of recom- des Clemens, etc. in the Theolog. Quartal- mendation written in the name of the schr. XLIII. p. 509 sq, 1861) supposed great Roman Clement. So far he antici- that this is the letter mentioned by Hermas _ pated the theory of Harnack.
(Vis. ii. 4). He regarded it as part of
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 209
things earthly we must hold foreign to us (§ 5). On this there must be no wavering. We cannot serve two masters. This world and the other are deadly foes. It must be our choice to do Christ’s will. Even Noah, Job, and Daniel, could not have rescued their own children from destruction. How shall we then, if we keep not the baptismal seal intact, present ourselves in God’s kingdom? (§ 6). The lists are open; the struggle approaches. Let us crowd thither to take our part. Let us fight to win the immortal chaplet. But, so doing, we must observe the laws of the contest, if we would escape chastisement. A horrible fate awaits those who break the seal (§ 7). Now is the time for repentance. Now we can be moulded like clay in the hands of the potter. After death it will be too late. If we keep not small things, how shall we be trusted with great? If we guard not the seal intact, how shall we inherit eternal life ? (§ 8).’
‘Deny not, that men shall nse in their bodies. As Christ came in the flesh, so also shall we be judged in the flesh. Let us give ourselves to God betimes. He reads our very inmost thoughts. To those who do His will Christ has given the name of brothers (§ 9). This will let us ever obey. If we fear men and choose present comfort, we shall purchase brief pleasure at the price of eternal joy. They who lead others astray herein are doubly guilty (§ 10). We must not falter. The prophetic word denounces the double-minded; it foretells how the course of things is maturing to its consummation, as the vine grows and ripens. God is faithful; and, as He has promised, so will He give joys unspeakable to the righteous (§ 11). The signs, which shall herald the approach of His kingdom, Christ has foretold. Ze two shall be one in universal peace. Zhe outside shall be as the inside in strict sin- cerity. Zhe male shall be as the female in the cessation of all sexual longings (§ 12).’
‘Let us repent forthwith, that we may be forgiven, and God’s name may not be blasphemed by our inconsistency. When God’s oracles say one thing and we do another, they regard them as an idle tale— when God’s precepts tell us to love our enemies and we hate one another (§ 13). Fulfilling God’s command, we shall be members of the eternal, spiritual Church, which is Christ’s body. This is the meaning of the words Male and female created He them. The Church, like Christ, was spiritual, and became flesh. This flesh we must keep pure, that we may attain to the spiritual, the immortal (§ 14).’
‘Whosoever obeys this precept of chastity saves both himself and the preacher. This is the only return which speaker and hearer alike can make to their Creator. God promises an immediate answer. We
CLEM. II. 14
210 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
must close with it and escape condemnation (§ 15). Therefore let us repent, while there is time, and obtain the mercy of Jesus. The Day cometh as a heated furnace. Heaven and earth shall melt away. Almsgiving and love are best ; for they cover a multitude of sins (§ 16). We are commanded to convert others; how much more to save our own souls. Let us not forget the preacher’s lesson, when we go to our homes. Let us meet more frequently together. The Lord will come and gather all nations, rewarding them after their works. The worm of the unbeliever shall never die, but the righteous shall give glory to Him, seeing His judgments on the wicked and His faithfulness to His servants (§ 17). Let us be found among His thankful servants. In the midst of temptations, I strive after righteousness (§ 18). Give heed to these exhortations from the Scriptures. Set an example to the young by your obedience. Be not offended by exhortation; nor deterred by present suffering. It is the price of future glory (§ 19). This life is only the arena; the crown shall be awarded hereafter. Else, it were a matter of mere traffic.’
‘To the one invisible God, who manifested truth and life to us through the Saviour, be glory for ever (§ 20).’
[TPOC KOPINOIOYC B.]
I. “AderAPoi, ovTws det ruas poveiv epi *Inoou
a a ~ / \ Xpiorov, ws epi Oeov, ws mept KpiTov CwvTwy Kat
VEKNWV.
Kat ov def nuas piKpa cpoveiv wept THS TwTN-
[tpoc Kopin@ioyc B.] The authorities for this title will be found on I. pp.
117, 122, 131 sq. I Huds] S; buds C.
I. ‘My brethren, we must think of Christ as God, as judge of all men. It is no light crime to have mean views of Him by whom we were called and who suffered for us. What worthy recompense can we pay to Him, who has given us light and life, who has rescued us from the worship of stocks and stones, has scattered the dark cloud that hung over us, has brought back our stray- ing footsteps, and thus has called us into being?’
I. “AdeAdoi x.7.A.] The opening of the epistle, as far as maOeivy évexa nuov, is quoted by Timotheus of Alexandria (A.D. 457) as ‘from the beginning of the Third Epistle,’ immediately after a quotation ‘from the First Epistle on Virginity’ (see above, I. p. 181); and by Severus of Antioch (c. A.D. 513—518) as ‘from the Second Fpistle to the Corinthians’ (see I. p. 183). It is also found in more than one anonymous Syriac collection of excerpts (see I. p. 185).
Photius (4707. 126) remarks on the opening of this epistle, contrasting
3 Huds] S; vas C.
it with the First as respects its Christology, 7 dé Sevrépa kat avty vov- Geciav Kat wapaiverw kpeitrovos eioayer Biov kat év apy Ceov tov Xpiorov knpvooer: see the notes on § 2, 36, 58, of the First Epistle, and the re- marks in I. p. 398 sq.
2. xKpirov «.7.A.] The expression occurs in Acts x. 42 (in a speech of S. Peter): comp:,.2 Tim. iv..1, 0 Pee: iv. 5. See also Barnab. § 7, Polyc. PRES.
3. puxpa dpoveiv] ‘to have mean views. The Ebionites, whom the writer of this epistle attacks, were said to have earned the title of ‘poor’ by their mean and beggarly concep- tion of the Person of Christ; see esp. Origen de Princ. iv, 22 (1. p. 183) of mtw@xol TH Savoia "EBi@vaio. ths mTexeias THS Siavoias em@vupol, EBiov [}wIN] yap o mrexos mapa ‘EBpaiors ovopaterat, Cc. Ceds. ii. I (I. p. 385), 27 Matth. t. xvi. § 12 (UL. p. 734) ro "EBi@vai@ Kal mT@XEvorTL TEpl THY «is Inoovy riorw, and again zz Gen. 727 fiom. 5 5 (11. p. 68) ;: Euseb. #72,
e
ill, 27 "EBtwvatovs tovrous oikeiws ére-
i432
212 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1
~ ry ra) \ ~ ~ \ A ~ plas nuwvs év TH yap Ppovely nuas puKpa TeEpt avTOU, Kai ot
TEDL [LKPwV [ duaptavovow, Kal jpets | duapTavoper, OvK
pukpa Kai éAmiGouev AaBetv, G@KOVOVTES WS eidotes Tobey ExANOnuev Kal Vio Tivos Kal Eis OV TOTO, kal boa vrréuewev “Incovs Xpirtos mabeiv Evexa jpov. Tiva ouv pels avT@ Swoouey advTyucbiav; n Twa kaprrov a&tov ov iuiv avTos éwKev; roca d€ avTw
2 aBeiv] A; drodaBe C. The reading of S is uncertain, for Sap (the word used here) occurs elsewhere indifferently as a rendering of both NauBdvew and amo-
au Bdavew, e.g. below §§ 8, 9, II.
3 duaprdvovow, kal Nuets] S; om. AC: see the lower note.
ws mept] CS Sever Timoth; womep A. 7 kaprov] AC;
add. offeremus illi S. This however does not perhaps imply any additional words
dyp.Cov of mpotor TT@XO@S Kal TaTELVaS Ta Tept Tov Xpictov So€afovtras, Eccl. Theol. i. 14 ot rpwtoxnpukes EBiwvaiovs evopatoy “EBpaikn heovn mraxovs tiv Suavotay aTroKadovrtes TOvs Eva pev Oedv héyovras e«idévar kal Tod GwTHpos TO TOGpa pn apvovpevous tHv S€ Tov viov Oedrnta pn eiddras, with other pas- sages collected in Schliemann C/Ze- ment. p. 471 sq. Origen’s language perhaps does not necessarily imply that he gives this as a serious account of the term, but only that they were fitly called ‘poor.’ Eusebius how- ever, mistaking his drift, supposes this name to have been a term of reproach imposed upon these here- tics by the orthodox; instead of being, as doubtless it was and as perhaps Origen knew it to be, self-as- sumed in allusion to their voluntary poverty. The idea of a heresiarch named Ebion, which is found first in Tertullian (de Praescr. 33, and else- where), is now generally allowed to be a mistake.
2. ot dkovortes] ‘we who hear, according to the text of the Greek Mss. For the article compare Clem. Rom. § 6 ai dodeveis r@ copari, and see below § 19 pn dyavaxtoper oi doopo.; but the expression is awk-
ward and misplaced. Young sug- gested kairo. which others have adopted, but this is not the particle required. The Syriac quotations of Timotheus and Severus have ‘and when we hear, as though the article were absent from their text; but, allowance being made for the license of translation, no stress can be laid on this fact. Photius (476/. 126) remarks on the looseness and in- consequence of expression in this Second Epistle (or rather in the two epistles, but he must be referring especially to the Second), ra & avTais vonmata éppypéva mas Kal ov ouvexh THY axodovbiay banpye puAdr- tovra. Several instances of this will be noted below, and this passage, if the Greek text be correct, furnishes another illustration; but the Syriac comes to the rescue by inserting the words which I have placed in brackets and removes the difficulty. ; 6. dvtiyucbiav| The word occurs Rom. 1. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 13, Theoph. ad Auztol. ii. 9. Though apparently not common, it is a favourite word with our author ; see just below and §§ 9, 11. The sentiment is taken from Ps. CXVI. 12 ri avtarodaow TO Kupi@ k.7.X.; 8. doa] ‘mercies, kindnesses, as it
1] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 213
> / / \ - \ eA 2 / € \ opetAopuev Gora; TO pws yap july ExapioaTo, ws TaTNp a £ > / -~ sf ULoUS 1umas TooTHyopEvaEV, ATOAAUMEVOUS HUaS ETwoeED. ~ > Sy > ~ / \ \ if “e: 10 TOLOV OUY aivoy avTa@ Swowpuev j pucOoy avTyucbias wy ‘Aa [3 : me 7 Olavol ooKuvouvTtes AiPou ehaPouev; mnpor OvTES TH OLavola, TPOTK TES S \ / A \ \ / \ / af kal €uAa Kai ypvooyv Kat apyupov Kal yaAkov, Epya vf ~ / af \ oy > \ avOpwrwyv: Kai 6 Bios yuwv OAos aXNO oOvdEV HY EL pH
id > / 5 , \ r Oavatos. AMAVOWOLV OUV TEOLKELMEVOL Kat TOLAUTHS
in the Greek text.
A; dwoopev aire C.
A; xpuadv (om. kat) CS. ovdév dAXo C; and so apparently S. ritatem S,
is used in the Lxx Is. lv. 3 (quoted in Acts xiii. 34 ddc@ vpiy ra dora Aaveid Ta mora) for DDN: see Wolf Cur. Philol. p. 1197. Ina parallel passage 2 Chron. vi. 42 the LXX has ra édén. In this case odeidopey will have a pregnant sense, ‘we have received and should repay” Perhaps how- ever it is simpler to take dova as ‘religious duties’ (e.g. Eur. Suppl. 368 cova mepi Geovs). The distinction between oova ‘what is due to God’ and dixaca ‘ what is due to men’ is as old as Plato (Gorg. p. 507 B) and runs through Greek literature: comp. Trench WV. 7. Syz. 2nd ser. § xxxviii, and Steph. Zhes. s. vv. Sikatos and dows. See also below, S§ 5, 6.
os matnp «.t.A.| The reference is perhaps to Hosea il. I kal éora €v T@ ToT@ ov €ppeOn avrois OV ads pou vpeis, eket KAnOncovTat viol Oeod (avros, more especially as applied by S. Paul Rom. ix. 26. See also the quotation in 2 Cor. vi. 18 «ai €vopar vu eis maTépa Kal vpets eoeabe prot eis viovs Kal Ovyarépas (a combina- tion of 2 Sam. vii. 14 and Is. xlili. 6), and 1 Joh. iii. 1 ere moramny dyamny dédaxev nuly 6 matyp Wa Téxva Oceov KAnO@pev.
dé] A; yap S; om. C.
10 troiov ovv] C3; mov A; motov S: see above, I. p. 144.
11 mypol] A; caect S; movnpol C. épya] AC; épyov S.
8 ddethomer] odidomev A. avTy ddowmer | 12 Kal xpvoov]
13 dAdo ovdev] A;
14 duatpwow] AC; tantam obscu-
10, dadcwper| ‘can we give?’ The reading of C disposes of the gram- matical difficulty presented by a future conjunctive, ddcwper; see Winer Gramm. § xiii. p. 89 and is perhaps correct. Of all such future conjunctives however éd0#c@ is perhaps the best supported; see 2d. § xiv. P- 95:
II. mnpot dvres x.t.A.| Arist. Eh. Nic. i, 10 rots 7) TeTNPwpEvols TpOs ape- tyv, Ptolemeus ad F7or. (in Epiphan. Haer. xxxili. 3, p. 217) ay povov TO THs Wuy7ns dupa adda Kal TO TOU GepaTos Tremnpopevov. Inthe New Testament Tpovv, mnpeots, Occur occasionally as various readings for rwpotv, repw- os, but are not well supported: see Fritzsche Rom. Il. p. 451 sq.
mpookuvouvtes x«.t-A.] The writer of this epistle therefore is plainly a Gentile Christian: comp. § 2 7 exkAnoia nuoy, and the introduction p. 205.
13. 06 Bios] Their Bios was not fw but Oavaros: see the note on Ign. Rom. 7. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 6 (60a réOynkev. See also the passage of S. Augustine quoted by Harnack, Cov/. i. 6 ‘in is- tam dico vitam mortalem an mortem vitalem nescio,’
214 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1
> / id 5) Te / > / ? if ayAvos yemovTes Ev TH Opacel, dveBAEY-apev a7roPEuEVoL 5] ~ A / / ~~ p) ~ / ) Ve Exelvo O TeEpikeiuEeba vedos TH avTOU OeAXnoer. nrAEnoeV \ aA \ \ af 7 > yap nas kat omAayxucbes Ecwoev, Oeawapevos év ¢ ~ \ / / / > / nly TWONAHY TAaYHY Kal adTwrELAY, Kal PNnOEMLaAV éAmrioa af \ lon EXOVTAS TwTNplas, EL MN THY Tap’ avToU. \ € la ? of > \ sf a yap nuas ovk ovtas Kai OéAnoev EK py OVTOS Elvat
ra NMS.
i, Ey@panOHTl, cTelpa H OY TIKTOYCA’ PAZON Kal BOHCON, H OYK WAINOYCA, OT! TOAAA TA TEKNA TAC EPHMOY
MA&AAON H TAC €YOYCHC TON ANAPa.
J . > ' O €L7TEV EYMPANGHTI
2 TH avTov Oedjoet] As Tr Oedjoe avtod C3; voluntate nostra S, as if avrav. 4 woddnv mwrdvnv] AC; hunc omnem (=tantum=rTocattnr) errorem multum S. eAmida éxovtas] C3; edmidavexovres A. S evidently read as C, though it trans-
lates by a finite verb, e¢ guod ne una quidem spes salutis stt nobis. é€k un] A; éx Tod ph C.
AG@s 66.5.
I. aveBdéyrapev| Comp. § 9.
amoOéuevor k.t.A.] The language here, though not the thought, is coloured by Heb. xii. I togotrov EXOVTES TEPLKELWEvOY Huiy vedos paptipav, OyKoy amoOépevoe mavra «.7.A. For the construction mepixeia bai tu ‘to be enveloped in or surrounded by a thing, see Acts xxviii. 20, Heb. Wok
5. €xovras| sc. nuas. If this read- ing be correct it is perhaps go- verned by @eacdyevos rather than by ‘€cwce, ‘and this though we had no hope?’ But é¢xovres may be the right reading after all: in which case a word or words may have fallen out from the text; or this may be one of the awkward expressions to which allusion has been already made (on oi akovorTes).
exddegev yap k.t.A.] Rom. iv. 17 kadovvTos Ta pn dvta ws dvra, Philo de Creat. Princ. 7 (II. P: 307) Ta yap py ovTa exdhecey eis TO elvac: Comp. Hermas V7zs. I. I xrioas ék rod pi ovtos ta dvta, Mand. 1 tomoas ék
6 yap] 8 etppdvOnrt] AC; add.
Too pr dvTos eis TO elvat Ta TayTa, Clem. Hom. iii. 32 TO Ta un OvTa eis TO eivat TvoTHTALEVO.
II. ‘For what is the meaning of the scripture, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not? It has been ful- filled in us—the Gentile Church, which is even now more numerous than the Jewish. In like manner also it is written elsewhere, J came not to call gust men but sinners. Such sinners were we.’
8. EvdpdvOnre x.7..]| From the LxX Is. liv. 1, word for word. See the notes on Galatians iv. 27. The same application is also made in Justin AZol/. i. 53, p.88C. Philo also allegorizes this text (guod Omn. Prob. lib. 2, 11. p. 449), but in a wholly dif- ferent way.
II. 7 é€xxAnoia npar| i.e. the Gen- tile Church, called o Xads judy below. Our author’s application seems so far to differ from S. Paul’s, that he makes the contrast between Gentile and Judaic Christendom, whereas in the Apostle it is between the new and
’ / EKANEGED 5
Io
11] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
n c > ' ~ s na \ in c cTeipa H oy TIikToyca, HMas Elev’ OTELVA yap HV 7
2ES > / e ~ \ ~ ~ > aA / c\ A > EKKAYOLA HUWY 7pO TOU ooOnvat QUTH TEKVA. O O€ €L7TEV ' c > > ' io / \ \ BOHCON H OYK Q@AINOYCA, TOUTO AEvYEL’ Tas MpoTEevyas ¢ la) e ~ 3 / \ \ A / a ¢ nHMwv amAws avaepely ™pos TOV Oeceov MN, Ws al if. ~ ray \ oy a \ \ , Woivovoal, éyKkakwmMev. O O€ El7TEV STI TOAAA TA TEKNA a > , n x a ’ \ » 5 Veo TAc €pHmoy M&AAON H TAc EYOYCHC TON ANAPA, E7TEL EOHMOS ’ / oy ’ \ lo ~ 9 \ ¢ lo \ \ €00KEL Etvat amo Tou OQeov o XAaos NMWV, VUVL O€ Tlo- / / > / ro / s/f TEVOAVTES TMAELOVES évyevoueda TWV OOKOUYTWYV EVELV
Oeceor.
yap, Néyet, S. pntov] AC; kai pytov S. 12 muav] AC; om. S. 13 Tas mpocevxas] AC; Ta mpds Tas mpocevxas (or TA mpds evXaS, as suggested
kal éTépa O€ ypagn N€vyer OTL OYK AAOON kKa-
by Bensly) S. See above, I. p. 141. 15 éyxaxouev}] A; éxxaka@pev C. om. C.
the old dispensation. Justin uses the text in the same way as our Pseudo- Clement.
14. pn, os x.7.A.] If the order of the words be correct they can only mean ‘let usnot grow weary,as women in travail grow weary’; but it is strange that the writer should have confused his application of the text by this fanciful account of 7 ovK &di- vovoa, of which the natural explana- tion is so obvious. For éyxaxopev Cotelier and other editors would sub- stitute éxkaxk@uev; but this is a mis- take, as authority is against ékka- kev and for éyxaxeiv: see the note on Galatians vi. 9.
17. amo rou Geov| For the pre- position after épnuos comp. Jer. xxxill (xl). 10 (dro dvOpérev kat Ktnvor), Xxxiv (xli). 22 (4m6 Tév KaToLKOUYT@Y?), xliv (li). 2 (do évoikov). The word involves asecondary idea of severance, and so takes azo.
18. Aeioves] Writing about this same time, Justin Martyr gives a si- milar account of the greater numbers of the Gentile Christians: AZo/.1. 53 (p. 88 B) mAeiovds Te Kai aAnOeorépovs
14 ai wdlvovca] AC; 7 wdwovca S.
17 Tod] A; om. C. 1g dé] AS;
tous €& €Ovav tav a7 “lovdaiwy Kal Sapapéwy Xpiotiavors cidores.
tov Soxovvtav éxew Ccov| Hil- genfeld quotes from the Praedicatio Petrt in Clem. Alex. Stvom. vi. 5 (p. 760) pndé Kara “Iovdaiouvs c€eBecOe* kal yap €kelvol, povot olOmevot TOV Gedy yiv@oKety, ovK enioravTat (comp. Orig. 27 Foann. xiii. § 17, Iv. p. 226).
19. érépa S€ ypapdy| Thus the Gospel, treated as a written docu- ment, is regarded as Scripture like the Old Testament. Comp. Barnab.
§$ 4, and possibly 1 Tim. v. 18. See above, the introduction p. 202. ove 7AOov «.tT.rX.| The quota-
tion agrees exactly with S. Mark ii. 17, but might also be taken from S. Matthew ix. 13 ov yap nAOov x.7.X. On the other hand in S. Luke (v. 32) the form is different, ov« €AndAvda xa- Aéoat Sixaiovs aAAa GdyuupT@drods eis peravoray. Comp. also Barnab. § 5 ovk njAOev Kadéoa Sixaiovs dAda dpapta- hovs (where the words eis peravo.ar, added in the late MSS, are wanting in &), and Justin Afo/. i. p. 62 C ovk A-
? c > Ul Gov k. 6. d. ap. eis peravo.ay.
216 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[11
’ U > \ c , ~ if e/ ~ NECAl AIKAIOYC, AAAA AMAPTWAOYC. TOUTO AEYVEL, OTL O€L \ > / / 5) ~ / 5 / \ TOUS atroNNUMEVoUsS owe" EKELVO Yap E€OTLY MEYa Kal / ’ A € ~ / 5) \ A / Oavpactor, OU TA EOTWTA oTnplCe a\Aa Ta Tin-
c/ \ e \ sf\/ a“ A TOVTa. ouvTws Kat 0 Xpiotos OEAncEV GHoaL Ta
/ af , \ \ / amroAAupeva, Kal ETwoev TOAXOUS, EA\OwWY Kal Kadéoas §
Has On &TONAUMEVOUS. III.
CC CC / e/ ~ a ~ ~ nas’ TOWTOV MEV, OTL NMEIS Ol CwVTES TOIS VvEKpots
~ 5; af y ~ 5) Tocovrov ovv €X€0s TOoINGavTOS avTOU Eis
~ 5) / \ > lo > nn r) \ Geots ov @vopev Kat ov mpooKuvotpev avdtots, ada J 5) 5) ~ \ / a 5) / / e Eyvwuev Ov av’tov Tov maTépa Tis dAnOeias: Tis 7
~ \ / ) A \ ~ ec af yvwols i mpos avTov, n TO wy apveto Oa Ov ov EyvwpmeEV
9 / / \ \ > / \ c ' ’ > ’ avTov; Neyer O€ Kal avTOS* TON GmoAorHcanté me [éna-
4 oUTws] otrw C. éXeos] eXavog A.
AC ais 0e S; Gelas C: see above, I. p. 127.
évitiov Tov avOpwrwv] AC; om. S.
4. oooa x.t.d.| Luke xix. 10 7AGev 0 vios TOU avOpemov (yTHoa Kai cooat TO dmodwdds (compare the interpola- fon im) Matt.)xvill; 11), 1 Tim. 1/15 "LX. 7AOev eis Tov Kocpov duaprwdods o@oal.
III. ‘Seeing then that He has been so merciful and has brought us to know God, wherein does this know- ledge consist but in not denying Him by whom we were brought? If we confess Him, He will confess us be- fore the Father. This we must do, not with lips only but in our lives.’
8. Tots vexpois Oeois] Wisd. xv. 17 Oynros d€ Ov vexpov épyatera xepow avopo.s* KpeitT@y yap é€ot. Tov oeBac- paT@v avTov, ay avros pev e(noer exeiva dé ovdézrore.
12. eyes O€ kal avros k.7.A.] Nicon (see above on the First Epistle §§ 14, 15) quotes this passage from the
Xpiords] AS; Kupros C. Q kal ov mpockuvvotuev avtois] AS; om. C. AC; S translates as if it had read @rera 6€ 671; see above, I. p. 142. II yraots] yuwouo A.
4) AC; om. S. The testimony of S cannot be alleged in such a case.
7 ovv] AC; om. S. dda] 10 Tis] wpos avrov] AS; ris add7n- dpvetc bat] add. avrov C.
12 avtév] AS; om. C.
13 avrév] AC. S adds etiam
Second Epistle; kai o Kupuos déyer Tov opodoynoarra...rov matpos pou" ev Tin O€...Tév évrodkov. Cotelier (on Clem. Rom. § 14) mentions the fact, but does not give the quotation in full.
Tov opodoynocavra «.t.A.| A free quotation of Matt. x. 32 (comp. Luke xi. 8).
evomtov k.T.A.| The omission in S is probably correct, the words having been inserted by scribes from a well- known evangelical passage, Luke xli.9. For a similar instance, where S preserves the true reading, see Clem. Rom. 46. Our preacher is in the habit of dropping out words in his quotations, and presenting them in skeleton.
14. eav ovv] ‘2f after all, of only, For similar instances of the use of ody see Hartung Partrkel. 11. 11.
Io
15 Aoynowmev Ot ov éowOnper,
20
Iv]
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
217
TION TON ANOPWTWN|, OMOAOLHC@ AYTON EN@TION TOY TATPOC
MOY.
& Ss \ \ lm \ o € ovTos ovy éotiv 0 pucbos nuwy, Eav ouv Opo-
? / \ 5) \ € év Tivt 6€ aUTOY OMoOAoO-
“oP - > ZS Cm ray / i \ \ / ? ee TYYOUMEV, EV TW TOLELY A NEYEL Kal MY TAOAKOVELV aUTOU
Co 3 ~ \ \ / ’ > \ ms >] \ TWY EVTONGY, KaL MN MOVOV YEINECIN AYTON TIM&N GAA
> a ' A > a = ’ / \ \ €Z OAHC KAPpAIAC Kal €Z OAHC TAC AIANOIAC. Aevyel 6€ Kal
5 “ oA c \ @ a ’ ’ a c \ ev TW "Hoaia: O Aadc oYTOC TOIC yEIAECIN ME TIMA, H AE
KapAIA AYT@N TOPpo ATTECTIN ATT EMOF.
IV. My povov ovv avtov Kkadwpev Kupiov, ov
\ ~ - yap TovTo cwoE Huas.
NEvyer yap" Oy m&c 6 AECON
mol, Kypie, Kypie, cw@HceTal, AAN 6 TOIMN THN AIKAIOCYNHN.
e/ S: 5) / 5) a sf ? \ € - WOTE OVV, adEAol, Ev TOs Epos avTOY OMoAOYaEL,
ego (kay) as in Matt. x. 32. AC; merces magna S.
14 pou] .AC; ‘om. S: ouv| A; om. CS.
6 pucbos Nudr] 17 avrov Tywav] AC; debe-
mus invocare (vocare) eum S, as if dpethomev adrov émikadeloOa (kadely). 18 Tis] Ay om. C. diavoias] AC; duvdmews S. dé] yap AS; om. C. 19 0] o (i.e. ov) A. 20 avTwv] AS; avrod C. admeotw] A; dreorw (or éoTw)
S; améornv C. 24 avTov] aurwy A,
18. e€& Odns x.t.A.] A reference ultimately to Deut. vi. 5 ; but as both words dsavoias and xapdias do not seem to occur in that passage in any one text of the LXX, we must suppose that the writer had in his mind the saying rather as it is quoted in the Gospels, esp. Mark xii. 30 é& 6Ans THs Kapdias Gov Kai e& dAns THs WuyAs gov kai €€ GAns ths dStavoias cov kai €€ oAns Tis iaxvos gov (comp. Matt. xxii. 37, Luke x. 27).
19. ‘O dads otros «.t.A.] From Is. xxix. 13, modified by the form in which it is quoted in the Gospels; see the note on the genuine Epistle of Clement § 15, where again it is quoted in almost exactly the same form as here.
IV. ‘It is not enough to call Him Lord. We must confess Him by our works, by love and purity and guile-
21 ovv] AS(?); om. C. oporoy@mev] As ouoroyjnowmev C.
22 owoet] AC; cuca S.
lessness. We must not fear men but God. For Christ Himself has warned us that, though we be His most familiar friends, yet if we do not His commandments, He will re- ject us.’
22. Ov mas 6 Néyov «.t.X.] From Matt. vii. 21 ov mas o Aéywv por, Kv- pte, Kupue, eioeXevoerae eis tHv Baci- Aevay Tay ovpavav, GAN Oo Tol@Y TO OéAnua Tov maTpds pou Tov é€y Tois ovpavois (comp. Luke vi. 46 quoted below). Justin (Aol. i. 16, p. 64 A) gives the exact words of S. Matthew (except ovxt for ov). Clem. Hom. viii. 7 has ri pe Aéyets Kupre, Kure, kal ov mroveis a A€yw ; which closely resembles Luke vi. 46 ri d€ pe xadeire, Kupre, Kupwe, Kal oU mroveire a A€yw; Comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 5 ovdé €v TO mia Tevew dudacKdAos Kal Kupious avTovs éyeuw 1 gwrnpia yivera,
218 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [Iv
2 ™~ > - e / 5) a \ ~ A éy TW ayaray éavToUs, Ev TH pn morxacBar puNde ~ \ ~ > ~ kaTadadel adAjrAwy pnoe Cyrovv, GAN é€yKpaTels y 2 / b) / \ / > , evar, é€Xenuovas, ayalous’ Kal cuuracyew ddAnAOLS 5] ¥ \ \ ~ oetAopey, kar wy pirapyupety. ¢ ~ \ \ > ~ ? / OMOAOYwMMEV aUTOY Kal pn év Tots évavyTiow* Kal ov
7 ~~ Sf €v TOUTOLS TOLS Epyots
det nuas poPetcba Tous avOpwrous maddov, dda TOV Ocov.
/ > \ 343 n , > a ' Kupuos: Ean HTe meT EMOY CYNHPMENO! EN TH KOATIM@ MOY
\ Coy ~ lo iy > dla TOUTO, Ta’Ta VuwY TpATTOVTWY, ElTrEV O
Kal MH TOIATE TAC ENTOAAC MOY, ATIOBAAW® YMAC Kal Epw
1 ayarav AC; add. rovs tAnclov huwy was S: see above. 7 tpav] As auov CS.
opidtomey A. év T@ KOAT@ fou] AC; zz uno sinu S.
I. pnde xaradade x.t.A.| James iv. Il mn kata\adeire GAAjA@y. See also Hermas JJand. 2 mpdétov pev pndevos katadave, with the whole section.
3. ayabots| ‘kindly, beneficent, as Tit. 11. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 18; and so pro- bably 1 Thess. iii. 6.
5. ov det nuas x.7.A.] Comp. Acts Iv. 19, V. 29.
8. °Eay nre x.t-A.] Not found in the canonical Gospels, and perhaps taken from the Gospel of the Egyp- tians, which is quoted below; see S$ 5,8,12. The image and expressions are derived from Is. xl. 11 r@ Bpaxiou avtTov oud eu dpvas kal €v TO KOATO avtov Baoracer. The latter clause, though absent in BSA, is found in several MSS (see Holmes and Par- sons), in other Greek Versions, and in the original; and must be sup- posed to have been known to the writer of the Gospel in question. For the expression cuvdyew ev Kode, ‘Zo gather in the lap, see LXX Prov. XXX. 4 (Xxlv. 27). The image is car- ried out in the language of the next chapter, éoeaOe ws dpvia k.7.d.
10. vmayere «.7.A.] The parallel passage in S. Luke xiii. 27 runs kai epei,
4 dpelroper ] 8 Kvpios] AC; éinaois S. Q monte] As moujonre C. 12 Tap-
A€éyo vpiv, ovK oida [pas] wobev eore’ amooTnTe am é€uou mavTes epyarat adl- kias. Thisis much closer than Matt. vii. 23. The denunciation is taken from Ps. vi. 9 admootnte dm €uov mar- Tes of epyatouevor THY dyopiay. Com- pare the quotations in Justin AZol. i. 16 (p. 64 B) kal rore €p@ avrois* "Amoxwpeite am e€uov, epydrat THs avo- pias, Dial. 76 (p. 301 D) kai €p@ avrois: "Avaxapeire am éuov. See Westcott Canon p. 125 sq (2nd ed.).
V. ‘We must break loose from the ties of this world. The Lord has warned us, that here we shall be as lambs among wolves; that we have cause to fear the perdition of our souls rather than the murder of our bo- dies. Our life here is brief and transitory; our life in heaven is eter- nal rest. Therefore should we look upon ourselves as aliens to the world.’
12. Hv mapoiay| ‘our sojourn- ing tn,’ i.e. ‘our dalliance with’: see the note on rrapocxovyres in the open- ing of the First Epistle.
I5. “EoeoOe x.t.A.| This is a close parallel to Luke x. 3 amoaréAA@ vpas ws dpvas ev péo@ AVK@Y (comp. Matt. x. 16). As however Peter is not men-
v| AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 219
IOYMIN’ YTArETE ATT EMOF, OYK O1AA YMdC TIOOEN EcTé, epratal
ANOMIAC. Mar. ey: adeA pot,
~ / / \ 4 a OlKiay Tou KOOMOV TOUTOU TOLYTWMEV TO GéAnpa TOU
\
katahelpavTes THY Trap- e a \ \ ~~ ~ > rt
KaNETAVTOS Has, Kal py poPnOwuev é€eNOety Ex Tov / ¢ / > c > ! 2
KOGoU ToUTOU. DéryeEl yap 0 Kupios “Ececée ac dpnia én ’ ’ > \ \ ¢ / > ~ / oats \ mécw AyK@Nn* amroxpilers d€ 0 Tletpos avTw Neyer Edn 3 ' « ’ ‘ > ' 2s e 2? > va OYN AIACTIAPAZWCIN O! AYKOI TA APNIA; ELTTEV O Inoous TW
/ \ ' > ' \ , e \ \ Fletpw- Mr oBeicOw@can TA APNIA TOYC AYKOYC’ META TO
ATTOOANEIN AYTA.
oxiav|] AC; mapoumiay S. A; dmoxrévtas C.
tioned in the context, and as the con- tinuation of the quotation is not found in the canonical Gospels, the whole passage was probably taken from some apocryphal source, per- haps the Gospel of the Egyptians: see the note on S§ 4, 8, 12. As the same metaphor of the lambs occurs inthe apocryphal quotation just above (§ 4), they were probably taken from the same context. Photius (A767. 126) remarks on the number of apo- cryphal quotations in this Second Epistle, Any dre pnta twa ws amd Tis Geias ypadas Eevitovra mapeoayet, wv ovS 1 mpern amnddakxto tTavtedas. (For apocryphal quotations in the First, which however are chiefly from the Old Testament and therefore not so prominent, see the notes SS 8, 13, 17, 23, 29, 46.)
19. kal vyeis x7.A.] The apocry- phal citation again runs parallel to the canonical Gospels, Matt. x. 28 Kal pn poBetoGe aro Tay amoKTevyovT@Y TO copa, THY Sé ouxny py Suvapéever amokxteivar’ oBnOnre Sé€ paddov Tov Suvapevoy [kai] Wuxnv Kal cGpa adrondé- gat ev yeevvn, Luke xii. 4, 5 py oBy- Onre amo Tey amoKTEYYOYT@Y TO Goya kal peta TaUTa pn eXOVT@Y TEpLOaOTEpOY
1g poBeicGe] poBewOau A.
Kal YMEIC ME DOBEICAOE TOYC ATIOKTENNON-
amoKkTévvovTas |
TL Toinoat’ vrodciEw Se dpiv tiva PoBn- Onre. hoBnOnre Tov peta TO amoKretvat éxovra e€ovoiay €uBadeiv eis tHv yéer- vav* val, Aéyw viv, TovToy hoBnOnre. The saying is quoted also in Clem. Flom. xvii. 4 py poBnOynre amo Tov amoktevvovtos TO capa TH O€ Wuy7 mr Ouvamévov te Toiujoa’ PoBnOnre dé Tov Ouvawevoy Kal copa Kal ouyny eis THY yéevvay Tov mupos Badeiy, and in Justin Afpol. i. 19 (p. 66 B) px poBetabe rods dvaipovvtas vpas kal pera TtadTa py duvawévous Te Toujoal, eine, hoBnOnre d€ Tov peta TO amoGaveiy Suvamevoy kat Wux7v Kai copa eis yeevvay euBareir. The points of coincidence in the quotations of the Clementine Homi- lies and Justin with our pseudo-Cle- ment are worthy of notice, but they seem to be accidental. The expres- sion eis THv yéevvay Tov mupos (in the quotation of the Homilies) might have come from Matt. xviii. 9 (inter- polated in the parallel passage Mark ix. 47). For the amount of variation which may arise accidentally, see a parallel instance given by Westcott Canon p. 116; and it is instructive to observe the variations in two quo- tations of this very saying in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 972 poBnOnre
220 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[Vv TAC YMA&C KAl MHAEN YMIN AYNAMENOYC TIOIEIN, AAAA oBEIcOE TON META TO ATTOOANEIN YMAC €YONTA EZOYCIAN WYYAC Kal ' a tal > ’ ’ \ “f COMATOC, TOY BAAEIN EIC FEENNAN TrYPOC. Kai YLVWOKETE, > 4 4 ¢ > / e 5) on / fi = adeN Pot, OTL 4 €mldynpia n év TW KOTMW TOUTW THS \ , V¢ > \ 7 ¢ \ GaoKOS TaVTHS Mikpa EOTLY Kal oALyoxXpoVos* 7 O€ > ~ ~ / \ / érrayyeNia Tou Xpixrov peyadn Kat Gavpactn ExT, an if / \ = kal dvaravots THS peANovVons PBacirelas Kal Cwxs / / Ss \ / -~ ~ aiwviov. Tl ouv éoTiv TomoayTas émiTUXELY aUTwY, ? A \ re 4 \ / 5) / \ \ €l Mn TO OGlWs Kal OLKALWS dvaotpeper Oar, Kal Ta \ -~ > Ud ~ \ \ ~ Koopika TaVTa ws ddANoTpLa HyeloOar Kat mH ériOupetv 1 poBeicbe] PoBecba A. 3 mupds] AC; om. S. emayyevea A. Xpictod] C; Kupiov S. éotiv] AC; om. (apparently) DS: 7 avamavois| A; 4 avdmavos C. 8 ti...émuruxew] AC; guid
igitur est id quod facit ut attingatis S. The translator seems to have had rocjoav for moijoavtas in his text, and to have wrested the grammar to make sense of
6 érayyeNia]
it. 11 yap T@] A; T@ yap C. avra C.
your, Aéyet, TOV peta Bavaroy Suvapevov kal Wuyxny kal copa eis yéevvay Badeir, and p. 981 6 carnp déyer PoBetcOa Seiy tov Suvapevov ravtny thy uxnv Kal TOUTO TO GHpa TO WuxtKov ev yeévyn dmoAéoat: comp. also Iren. ii. 18. 5 ‘Nolite timere eos qui occidunt cor- pus, animam autem non possunt occidere; timete autem magis eum qui habet potestatem et corpus et animam mittere in gehennam.’
amoxrévvovras| The passages quot- ed in the last note show that the substitution of dzokreivoyras is quite unnecessary. For the form dzoxrép- vey see Winer § xv. p. 95 (note), A. Buttmann p. 54.
4. 1 éemiOnpial ‘sojourn’: comp. mapemiOnwot Heb. xi. 13, 1 Pet. i. I, li. 11, See the note on saporkiay above, which contains the same idea.
7. kat avdmavots| ‘namely, rest For this use of kai see the notes on Galatians vi. 16.
8. ti ovy x7.r.] ‘ What then ts tt
13 Aéyer d€] AC; A€yer yap kai S.
émOumety] emuduner A. tavra] AS;
14 €av] C; add. ovv
posstble for us to do that we may ob- tain them, but to walk holity and righteously. Thus re, which some would substitute for ro, interferes with the construction. For 6ciws cai dixaias, implying duties to God and to man respectively, see the note on dcva § 1: comp. § 6 gyovres dua kai Sika. VI. ‘Our Lord has told us that no man can serve two masters. There is a direct antagonism between the world present and the world to come. We cannot keep the friendship of both. Let us then, if we would de- liver ourselves from eternal misery, obey the command of Christ and follow after the heavenly life. Even Noah, Job, and Daniel, it is written, could not by their righteous deeds rescue their own children. How then shall we enter the kingdom of God, if we keep not our baptismal vows ?’ 13. Ovdeis x«.7.A.] Luke xvi. 13 ovdels oikérns Svvarac Suot Kupiows Sovrcvew...o0 Stvacbe Oecd Sovdevew
i
O
vi] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 221
~~ > Lond ~ ~~ / ~ avTwv; évy yap Tw émBupeiy nuas KtTnoacOa TavTa ~ ae = / dmTomimTouey THS OOOU THS OiKalas, , > \ > iy ’ \ aE: Aéyeu O€ O Kupios: OyAeic OIKETHC AYNATAI AYCI ’ ’ \ e ~ / \ an KyPloic AOYAEYEIN. €ay HLELS OéXwpev Kal Oew dovA- rd \ ~ ? / ae > / ' \ \ evely Kal pauwva, aovudopov nui EeoTiy. TI fap TO 6eAoc, EAN TIC TON KOCMON GAON KepAHCH THN AE YYXHN a af \ fe € JN \ e / / ZHMIWOH; EOTLY O€ OUTOS O alwy Kat O Mew) dvo > / Se / / \ \ \ éyOpoi: ovros Eyer pmolrxyelay Kal pbopav kat Pirap- / > / > - \ / > / yuplav Kal amraTny, €KEeLvos O6€ TOUTOLS ATOTATOETAL.
ov duvapueba ovv Tév Svo Piro eivar: Set SE Huds TOUTH
dmoTagzauevous éxelvw xpaoba.
/ / / / oiwueOa OTL BEATLOV
5. 16 tov Kédcpov Sdov] Tov Kdcpmov (om. Gdrov) C; omnem hunc mundum S$, but the insertion of Auxc probably does not imply any different reading from A:
see above, I. p. 141, and comp. below § 1g.
18 kal PAopdavy] AC; om. S. Tots Toovras S. See conversely below on p. 2221. 8. oimpeba] oidueOa ACS. S also adds dé ddedgoi.
(perhaps dzrodécy) S.
xpjcba C.
kat paywva. The words are the same in Matt. vi. 24, excepting the omis- sion of oikérns.
I5. ti yap To ddedos xz7.A.] See Matt. xvi. 26, Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 25. The quotation here may have been derived from either S. Matthew or S. Mark, though it differs slightly from both. The divergence from S. Luke is greater. The saying is quoted also by Justin Afol/. i. 15; but Jus- tin’s quotation, while combining dif- ferent features of the three canonical Gospels, does not reproduce the special peculiarity (ri rd ddedos;) of our pseudo-Clement.
17. éorw 8€ ovros 6 aloy x.r.d.] See the notes on Galatians i. 4. Com- pare also Clem. Hom. viii. 21, xx. 2.
18. qOopav] Either (1) corrupt- ness, profiigacy generally, as in 2 Pet. i. 4, li. 12, 19; or (2) in a more’special sense, as Plut. Crass. 1 thy airiay ris pOopas amodvoduevos, Mor. p. 89 B kpiOnvar POopas. The connexion with
17 §nuiwhn] AC; perdat 1g Tovros] AC; 21 xpacAa] A;
potxeta here points to this latter sense; comp. Barnab. 10 ov pn yévn potxos ovde POopevs, Philo de Spec. Leg. 11 (II. p. 310 M) adeAbov pev Kai cvyyeves adixnua potyetas POopa, Epictet. Dass. ii. 22. 28 dkpareis kal porxovs kal pOopeis, Iren. Haer. i. 28. 1, Clem. Hom. iv. 16, 24.
20. tovt@ drotagapévous| ‘bidding farewell to this? Act. Paul. et Thecl. 5 of droraEduevor TS Koop@ ToT, Ign. Philad. \1 droraédpevos tr Bio. The word is fairly common in the New Testament; see Lobeck Phryz. p. 23.
xpacba| ‘consort with as a friend, according to a common sense of the word. The editors have substituted xpnoOa for the reading of the older MS; but there is sufficient authority for xpacOa in later writers: see Lo- beck Phryn. p. 61, Buttmann Azs/. Sprachl. § 105 (1. p. 487), Veitch /7- regular Verbs s.v. xpaopa. For the form in a comp. cvyxpac 6a Ign. Magn. 3, mapaxpacba A post. Const. vi. to.
222 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [vi
3 4 9 0 Oo a 4 \ \ > / \ EOTLY TA EVUAOE PLTNTAaL, OTL LKPa Kal OALYOXpOVIa Kat 4 9 ~ \ p) - \ > \ \ Pps 6 pOapta: éxeiva O€ ayarnoa, Ta ayaba Kal apbapra.
- \ A / A ~ mowovvTes yao TO OéeAnua Tov XpioTov evpyoomev ava-
A / \ ~ (sud ~
mavow* él O€ pNye, OvdEV Huas pyoEeTar EK THS aiwviouv , \ / os a $ KoA\aoews, €av TapakovowMEv TwWY EVTOAWY aUTOU. , \ \ ae? ie / J ) \ > a Aeyer O€ Kal 4 ypadn év Tw 'leCeKinA, OTL’EAN dnactHi N@e kai I@B Kai AaNniHA, OY PYCONTAI TA TEKNA AYTAN EV ToOLoUTOL OiKaLOL OU
a 2 / ? A \ € ™T atxyuadwoia. et 6€ Kal ol
2 ayada kal] ayaa 7a AC; om.S. Here probably the reading of C is to be preferred: for (1) It is more forcible in itself: (2) It explains the omission in S. 2 yap] AS; om. C. dvaravow] AC; add. guae zllic S, as if it had read rh éxe?, but this may be only a translator’s gloss. 4 nuas| AC; om. S. 6 dé] AC; ydp S. év Tr] AC; 700 S. 8 aixparwota] C3 arxypuarwoua A. of rovodror] AC; ofro. S: see conversely above on p. 221 1. 19. AC; om. S.
dlkaoc] od dvvavta] here, A; after ducatordvas in C; but S has appa-
4. aiwviov Koddcews] The ex- as in Zest. xz Patr. Jud. 17, 22, 23,
pression occurs Matt. xxv. 46.
6. év te “leCexink] Abridged from Ezek. xiv. 14—20, being taken es- pecially from ver. 14 éav aow oi Tpeis avdpes obtror ev péom avtns Noe kal Aavud Kat 7168, and ver. 18 ov py pu- covrat vious kat Ovyatrépas. The words €év TH aixyad@oig are the writer’s own addition and should not be treated as part of the quotation. It is worth noticing also that the order of the three names, which has given rise to so much speculation among modern critics, is changed by the pseudo- Clement, and a chronological se- quence is produced. The same order of the names appears in A fost. Const. ii. 14. Chrysostom also makes the same change in two passages quoted by Cotelier, Hom. xlizz in Gen. (IV. p. 436) and Exp. zx Ps. xviii (V. p. 210).
9. dkacocvvas| The plural, as in Deut. ix. 4 (v.1.), 6, 1 Sam. xxvi. 2a, Vizek, ii. 20, xxxi. 13, Ecclus. xliv. 10.
It. 7d Baoewvr| ‘the kingdom,
Orac. Sib. iii. 159, Gaius (Hippoly- tus?) in Euseb. #. £. iii. 28, Hip- pol. Fragm. 59, 103, 105 (pp. 162, 181, 182, Lagarde), Euseb. H. £. viii. 17, Epiphan. aer. li. 9 (p. 432). Thus there is ample authority for this sense of Bacidev. Galland, desirous of retaining the more usual meaning ‘a palace,’ supposes the writer to refer to the parable of the marriage feast given by the king, Matt. xxii. 11, 12. If so, we might suppose that he explained the wed- ding garment of baptism, which is mentioned just before. But the refer- ence seems improbable. This more usual meaning of Baci\ewy would have a parallel in S. Anselm Cur Deus homo ii. 16 ‘ut nullus palatium ejus ingrediatur.’
I2. mapdkdrntos] ‘advocate, as it should always be translated in the New Testament. This is one coin- cidence of language in our pseudo- Clement with S. John: see esp. 1 Joh. il. 1 mapdkAnrov exouev mpos tov matrépa. So above § 3 rov marépa tis
Io
vit] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 223
duvavTat Tais éavTwy Sikaiocvvas pycacba Ta TéKVva QUTWY" HMEls, Eav pn THPHTwMEV TO BamTIoMa ayvoV Kal aduiavtov, moia memolnoea cioeNcvooueba Eis TO BaciNeov Tov Ocov; 7H Tis uwv mapakAnTos éoTat, éav pn evpeOapmev Epya ExovTes Gora Kal Sixaa;
Vil.
> / / ? \ ¢€ > , NG eZ > \ ELOOTES OTL EV XEPolv O ayoV, KOE OTL, ,€tS. "FOUS pbap-
“Wate ovv, ddeXpoi pov, adyoucwpucba,
\ lo / / 5) / Tous a@ywvas KaTam\eovow moNAol, aAXN’ OU TayTes
rently the same order as A. Q picacOa Ta Téxva] A; Ta Téxva picacOa C. 10 avvav] A; om. CS. Bdarricpa] AC; add. guod accepimus S. mom: CS. ov] A; om. C. As S always adds the possessive pronoun
where the vocative ddeAgot stands alone in the Greek, its testimony is of no value
14 ov]
here: see above § 6.
16 xatamdéovow] AC; certant (=dywvifovra) S, but *t probably does not represent a different reading in the Greek.
Lower down
S translates carardevowmev descendamus in certamen.
aAnOeias, and see on this subject Westcott Canon p. 157 sq.
13. 60a kal dixaca] See the notes on §§ I, 5.
VII. ‘Therefore let us prepare for the struggle. Inthe Isthmian games many enter the lists, but not many are crowned. In this our immortal race we should all strive to win. In the earthly contests he who breaks the rules is scourged. What then shall befall those who in their heaven- ly course swerve from the right path? Their worm, it is written, dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.’
I5. ev xepolv 6 aywr]| 6 The contest zs at hand, as Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 2” Av- Spes ido, 0 pev ayav eyyds npiv: comp. Clem. Rom. 7 6 avrés npiv ayov emixerra. The reading arwn for aiwn is doubtless correct, and this is not the only instance of the confusion of the two words: see Hase and Dindorf Steph. Thes. p. 593 s.v. dyev, and to the references there given add A%sch. Agam. 495, and see 4 Macc. ix. 23, xl. 19. For é& xepaty, ‘at hand, see Plut. Vit. Cleom.
22 ovK eAaTTova Ths ev xepat SuvoTuyiay, Vit. Brut. 36 ev xepov exov ras vrep Tav dov mpdées, etc.: compare vd xetpa, Hermas V7s. i111. 10 (with the note).
ére eis Tovs POaprovs x.t.A.] An echo of 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25 wavres pev Tpéxovow, eis dé AauBaver TO BpaBer- ov and ékeivo. pev ody wa pOaprov atépavoy AaBoow, nuets dé apOaprov. Comp. Lucian Avnachars. 13 einé pot, mavres avTa AapBdvovew of dywvicrai ; 3. odauads adda eis €& amdvrwv o Kpa- tTyoas avtay (a passage of which the context presents several coincidences with S. Paul; see Clark’s Pelopon- nesus p. 50), Seneca ZZ. lxxviii. § 16 ‘Athletae quantum plagarum ore, quantum toto corpore excipiunt? ferunt tamen omne tormentum glori- ae cupiditate; nec tantum, quia pug- nant, ista patiuntur, sed ut pugnent... nos quoque evincamus omnia, quorum praemium non corona nec palma est ete.’
16. Katramrdéovow] ‘resort’; comp. Plut. AZor. p. 81 E xcaramdeiv yap en Tovs moAXovs emt ayoAnv ‘AOnvace.
224
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[vir
vo > \ ¢€ \ / \ oTepavovyTat, €l py ol MOANA KOTLATAaYTES Kal Ka-
ca / AWS AYWVLTALEVOL. oTrepavwhaper.
~ > / 3 e/ 7 nMELS OUV adywruicwuEba, iva mavTeEs
e/ / \ ¢ \ \ 5) a wate Oéwuev Thy Odov THv EvOeiar,
ae , \ \ > \ / dyava tov aplaptov, Kal moNXol ets abTov KaTaT)eEv-
, / \ = \ Twuev Kal aywuocwpueba, iva Kal orepavwlwpev* Kal
1 ef un] AC; (Aun A) add. solum S. curramus); O&uev AC. See the lower note.
S. 5 kai pri.] AC; om. S.
Compounds of w\eiy are sometimes used metaphorically, as exmdeiv (He- rod. iii. 155 e&émAwoas tov dpevar), arromAew (Aristoph. -”. II. p. 907 Mei- neke arom\evoté ovv emt tov vupdiov), SuavAewv (Plato Phaed. 85 D Sdiamded- ca. tov Biov). But xatramAeivy can hardly be so explained here; and we must therefore suppose that the allu- sion is to the advepxys “IoOpod Seipas (Pind. Zsthm. i. 10), which would na- turally be approached by sea. Livy (xxxill. 32) describes the Isthmian games as ‘propter opportunitatem loci, per duo diversa maria omnium rerum usus ministrantis, humano generi concilium.’ In these later days of Greece they seem to have surpassed even the Olympian in im- portance, or at least in popularity: comp. Aristid. /sthm. p. 45 év th Kad- Alorn TO Tavnyvpewy THe Kal ovopac- roratn k.T.A. (see Krause He//en. Il. 2. p- 205 sq). If this homily was ad- dressed to the Corinthians (see above, p. 197), there would be singular propriety in this image, asin S. Paul’s contrast of the perishable and im- perishable crown likewise addressed to them, or again in the lessons which Diogenes the Cynic is reported to have taught in this city during the Isthmian games, maintaining the superiority of a moral over an athletic victory (Dion Chrysost. Ovat. viii, ix).
I. komuacavres] A word used especially of training for the contest :
3, Géwpev] conj. (so too S distinctly 4 els abrov] AC; 2 certamen aywvicwpefal] AS; ayvicdpeba C.
see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 6 and Philippians ii. 16. For the connexion here comp. 1 Tim. iv. I0 kal xomidpev kal ayvi(opeba (the correct reading).
3. Oé€opev] For the accusative after this verb see Lobeck Paral. p. 511: comp. also Cic. OF ii. 10 ‘stadium currit’ (from Chrysippus). The reading of the Greek Mss, @oyev, can hardly stand. It is explained as referring to the dyo-
vobecia; but in this case the aywvobérns should be God Himself (see Tertull. ad Mart. 3); and
moreover Oepev tHv odoy is in itself an awkward expression. Gebhardt, having read @éwper in first edition, has returned to Oépev in his second, being apparently persuaded by Bryen- nios. Butthe argument of Bryennios appears to me to be based on a mis- conception. He urges that we can- not read @éwpev on account of the words immediately following, kal modo eis av’Tov KaTamAeVo@per, and he argues 6 6€ dpru dywuCopevos xpeiav ouK €xet els TOY aya@va KaTedOeiy, as if the reading @éwpev involved a hys- teron-proteron. But in fact this clause introduces an entirely new proposition, of which the stress lies on woAAoi ; ‘let us not only take part in this race (Gewpev tHy odov), but let us go there zz great numbers and con- tend (oAXoi katamAeVo@per kai ayor- owpeba).’ On the other hand it has not been shown that Oetvar ryv ddov or Tov dyava can be said of the com-
vit]
>
x , y ee py duvaueba rravres
~ / ee Tov oTedavou yevwueba.
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
225
~ \ ’ \ orepavwOyvar, Kav éeyyus 2Q/ e ~ ohn a ¢ \ eldevat nas O€t, OTL 6 TOY
\ 5) - / nN ~ / P0aptov adyava aywuCopuevos, éav evpeOn ~pleiowr, MacTiywlels aiperar Kal éEw PBadreTat TOU oTadiov.
Ti OOKEITE$ 6 TOV THIS apbapoias aywva pbcipas, Ti
7 eidévac] A; add. 5é CS. Ooxecrac A,
batants themselves. Bryennios in- deed explains it @dpev éavrois jf mpo9epeGa, but this explanation stands self-condemned by the necessity of using either the reflexive pronoun (cavrois) or the middle voice (mpo- Oaue8a) to bring out the sense. The construction which we have here occurs from time to time with 6ée, but is more common with rpéyew, because the verb itself is more com- mon; e.g. Heb. xii. 1 tpéyopev roy Tpokeiwevoy nuiy ayava (see Bleek’s note). Polybius (i. 87. 1, xviii. 35. 6) has the proverb rpéyew rhv éoyarny.
5- kat ef pn duvdpeba k.t.d.| This seems to point to some public recog- nition of those who came nextafterthe victor. In the Olympian chariot races there were second, third, and fourth prizes; but in the foot racesthenotices of any inferior prize or honourable mention are vague and uncertain: see Krause He//en, Il. 1. p. 170 sq. This passage is quoted loosely by Do- rotheus Doctr. xxiii bs héyer kai 6 &ytos KAnuns, Kav pa) oreavarai tis, adda omovddcet ur pakpay evpeOnvat TOY OTE- pavoupéver.
6. Kav éyyts «r.d.] See Joseph. B. J. 1. 21. 8 GOXa péyiora mpobels ev ois ov povoy of vikdvTes GAA Kal of per avTovs kal of rpito. Tov PBacwALKod movrov petedduBavov. Comp. Afosz. Cost. 1. TA.
8. Pdcipwr] ‘ vitiating.” The word is used of violating the conditions of the contest, e.g. by making a false
CLEM. II.
6] here A; before aywvrifduevos, C. pbelpas] A; POelpwy C, so apparently S.
10 doxetre]
start or cutting off a corner or trip- ping up an adversary or taking any underhand advantage: comp. Epi- phan. Haer. lxi. 7 rapapOeipas ayava 0 aGOAntns paotix9els exBddderar Tod adyovos (quoted by Cotelier). The word is specially chosen here for the sake of the neighbouring ¢é6aprév ap@apoias. See Chrysippus in Cic. Of. iii. Io ‘Qui stadium currit, eniti et contendere debet, quam maxime possit, ut vincat; supplantare eum quicum certet aut manu depellere nullo modo debet: sic in vita etc’, Lucian Cal. non tem. cred. 12 6 pev adyais Spopeds...r6 mAnolov kakoupyet...0 O€ KakOs €keivos kal avaOXos aVTAY@VLOTIS...€7l THY KAKOTEXViav erpa- meto x.t.A. The turn given to the image in @écipwy was perhaps sug- gested by 2 Tim. il. 5 ov oredavodras €ay pn vouipas dbAnon (comp. Epictet. Diss. i. 10. 8 Sos por admddeaEw ei vopipes nOAncas).
Q. paortywbeis] i.e. by the paBdod- xo or, as they are sometimes called (e.g. Lucian Hermot. 40), paotvyo- gopo. Pollux (iil. 153) furnishes also a third name, paorvyovduor. Compare Herod. vili. 59 €v roto. aya@ou of mpoeé- aviotawevot parigovra, Thucyd. v. 50 €v TO Ayou UT TV paBdovyay TANyas ehaBev, Lucian adv. [ndoct. 9, Piscat. 33- On these police see Krause He/- en. Il. 1. pp. 112 sq, 139, 142, 144, II. 2. p. 46 sq. See Schweighaeuser on Epictet. Dzss. ili. 15. 5 (p. 689).
aipetat] ‘zs removed,’
ovdev
15
226 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [vil
~ = \ \ / / \ mabeira; Twv yap pn THopnoTavTwY, hyo, THY Tdpa- yida 6 CK@AHZ AYT@N OY TEAEYTFK CE! KAI TO TYP AYT@N oY cBecOFceTal, KAI ECONTAI EIC OPACIN TACH CapPKI.
VIII.
\ \ ~ ie / mos yap €ouev Els THY xXElVa TOV TEXVITOV.
y 5) \ > \ a / ‘(Us ovv éomev émt yrs, meTavonowpmer
v. \ ~ ~ \ — TpOTOV yap 6 KEpameus, €av Ton oKEvVOS Kal év Tals é
eopcly avTov Siactpapn 4 ovvTpiBn, mwadw auto xepoly papn 1 peBn,
9 , > \ \ ’ > \ i, nn
dvarAacoe éav d€ mpopdon els THY Kapu.voy Tov
\ ? A ~ AL / 5) ‘od e/ \
mupos avto BaNeiv, ovKeTt BonOyoe aita@ ovTws Kal
-~ e/ \ 5) (g > / ? an \
NES, EwS EoMEev EV TOUTW TW KOTMM, EV TH TApKE
1 madeira] A; meicera C. 2 70 Tip avTGv] AS; 7d rip (om. airdr) C.
6 mown] A; moujon C, but the present tense is wanted here; see below. here, A; before duacrpapy, CS thus altering the sense. 7 A] AS; om. C.
Tou mupos] AC; om. S, but see the next note.
doubtful.
burat id et pereat (perdatur) S.
I. tv oppayida] By a compari- son with § 6 éav wy tnpno@pev To Baz- Tica, it appears that baptism is here meant by the seal. So again § 8 r7- pnoate THY odpayida adomudov. Comp. Hermas Sz. vili. 6 eiAndores thy odpayida kai teOXakores avtny Kal pr THpHnoavTes Vyth K.T.A., S771. 1X. 16 OT- av 6€ AdBn thy odpayida...n oppayis ovy TO UOwp é€oriy K.z7.r., also SZ. Vill. 2, ix. 17, 31, Clem. Hom. xvi. 19 TO copa opayidt peyiorn SiatetuTo- pevov (with the context), Act. Paz. et Thecl. 25 povov Sos por rHv év Xpio- T®@ opayida, Hippol. Axntichr. 42 (p. 119, Lagarde), Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents p.44. So of Aber- clus it is said (Zen. and Polyc. 1. p.496) Aaprpav odpayeiday exovta. Suicer s.u. quotes Clem. Alex. Quzs div. salv.
39 (p. 957), Strom. ii. 3 (p. 434), and later writers. Barnabas § 9 speaks
of circumcision as a odpayis after S. ,
Paul, Rom. iv. 11. Butit may be ques- tioned whether S. Paul (odpayiodpevos 2 Cor. i. 22, comp. Ephes. iv. 30) or S.
kal] év] A; om. Coos 8 avamrdooe] A; dvarddoe C.
g Baretvy] AC; add. et com-
It is not probable however that any corresponding
John (Rev. ix. 4 tiv odpayida rod Geov él Tay petomayv) used the image with any direct reference to baptism.
2. doK@dAnék.t.A.] Anaccuratequo- tation from the Lxx of the last verse of Isaiah (Ixvi. 24) 6 yap ox@An€é adtav x7.A. The denunciation is uttered against rau avOpdrev trav mapaBeBn- koroy, and the context does not con- tain any reference to the broken seal.
VIII. ‘We are as clay in the hands of the potter. At present, if we are crushed or broken, He can mould us again; but when we have been once thrown into the furnace, nothing will avail us. Therefore let us repent in time. After death repentance is too late. Let us keep the flesh pure now, that we may inherit eternal life here- after. This is our Lord’s meaning, when He says, /f ye kept not that which ts small, who shall give you that which ts great?’
4. ‘Qs ovv] ‘While then,” For this sense of ws see § 9 ws fyopuev xarpor, with the note.
rat OV 5
vur] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. a2
3)
5 4 \ / 3 / ~ a émpagtauev Trovnpa pmeTavonowpey EEF OANS THS Kap- 7 74 ~ \ ~ / e/ af dias, iva owlwyev vio tov Kupiov, ws Exyouev Kat- \ , \ A \ Ps a ‘ 5 pov peravoiass peta yao TO €€eNOelv nuas ex ToU "4 ae & / > S35 , aX Kooov, ovKeTt duvaueba éxet EEouodoyioacOa 7 peE- a af / ? 4 / \ / TAVOELV ETL. WOTE, adeA Pot, Tomnocavtes TO OédXnua ~ \ \ \ / \ / TOU TATPOS Kal THY TapKa ayvnY THPNTAaYTES Kal Tas \ ~ / / / \ / évtodas tov Kupiov duvAaEavtes Anvoueba Cwny aiw-
VLOV.
MIKPON OYK €THPHCATE, TO MELA TIC YMIN ACE;
words stood in the Greek text.
ovrw C. 11 4} Cs; st guid S. dum S; ws éru C, mas ain. C.
AC; add. super nostris peccatis S. 16 odpxa] C; capxay A; add. judy S.
5. mndos yap eopev x.t.r.]| The image of Jeremiah xviii. 4—6, adopt- ed by S. Paul Rom. ix. 21. The pre- sent passage is suggested rather by the prophet than by the Apostle. The image is drawn out in 7Zesé. xz Patr. Nepht. 2, and in Athenag. Suppl. 15.
6. mow okevos Kat «.t.A.] There can be no doubt that the more graphic reading of A is correct. The very point of the comparison is that the breakage happens zz the making (mon), happens uwuzder the hands of the potter (ev rais yepow atvtov duaotpady), and not afterwards, aS Toinon...Tais xepolv avrov Kai diao- tpady would imply.
7. ovvtpiBn| Rev. ii. 27 ws ta OkKEUN TA Kepapika ouyTpiBera.
madw avTo dvarAacoe| Hilgen- feld refers to Theoph. ad Aztol. lil. 26 kaOarep oxevdos Tt, émav maa bev aitiay Twa ox, avaxveveta 7 ava- mAdooetar eis TO yevéoOa Kaivdy kal oAoKAnpoy ; see the references there given by Otto.
8. éav d€ mpopOaon x.t.r.] ‘ When
exouev katpdv] A; Karpov éxouerv C. Tod Kécpov] AC; rns capxés S.
, \ ¢ / 2 ~ 5) / > \ Aéyer yap 6 Kupios év tw evayyedtw: Ei to
AEF BonOjoer] A; Bonde? CS. ovTws] A; THs] A}; om. C, 12 €ws] A;
13 peravolas] 14 €£ouodoy7joac Gat] 15 momoavtes] AC; add. ody (?) S.
He has once cast it into the fiery Jurnace, He will no more come to tts rescue. mpopOavery occurs Matt. xvii. 25 and several times in the Lxx.
16. tv capa ayvny xt.r.] Act. Paul. et Thecl. 5 paxapior ot ayrny thy cdpka tnpnoavres, 12 THY oapKa py porvynte adda THpHnoNTE ayvnr.
18. Ei ro puxpoy «.t.A.] Probably a quotation fused from Luke xvi. Io 0 muaTos ev EXaxioT@ Kai ev TOAA® TLo- TOS €oTW, Kal 6 ev €haxioT@ GdtKos Kai év TOAA@ adiKds eat" ei ov ev TO ddikm pwapwva mictol ovK éyéverOe, TO GAnO.woy Tis vpiv miorevoe; and Matt. XXV. 21, 23, éml Odiya is micros, emt mo\A@y oe KaTaoTnoe. Irenzus (il. 34. 3) cites it somewhat similarly, ‘ Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod mag- num est quis dabit vobis?’? The quo- tation of our Clementine writer may perhaps be taken from an apocryphal gospel (see the notes on §§ 4, 5, 12) ; but the passage of Irenzeus, who can hardly have borrowed from an apo- cryphal source, shows how great di- vergences are possible in quotations from memory, and lessens the pro-
I5—2
228
\ c La] cea (4 A rap YMIN OT! O TTICTOC
’ > / Ss CTOC €CTIN. apa OUV
/ A \ \ Tapka ayynvy Kat THY
/ A / [aiwnov] Conv drodaBwper. 4 amordBwyuev] A; amokaBnre CS: see the
I 7oAX@] AC; Toddols S. lower note.
bability of this solution. Hilgenfeld’s inference (p. xxxix), ‘Irenzeus hac epistula quamvis nondum Clementi Romano adscripta usus esse videtur,’ seems to me quite unwarranted by the coincidence. We have in fact a similar coincidence in Hippol. Haer. X. 33 (p. 336) iva emi TO puKp@ motos evpebeisxal To péya miotevOnva SuvnO7s.
2. dpa ovv] A favourite colloca- tion of particles in S. Paul: see Fritz- sche on Rom. v. 18. The accentua- tion dpa ovr is erroneous.
touto Aéyer] ‘He means this’: as in §, 2 (twice), § 12. See the note on Galatians ili. 17. The words there- fore which follow ought not to be treat- ed as an apocryphal quotation, as they are by several editors and others.
3. domadov| For rnpety aomaor comp. I Tim. vi. 14, James 1. 27.
4. aiwvoyv| The omission in the Syriac is probably correct; comp. S$ 14 tooavtny dvvarau ny cap& aitn petadaBety Cony x.t.A., § 17 cvvnypévoe @pev eri thy Conv. The epithet may have been inserted from the expression just above, Anyoueba Conv aidmor. Similarly in John xx. 31 alwmoy is added after (anv by NCD etc., and in t Tim. vi. 19 tHe aiwviov Cans (from ver. 12) is substituted for the less usual ris dvtwas (wns by several authorities. In Luke x. 25 Marcion read (w7v without aidmoy (see Tertull. c. Marc.iv. 25), and so one Latin copy.
dmodaBapev] ‘secure. The pre- position implies that it is already potentially our own, so that we are only vecovering a right: see Gala- tians iv. 5 with the note.
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[viq1
EN €AAYICTM KAl EN TIOAA® TII- ~ , / N
TovuTo A€Eyel’ THpNnTaATE THY ~ I e/ \
oppayida aomidov, wa TH
The licence in the change of per- sons (rnpyjoate, droAaBwpev) has of- fended the transcribers here, though occasionally indulged in even by the best writers in all languages, e.g. Jeremy Taylor Works VI. p. 364 ‘If ¢hey were all zealous for the doctrines of righteousness, and impatient of sin, in yourselves and in the people, it is not to be im- agined what a happy nation we should be.’ See also e.g. Rom. vii. 4 eOavarenre, Kkapropopnoaper, Vill. 15 eAaBere, kpaCoper, and frequently in S. Paul.
IX. ‘Do not deny the resurrection of the body. As we were called in the flesh, so also shall we be judged in the flesh. As Christ being spirit became flesh for us, so shall we in the flesh receive our recompense. Let us love one another; let us make a return to God for His goodness. What must this return be? Sincere repentance and unceasing praise— the praise not of our lips only, but of our hearts and of our actions,’
5. Kat pn Aeyéro tis x.t.A.] This passage, as far as dmoAnWopeba rov pc Gov, is quoted in several collections of Syriac fragments, immediately after the opening sentence of this epistle: see the note on the beginning of § 1, and comp. I. p. 185. The sentence eis Xpworos...nuas ékadeoev is also quoted by Timotheus of Alexandria; see I. p. 180.
avtn 1 oap& «.t.A.] Difficulties on this point were very early felt and met by S. Paul, 1 Cor.xv. 12 sq7am@ little later the precursors of Gnosti-
1x]
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
229
IX. Kat pn AeyéTw Tis Vuwv, OTL aTH 4 Tape
>’ , sA\ ee oU KplveTat ovdE avioTaTal.
a / / yvweTe év Tim éeowOnTe,
év Tim dveBAé\vaTe, et pn Ev TH TapKl TavTN OVTES; ha al ee a ’
5 tis] AC; S translates, as if it had read undeis.
cism boldly maintained that the only resurrection was a spiritual resurrec- tion (2 Tim. i. 18). It afterwards became a settled tenet of the Gnostic sects to deny the resurrection of the body: see Polyc. Phz/. 7 és tw peGo- devn Ta Adyia Tod Kupiov mpos ras idias emOupias Kal Aéyn NTE avacTacw pre kpiow eiva, Justin Dzal. 80(p. 306 D) ei yap kal cuveBddeTe vets Tic Aeyo- pevors Xpiotiavots...ot Kal A€yovor py elvar vexp@v avdaotacw GAN dpa To amobvnoke Tas Wuyas avT@y avadap- BavecOa eis Tov ovpavoy, yn UroAdByTe avTovs Xptoriavovs x.7.A., Iren. ii. 31. 2 tocovroy d€ amodéovcr Tov veKpov eyetpa...ut ne quidem credant hoc in totum posse fieri; esse autem resur- rectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus, quae ab eis dicitur, veritatis’ (comp. Meat t, 2), Act: Paul. ef Thecl. 14 Huets oe StOakomer, Nv Neyer ovTos ava- araow yevécOat, ore dn yéyovev ep ois EXOMEV TEKVOLS, Kal avicTapeOa Ceo ére- yvexores adnO7n, Tertull. de Res. Carn. 19 ‘Nacti quidam sollemnissimam eloquii prophetici formam, allegorici et figurati, non tamen semper, resur- rectionem quoque mortuorum mani- feste annuntiatam in imaginariam significationem distorquent etc.,’ with the following chapters.
From this doctrine the antinomian Gnostics deduced two consequences; (1) That the defilement of the flesh is a matter of indifference, provided that the spirit has grasped the truth. Against this error is directed the warning Hermas Szm. v. 7 tv odpka gov TavTnv puAacce Kkabapay Kai dpiav- Tov, iva TO TVEdPAa TO KaTEVoLKOUY ép aut paptupnon avtn Kal duxacwq gov oap&: Brere pyrore avaBy emt
6 ode] A; otre C.
THY KapOlavy Gov TY Gapka Gov Tar- thy POaprhy eivac kal mapaxpnon QUT €v wlagee@ TLvi KT.A. So too Ps.-Ign. Tars. 2 érepor dé [A€yovow] OTL 4 Gapé avtn ovK éyeiperat, Kal Cet droAavotikov Biov (Hy Kal pervévat. see also Orig. ¢.. Ceés. v.2225, - eats practical consequence our writer seems to have distinctly in view §§ 85 g. (2) That it is legitimate to decline martyrdom and to avoid persecution by a denial of Christ with a mental reservation. Rightly or wrongly this charge is constantly brought against them by their antagonists. Thus Agrippa Castor, writing against Basi- lides (Euseb. H.£. iv. 7), represented him as teaching ddsadopety cidwAo0bv- T@y amoyevopévous Kal e&opvupevous admapadvAdktos THY mioTW KaTa TOUS Tov Oiwypev Kaipovs: and Iren. Haer. ii. 18. 5 ‘Ad tantam temeritatem pro- gressi sunt quidam ut etiam martyres spernant et vituperent eos qui prop- ter Domini confessionem occiduntur etc.’ (comp: 1. 24. 6). “This is‘atcon- stant charge in Tertullian. See on this subject Ritschl Althath. Kirche p- 495 sq. This view again seems to be combated by our writer, S$ 4, 5, 7, 10.
Schwegler Nachapf. Zeittalt. 1. p. 453 Sq maintained that the expres- sion in our text is directed against docetic Ebionism. He is well re- futed by Hilgenfeld Afost. Vat. purrs sq:
7. ev rim] ‘ix what, not ‘zn whom, as the following «7 py ev r7 capki shows.
aveBdeWate| ‘ye recovered your sight’; comp. § I rova’rns adyAvos yémovres ev TH Opacer aveBAEWaper K.T.A,
230 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1x
an oy e = € \ “~ / \ 7 dei ovv iuas ws vaov Oceov duvdracoew thy capKa’ c\ / \ ? ~ \ 2 J \ 2 Lge ov Tpomov yap ev TH oapKt éxAnOnTe, Kal év TH \ ? / > \ € / € / capkt édevoecbe. et Xpirtos 6 Kupios, 6 cwoas an \ \ \ - a) / \ NPGS, WY MEV TO TPWTOV TVEUMA, EYyEvEeTO TapE Kat J ~ / cf \ ~ / ~~ OUTWS Mas ExahETEV, OUTWS Kal Hels EV Ta’TH THS capkt admoAnWoucba Tov picbov. dyarwpuev ovv ad-
/ e/ af / > \ / “~ AnAous, O7ws EAOwuEv TavyTeEs Els THY BactirElay TOU
Oeouv.
¢ of A ~ > ~ an) ws Eyouev Kaipov Tov tabyvat, émidwpev Eéav-
2 kal év TH capkl...6 cdoas] AC; e¢ tx carne venit christus dominus (noster), unus existens, ts gut salvavit S. This may be explained by the obliteration of some
letters, so that éXevcec@e was read eX...e, and translated as if 7\Oe.
cecbe| eXevcecOar A. note.
change. carne S Timoth Fragm-Syr.
I. ws vaov Geov x.7.A.]| See Ign. Philad.'7 thv cdpka vpav ws vaoy Geod Tnpeire: Comp. I Cor. ili. 16, 17, Vi. 19, 2 Cor. vi. 16, and see Ign. Ephes. g. 15 (with the notes).
3. édevoecOe] Not, I think, eis Tv Baoweiay Tov Geodv, as Harnack takes it, but eis rnv kpiow.
el Xpiotos x.t.A.] The reading ei for eis, now supported by ample authority, is evidently required by the context. Mill and others would have read ws, which gives the same sense. Editors quote as a parallel Ign. Magn. 7 cis éativ Incods Xpioros, but eis is quite out of place here, though appropriate there where the writer is dwelling on wnzty. It is possible that the reading of A €IC arose out of EIIC i.e. ef "Inaois, or €IOIC i.e. ef 6 "Incovs. The confu- sion would be easier, as the preceding word ends in €.
4. ov péev| As though the sentence were intended to be continued in a participial form yevomevos dé.
TO mpatoy mvevpa| The doctrine of the pre-existence of the Son, as
3 €dev-
ei] Fragm Syr; efs ACS Timoth: see the lower 4 mvedua] AS; doyos C: see above, I. p. 125, for the motive of this éyéveto] AC; add. 6¢ S Timoth Fragm-Syr.
kat otrws] A; Kal ovrws kal C.
capé] AC; ix 5 ékd-
the Logos, is here presented in a somewhat unusual form ; comp. how- ever Hermas Szm. v. 6 76 mvetpa TO aylov, TO Mpoov, TO KTicay Tacay THY KTiow, Katdkirevy 0 Geos eis oapka hy eBovdeTo, 1X. I ékeivo yap TO mvedpa 0 vids Tov Geod é€ativ, Theoph. ad Au- tol. ii. 10 obros otv Oy mvedpua Ceod Kal apx7 Kai copia kai dvvayis vpiorov KaTypxeTo eis Tous mpopytas kai Ov avrov éhdAet «.7.A., Tertull. adv. Mare. ill. 16 ‘spiritus Creatoris qui est Christus,’ Hippol. c. /Voet. 4 (p. 47 Lagarde) Adyos capE jv, mvedpa jy, Svvapis Hv k.7.A. See especially Dor- ner Lehre von der Person Christz 1. p- 205 sq.
8. ws exouev Karpov] ‘while we have opportunity’: comp. Gal. vi. 10 (with the note), Ign. Smyrna. 9 os €rt kaipov €youev. Another instance of ws, ‘whzle, occurs above, § 8.
10. mpoyveorns| Justin AZfol. i. 44 (p. 82 B), Tatian ad Graec. 19, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15.
II. ta ev xapdia] 2 Chron. xxxil. 31 eidevat Ta ev TH Kapdia avrov, Deut. Vili. 2 dtayvao6n ra é€v tH Kapdia cov,
Ix] AN
ANCIENT HOMILY.
231
Tous T@ OeparrevovTi Ocw, avTmicbiay aiT@ SidovTes:
moiav; TO meTavonoa 退 eEldKpLVoUs Kapdias* Tp0-
/ / > a Is \ 5) \ ~ \ yuwoTns yap éoTW TwY TavTwWY Kal EldWS uwY TA
> , €V Kapoia.
= > a > NM 3 \ \ Owuev ovv avT@ aivov aiwyov, pn aro
/ / 5) \ \ p) N / ef € a GTouMaTos povov a@\Aa Kal amo Kapdias, iva nuas
/ e e , MpoooeenTat ws vious.
‘AAEADOI MOY OYTO! EICIN Of TOIOfNTEC
TATPOC MOY.
\ A s Kal yao €elTEV O
Kvpuos:
TO O€AHMA TOF
Aerev] AC; add. existens in carne (dv év TH capki) S, but this may be only a gloss of o’rws and probably does not represent any additional words in the Greek text.
ovTws sec.] A; otTw C. om. C, tAckpivouc A. corde nostrum S. a8 13 nuas] AC; Kal quads S.
I Sam. ix. 19,etc. Hilgenfeld reads Ta evkapdia, saying of A ‘évedpd:a (s. eykapdia) c. cod., Jun., év capdia ceteri edd.’ But, inasmuch as an iota sub- script or adscript never appears in MSS of this date, the transcriber could not have written év xapdia otherwise than he has done. Moreover, since év kapdia and ev rH Kapdia occur number- less times in the LXxX, whereas the adjective éyxapdios is not once found there, this reading seems to me im- probable. In Clem. Alex. Paed.i. 3 (p. 103) I should be disposed conversely to read duop@y ra ev kapdia (for éykap- dia) Avyos. The word éyxapdios how- ever is legitimate in itself.
12. aivov aiwvwv| This is doubtless the right reading; see above, I. p. 120 and the note on evpeiv below § 10. Comp. Afost. Const. iii. 1 rév ai@vioy ématvov.
15. “AdeAdoi pov x.r.rA.| Matt. xii. 49 idod n pnrnp pov kal of adedAdoi pov’ Oats yap ay momon TO OéAnpa TOU TaTpos mov TOU év ovpavois, avTos jou adekpos kal adeApr Kal pytnp éoriv (comp. Mark iii. 35) ; Luke viii. 21
6 aroAnPiueba] arodnpouada A. 9 TP OeparevovTt] AC; add. xzos S.
II Ta €v Kapdla] TaevKapdia A; Ta éyKdpdia C3 ea quae in 12 alvoyv aiwvioy] awviov (om. awov) A; aivoy (om. aidmor)
ovv] AS;
IO eiAtKpivods]
15 movovvres] wouvres A.
pntnp pov Kal adeAdoi pov ovroi cicw, of Tov Adyoy Tov CeEov akovoyTes Kai mowouvtes. Epiphanius, Waer. xxx. 14 (p. 139), gives the saying Odroi eiow of adeAdoi pov kal 7 pyTnp, of moLodvTES ta Oednpara Tov tTaTpos pov, as it is assumed, from an Ebionite gospel (Westcott Canon p. 160, Hilgenfeld A post. Vat. p. 122); but I do not think his language implies more than that the Ebionites allowed the saying to stand in their recension of the Gos- pel, and he may be quoting loosely from the canonical Evangelists. A still wider divergence from the ca- nonical passages is in Clem. Alex. Ecl. Proph. 20 (p. 994) dyer oty eis eAevOepiay THY TOU TaTpOs DvyKANpoVo- fous viovs kal didous’ “AdeAdoi pov yap, now 6 Kuptos, kai cvykAnpovopot of mo.ovvtes TO Oé€Anpa Tov TaTpos pov, where the context shows that ovykAnpovopor is deliberately given as part of the quotation. Omitting «at ovykAnpovopor and inserting odroi eiow, it will be seen that this form of the saying agrees exactly with our pseudo- Clement’s quotation.
232
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x
X. “Wore, ddedpot pov, momowpev To OéAnpa
~ \ - / > / / \ TOU TaTpos TOU KaNETavTOS aie iva aad a Kal
duwEwmev poaddov THY apeTny, Thy O€ Kaklay KaTa-
AEiVwuEev ws Tpoovoimopov Tw GUAPTLOY MOY, Kal
1 ddeApol ov] A; ddeApol (om. ov) C; aded@ol kal ddekpat [uov] S. On the
uncertainty respecting the pronoun in S in such cases see below, § 13.
X. ‘Let us therefore fulfil the will of our Father. Let us flee from vice, lest evil overtake us. Let us do good, that peace may pursueus. They who teach the fear of men rather than the fear of God, are duly punished. And, if they themselves alone suffered, it were tolerable. But now they shall have a double condemnation, for they lead others besides themselves into ruin.’
2. iva (yoopev] To be connected not with rod cadéoavros nas, but with TOLNT OLED.
4. tmpoodoimopov] ‘a forerunner’; for xaxia is the evil disposition, while dpapria is the actual sin. On kakia see Trench JV. 7. Sym. 1st ser. § xi, where he quotes the definition of Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 32) ‘ Azzmz pravitas quae humanitati et aequitati est opposita et malignitas vulgo nun- cupata.’ The substantive mpoodoimo- pos seems to be very rare, though the verb mpoodouropety occurs occasion- ally.
6. dyaboraeiv| See the note on the First Epistle § 2 dya@omo:iar.
7. tevpeivt] sc. eipnyny ; ‘ For this reason aman cannot find peace. If we take the reading of the Greek MSS, no other meaning seems possible ; but it can hardly be correct. Yet this must have been the reading of S, which translates ‘on est homint (cuiguam) invenire homines tllos gui faciunt timorem humanumy as if the construction were ovk éoriy avOpwrov evpeiv (éxetvous) otrives «.7.A.; but for
eras ‘gui faciunt, ought we not
4 ™po-
to read prasa ‘gui transeunt,
thus more closely representing mapa- youat, which however it mistranslates? Previous editors have supposed the
error to lie in dvO@pwmor, written AN ON
in the Ms. Accordingly ANON (i.e. iy Gedv) has been suggested by Wot- ton ; OYNON (i.e. ovpavdv) by Davies; and AINON (aivov) by Hilgenfeld. But in the first correction the a is grammatically inexplicable ; and the second and third give unnatural ex- pressions. I believe the mistake is in €YPEIN, and should suggest G€IPHNHNEYPEIN or EIPHNEYEIN, or still better E€YHMEPEIN. If evnuepew ‘to prosper’ be adopted, the writer seems to have in mind Ps. xxxiv. 9 sq hoBnOnre tov Ku- .OUK €OTLY VOTEPHUAa TOLS poBovupevors .poBov Ku- plov diddéw tas. tis éorw avOpwmos 6 bov Conv, dyarav nuépas idetv dyads 3...€kkALvoy amo kakov kal moinaov ayabov, (ytncov eipnyny kai Siw@~ov avtny, where the coinci- dences are striking. The contrast between the fear of men and the fear of God, which underlies this passage, would naturally suggest to our author the words in which the Psalmist em- phatically preaches the fear of the Lord. For evnpepeiv, evnwepia, Comp. 2 Macc. v. 6, viii. 8, x. 28, xll. 11, xiii. 16, xiv. 14. For the manner in which the transcriber of our principal MS drops letters (more especially where there is a proximity of similar forms) comp.
, ploy martes.. / avuTov..
S$ g awmov for aivoy aiwnor,
x] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
5 puywpev THy doeBeay, py Has KaTadaBy Kaka.
233
9 \ EaV
\ / > ~ ’ e ~ > / yap orovdacwpev ayabororeiv, dw EeTar nuas eipyyn.
\ / \ \ > / 9 a4 ¢€ ~ of Awa tTavTnv yap Thy aitiavy ovK éotw Tevpet av-
odolropov] AC; proditorem (as if rpodérnv) S. This rendering again may be due to
the obliteration of some letters in the word.
6 yap] AS; dé C.
mouvvreo for movovytes, § 11 acovk for as ovs ovx. See also in the First Epistle § 11 erepoyywpoo, § 25 Te- AeutnKoTOG, § 32 nuepac (for nuerépas), etc., and (if my conjecture be correct) S 40 the omission of éemipedos before emitedetc Oa. Lipsius (Academy July eeet070; comp. /en.-L27., 13 Jan. 1877) would read ovx éorw eipnvn avOporrots oiruves k.T.A.
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2, pp. xlvili, 77) supposes that there is a great lacuna at this point ovk gor evpeiv avOpa- mov | oitwes tmrapayovow doBovs av- Opwmwovs x.7-A. In this lacuna he finds a place not only for this quota- tion in the so-called John of Da- mascus (see above, I. p. 194 sq), but also for the reference to the Sibyl in Pseudo-Justin which I have discussed already (I. p. 178 sq). This theory however seems highly improbable for the following reasons.
(1) Though there is good reason for assuming that the existing text is faulty at this point, the external facts are altogether adverse to the supposition that a great lacuna exists here, such for instance as would be produced by the disappearance of one or more leaves in an archetypal Ms. Such an archetypal MS must have been of very ancient date, for all our three extant authorities (see above, I. p. 145) have the same text here. It is not indeed impossible that this archetypal MS should have been defective, seeing that the com- mon progenitor of ACS certainly had minor corruptions. But though pos- sible in itself, this supposition is
apaptiov] A; duaprnuarev C,
hardly consistent with other facts. It is highly improbable that a long passage which had disappeared thus early should have been preserved in any MS accessible to the Pseudo- Damascene, or even to the Pseudo- Justin. Moreover the enumeration of verses in the Stichometria of Ni- cephorus seems to have been made when the epistle was of its present size, and is not adapted to a more lengthy document. In the colophon at the end of the Second Epistle (see above, I. p. 122) C gives oriyor x’, pnta xe. As Nicephorus (see I. p. 196) gives the numbers of oriyou in the two Clementine Epistles as ,By’, Bryennios supposes that x’ here is an error for By’, the ,Bhaving dropped out. But, as Hilgenfeld himself has pointed out, as the pyra, or scriptural quotations, are given as 25, this must refer to the Second Epistle alone. When counted up, they do in fact amount to 25, one or two more or less, for it is difficult in some cases to de- cide whether to reckon the quotations separately or not. The 600 verses therefore must refer to the Second Epistle alone. I may add that this agrees with the reckoning of Ni- cephorus, which giving 2600 to the Two Epistles leaves 2000 for the First. Thus the proportion of the First Epistle to the Second is roughly as'2000°:/600, or asS-Io °3;) In“my translation the two Epistles take up respectively 344+ and 10% pages, these numbers being almost exactly as 10: 3.
(2) Again; though the two frag-
234 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x
Oowrov, oltwes mapayovor poBous avOpwrivous, mpon- pnwevou uadrAov thy évOade atoAavow THY MéAXOU- cay érayyeNlav. adyvoovew yap rAikny exer Bacavov 7 evOade amoXNavols, Kal olay Tpugny Exel 1) U“eANOVTA érayyeNla. Kal €l Mev aUTOL ovo. Tav’TAa Erpacco), aveKTOV 7v° vuv Oe émluévovoly KakodLloacKaNourTEs
\ 5) id U4 5) > le v4 \ e/ Tas dvaitious Wuyas, ovK eEldoTes OTL Otoonv E€ovaLY
\ / / \ e , a“ THY KPLOLVY, QUTOL TE KAL OL AKOVOVTES aUTWV,
SB
¢ a> ‘s 2 co if / Huets ovv é€v kabapa Kapdia dovAevowpev
I mponpnuévor] mpoapoduefa AC. S translates, as if it had read mpoatpovmevo.,
which was also conjectured by Bryennios. mriknv] nrnknv A. 5 emayyeria] emayyedea A.
3 émayyeNtav] erayyedeav A. dvamavows C.
2 amod\avow] AS; dvdmavow C, 4 amédavots] AS; 6 dvexrov jv] AC; S
translates evat its fortasse respiratio, but this probably does not represent any
ments which Hilgenfeld would assign to this lacuna are not incongruous in subject, yet the sentiments in the extant context on either side of the supposed lacuna are singularly appro- priate to one another, and in this juxtaposition seem to have been suggested by the language of Ps. Xxxlv. 9 sq quoted in my note.
(3) The style of the fragment quoted by the Pseudo-Damascene betrays a different hand from our author’s, Its vocabulary is more _ philosophical (xaOoXov, Ta evKTa, UmOGecis Kal VAN, TadonTaota, kat evxnv), and altogether it shows more literary skill.
The probable account of the quo- tations in the Pseudo-Justin and in the Pseudo-Damascene is given above (I. p. 178 sq, 194 sq).
I. otrives] ‘men who, the antece- dent being the singular dvOpazov. This grammatical irregularity is not uncommon : see Jelf’s Gramm. § 819. Bsa
mapayovot k.7.A.| ‘2troduce (instil) fears of men’: comp. § 4 ov dei npas poBetcOa rovs avOpwmovs paddov adda tov Geov. The passages in the
lexicons will show that Hilgenfeld’s correction maperoayovaor for mapayouot is unnecessary. He rightly explains the words (Afost. Vat. p. 118) to refer to those Gnostics who taught that outward conformity to heathen rites was indifferent and that persecution might thus be rightly escaped: comp. kaxodtOackadourtes below, and see the note above on § 9 avrn 7 capé x.r.X.
3. é€mayyediay| i.e. the subject, the fulfilment, of the promise, as e.g. Acts i. 4, Gal. iii. 14, Heb. vi. 15.
6. advexrov nv] For the imperfect see Winer § xlii. p. 321.
kaxoO.oackadovrvres| Ign. Phzlad. 2 kakxoO.OackaAias. So kadodidackadous, To at ae
7. Owonv «r.A.] For the form of the sentence comp. Gen. xliii. 11 kal TO dpyvpuoy duooov AdBere. Comp. Apost. Const. v. 6 kai €érépows airoe dmadelas yevnooueOa kai Sdurdorépay vToigopmev THY Tit.
XI. ‘Let us therefore serve God and believe His promise. If we wa- ver, we are lost. Remember how the word of prophecy denounces the dis- trustful, how it compares the fulfil-
x1]
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 230
~ ~ \ / , \ \ \ 10TH Oew, Kal éoopueba Sixaor éav dé py SovrAEVow-
A ~ \ / e ~ ~ > / - fev Oia TOU pH TioTEVELY Tuas ™ emayyeNia Tov rod , / , \ Ocov, Tarairwpor éxoucOa. éyer yap Kal 7 0- \ , QnTiKos Aoyos'
ZONTEC TH KapAIAd, O| A€ronTec’ Tata tANTA HKOYCAMEN
Tadaitw@pol eicin of Alyyyol, of AicTa-
Kal €Tl TON TATépON HM@N, HMeic Aé HMEépan @Z Hmédac TIPOCAEXOMENO! OYAEN TOYTWN EwpdKameN. “ANGHTOI, CYM- BaAdeTe €ayToYc ZYAw, AdBeTE AmmTEAON’ TIP@TON MEN YA-
> 3 ‘ ' a ey 3 AOpOE!, E€1ITA BAaACTOC TINETAI, META TAYTA OMOMAZ, EITA
different Greek. 7 avaitious] avetiovo A. 10 sq dovAevowmuev bia Tod
bh muorevew x.7.d.] A; Sovdevowmer did 7d wy MuoTedew K.T.r. C3 TisTevowpmev, Sida
TO Oety misreverv K.T.r. S. S. 14 wavTa] A; mada CS.
ACs: om. S. ert] AC; azo S. As; pvddoppoe C.
ment of God’s purpose to the gradual ripening of the fruit on the vine, how it promises blessings at the last to His people. God is faithful and He
~ will perform. Let us therefore work
patiently, and we shall inherit such good things as pass man’s under- standing.’
9. xaOapa xapdia] I Tim. i. 5, 2 Tim. ii. 22 (comp. Matt. v. 8), Her- mas 7s. iii. 9.
12. 6 mpodytixos Aoyos| See 2 Pet. i. 19. From some apocryphal source, perhaps Eldad and Modad: see the notes on the First Epistle § 23, where also the passage is quoted. The va- riations from the quotation in the First Epistle are these: (1) r7 xapdia] Thy Yuxnv (2) wavra] om. (3) mpeis O€...€apdxapev| Kat idod yeynpaxapev kat ovdev nuiy tovTav ovvBéBnKkev (4) avontot] @ avonro. (5) yiverac] add. eira vAXov, eira GvOos Kal. (6) ot- Ts kal k.T.A.] this close of the quota- tion not given. These variations are sufficient to show that the writer of the Second Epistle cannot have de- rived the passage solely from the
12 Tadalmrwpo] AC; vere (ddnOGs or dvTws) miseri nKkovoauev] A; AKovouev CS.
15 Kai]
17 per] AC; om, S. pudrXopoet]
18 wera Tatra] AS; efra C.
First. At the same time the coinci- dence of two remarkable quotations in this very chapter (see below on ods OUK 7kKovcev K.T.A.), Which occur also
.in the First Epistle, besides other
resemblances (e.g. § 3), seems to prove that our writer was acquainted with and borrowed from the genuine Clement.
The additions which some editors introduce into the text here (vioi after nuets dé, and ém after éwpa- kayev) are due to a mistake. The traces, which they have wrongly so read in A, are the reversed impres- sions of letters on the opposite leaf (now lost). The photograph shows this clearly.
15. mmepav €& juepas] ‘day after day’: Num. xxx. 15, 2 Pet. ii. 8. This additional coincidence of the passage quoted with the language of 2 Peter (see the notes on the First Epistle, § 23) is worthy of notice. It seems hardly possible that the two can be wholly independent, though we have no means of determining their rela- tion.
236 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x1
CTAPYAH TAPECTHKYIA’ OYTWC Kal 6 AddC MOY AKATACTACIAC KAl BAlwelc EcyeN’ EmmeitTA ATIOAHWETAI TA ArABd. “Wore, ddedpot pov, wy Supvy@uev, d\Aa EAmioayTEs VIrO- pelvwpuev, iva Kal Tov pucOov KomiowpucOa, mictdc rap ectin 6 émtarrei\dmenoc Tas avTyucOias amodiovar éxa- oTwW TMV Epywy avTOU. éav ovy ToLTwpEV THY OlKal-
/ > / a la > / > \ / ocurny évavTiov Tov OEov, evcanEopuev ers THY Bacirelav
1 orapvat] AS; Bdracrds C. emita A. 3 adda] adr’ C. ovk HKovcey ovd€ dPOaduds eldev] AC vidit et auris non audivit (transposing 1 Cor. iii. 9, and in Clem. Rom. 34.
3. py Supvxdpev] See the note on the First Epistle § 11.
4. muoros yap «t.A.] Heb. x. 23 motos yap O emayyeapevos.
5. amodiova éxaor@ x.t.d.] Matt. sis 27) Rom: 11.6, Rev. xxii. 12.. See also the quotation given in the First Epistle, § 34.
7. elonéouev| ‘Vocem eionkew non agnoscunt lexica’, Jacobson. It oc- curs as early as Aé®schylus, and several instances of it are given in Steph. Thes.
8. ovs «.7.A.] See the note on the First Epistle § 34, where the same passage occurs. The as should not be treated as part of the quotation.
XII. ‘Let us then patiently wait for the kingdom of God. The time of its coming is uncertain. Our Lord’s answer to Salome says that it shall be delayed till #he two shall be one, and the outward as the inward, and the male with the female, netther male nor female. By this saying He means that mutual harmony must first prevail, that there be perfect sincerity, and that no sensual pas- sion be harboured.’
11. Ka@ wpayr| ‘ detzmes,’ ‘tempes- tive,’ according to its usual meaning ; e.g. Job v. 26, Zech. x. 1. It is com-
6 Aads pov] AC; add. rparov S.
2 érera] 8 ovs
4 wa] AC; om. S.
(but A acovxk for acovcouk) ; oculus non the clauses) S. This latter is the order in
g eldev] dev A. 12 é€me.dn]
monly translated here ‘in horas’, ‘from hour to hour’.
13. empavetas] This word, as a synonyme for the wapovoia, occurs in the New Testament only in the Pas- toral Epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1, 8, Tit. ii. 13; compare the indirect use in 2 Thess. ii. 8 ry emua- veia THS Tapoucias avToU.
14. vmod twos| By Salome. This incident was reported in the Gospel of the Egyptians, as we learn from Clem. Alex. S¢vom. iii. 13, p. 553 (in a passage quoted from Julius Cassi- anus), where the narrative is given thus: muvOavouévns THs Tadopns, ToTeE yvocOnoerar Ta TEpt av npeTo, en O Kupwos, “Orav ro ths aicxvyns evdupa TaTnonre, Kal Grav yévnrat Ta Svo EY, kat TO appev peta Tihs Ondeias ovTeE dppev ovre Onrv. To this Clement adds év trois mapadeSopévors nuiv TET- rapow evayyediows ovK €xouev TO pyTOoV GAN év to Kar’ Alyumriovs. Similar passages from this gospel and ap- parently from the same context are quoted by Clement previously, Szvom. iii. 6 (p. 532) rH Zarwoun o Kupros muvOavopévn péxpt mote Oavatos ioxv- oet...Méxpis ay, elev, pets ai yuvaikes rikrere, and Strom. iii. 9 (p- 539 Sq)
> - , A A , > kakelva éyovot Ta mpos Tar@pny et-
xu]
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
20%
~ \ , \ / et > ” avtTov kat Anv\voueba Tas érayyeNias, as ofc o¥k Hkoy- CEN OYAE GHOAAMOC EIAEN, OYAE ETT) KAPAIAN ANOPHTTOY
> ’ IO ANEBH.
XII.
"Exdeywuela ovv kal wpav tHv Bacidelay
~ a > 9 / \ / > \ > of Tov Oeov év dyarn kal Sixaocvvy, éredy ovK ol-
} \ € / an ’ 7 a a auev THY nuEpayv THs Emipavelas Tov OéeEov.
ETEpw-
\ \ > \ € / € / / e/ TnYeis yao avtos 6 Kupios vo twos, mote te
A; émei C, or so probably S. AC; avrod S.
13 émidavelas] emipaviac A. erepwTnbeis] A; épwrnfels C.
TOU Ged] 14 vd twos] AC; add.
Tav admooréAwy S. The addition is unfortunate, for the questioner was Salome; see
the lower note.
pnueva, dv mpdorepov €uynaOnuev (Strom. lil. 6, Just quoted)* @éperar Se, otuat, ev T@ kat Aiyurtious evayyedio’® pact yap ore avros eimev 6 owtnp, "HdOov katadvoat Ta épya THs Ondeias...dev ELKOT@S Trepl GuYTEAELas pnViGaYToOS TOU Adyov, 7 Tateun pyoi* Méype rivos oi avOpwoto. damroOavotvra ;...aparernpn- pévas amoxpiverat 6 Kupwos, Méxpis ay tikrwow ai yuvaixes...ti Sé; ovyit Kal ta €&fs ToHv mpos Tadr@pny cipnuévav emipepovow oi mavta wadXov 7) TO Kara Tv adnOevay evayyeAK@ oToLynoayres Kavovt; pawevns yap avrns, Kadas otvy eroinoa my TeKovoa...dueiBerar éyav o Kuptos, Tacav gaye Bordvny, rnv de miKpiav €xovoav wi payns. One of the sayings in the last passage is again re- ferred toin Exc. Theod. 67,p.985, orav 0 G@TNP Tpos Saropny héyn péxpe TOTE elvan Oavaroy axpis av ai yuvaikes Tikrw- ow. ‘There is nothing in these pas- sages to suggest that Clement himself had read this gospel (unless indeed, as has occurred to me, we should read ri S€ ovyi x«.7.A.; for ri dé; ody? k.t.A. in Stvom. ili. 9), and the ex- pressions Aéyovor, oifuat, daci, seem to imply the contrary; though it is generally assumed that he was ac- quainted with it. Of the historical value of this narrative we may remark: (1) The mystical colouring of these sayings is quite alien to the character
ner] AC; venzt (a present) S.
of our Lord’s utterances as reported in the authentic Gospels, though entirely in keeping with the tone of Greco- Egyptian speculation. Epiphanius thus describes this apocryphal gospel (Haer. \xii. 2, p. 514) woAda roratra ws ev TapaBvoT@ pvoTNpLwdes ek Mpoowmov Tov cwTHpos avapepera. (2) The only external fact which can be tested— the reference to Salome as childless— is in direct contradiction to the cano- nical narratives. This contradiction however might be removed by an easy change of reading, cadés ody ay €moinoa for kadés ovv éroinoa. The Egyptian Gospel was highly esteem- ed by certain Gnostic sects as the Ophites (Hippol. Haer. v. 7, p. 99), by the Encratites (Clem. Alex. Strom. ll. cc.), and by the Sabellians Epi- phan. Haer. l.c.). The Encratites especially valued it, alleging the pas- sages above quoted as discounte- nancing marriage and thus favouring their own ascetic views. This was possibly the tendency of the Egyp- tian Gospel, as is maintained by Schneckenburger (Ueber das Evang. der A-gypt. Bern 1834, p. 5 sq) and Nicolas (Evangiles Apocryphes p. 119 sq); but the inference is at least doubtful. Clement of Alexandria refuses to accept the interpretations of the Encratites ; and though his own
238
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[x11
9 ~ e / s ¢ »” A , a \ \ avTou 4 PBacirela, eimev* “Otan éctai TA AYO EN, Kal TO
€Zm Gc TO é@cw, Kal TO APCEN META TAC OHAElAC, OYTE
APCEN oyTEe OAAY.
' ' \ o e/ a Ta Ayo O€ én €or, STav AadAw-
e qn > / \ b \ / ’ / pev éavTois adAnOeav, Kal év Oval cwuaciy avvTroKpi-
If / / \ Tws Ein pla Woyn. Kal
I sq 70 &w ws 70 €ow] AS; ra fw ws Ta eow C. 4 €aurois] C; avras A; nobis S, which represents
3 dvo dé] A; dé dv0 C.
are sometimes fanciful, still all the passages quoted may reasonably be explained otherwise than in an En- cratite sense.
This quotation has a special inter- est as indicating something of the unknown author of our Second Epi- stle. As several of his quotations cannot be referred to the canonical Gospels (see §§ 4, 5, 8), it seems not unnatural to assign them to the apo- cryphal source which in this one in- stance he is known to have used. This suspicion is borne out by a fact to which I have called attention above. One of our Lord’s sayings quoted by him (§ 9) bears a close resemblance to the words as given in the Excerpta Theodotz,; and we have just seen that the Gospel of the Egyptians was quoted in this collec- tion. Thus our pseudo-Clement would seem to have employed this apocryphal gospel as a_ principal authority for the sayings of our Lord.
3. Ta dvo dé &] i.e. when peace and harmony shall reign. So the opposite is thus expressed in Seneca de Ira iii. 8 ‘Non tulit Caelius adsen- tientem et exclamavit, Dzc aliquid contra, ut duo simus’; comp. Plato Symp. 191 D 0 €pas...emiyetpov Tmoijoa év ex Ovotv kal idcacOa thy pvow thy dvOperivny (quoted by Lagarde Fel. Fur. Eccl. p. 75).
4. éavrois| ‘to one another, as e.g. Ephes. iv. 32, Col. iii. 13, 16, 1 Pet. iv. 8, 10. If the reading of
To €20 wc TO €cw, TOUTOS
2 Onrelas] Onvac A.
the MSS be correct, it must be aspi- rated avrots, and this form is perhaps less unlikely than in the earlier and genuine epistle (see the notes there on §§ 9, 12, 14, etc.). The expression occurs in Ephes. iv. 25 Aadeire ahn- Gevay ExaoTos peta TOU TANTIoy avTov. 5. to ea ws to éow] Perhaps meaning originally ‘when the outside corresponds with the inside, when men appear as they are, when there is no hypocrisy or deception.’ The pseudo- Clement’s interpretation is slightly but not essentially different. This clause is omitted in the quotation of Julius Cassianus (S¢vom. ill. 13, p. 553, quoted above), who thus appears to have connected ra dvo év closely with ro appev peta ths Ondelas and in- terpreted the expression similarly. See Hippol. Haer. v. 18 (p. 173 sq) Kal €or apoevoOnAvs Svvapis Kat éri- vota, d0ev GhAnAoLs avTicTOLYoDGW...ev OVTES...€0TLY OUY OUTS Kal TO havev am avTa@y, ev ov, dvo evpioxer Oar, aprevdbn- Aus €xov tHv Ondevay ev éavT@, a pas- sage quoted by this father from the Great Announcement of the Simo- nians. We may perhaps infer from a comparison of Cassianus’ quotation with our pseudo-Clement’s, that Cas- sianus strung together detached sen- tences, omitting all that could not be interpreted to bear on his Encratite views. Compare pseudo-Linus de Pass. Petr. Apost. (Bigne’s Magn. Bibl. Pair. \. p. 72 E) ‘Unde Domi- nus in mysterio dixerat: Si non fece-
x11] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
239
/ A \ 7 \ / \ \ sf A lal
Aeyer* THyv Wuynv Neyer TO Eow, TO SE EEW TO CH-
, ra 7 oy \ ~ e/
pa Neyer. Ov TOTO OvY Gov TO GHA HaiveTat, ov- wie / ~ /} > a ~ J
Tws Kat 1 Vuxn cov Ondos ExTw év Tots KaXoIs Epryots.
\ \ a \ A U m” » ” A KQ@i TO APCEN META THC OHAEIAC, OYTE APCEN OYTE OAAY,
€QUTOIS.
dvot] A; dvo C.
6 7d ow, TO 5¢ Ew] AS; 7d dw 7d 5é Gow C. Q @Xelas] Onduac A.
A; didn C.
ritis dextram sicut sinistram et sinis- tram sicut dextram, et quae sursum sicut deorsum et quae ante sicut retro, non cognoscetis regnum Dei,’ which ‘appears to contain another version of this saying’ (Westcott Introd. to Gospels p. 427).
8. d7dos| The lexicons give only one instance of this feminine, Eurip. Med. 1197 SXos Hv Kataoracts. Com- pare réXevoy in Ign. Phzlad. 1.
Q. Kal TO dpoev x.t.A.] This sup- posed saying of our Lord was inter- preted by Julius Cassianus, as for- bidding marriage. Whether this was its true bearing, we cannot judge, as the whole context and the character of this gospel are not sufficiently known. It might have signified no more than that ‘in the kingdom of heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage (Matt. xxii. 30),’ or that the distinctive moral excellen- ces of each sex shall belong to both equally. Clement of Alexandria, an- swering Julius Cassianus, gives thefol- lowing interpretation of the passage: The male represents @upds, the female emtOupia, according to the well-known Platonic distinction; these veil and hinder the operations of the reason; they produce shame and repentance; they must be stripped off, before the reason Can assume its supremacy ; then at length amocraca rovde rod oxnaTos ro) Staxpiverar TO Gppev Kal rd Ondrv, Wux7 petaridera eis Evoow, odbé- Tepov ovaa. It appears from the con- text that our preacher’s interpretation
5 70 ew] ws Td Gow AC3 70 ow ws 7d eéw S.
8 dnXos]
7 oUTws] ovTw C.
was more Closely allied to that of Cassianus than to that of Clement. At the same time I have shown above (I. p. 408) that the statements of Epiphanius and Jerome, who speak of Clement as teaching virginity, do not refer to this epistle, as many sup- pose. And the references elsewhere in the epistle to the duty of keeping the flesh pure (SS 6, 8, 9, 14, 15) are as applicable to continency in wedded as in celibate life. Comp. e.g. Clem. Flom. iii. 26 yawov vopmirevet...eis ay- velay Travras ayet.
This saying of the Egyptian Gos- pel, if it had any historical basis at all (which may be doubted), was perhaps founded on some utterance of our Lord similar in meaning to S. Paul’s ovc é dpoev kai Ondv, Gal. ili. 28. Jt is worth observing that Clement of Alexandria, in explaining the saying of the Egyptian Gospel, refers to these words of S. Paul and explains them similarly of the @upos and emOupia. See also the views of the Ophites on the dpoevdOndvs (Hip- pol. Haer. v. 6, 7), whence it appears that they also perverted S. Paul’s lan- guage to their purposes. The name and idea of dpoevoénAvs had their origin in the cosmical speculations embodied in heathen mythology ; see Clem. Hom. vi. 5, 12, Clem. Re- cogn. 1. 69, Athenag. Suppl. 21, Hip- pol. Haer. v. 14 (p. 128).
It is equally questionable whether the other sayings attributed to our Lord in this context of the Egyptian
THE \EBISTLES “OF)-S. CLEMENT. [x11
240
~ / 4 b) \ > \ p) \ 99 \ ~ TOUTO Aé€vyel, tva adEAHOs idwy adeApny + ovdev + Ppovy ite / : \ ~ \ Len fit
mept avTns OnruKov, unde Poovy TL WEpL AUTOU apoEVIKOV.
~ ec ~ > e /
TavTa UuwY To.ovvTwY, pyoiv, éXevoeTat 4 Baorrela TOU TATPOS MOV.
> 5) i¢
XII. ’AdeAdot totvt On more peTavonowpev’
/ p) \ \ 5) / \ / b) -~
yywuev ert TO ayabov: perro yap éopev ToAANS
> e a \ f avolas Kal rovnpias. éFaNely wer ap nuev Ta mpo-
1 700To] After this word A is mutilated, and the remainder of the so-called
epistle is wanting; see I. p. 117. add. guum soror videbit fratrem S. omitting ovv.
Gospel have any bearing on Encra- tite views. The words ‘so long as women bear children’ seem to mean nothing more than ‘so long as the human race shall be propagated,’ and ‘I came to abolish the works of the female’ may have the same sense. The clinching utterance, racav dye Boravny, thy dé mxpiay eyovoay pr gayns, which has been alleged as showing decisively the Encratite ten- dencies of the gospel, appears to me to admit of a very different inter- pretation. It would seem to mean very much the same as S. Paul’s mavra po. ¢EeoTw GAN ov mavTa oup- épet, and to accord with the Apos- tle’s injunctions respecting marriage.
I. ovdev] The previous editors, while substituting gpovn for dpovet, have passed over ovdéy in silence. But with dpovy we should certainly expect pydev. The reading ovdév can only be explained by treating ovdev OndvKov as a separate idea, ‘should entertain thoughts which have no regard to her sex,’ so as to isolate ovdév from the influence of wa; but the order makes this ex- planation very difficult. The gram- mars do not give any example of the use of ov (ovdév) which is ana- logous; see Kuhner II p. 747 sq,
ovdév ppovy] ovdév Ppove? C.
2 pnde] 5 ’AdeXdol ody] ’AdeXqoi [nov] S,
As S commonly renders ddeAgpolt alone by ‘AN /ratres mez, it is
Winer § lv. p. 599 sq. The sentence is elliptical, and words must be understood in the second clause, pnde [dade iSovca addeApoyv] porn x.t.A. Similar words, it will be seen, are supplied in the Syriac; but I attribute this to the exigencies of translation, rather than to any differ- ence in the Greek text which the translator had. Gebhardt ingeni- ously reads pn® nde; but 7d¢e...adrod does not seem a natural combination of pronouns here.
3. dnoiv| It does not follow that the preacher is quoting the exact words of the Gospel according to the Egyptians; for @yoiv may mean nothing more than ‘he says in effect,’ ‘he signifies. See e.g. Barnab. 7 ovT@, pyar, of OéXovrés pe ety x.7.A., a passage which has been wrongly understood as preserving a saying of Christ elsewhere unrecorded, but in which the writer is really giving only an explanation of what has gone before. This use of dnow occurs many times elsewhere in Barnab. S§ 6, 10, 11, 12, where the meaning is indisputable.
XIII. ‘Let us therefore repent and be vigilant: for now we are full of wickedness. Let us wipe out our former sins ; and not be men-pleasers.
XIIT|
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
241
/ > ~ ~ TENA a aoT } aTa Kat ETQAVOHOQAVTES Ex UYNS owla- Pe apapT ny ’ xX
pev. Kat un ywopela avOpwraperkot* unde GeXwpev
/ ¢ a Fe 5) \ \ ~ af 5) / to MOvov eavTols apeoketv, aX\Aa Kat ToIs EEwW avOowrors
él TH OtKaocovvn, iva TO dvoua OU ruas Un Brarp ~ 1 Ny as nas py 7
qn Yj \ 6 \ \ ee oF ' penta. Aéyer yap Kal O Kuptos Alia TANTOC TO GNOMA MOY
a > an a » \ / > \ > a BAACMHMEITAI EN TTACIN TOIC EONECIN® KL TAALY Oyai Ar ON
uncertain whether the translator has mov in his text.
domini S. Nuas|] S; buds C. Metrar] add. 6x’ suas S. the lower note.
Yet we must approve ourselves by our righteousness to the heathen, lest God’s Name be blasphemed, as the Scriptures warn us. And how is it blasphemed? When the Ora- cles of God command one thing, and we do another: for then they treat the Scriptures as a lying fable. When for instance God’s Word tells us to love those that hate us, and they find that, so far from doing this, we hate those that love us, they laugh us to scorn, and they blaspheme the holy Name.’
5. ovv] This particle cannot stand after the vocative, and indeed is omitted in the Syriac. Perhaps ody is a corruption of pov, as ddeAdoi pov Occurs several times, S$ 9, Io, 11; or the scribe has here tampered with the connecting particles, as he has done elsewhere (§ 7 dare odv, adedpoi pov), and in this case has blundered.
6. viopev emi x.r.A.] 2 Tim. ii. 26 dvavywouv...cis To éxeivov O€édnua, I Pet. iv. 7 uppare eis mpocevyas, Polyc. Pha. 7 unpovres pos ras evyds.
7- e€adeiyouer] Harnack quotes Acts iil. 19 peravonoare ody kal emtatpéeware eis To €EarerhOnvar UmOV Tas GwapTias.
9. avOpwmdpecxot] Ephes. vi. 6, Col. ili. 22. See also the note on avOpenapecketv Ign. Rom. 2.
10. éavrois] ‘one another, i.e.
CLEM. II.
Taow]om. S.
II TO dvoua] add. Ea et] S.s.oms C; 13 BA\acdgn- mdédw Ovai dv dv] S; 6:6 C. See
‘our fellow-Christians,’ as rightly explained here by Harnack; comp. § 4 €v ré dyamav éavrods, § 12 NadGper €avrois adnOevav, but not § 15.
tois €€w avOpwnas| ‘the heathen. For the expression of ¢£@ see the note Colossians iv. 5.
II. ro dvopa] ‘the Name’; so Tertull. Zdol. 14 ‘ne nomen blas- phemetur” For other instances of this absolute use, and for the man- ner in which (as here) translators and transcribers supply the imagined defect, see the note on Ign. Ephes. 3.
12. Ava mavros x.7.A.] From the LXX Is. lil. 5 rade Aéyer 6 KUpios, AC vpas dia mavtos ro dvopd pov Pda- odnpuetra ev trois €6veow. The Syriac translator inserts 6 vuas, and omits maow; but these are obvious altera- tions to conform to the familiar Lxx of Isaiah.
13. Kat mddw Oval «.7.d.] I have adopted the reading of the Syriac here, because the Greek text is obviously due to the accidental o- mission of some letters (perhaps owing to homeeoteleuton), a common phenomenon in our MS. On the other hand it is hardly conceivable that any scribe or translator could have invented the longer reading of the Syriac out of the shorter reading of the Greek. The Syriac reading however is not without its
16
242 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x11
a Py ’ / aay e BAAC@HMEITAL TO ONOMA MOY’ €y Tive Brac pnpetrat 3 4 0 my mole vuas a BovAoma a €0 a
€v TW MY a AOMQL. T eUyn Yap, 9 lA ~ / € ~ \ , ~ wn QKOVOVTa €K TOU OTOMATOS HUWY TA Aoyla Tou Oceov,
e \ ws Kava \ a Ta Enya / AEVOMEV,
kal peyada Oavpater érerta, KkaTapabdvTa juov OTL ovK eoTW aia TeV pnuaTeV wy 5 evOev eis Bracpnpiav TOETOVTAL, NEVovTES civat puOov tia Kal mAavnv.
e/ \ / OTav yao akovowow
~ / \ 3 ’ in. 3) 9 a Tap nuwy OTL Neyer 0 Oeos OY yapic ymin ei draTéte
ToYc AfaTT@NTAcC YMAC, AAAA yApic YMIN €1 APaTTATE TOYC
1 év tiv] add. 6é S: comp. § 3. 3 nav] S; tuor C.
add. rére S.
difficulty. If the first quotation Ava qavros «.t.A. is taken from Is. li. 5, whence comes the second Ova k.7.A.2 The explanation seems to be, that Is. lii. 5 itself was very frequently quoted in the early ages Ovai d¢ év (or OS ov) xK7.A. (See instances collected in the note to Ign. Zrall. 8), though there is no authority for it either in the LXxX or in the Hebrew. Our preacher there- fore seems to have cited the same passage in two different forms—the first from the Lxx, the second from the familiar language of quotation— supposing that he was giving two distinct passages.
I. évtiwe«.r.A.] This is no longer any part of the quotation, but belongs to the preacher’s explanation. He has however put the words into the mouth of God Himself, after his wont: e.g. § 12 ravra jpav rovovvrwv k.T.r., § 14 tnpnoate Thy odpka k.t.A. The read- ing of the Syriac, yu mouiv nas a Aéyopuev, is obviously a correction to overcome this difficulty. For other examples where this preacher begins his explanations with ev rim see
SS 3, 9-
4 erera] add. dé S. S, the word being doubtless added to bring out the force of mi@ov.
2 buds & BovrNoua] juas & Aéyouer] S. 7 mOd0dv Twa] add. deliriz g adda]
10 €xOpovs] add. tuav S. The addition of pronouns is very
3. Ta Adyia TOU Geov] A synonyme for the Scriptures ; comp. Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12; Clem. Rom. 19)/523 62, etc. The point to be observed is that the expression here refers to an evangelical record: see the next note below. Thus it may be com- pared with the language of Papias, Euseb. 4H. £. iii. 39 Mar@aios...ovve- ypawaro ta Aoya, which must have been nearly contemporaneous; see Essays on Supernatural Religion p. 170 sq. Similarly our author above § 2 quotes a gospel as ypagy.
4. é€merra x.t.r.] Apost. Const. ui. 8 0 ToLovTOS...BAacpnuiay mpowérpipe TO KowW@ Ths exkAnoias kai TH SiOacKadia, OS p7 ToLOvYT@Y exeiva G A€youery elvat Kaa k.T.A.
8. Aéyes 0 Geos] ‘ God saith.” The passage quoted therefore is regarded as one of ra Aoyia Tov Geov. As the words of our Lord follow, it might perhaps be thought that the expres- sion déyer 0 Geds refers not to the Divine inspiration of the Gospel, but to the Divine personality of Christ, of whom the writer says § 1 ovTws Set nuas poveiy mepi “Inoov Xpictov ws mepi Gcov. But, not to
XIV]
IO€YOpOYC Kal TOYC MICOFNTAC YMAC"
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
243
c/ / TaUTaA OTaV aKoU-
\ ~ 2 cwow, OavyaCovow tyv vmepBoAnv THs ayabornTos:
/ \ J J > / \ a ? > oTav O€ idwow STL ov ovoY TOUS uLGOUVTAS OUK dya-
=~ 5) 3) ek 29 \ \ 5) - a TWUEV, ANN OTL OVOE TOUS ayaTwYTAsS, KaTayeNwow
e a“ \ a NO a NUWY, Kal Pracdhnpetra TO OvoMa. XIV. “Wore, aderpoi, mowtvres TO Oé€AnMa Tov
\ € a a 5) 7 > ~ > / - / jwatpos nuav Qceov écoucba éx TNS EKKANO LAS TYS TOW- Pp
~ ~ lan A ’ \ / TS, TNS TVEVMATLKNS, THS TO HALOV Kal GEAHVHS EKTIC- >
common in S; and I have not thought it necessary to record several instances
which occur below. translation. add. rot Xpicrod S.
14 Kai] om. S.
mention that such a mode of speak- ing would be without a parallel in the early ages of Christianity, the preceding ra Ady.a tod Ccod deter- mines the sense here.
Ov xdpis x.7.A.| A loose quotation from Luke vi. 32, 35 ef dyamare rovs ayaravras vpas, rola vpiv xapis eoriv ; ...7Anv ayarate Tovs €xOpovs vor... kal €orat 6 piobods vay trodvs. For the use of yapis comp. I Pet. ii. 19, 20.
II. ayadornros] ‘goodness’ in the sense of ‘kindness,’ ‘ beneficence,’ as ayaOoroeiy in the context of St Luke (vv. 33, 35). This substantive does not occur in the N. T., and only rarely (Wisd. vii. 26, xii. 22, Ecclus. xlv. 23) in the LXx; the form com- monly used being dyaaovvn.
XIV. ‘If we do God’s will, we shall be members of the eternal, spiritual Church; if not, we shall belong to that house which is a den of thieves. The living Church is Christ’s body. God made male and female, saith the Scripture. The male is Christ, the female the Church. The Bible and the Apostles teach us that the Church existed from eternity. Just as Jesus was mani- fested in the flesh, so also was the Church. If therefore we desire to
13 671] om. S, perhaps owing to the exigencies of Bracdnuetrac] add. ovv S.
p es” TO dvoual
partake of the spiritual archetype, we must preserve the fleshly copy in its purity. This flesh is capable of life and immortality, if it be united to the Spirit, that is to Christ. And the blessings which await His elect are greater than tongue can tell.’
16. ths mperns x«.t.A.] This doc- trine of an eternal Church seems to be a development of the Apostolic teaching which insists on the fore- ordained purpose of God as having elected a body of men to serve Him from all eternity; see esp. Ephes. i. 3 SQ 0 evAoynoas nuas ev aon evAoyia mveumaTiKH €v ToIS éToU- paviots ev Xpiot@, kabas ée&edé~aro npas ev aUTO TPO KaTAaBoAHs Koopov ..Tpooploas nuds eis viobeciay k.T.X., a passage aptly quoted by Bryennios. The language of our preacher stands midway in point of development, and perhaps also about midway in point of chronology, between this teaching of S. Paul and the doctrine of the Valentinians, who believed in an eternal zon ‘Ecclesia,’ thus car- rying the Platonism of our pseudo- Clement a step in advance.
17. mpo nAiov x.t.r.| This expres- sion is probably taken from Ps. Ixxi (Ixxil). 5 oupmapapevet TO Frio
16——2
244
THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
[xIVv
peévns* éav € wy Tomowpev TO OéAnua Kupiov, écoueba
ék THS ypapns THs Neyovons “Erenr'OH 6 oiKdc moy
CTTEAAION AHCT@N.
2 €x Tis ypadhs THs Aeyovons] ex zis de quibus scriptum est S.
/ oO e / ry A ~ WOTE OUV aipeTicwucOa aro THIS
nl lan Ss 7 ~ éxkAnolas THs Cwns eivat, iva cwOwuer.
/ OUVK olomat
3 wore
obv] C; wore, ddeApol [uov] S, omitting ofy. See above, p. 240.
kal mpo THS TeAnYNS yeveds yeveav and 26. ver. 17 mp0 Tov HALov Siapevet To dvoya avtov; for though in these passages, as the Hebrew shows, mpo has or ought to have a different meaning (Aquila eis mpécwmov tis ceAnvns, Symmachus eumpoobey rijs ceAnvns), yet it was commonly so interpreted, as appears from Justin Dial. 64 (p. 288) daodeixvuta...dre ovtos (i.e. 6 Xpwords) Kat mpo Tod nAtov Av, in proof of which statement he cites the passages just quoted ; comp. 20. 45 (p. 264) os kal mpo éwoopov Kai oeAnvns nv, 34 (p. 252), 76 (p. 302); and so Athanasius c. Arian. i. 41 (I. p. 351) ef d€ Kai, ws Wradreu Aavid ev r@ EBSopnkooTe TPaTw Wakue, Ilpo tov Alou Siapéver to dvopa avTov, Kal mpo Ths oeAnvns eis yeveds yeveav, mas éAdpBavev O etxev det x.t.A. Similarly too in his E2fos. in Psalm. \xxi (1. p. 897) he explains the two expressions, vv. 5, 17, mpo aidvey and mpo karaBoAjs Koopov respectively. Meanwhile Eusebius Comm. in Psalm. ad loc. (Of. V. Pp. 800 ed. Migne) had mentioned and rejected this meaning; ov yap mpo THS oEeAnvns, ToUTecTL mpW yevérOat THY oeAnyny, GAN evadmiov womep Kal €umpoo ev nyoupevos THs oeAnvns.
For the idea see esp. Hermas /zs. ii. 4 Tis ody €oriv; dnt. ‘H’ExxAnoia, now. eimov ovvy avto, Au ti ovy mpeaBurépa; Ort, hnciv, ravtayv TpeTn extia6n* Sia TovTo mpeaBurépa, kai dia TavTnV 0 KOopos KatnpTicbn, quoted by Bryennios. Comp. also Orig. c. Ceds. vi. 35, where speaking of the phrase
dmoppolas ékkAnolas émeyeiov which Celsus had attributed among other absurdities to the Christians, he writes, raya éAnPOn ad Tov vo TiveV héyerOar exkAnoias Tivos emoupaviov kal Kpeitrovos aidvos amoppo.ay eivat Thy émt yns exkAnoiavy. And see the passages quoted in the notes on ra BiBAia k.7.A. and dvtiturov. Hil- genfeld quotes Clem. Alex, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593) eixav dé ths ovpaviov éxkAnoias 7 émiyetos (this father has just before cited Ephes. v. 21 sq, Col. iii: 18 sq), 25. vi. 13 (op Fas) ai evravéa kata THY exkAnolav mpoKorral ...pyunpata, oma, ayyedkis doéns kdkeivns THs oikovonias Tuyxavovow nv avapévery pac ai ypadal rods car’ ixvos k.T.A.
2. é€k ths ypadpis x.t.A.] A loose expression, meaning ‘of those persons described in the Scripture’. The Syriac translator has paraphrased accordingly. The passage is Jer. vii. II pi) omnAatoy AnoTe@Y 6 Olkds pov, Ov emikeKAnTat TO Ovoua pov ém avT@ k.T.A., to which also our Lord alludes (Matt. xxi. 13, Mark xi. 17, Luke xix. 46). For the application here comp. Afost. Const. il, 17.
3. ote ovv] A pleonasm which our author repeats elsewhere; §§ 4, 7.
aipetiow@peba| ‘choose’, ‘prefer’; a common word in the Lxx. In the N.T. it is found only Matt. xii. 18, in a quotation from Is. xlii. 1, where however it does not occur in the Lxx. See Sturz Dial. Mac. 144.
4. ths Cwns| Harnack writes ‘Iu- daeorum synagoga est ecclesia mor-
xIv]
\ wes > ~ e/ 2 / 50€ Umas ayvoeiv OTL ékKANTIAa Ever yap 1 ypahn "ETIOIHCEN O
Xpictoy:
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
245 Cara C@MA €CTIN ) Oeodc TON
Ey >" \ A Ni eh \ / ANOpwWITON ApceN Kal OAAY’ TO apaev EoTiv 0 XpioTos,
A ~ Vf \ / \ e > A To OnXv 4 exKAnolia’? Kal OTL Ta BiBAla Kal ol drOCTO-
8 7d Andru] C3 Kal 7d Ondv S. Prophetarum S.
tis’. The contrast however is not between the Synagogue and the Church of Christ, but between mere external membership in the visible body and spiritual communion in the celestial counterpart.
5. o@pda eoriy Xpictov| Ephes. 1. 23 TH e€kkAnoia, Aris éoTl TO copa avrov; comp. 7b. iv. 4, I2 sq, 16, Beg, .40;°Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. x. 17; ait I2—27,, Col. i. 18, 24, ii. 19, ili. 15.
6. ’Emoincey «.t.A.] Gen. i. 27 emoingev 0 Qcos tov avOpwmov, Kat etkova Qcov emoincey avtov’ apoev kal Ondv emoincev adtovs. The applica- tion seems to be suggested by S. Paul’s treatment of this portion of the Mosaic account, Ephes. v. 31 sq; where, after representing the Church as the body and spouse of Christ, and quoting Gen. ii. 24, he says, ro puoTHpiov trovto péya éoTiv’ eyo dé héyw eis Xpiorov kai [eis] ryv éxxAn- ciav.
8. «at dri] Some words have evidently dropped out in the MS here: see the introduction, I. p. 144 sq. The lacuna is conveniently sup- plied by Aé€yovow Sprov after dvaber, as I have done. This seems to me better than the more obvious solution of Bryennios, who would attach this ott to the preceding vpas dyvoeiv, and understand merely gaai or didacKover or the like. The Syriac translator omits the dru and inserts a Aéeyovcr or some similar word. This is clearly an arbitrary correction.
Ta BiBAia Kai oi amocroda| This is
kal drt] atgue etiam S.
Ta BiBXla] add.
a rough synonyme for the Old and NewTestaments respectively. Though the Apostolic and Evangelical writ- ings are elsewhere in this epistle treated as ypadai (§ 2) and even as Adyia TOU Geod (§ 13), being thus co- ordinated in point of authority with the Old Testament, yet the term 7a BiBdia, ‘the Books’, is not yet extended to them. For somewhat similar expressions for the Old and New Testaments in early writers, see the note on Ign. Philad. 5. The exact mode of expression is however unique. The Syriac translator’s ‘books of the prophets’ is the ob- vious gloss of a later age.
But what Books of the Old Testa- ment and what Apostolic writings had the preacher in view?
(1) As regards the O.T. the an- swer is partly supplied by his own context. In the first place the history of creation in Genesis is contem- plated. Such treatment was alto- gether in accordance with the theo- logical teaching of his age. Anastasius of Sinai (Routh’s Red. Sacr. 1. p. 15; comp. Anastas. Of. p. 860, Migne) says, Ilariov rod mavu rod ‘IeparroXirov Tov ev TO emtaTnOiw oitnoaytos, Kal KAjpevros Tlavtaivov ths "Ade€ar- Spéwv tepews, kai “Aupoviov coperd- TOV, TAY apxaiwy Kal mpoTov cvdder eényntav, eis Xprortov THY €xkAnolay macav thy éEanpepoy von- gavtwy. We might almost suppose that Anastasius was here alluding to our pseudo-Clement, if he had not in a parallel passage (p. 962
\ Kal
246
THE. EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
[XIV
> / 5) a ‘a \ af / Noe THY ExKANTIaV OU VV Eivat, dANa avwbev [AEyovow,
dnAov |: nv yap mvevpatikn, ws Kal 6 ’Incovs juav, epa-
\ b) / (a c a 4 CS ine / vepwOn de ém’ éxxaTwy TWY HMEpwV iva Huds cwon:
a me) VA \ \ Ss 5) / > ~~ \ 4 EKKAnola O€ TYEUMATLIKH OVTA epaveowOn Ev TH TAPKL
1 ov viv] add. dicunt S.
héyouow dS7yrov] om. CS; see the lower note.
2 ws Kal o’Incods judy, EpavepdOn O€ K.T.r.] et vir eius autem (be) spiritalis est, ts
gui est tesus christus dominus noster, manzifestatus est autem, etc. S.
Migne), where he is again enume- rating ancient interpreters who ex- plained the statements respecting paradise in Genesis as eis ryv Xpuorov exkAnolav avapepopeva, specified KAn- pns 0 =tpwpatevs. He writes again (p. 964), ‘admirabiles quos diximus interpretes...decreverunt...duos quos- dam esse paradisos...terrestrem et caelestem, qui cernitur et qui in- telligitur, sicut etiam est Christus caelestis simul et terrestris, congru- enter typo duarum ecclesitarum, ter- renae, inquam, et caelestis civitatis Domini virtutum etc.’ (a passage which illustrates the language of our preacher respecting the Church); and he himself accordingly maintains that whatever is said of Adam and Eve applies to Christ and the Church (e.g. pp. 999, 1007, 1027, 1050). But besides the Hexaemeron, our preacher may have been thinking of other parts of the O.T., such as Ps. xliv (xlv), in which ‘the queen’ was already interpreted of the Church (Justin Dial. 63, p. 287). So too he would not improbably have the Song of Solomon in his mind.
(2) As regards the ‘Apostles’ again his context indicates his chief reference. The Epistle to the E- phesians seemed to him more es- pecially to inculcate this doctrine. But he would find it elsewhere. There are some indications that he was acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and, if so, he would see
3 nME-
a confirmation of his view in mode cov (avros ‘Tepovoadnp émoupavio... Taynyupet kal EKKANTia TP@TOTOKY aTrO- yeypappevear év ovpavois (xii. 22, 23). Again such words as Apoc. xxi. 9, 10, THY vyupnv THY yuvaika Tov apviov... Thy ayiav ‘lepovoadnp KataBaivovaoar €K TOU OUpavod amo Tov Ceov, would suit his purpose admirably.
I. ov viv K.7.A.] ‘not now for the first time, dut from the beginning’. For this sense of dvwfev see Luke i. 3, Acts xxvi. 5; comp. Justin Dzad. 24 (p. 242) domep avwbev éxnpvocero, 2b. 63 (p. 286) dre advabev 6 Ceds... yevvacOa avrov éueAde, where it is an explanation of rpo éwoddpou éyevynoa oe. Harnack compares Gal. iv. 26, etc., but the opposition to viv here suggests the temporal rather than the local meaning of avwéev.
2. 0 ‘Incovs nuov] Sc. mvevpatikos Hv, SO that 6 “Incots, not 7 éxkAnaia, is the nominative of épavepabn : comp. S$ 9 Xptoros 6 Kupwos, 06 odcas nas, @v pev TO TpeTov mvevpa, eyévero cap& kal ovTws nuas éxddecev. For epavepoOn Sé x.r.A. Comp. I Pet. 1. 20 Xpiorod mpoeyvwopévou pev mpd kataBoAjns Koopov, pavepwOevros Se em €oxarov (v.l. €oyarav) Ta xpo- veav Ov vas K.T.A.
3. é@ écxdrov Trav nuepov]| ‘when the days were drawing to a close’, ‘at the end of all things’; a not uncommon LXX expression, Gen. xlix. 1, Deut. iv. 30 (v.1.), Dan. it. 28, x. 14, Hos. ii. 5,° Mic. 1¥. 57a
XIV | AN
ANCIENT HOMILY.
247
a va Cha es of ak ¢ ~ / 5) \ 5 XpicTov, dnAovoa nly OTL, Eav TIS nUwVY THENHOH avTHV éy TH capKl Kal pn POelon, amoAnWeTar avTny év TO N wapKe pn plecon, n n
4 i / € \ \ e/ > , , > TVEUMATL TH Aylw* 4 yap TapE avTH avTiTUTOS éoTLY
= / ? \ a \ ? / / \ TOU mTvevuaTos’ ovdEls OvY TO avyTiTUTOY PbEipas TO
pav] temporum S. + dytirumos] C; ¢typus S, and so 76 avtiruror just below; but this is probably owing to the poverty of the language.
so 2 Pet. iii. 3, but in Heb. i. 2 the correct reading is ém éoyxatov Tap NMEpav.
4. év 7H capki Xpictov] When Christ took a bodily external form, the Church did the same. Moreover this external form might be said to be €v TH Capki avtov, since the Church exists by union with Him.
5. tnpnon avtny| ‘keep her pure and undefiled’, i.e. so far as con- cerns his own conduct as one member of the body. The believer in his own special department is required to do that which Christ does throughout the whole, Ephes. v. 27 mapaocrjoa évOoEov thy exkAnoiay, pr exovcay omidov 7) putida K.T.X.
6. amoAnWera adrny| i.e. by being incorporated in the celestial, spiritual
Church. 8. 16 avtirumoy] ‘the counterpart,
or copy’. The Platonic doctrine of ideas underlies these expressions. The avderrixor is the eternal, spiritual archetype, the orzginal document, as it were, in God’s own handwriting: comp. Tertull. de Monog. 11 ‘in Graeco authentico’, ‘the Greek origi- nal’, before it was corrupted by tran- scription; de Praescr. 36 ‘ipsae au- thenticae literae eorum’, ‘the auto- graph letters of the Apostles’; Dig. xxviii. 3. 12 ‘exemplo quidem aperto nondum apertum est testamentum ; quod si authenticum patefactum est totum, apertum’, where ‘authenti- cum?’ is the original, and ‘exemplum’ the copy; Julius in Athan. AZol. c.
Arian. 28 (I. p. 116) mpoexouuce xetpa Ohoypahov avbevrixny, i.e. ‘written from first to last by his own hand’. The avtirumoy is the material, tem- porary manifestation, the imperfect and blurred ¢vazscripi of the original : comp. Synes. Afzst. 68 (p. 217) rots Tayvypapots ta avtituma Sovvar tov Tore ypapevrwy eméragéa, Epist. in Athan. AZol. c. Arian. 85 (I. p. 158) T@ avTitUT@ Tov Oeiov ypapparos. For avriturov, thus contrasted with the heavenly and true, comp. Heb. ix. 24 avritura tav adnOwov, where the avritura are defined in the context as Ta vrodetypata THY ev Tois ovpavois and the aAn@iva as avra ta émouvpana. See also the anonymous Valentinian in Epiph. aer. xxxi. 5 (pp. 168, 169) avtitumos Tov mpodvtos *Ayevyntou, av- TiTUTOY THs mpoovons Terpados. And more especially for the pseudo-Cle- ment’s teaching here compare the Valentinian language, Iren. i. 5. 6 o 69 Kal adrd éxxAnoiav eivar €yovow, adytitumov ths ave “ExkAncias. In such senses avrirumoy depreciates relatively ; and with this meaning the material elements in the eucha- rist were commonly called by the fathers dvtiruma of the body and blood of Christ,e.g. A fost. Const. v. 14, Vi. 30, vil. 25: see Suicer Zhes. s.v. On the other hand dyriruzoy is some- times opposed to rvzos, as the fin- ished work to the rough model, the realization to the foreshadowing, in which case it extols relatively; comp. Pet it. 21,
248 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [XIV
> A / sf > ro]
avOevtikov meTaAnWeTat. apa ovv ToUTO Eye, ddEA- 7 ar As , J ~ ,
poi, Tnpnoate thv oapKa iva Tov mvevuatos peTa- /
Aa Bnre.
\ \ ~ af Ss € € / \ , Kal TO Tveupa Xpixtov, aoa Oovv O uBpicas THY TapKa
’ \ / > \ if \ 3 / et d€ A€yomuev Elval THY TapKa THY ExKANo LAY e/ \ 5) / € ~ = > / UBpirev THv ExKAnoiav. O ToLOUVTOS oVV ov peTadn- a / v4 2 f 7 Werat Tov mvevuatos, 6 éotTw 6 Xpiotos. ToTavTHy c/ ~ \ 3 duvaTa 4 odpé abTy peTadraBetv Cwny Kal dbavaciay, / ~ ~ / ~ € af KoAAnOEvTos avTH TOU MVvEvUATOS TOU ayiov. oOUTE 4
> = / / ~ a c t c éfemeiv Tis Ovvatat ovTe Aadyoat & HTOIMacen 6
Kypioc Tots €KAEKTOLS auUTOU.
XV. OvxK olopa b€ 6Tt puKpav cupBovAiav Errom-
f \ / c\ / / TaUnV TEL eyKpaTelas, nv TONGTas TIS OU METAVONTEL,
I peTadnperar| CS.
In C however it was first written amoAnperar, and mera is
written above by the same hand. See the note on ¢iAomovelv below, § 19. 40 bBploas...rhv éxkyolav] is guz contumelia affecit carnem suam contumelia affecit carnem christi ecclesiam S. This might possibly represent 0 bBpicas THv cdpka [ri idlav, Tod xpioTod tiv cdpxa] UBpicev, tiv éxkAnolav, the words in brackets having been omitted in C by homeeoteleuton; but I am disposed to regard it as
I. dpa ody x.t.A.] This apparently refers not to what has immediately preceded, but to an application which the preacher has made of an evan- gelical text several chapters before, § 8 dpa ovv TovTo Aeyet Thpyoate THY Tapka ayynv x.t.rA. It is almost impossible however to trace the connexion of thought in so loose a writer.
3. tHhv odpkal as being the Jody of Christ. This language does not occur in S. Paul, for in Ephes. v. 30 €k THS Wapkos avrod is an interpolation. The relation of Christ to the Church is represented by S. Paul as that of the ead to the body, whereas here it is that of the sfzrzt to the body, so that ‘body’ is equivalent to ‘flesh’.
Altogether our preacher seems to be guilty of much confusion in his metaphor in this context ; for here the relation of flesh to spirit repre- sents the relation of the Church to
Christ, whereas just above it has re- presented the relation of the earthly Church and Christ to the heavenly Church and Christ. The insertion in the Syriac does not remove the difficulty. See the criticism of Pho- tius on the inconsequence of this writer’s sentiments, quoted above on S 1.
7. peradraBeiv] With an accusa- tive, as e.g. Acts xxiv. 25, and com- monly in classical writers. On the different sense of the two cases with this verb see Kiihner II. p. 294 sq. The propriety of the change here will be obvious. Similarly ro avdev- TUKOV peTadnWera above.
8. tov mvevpatos tov ayiov] See above, I. p. 125. The language here is still more unguarded than in § 9.
9. e&ereiv| ‘express’; Clem. Rom. 48.
a ntoimacev] A reference to the
Io
xv] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
249
\ \ / 5) \ \ , a@\Na Kal éavToy cwoe Kaye Tov cUUPBovAEVTAaYTA. 4 \ > 7 \ / \ \ pucOds yap ovK eat pKpos tAaVwWUEVnVY VvynV Kal b) , > , ? \ lan / \ dmoAAupeévny dtroaTpevat els TO TwOnval. TavTnY yap / 7 ca 4 lant n , Exouev THv dvryucOiay arrodovva TH Oew TH KTinavTL lol \ > , \ / \ ’ / nuas, éav 0 NéEywY Kal AkovwY META TIO TEWS Kal ayaTnNS \ / \ 5) / b , oO S15 ‘Gj b) / Kat A€yn Kal aKOUN. EMmELYWUEV OUV EP ols ETTLOTEU- / A. fe? / A / 2 ~ Gapev OikaloL Kal OGLOL, iva META TappHnolas alTwueEV \ \ \ / ” aA , > n > \ ? tov OQeov Tov A€yovTa “EtTi AdAAOYNTOC coy Epw IAoY Tdp- r \ \ a / \ , eIMi’ TOUTO Yap TO pyua peyadns Eat EéTTAYYEALAS ~ / \ \ / / > Onmelov’ ETOLWLOTEPOV yap éEavTov Eyer 6 Kuptos Ets
\ / ~ > ~ TO OLOOVAL TOU aITOUYTOS.
merely a paraphrastic rendering of S.
héywv kal dxodwr] S translates as if it had read 6 re Aéywv Kal 6 dKxodwy. mlorews Kal ayamns| cum caritate et cum fide S, transposing the words. repetition of the preposition see above, I. p. 137.
/ > / TODAUTNS OVY KONTTOTNTOS
It é€roinoduny | add. buy S, 17 0 MeTG. On the
22 els TO OLddvan TOU airobdvTos|]
in illud ut det petitionem ejus qui petit ab ipso S, thus supplying a substantive to
govern Tov airovvros and mistaking the sense.
23 TocavUTnS...meTAauBavorTes |
quoniam igitur hac jucunditate et bonitate det jucundamur S.
same passage of which part has been already quoted by our preacher at the end of § 11. See the note on Clem. Rom. 34.
XV. ‘He, that obeys this exhorta- tion to chastity, will save both him- self and the preacher. It is no small recompense to convert and save a perishing soul. Faith and love are the only return that speaker and hearer alike can make to God their Creator. So therefore let us be true to our belief, for God promises an immediate response, declaring Him- self more ready to give than we to ask. We must not grudge ourselves these bounties of His goodness ; for as the rewards of submission are great, so the punishment of disobedi- ence is great also.’
II. otoua] The word has oc- curred twice already in this writer S§ 6, 14.
13. kal €avrov «.7.A.| 1 Tim. iv. 16
kal weavTov owes Kal TOUS akovoyTds gov. See also below,§ 19. Harnack quotes Barnab. I paddov ovyxaipa €uavT® éAmifav cwbnva, dre adnOas Brera ev div exxeyupevov...Tvedpa.
14. purOds «.r.A.] James v. 20 6 €m- oTpéwWas duapt@dov é€k rAavns dod avTod odo Wuxty €k OavaTovk.tar.
16. dvtyucbiay| A favourite word with our author, especially in this connexion; see the note on § I.
19. Sikavoe kal dovor] See on §§ 1, 5.
20. “Ere Aadovrtos «.7.A.] Is. lviii. 9 6 Geds eicaxovoerai gov, étt Aadody- ros gov epet “Idov mapeysu. Comp. Afost. Const. iii. 7, where, as here, it is quoted ¢po (though with a v.l.), probably (as Lagarde points out) from a confusion with Is. lxv. 24 ére Aadovvtay avTav €pa, Ti €or; So too it is given ‘dzcam’ in Iren. iv. 17. 3, but épet in Justin DzaZ. 15 (p. 233).
23. Tov airodvros| sc. eis TO airetvy ‘more prompt to give than the asker
250 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xv
peTahauBavovtes un POovycwuev EavTois TUYElv TOTOU- twv ayabwv. Sony yap noovny exer Ta pnuaTta TavTAa Tols TOWMoaclW avTa, TOTAVTHVY KaTaKpLow ExEL Tots TAapakoveacty.
XVI “Wore, adedpoi, apopuny AaBovtes ovs5 puikpav Eis TO METAVONOAL, Kapov EXOVTES ELT TPEV-wMEV émi Tov kadéoavta nuas Oedv, éws ETL EXouEV ToV TapacexXOMEVOY ruas. é€av yap Tals novrabelas Tav- TAs aToTtaewpeba kal Thy Wuynv nuwyv viknowpev ev
I TocovTwy] C3; Torovrwy (?) S.
go0| domini nostri zesu christi S.
isptoask’s as in.the Collect “more ready to hear than we to pray’. The Syriac translator has misunderstood the sense.
XV... * Therefore Jet. us repent and return to God betimes. If we conquer our appetites and desires, we shall obtain mercy of Jesus. For be assured, the day of judgment is at hand; as a heated furnace shall it be; the heavens shall be fused and the earth shall be as melting lead; and all the deeds of men shall be revealed. Almsgiving is a token of repentance. Fasting is greater than prayer, and almsgiving than both. Love covereth a multitude of sins, and prayer delivereth from death. Blessed is he that aboundeth in these things. For almsgiving removeth the burden of sin.’
5. ddopyny dAaBovres| So Rom. vii. 8, 11. Conversely dqdoppny &- Sova, 2 Cor. v. 12, 1 Tim. v. 14, Ign. Trall. 8.
6. Kaipov eyovtes] So § 8 as €xomev Karpov peravolas, $9 as exomev Katpov Tov iaOnva..
7. tov tmapadexopevov] It is yet the xaipos edmpdadextos (2 Cor. vi. 2).
ndumabeias| See again § 17. Not
3 5 adeAgot] add. ayamyrot S. dexduevor] marépa dexduevoy (IIPA for I[APA) C3 patrem qui accipit S.
8 mapa- 11 ’In- 16 kpelocwv vnorela mpocevy7s] C;
a Biblical word. On this word, which was highly distasteful to the Stoics, see Wyttenbach on Plut. dor, 132 c. It occurs at least as early as Xenophon, Cyr. vil. 5. 74.
9. admoragéwpebal See on § 6.
II. épyerau x.t.A.] Mal. iv. 1 idov npépa epxeTar Katomevn ws KAiBavos.
13. tues] This is obviously cor- rupt, though both our authorities are agreed. I think that for rwes we should probably read [ai] dvvapecs, the expression being taken from Is. XXXIV. 4 kal Taxnoovra maca. ai duva- pets T@Y ovpavev ; comp. Afpac. Petr. in Macar. Magn. iv. 7 (p.165, Blondel) kat Taknoetat maca Sdvvapyis ovpavod. Where the MS was torn and letters had dropped out, it might easily be read tinec. Comp. 2 Pet. ili. 7, I0, Orac. S70. iii. 689 sq, Melito Afo/. 12, p-432(Otto). Though the existing text might be explained with Harnack and Hilgenfeld by the common belief in several heavens (comp. e.g. Orig. ¢. Cels. vi. 23), 1 can hardly think that our Clementine writer would have ex- pressed himself in this way, even if he had believed that some of the heavens would be spared from the conflagration. The pseudo-Justin
XVI] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 251
~ \ ~ \ / ~ A / 1I0TW py Troliv Tas émiuuias avTHS Tas ToVNnpas, pETa- / and / ~ / Nh ” Anvroueba Tov éNéous *Incov. TivwoKete O€ STL épyetai af c c ’ ~ / c Ul ’ \ non H HMEPA THS KOLTEWS WC KAIBANOC KAIOMENOC, Kal , ’ n > a \ ~ ~~ TAKHCONTAl TTivEst TON OYpAN@n, Kal Taga H YN ws / ce en \ / \ / , \ poAtBos ért mupl THKOMEVOS, Kal TOTE avynoeTar Ta / \ \ aI “ > , \ > I5kKpupia Kat avepa Eepya Twy avOpwrwy. Kadov ovv > £ e / ¢ / Us / EXenuoovvn Ws METAVOLA AMapTias’ KPELTTWY VHoOTELA qn > / \ > / Sy mh \ Tpocevyns, éAEenuocvyyn dé audoTepwvs ArdmH A€ kKa-
bonum jejunium, oratio, S; but probably ff has dropped out. would bring the Syriac into conformity with the Greek.
add. melior (kpeicowv) S.
Quaest. ad Orthod. 74 probably refers to this passage: see I. p. 178 sq.
14. podrrBos| This seems to be the correct form in the LxXxX generally, =a0G, x¥. 10, Num: xxxi. 22, Job xix. 24, etc. Both podrBos and pordiB- dos are certified by their occurrence in metre.
15. xpudua kat mavepa] An exhaus- tive expression : comp. Wisd. vii. 21 doa Té €oTt KpuTTa kal eudarvy eyvar. kadov ody x.t.A.] If there is no cor- ruption in the text of this passage, it offers another illustration of the cri- ticism of Photius on our pseudo- Clement, 47zb/. 126, quoted above, § 1. This however may be doubt- ful. The preacher seems to be thinking of Tobit xii. 8, 9 dyadov Mpooevyn peTa vnoTeias Kal éAenpoov- Toijoat xpvaiov"
vns kat OwKkatoovyns...Kadov eXennoovvnvy 7 Onoavpica eXenuoovvn yap ek Oavarov pverau Kai avtn doka0apiet Tacav auapriav, where the first sentence as read in S is ayabov mpocevyn peta vynoreias kal eXenpoovyn pera Stxatoovyns vmrep ap- gorepa. Here the very same function ex Oavarov pvecOa, which our text as- signs to prayer, is assigned to alms- giving. Moreover our text having stated that almsgiving is greater than prayer immediately afterwards as-
This insertion 17 €Xenuootyn de]
signs a more important work to prayer than to almsgiving. These two facts combined throw doubt on the integrity of the text. It would seem as though somewords had been trans- posed and others perhaps omitted.
16. ws petavora auaprias| ‘as repent- ance front sin is good’, if the text be correct ; for the sense will hardly allow us to translate ‘as being re- pentance from sin’. I suppose that eAenuoovrn here has its restricted sense of ‘almsgiving’, as in every passage where it occurs in the N.T.
17. apdorépov]| See Ecclus. xl. 24 umép aupdrepa edennoovyn pice- tat, where however the dudorepa are ddeAdot xai Bonbeva eis Karpov Oriiveas.
ayann Se x.7.A.]| Taken from 1 Pet. iv. 8, where it is doubtless a quota- tion from Prov. x. 12. See the note on Clem. Rom. 49, where also it is quoted. There can be no doubt that in the original context it refers to passing over without notice, and so forgiving, the sins of others, nor is there any reason for interpreting it otherwise as adopted by S. Peter or by the genuine Clement. In James v. 20 the expression xadvwWer mAAO0s dpaptiav seems still to be used of the sins of others, but in the sense of
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xv1
252
, A G a \ \ 5) ey AYTITE!l TAABOC AmMapTION’ mpomevyn Oe Ek KaANS TUVEL- ld f alg ~ \ Onoews ék Oavarou pveTat. paKdptos mas 6 evpebels 2 / / p) / \ € €v TouTots TAnpys' €AEnMoouvn yap KoVdiopa apap-
If , TLAS YLVETAL.
XVII.
by TIS HuwY TapamoAnTaL.
/ c ¢ € Metavonowuev ovv é€& OAns Kapdias, iva
> \ 5) \ sf El yao evToAas EXOMED,
J \ ua / \ la > Id 5) ~ iva Kal TOUTO TPATTWMEV, aTO TWY ElOWAWY aTOO TAY
7 wa Kal totro mpdoowuer] so apparently S; xal roiro mpdocoperv (om. wa) C. Similar omissions of iva appear in AC in § 48 é£ouoroyjowua (where S is correct),
and in S itself in ii § 11 Kousowpeba (where AC are correct).
Io wept] C; ad
(adversus) S, as if mpés: but it perhaps does not represent a different reading.
12 mpocéxew Kal muorevew] S; miorevew Kal mpocéxew C.
‘burying them from the sight of God, wiping them out by the con- version and repentance ofthe sinner’. On the other hand our preacher seems certainly to take it as mean- ing ‘atones for a multitude of ome’s own sins’, as it is taken by some modern commentators: and so too Tertull. Scorf. 6. Clement of Alex- andria is hardly consistent with him- self. In Strom. ii. 15 (p. 463) he ex- plains it of God’s love in Christ which forgives the sins of men; whereas in Quzs div. salv. 38 (p. 959) he takes it to mean that love, working in a man, enables him to repent and put away his own sins; and so apparently in Stvom. i. 27 (p. 423). Origen Jz Lev. Hom. ii. § 5 (11. p. 190) refers it to the man’s own sins; but the turn which he gives to the passage is shown by his quoting in juxtaposition Luke vii. 47 adéwvrat avThs ai duapriat ai modXal, ore Hyarn- oev moAv—an explanation which re- moves the doctrinal objection to this interpretation, though the exegetical argument against it from the connex- ion of the passage in its original con- text (Prov. x. 12) still remains.
I, Kadjs cuverdnoews| Heb. xiii. 18. A commoner expression is aya67
14 els olkov aman-
cuveidnots ; see the note Clem. Rom. 41. For xaapa cvveidyors see Clem. Rom. 45 with the note.
2. €k Oavdrov pveta] This is said of éAenpootvyvn in Tobit iv. Io, xii. 9 (already quoted); and of dcxacoovrn, which also signifies ‘almsgiving’, in Prov. x. 2, xi. 4; but not of mpocevy7. See the note on cadopr ovy k.t.A. above.
3. ev] Comp. Ecclus. 1. 6 ceAnyy mAnpns ev népats.
eXenuoovvn yap x.t.A.| Prov. xvi. 6 (xv. 27) €Aenwoovvas Kat micrerw amroxa@aipovra apaptiat, Ecclus. iii. 30 eXennoovvn €Etkaoerat duaptias: Comp. Dan. iv. 24 Tas duaprias cov év éden- poovvais AUTp@aa (Theod.).
kovpicpa apaptias| i.e. ‘removes the load of sin’, as with Bunyan’s pilgrims. So 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ov, Kv- pte, 0 Koupicas tds dpuaprias nuor, comp. Ezr. ix. 13 éxovdioas nuay ras dvoias.
XVII. ‘Let us therefore repent lest we perish. For, if we are com- manded to convert even the heathen from their idolatry, how unpardon- able would it be to allow the ruin of a soul which has once known the true God! Therefore let us assist the weak, that we and they alike may be saved. And let us not give
Io
XVIT] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
253 Kal KaTHXElV, TOTW paddov uxXnY Hon ywwoKovcay tov Ocov ov det arodAvo bar; cvAAaBwueEY ovv EavTots kal Tous doQevourtas dvayew rept TO dyabov, Sws cwOouev amravTes* Kal émiotpeyywuev aAANHAOUS Kai vovleTnowmev. Kal wn povoy apt. SoKwmEev TpoTEeyveELV Kal WioTEVELY EV Tw vovleteioba yuas UTO TWY TpET- Burépwv, d\Na Kal OTav Els OiKoY amadNayouEV, MYN-
NayGuevr] C; domum dimissi fuerimus et cessaverimus ab omnibus S. The variation
might easily be explained by an omission in C owing to homceoteleuton, but it is more probably a periphrastic rendering of S to express the full force of ama))dr-
TecGa: see above, I. p. 136 sq.
heed only while we are listening to the instructions of our presbyters, but also when we have departed to our homes. Let us also meet together more frequently, and thus endeavour to make progress in the command- ments of the Lord. He has declared that He will come to gather together all nations and languages. Then the unbelievers shall see His glory and shall bewail their past obstinacy. Their worm shall not die; and their sufferings shall be a spectacle to all men. Meanwhile the righteous, see- ing their torments, shall give glory to God, because there is hope for His true and zealous servants.’
5. Meravonoopev x.t.d.| The ex- pression peravoeiy €& oAns [rhs] kapdias has occurred already § 8, and will occur again § 19; comp. also § 9 petravonoa €€ eidixpwovs Kapdias.
6. mapardAnra] ‘perish by the way, i.e. ‘unexpectedly, through care- lessness, without sufficient cause’; as e.g. Lucian Gymn. 13 opd ovdevos peyddou évexa waparroAAvpevas, (Viger. 13 d€dovna py =maparodAntar perakd Aovopevos, Hermot. 21 mepiower pe mapamroA opevon.
evroAas €xouev|] It was our Lord’s command, Matt. xxvili. 19 sq; comp. Mark xvi. 15. If we adopt the reading
of the Greek MS, kai rovro mpdocopev must be taken as parenthetical so far as regards the structure, ‘and we obey this command’; so that dzo- omav will then be governed by é- Todas €yopev.
Q. ovddAdBauev k.t.A.] ‘Let us there- fore assist one another, that we may elevate the weak also as concerning that which ts good’. This may be the meaning, if the text is correct; but it would seem as though some verb had fallen out after cai. For éavtois see the note on § 13; and for dvdyew comp. Clem. Rom. 49.
II. kal émotpéyaper| to be con- nected with ovAAdBoper, and not made dependent on d6zas, as it is punctuated by Bryennios.
I2. pn povov apre «.t.r.| This clearly shows that the work before us is a sermon delivered in church ; comp. § 19 pera Tov Gedy THs aAnOeias avayveok@ viv evrev&w K.T.X.
13. tav mpeoBurépar| ‘the fres- byters, who delivered their exhorta- tions after the reading of the Scrip- tures; see the note on § I9 pera Tov Geov x«.t-A. This sermon itself was obviously such an exhortation; but the preacher, doubtless himself a ‘presbyter’, puts himself in the posi- tion of his hearers and uses the
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [XVII
254
, -~ a / \ povevwuev Twv TOO Kupiov évTadpatwv, Kal py avTi-
J \ ~ ~~ ~ A mapedkwuela dro Twy KoomKoVv éemibusuwv, dra
/ / / TUKVOTEPOV TpoTEpXOMEvoL TrEpwuUEeOa MpoKOTTELW eV -~ 2 ~ = / / / \ 9.2 NN Tais évTo\ats Tou Kupiov, iva maytes to avto dpo-
qn / > >’ \ \ / > \ VOUVTES GUYHYMEVOL wuEV Ert THY Cwnv. Elev yap O
if. ” a ’ \ Py] ) \ Kupios “Epyomat cynararein mdnTa TA EONH, PyYAAC Kal
; ~ \ / \ € / A > A rA@ccac’ ToUTO 6€ Aeyel THv nuepayv THs ETLPavEelas
> = / ? \ / ¢ ~ / \ \ avTov, OTE EAOwy AUTPWOETAL Huas ExaoTOV KaTa Ta
af ~ \ ” \ ’ -_ \ | Epya avTov. Kai GyONTal THN AdZAN aUTOU Kal TO
/ e af \ / ’ , \ KPaTOS OL AMLOTOL, Kat EenoOnoovra ioovTes TO Ba-
3 mpocepxouevar] C3 mpocevydueva S. 7 Thy nuépav] super (de) die S. g Ti Sdéav adrod Kai 7d Kpdros] gloriam cjus in robore et potestate S. This again might be explained by an omission in C owing to the oa of similar hegum nings of words, rhv dd€av adrod [kara Thy Sivauw (or tiv icxdv)] Kal 7d Kpdros ;
but such an expression in Greek would be very awkward. therefore that vobur e¢ potestas is a double rendering of 70 xpdros.
third person, by a common form of speech, to avoid egotism: comp. e.g. Clem. Rom. 63 yovyaoarvtes THs pa- Talas OTATEWS...KATAVTHT @MEV.
I. advtrurapedkopebal ‘be dragged off in the opposite direction’ ; comp. Pers. Sa¢. v. 154 ‘duplici in diversum scinderis hamo’. The lexicons do not give this word.
2. Koopikdv embvpiav] The ex- pression occurs Tit. 11.12. The word koopixos is apparently not found in the Lxx,-and only once besides (in a somewhat different sense) in the N. T., Heb. ix. 1.
3. muKvoTEpov mpocepxopevor| ‘com- ing more frequently’, i.e. ‘to this place of meeting’, or perhaps ‘to the presence of God’ (comp. Heb. me, -22, Clem, Rom. 23, 29). “On these injunctions to more frequent services, see the note on Ign. EPA. 13 omovdatere TuKVOTEpOY auVEpxEo- ac; comp. ib. Polyc. 4 mukvorepor guvayayal ywécOwoav. The Syriac reading however may be correct.
It is more probable The preposi-
5. o Kdpwos] Perhaps meaning ‘Christ’, as Harnack takes it, re- ferring to § 3, where Is. xxix. 13 seems to be put into the mouth of our Lord.
6. "Epxopack.t.A.| From Is. lxvi. 18 epxouar ouvayayety mavta Ta €Ovn Kal Tas yAwooas, Kai 7£ovo Kal dWovrat tv Sogav pov... There is nothing cor- responding to gdvAas in either the Hebrew or the LXx; and our preach- er must have got it from the familiar combination of ‘nations and tongues’ in Daniel, e.g pvdai kai yAdooa in the LXx.
7. tTovro O€ déyer| ‘but by this he means’: see the note on § 8.
Thy npépavy x1.A.] The same ex- pression has occurred § 12, where see the note on émdaveias.
8. Avrpdaera] It is called jpépa amodutpooews in Ephes. iv. 30. For other passages, where dmodv’rpeocis refers to the final redemption, see Luke xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23.
exagtov «.t.A.| As only those who
ill. 7 mavta ta €6vn
xvi] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
259
, w~ 7, ) ~~ 5) nl V4 3 \ e ~~ ciNeov ToU Koopou év TH “Incov NEyovTes, Oval uty, 4 \ Ss J \ > / \ OTL GU NS Kal OUK HOELMEV Kal OUK EmLoTEVOMEV, Kal
> > / ~ / ~ > is ouk éreOouela Tois mpecBuTEpols Tots avayyéeNNovoL
~ \ ie / = Ric , > a > HM TEE. THS TwWTHpLas nuwY? Kal ‘O CKMAHZ aAYTAN oY TEAEYTHCE! KAl TO TYP AYTON OY CBECOHCETAI Kal ECONTAI > o ’ 1 \ / 7 / ~ eic Spacin ACH CapKl. THY NMepav Exelvny Ever THS / af \ > eon 7 \
Kpicews, OTav OvrovTat Tous év nuiv aoeBnoavTas Kal / \ 5) \ ? A ~ e Tapadoyioauevous Tas évtoAas ‘Incov Xpiotov. ot
\ / VA \ / \ / dé dikaior EUTpaynoavTEs Kal VTouElvavTes Tas Baca-
tion (in place of the conjunction) may then be accounted for in two ways; (1) The translator read kata Kpdros for kal rd Kpdros; or (2) A Syriac transcriber inadver-
tently wrote 2 for 1. above, p. 181.
5. AéyovTes] et tunc dicent S.
shall be released are contemplated, this must imply different grades of happiness. I do not see sufficient reason for doubting the genuineness of AuvTpecerau.
9. kal dWovra] A continuation of the quotation from Isaiah, the intervening words being a paren- thetical explanation. See also Matt. axav.) 30; Rev. 1.7.
10. gencbnoovra} ‘shall be a- Mmazed’,.as. i Pet. iv. 4,12. .The active Sevi¢ovra, ‘ perplexing’, ‘amaz- ing’, occurs in Acts xvii. 20. This sense is found in Polybius and from his time onward. See also the note on gev.cpor, Ign. Ephes. 19.
To Bacieoyv|] ‘the kingdom’ or ‘sovereignty’; see the note on § 6. We must understand ev r@ “Inood ‘in the hands, in the power, of Jesus’, as in the common idiom eiva: év ri: see Rost u. Palm Grech. Worterd. S.v. év i. 2. b.
12. ov 7s] ‘Thou wast He’; see esp. John vill. 24 édy py meorevonre Ore €y@ eipt, amobaveiabe ev tais
The latter explanation seems to be more probable: see 10 léévres] C3; eidéres (from cdolres) S. kéoou] mundi huius S. See the note on § 19 €v TO kdopy.
II TOU év TO "Inood] om. 17 Nui] S; vu C.
duapriats var, 20. ver. 28 ToTe yyo- ceoOe dru eyo eipt, Xili. 19 Wa TioTevonte...oT. eyo eiwt. The preacher seems to be alluding to this language of our Lord, as re- corded by St John.
14. 0 oxoAné «.7.A.] From Is. Ixvi. 24, the last verse of the prophet. Our preacher has already quoted this passage, § 7; see the note there.
17. orayv dwovra] ‘when men shall see’, the nominative being sug- gested by the preceding «is épaow maon capki. For the future indica- tive with oray see Winer xlii. p. 388; but no dependence can be placed on the MS in such a case.
18. mapadoytoapevors | ‘played false with’, ‘attempted to cheat’; see Ign. Magn. 3 rov adparov mapadoyi- ¢erac (with the note). See 4 Esdr. vli. 72 with Bensly’s note (p. 63).
19. evmpaynoaytes| If the reading be correct, it must mean ‘having been virtuous’ and not (as else- where) ‘having been prosperous’ ; comp, Occaorpayety.
256 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xvi
\ / e , a ~ J yous Kal plonoavTes Tas Houmaleias THs Wuyns, OTaV / \ / \ 7 A GeacwvTat Tous aoToynocavTas Kal dpvnoapevous ova ~ / 3\ \ ~ af \ > ~ c/ / TwWV ANOYwY Hn Ola TwY Epywy tov ‘Incovv, ows Koda- ~ / \ > sf do Covrat dewais Bacavos rupli doBéoTw, EoovTa Sof€av , land = rt / e/ \ diovtes TH Oew attwv, NEyovTes STL "EoTra €Amris 5
Tw SedovAevKoTt Dew EF ANS Kapdias.
XVIII.
Kai nets ovv yevwucba ex TeV evxapl-
/ lo , ~ ~ \ \ 3 ~ oTovvTwy, Twv dedovAEvKOTWY TH OEw, Kal pH EK TOY
VA ros Kplwomevwy aceBwv.
\ \ > \ \ Kal yap avtos mavOauapTwrdos
\ \ / \ \ / ’ ae), \ > wy Kat pnw duywy Tov Teipacuov, aAXN ETL wy Ey 10
2 da] H dua S. 5 Oddvres] S; ddvres C.
I. 7dumaGeias] See the note on §16.
2. doroxnoavras| ‘missed the mark’, ‘gone astray’; see 1 Tim. iG, wi, 2%, 2 Dims ii18. <The word is not uncommon in Polybius and later classical authors.
4. mupi doBeorw| Matt. iii. 12, Mark ix. 43, Luke iii.17. For the re- ference of pseudo-Justin to this state- ment see I. p. 178 sq.
XVIII. ‘Let us take our place with those who, having served God, will join in this thanksgiving. I myself, though I am still surrounded by the temptations of the devil, yet strive to follow after righteousness, that I may escape the judgment to come.’
9. mavOapaprodos| The word is not given in the lexicons. Compare mavOapaptnros Afost. Const. vii. 18, Barnab. 20 (where the MSS agree in writing it without an aspirate), mavra- Suxos Philo de Creat. Pr. 3 (11. p. 362).
II. dpyavois|] ‘the instruments, engines’; comp. Ign. Rom. 4. The word does not occur in the N.T.; and in the Lxx it seems to be ap- plied only to musical instruments,
4 Tupi] C3 et zene S. 7 ovv] add. adeAgot [ov] S. gevywy C; S has o'Sp which perhaps represents guvywr.
écovrat] add. év ayadNdoee S.
Io guywr] 15 evrevéw] C;
or military engines, or the like. The metaphor here is_ probably military; comp. 2 Macc. xii. 27 evOade dpyavev Kat Bede@v modal mapabéoets, and see Ephes. vi. 16 ta Békn Tod movnpov [ra] wemupopéva. The preacher finds himself ev auqu- Bodr@, the enemy having environed him with his engines of war.
12. dtxacocvyny dioxew] A phrase occurring in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 22 (comp. Rom. ix. 30).
kav éyyvs|] ‘at all events near, if I cannot actually reach it’. For this use of cay comp. Ign. Ephes. 10 Kay €k TOY Epyey, with the note.
XIX. ‘Therefore, brothers and sisters, I have exhorted you to give heed to the Scriptures, that ye may save both me and yourselves. Your hearty repentance and earnest pur- suit of salvation is the return which I ask for my trouble. Your zeal will thus stimulate all the young who have any regard for godliness. And let us not be annoyed when we are admonished and turned away from sin. Half-heartedness and dis-
XIX] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
25/7
7 ~ 3 7 - / sMecols Tols opyavois Tov dtaBoAov, orovdatw Thy / / / \ om Oukatoouvny SiwKEW, O7rws loYVTW Kav éyyuUs avTis / / \ / \ / yeverOa, poBoumevos THY Kpiow THY MéANOVTAD. e/ \ \ XIX. “Wore, adeApol Kal adeAdal, META TOV Oo \ - 5) fa / > / eon af > A 15 Geov ts adnleias avaywwoKw vulv evtevEwW eis TO / ~ / e/ \ \ TPOTEXELV TOS YEYPAMMEVOLS, Va Kal EaUTOUS TwWoNTE \ \ >’ / ~ \ \ cand ~ Kal Tov avaywwoKovTa év vuiv' wucboy yap aiTo vuas A ~ b) J / / € ~ TO peTavonoa €€ OANS Kapdias TwTnplav éavToOis Kal
\ / ~ \ / \ a Cony OvoovTas. TOUTO Y%pP TOLGOAVTES OKOTOY Tracly
clearly a‘gloss. See 5. p. m1. § 17 Tov avarywwoKovra &v tui] me gui lego
supplicationem, id est, admonitionem S; a > , governs T7s adneias by évrevéw.
wrong ;
vobis verba (or oracula) det S. 19 was anticipated by Bensly, Gebhardt, and
belief obscure our sense of right and and our understandings are darkened by our lusts. Let us prac- tise righteousness. Blessed are they who obey these precepts. They may
oxomdv|] S; xdmrov C. This reading of S Hilgenfeld.
~ / , r . kaA@y ToUT@Y piunoews Troveira ; Orig. c. Cels. ili. 50 kal 80 dvayvoopator
A lod > \ , kat Ova Tov eis avta Sinynoewy mpotpe- TovrTes pev emt tTHyv eis Tov Oedv Tor of > , \ \ , , oA@y evoéBevay Kai Tas cuvOpovous Tav-
Tn aperas, amrorperovtes O€ k.T.d. ; Afost. Const, li. 54 peta THY dvdyyecw kai Thy Wadu@diay kai thy emt Tais ypa- ais didackadiavy. See also the notes on § 17 pa povoy dpte x«.t.A. and the introduction, p. 195. For the ex- pression 6 O©¢d0s ts dAnOeias see
suffer in this world, but they will reap the fruit of immortality. Let not the godly man be sorrowful, if he suffer now. An eternal life in heaven awaits him, where he shall live in bliss with the fathers, and where sorrow shall have no place.’
Méxpts eYX@pEt”
14. ddeAdoi cai adeAdai] Comp. § 20. So Barnab. 1 viot Kat Ovya- téepes, Rel. Fur. Eccl. p.74 (Lagarde). peta tov Ocov «t.A.] i.e. ‘After you have heard the voice of God in the Scriptures’, as it is rightly explained by Bryennios. The ser-
mon or exhortation followed imme-
diately after the reading of the Scriptures in the weekly gatherings of the early Church: Justin AZo. i. 67 cuvédevots yiverat kal Ta aTrouyn- povetpara TOV aTooTOA@Y 7) Ta Ovy- yedupara TOV mpopnray a dvaywaokerat, ira, mavoapévou TOD dvaywdoKovros, 0 mpoeatas dia Aéeyou THY vovOeciay Kat mpoKAnow THs Tav
CLEM. II.
S$ 3 Tov marépa tris adnOeias (comp. § 20). Its use here as a synonyme for the Scripture is explained by the preacher's language above § 13, ra Aoyia TOU Oeov, Aéyer 6 Geds.
15. evrevéw] ‘appeal’ ‘entreaty’; as’ €.g,' Justin Agaf 1.” £) (p93), Joseph. Azz. xvi. 2. 5, Philo Vz. Moys. iii. 32 (1. p. 172), and so most frequently in classical authors. For its commoner sense in Christian writers, ‘supplication to God’, see the note on Clem. Rom. 63.
16. waxaik.t.A.] Comp. Ezek. 1ii.21.
18. petavonoa x.t.r.| See the note
S 17.
17
258 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xix
~ / h qq uy: \ \ ’ lA Tois veots Oyoouev Tots BovAopevois mEpL THY eve Berav \ \ Kal py ’ ~ af \ > ad € »/} e/ anows EXWMEV Kal ayavaKTwMEV OL agodol, OTaY TIS
/ ~ Cal ~~ kal THY xpnoTOTNTa Tov OéEeov diAozovely.
e ~ ~ \ > / > \ - > / > \
Nas vouletn Kal ETLOTPEPN anO0 THS GoiKlas Els THY t
/ Cia 4 \ \ 7 /
OLKALOGUYNY, EVLOTE Yep TOV pa 7 PAGO OVTES ou VylVw-
\ \ / / \ > a >
oKopev Oia THY OipuxXlav Kal dmioTiaY THY évovmTay EV
lo / ~ > ! \ ' \ Tos oTnOeow yuwv, Kal éckoTiCMedda THN AIANOIAN U7TO
a ~ ~ / Twv émiuuwyv Twy paTaiwv.
/ e/ > ic qn Kalocvyny iva eis TEAOS TwOwpED.
mpaewuevy ouv THY OI-
7 € / MakapLlol OL TOUTOLS
/ a / \ / / UTAKOVOVTES TOLS TPOTTAYyMaGLY* Kav OAlyov xXpoVvoY
2 girorovety] manifestent amorem laboris S: see Michaelis in Castell. Lex. Syr. p- 656. The scribe of C has first written ¢iAocopetv, but has afterwards corrected
it so as to be read @iAXoTovetv.
stprentes S. 5 lore] S; eva C.
See p. 206.
3 ol dcopa] C3 tanguam ilk in- II T@ Kéouw] S; add. rovrw C. I have
the less hesitation in striking out ro’vw here because the general tendency of S is to insert the pronoun, not to omit it, in this connexion: e.g. § 5, 19, 38, 60, ii. 18. dOdvarov] S; dé @dvarov C. The correction was obvious, even before the reading of S was known; and the only question was whether to read rév & a@dvaroy or
2. giromoveiy] Ecclus. Prol. trav Kata THY ێppnvelav mredpiiorrovnpevar. The word occurs in classical writers of the best age.
3. py ayavaxropev| Clem. Rom. 56 madelav ef 7 opeiner ayavaxkrety.
ot acodo.| ‘fools that we are’, for this is the force of the article; comp. S$ I of axovovres (with the note). For aaodos comp. Ephes. v.15. It seems not to occur again in the Bible (except Prov. ix. 8 in A, where there is nothing corresponding in the He- brew); and is not very common elsewhere.
6. Supvxiav] As above § 11 pa dupuxepev. See the notes on Clem. Rom. 11,23. To the references there given add Barnab. 19 ov pun dupuxnons TOTEpOV €oTAL 7) Ov.
7. eokotiopebak.t.A.| From Ephes. iv. 17, 18, ev patatTntt Tov voos av-
ovdels
od > , ] > s ‘ Tov, eokoT@pevor (V. 1. eoxorirpevor)
ty Stavoia; comp. Clem. Rom. 36 7 davveros Kal €oxotopemn Sudvova nov.
10. OAlyov xpovoy x«.t.A.| Comp. I Pet. i. 6 dAtyov Gpti ei déov, AuTN- Oévres, V. 10 oAlyov maOdvras. For kaxoradeiy see 2 Tim. ii. 9, iv. 5, James v. 13; comp. ovykaxoradeiv, 2 Tim 1. Bs 0.5 3
12. xaprov tpvyncovow]| Hos. x. 12 omeipate éavtois eis Oikavoovyny, Tpv- yyoate eis kaprov Cais.
13- pakaptos adrov x.t.A.] See Hip- pol. de Univ. p. 69 (Lagarde) 9 rév TaTépa@v Sikaiwy Te papery Oris Tay- ToTe pela dvapmevovT@y thy pera TOUTO TO Xx@pioy avaravow kai aiwviay avaBiwour...addAa Kal ovror [oi GdcKor] TOY TOV TaTépwv xXopov Kal Tovs Sixalovs opéat, kat em adt@ TovT@ kodaCopevol...kal TO copa...dvvatos 0 Geds dvaBidaas abavaroy Tose, and lower down dmog6éy£orrat horny ovtas AéyovTes, Atxaia cov 7 kpiows, and again ro mip daBeortov
20
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 259
xx]
/ - / \ 7 ~ kakoTa@nowow €v TW KOTUW, TOV dBavaToY THS ava- / \ / \ oy Ei e TTATEWS KapTOV TpYYynTOVGLY. jy ovY AUTELTOW O Ev- / \ > \ ~ ~ 4 van J aeBys, €av él Tois vuY xpovols TaXaLTwWPH* jakapLOs
\ / / ~ af \ ~ / QUTOV AVAMEVEL XPOVOS' EKELVOS aVW META TWY TATEDWY
9 / 3 f > \ > / 7k dvaBiwoas evppavOncetat els TOV AAVTNTOY aiwva.
XX. “Adra unde Exeivo Thy Stavorav Vuwv Tapac-
7 c/ , \ > / a \ OéTW, OTL PAEOMEY TOUS aOiKOoUS mWAOUTOUYTAS, Kal
/ \ ~ ~ / OT EVOVWPOUMEVOUS TOUS TOU Oceou SovAous.
Vé LOT EUW MEV
ouv, ddeAPOl Kal ddEAPal> OEov CwvTos meipav dOAovpEr, kal yupvaCoueba Tw viv Biw iva TO weNOVTL TTEPavw-
>| bd / TOV abavarov. for adavdrou yvdcews in S itself.
For another instance of the same error comp. § 36 davdrou yrdcews
12 tpvyjoovow] delectabuntur...in S, i.e.
Tpupjoovow; for the same word (OD) and its derivatives are used to translate
Tpupy, § 10, and tpupy, évrpupav 2 Pet. il. 13. to xpévos and punctuates after rarépwv.
S has 7uav) uh tapaccétw THv Kapdiay budv Rup 783. 19 Qeod] dre Geod S.
muoTevouev C,
Suapéver...cK@ANE SE Tis Cumupos k.T.A. (comp. § 17). These resemblances suggest that our Clementine homily was known to this writer.
15. avaSiwoas| 2 Macc. vil. 9 ame- Oavovtas nuas imép TOV avTov vopev eis ai@vov dvaBioow (wns nas ava- OTNCEL.
advmnrov] ‘inaccessible to sorrow’, stronger than dAvmov; comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 17 obv npiv tov advrov ai@va kAnpovopjaat.
XX. ‘Be not dismayed, if you see wrong-doers prospering, while the servants of God are straitened. Be- lieve it, this present life is the arena of our conflict; the crown will be awarded in the future. Our reward is not instantaneous. If it were so, then the pursuit of it would be a matter of traffic and not of piety.’
‘To the one invisible God of truth, who sent us a Saviour and through Him manifested truth and life to us,
14 €kxewvos] S attaches this 16 mde éxeivo...rapaccérw] CS (but 18 micrevwuev|] S;
be the glory for ever.’
16. “AAA unde éekeivo x.7.A.] This passage is quoted loosely and with some omissions in the Sacr. Parall. (MS Rupef.), which bear the name of Joannes Damascenus, Of. II. p. 783 (Le Quien); see above, I. p. 193 sq. It will be seen that in the quotation the original words are altered, so as to conform to well-known scriptural passages; €.2. yy Tapaccéro thy KapOlay voy is substituted for pndé €xelvo Thy Sidvoay vuov tapaccéra, after John xiv. I, 27; and evoéBevay is substituted for OeocéBevav, after Ee Pim, vis,
19. mwetpav] For the accusative after adketv comp. eg. Plato Leg. viii. p. 830 A, Plut. Vzt. Demetr. 5; and for such accusatives generally see Kuhner II. p. 264. For an elaborate application of the same metaphor
see § 7.
17—2
260 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xx
~ ~ / \ \ a] Oauev. ovvdels Tov Stkalwy Taxvv Kaprrov EXaBev, aAN
> / > / > \ \ \ la / €
exdexeTar avtov. ei yap Tov pucbov Twy diKalwy oO
Ocos cuvTOpws dredioov, evOéws Eurropiay noKoUpEV Kal
5) / ? ~ \ > / 5) \
ov OeooéBerav: édoKovpev yap evar Sikaol, ov TO
\ ~
evoeBes dAAa TO KEpdadéov SiwKoVvTES* Kal Ota TOUTO
’ ~ 3\ > y
Geia xpiow EBAaWev rveipa pr ov SiKaov, Kat €Ba- puvev deo pols.
Ta povw Oem cdopatw, mato THs adAnOelas, TH
Pyros pau, pio te n 2 ne
b] € ~ lal \ a
éFarooTethavTt Hpiv TOV GWTNHpa Kal apynyov TNS
adbapcias, 8’ ov Kal édaveowoev juiv thy adAnOeray ee? p pe
1 taxdv] C Rup; celeriter (raxv) S, using the same adverb which renders ovyTd-
pws just below.
ceBées] C Rup; OeoceBes S.
4. OeoceBevav| See 1 Tim. ii. Io. It occurs occasionally in the LXx.
5. Oia rovro x«.7.A.] i.e. fon ac- count of these sordid motives Divine judgment overtakes and cripples the spirit of a man, seeing that it is not up- right, and loads it with chains’. The word BAamrew is used especially of Di- vine vengeance surprising its victim, checking and maiming him in his mid career; e.g. Hom. Od. i. 195 adda vu Tov ye Beoi BAarrovar KedevOov, 2b. xiv. 178 tov O€é tis adBavarwv Brae gpevas, Xen. Symp. vill. 43 qv py cos Branry, Plut. Vzt. Caes. 45 vo Gcod patiora Barropéva THY yvaounv éokos «7.4. Trag. in Lycurg. « Leocr. p. 159 otav yap opyn Satpover Bdantn Twa, TOUT avTO mpeTor, e€ap- aupeitar dpevav tov vovy tov éaOdov kT.A.. and so frequently. Sordid motives bring their own punishment in a judicial blindness (SAamret rved- pa). The aorist here has its common gnomic sense, and is the most ap- propriate tense: see Kihner II. p. 136 sq. Previous editors seem to
7 despots] S; decpds C. add. domini nostri tesu christi (im apposition) S.
3 cwrbpws dmedidov, ev0éws] CS; evOéws amedidov Rup. 4 ov OeocéBevav] CS; ovK evoéBeray Rup.
5 ev- 8 ts ddnOeias]
ov 70] CS; ov dia ro Rup. Q nuly Toy owTHpA Kal apxn-
have mistaken the sense. Bryennios says py Ov Sikaov, TovTEcTW, ddikas, but it is not clear what he means. Hilgenfeld reads decpovs, and ex- plains ‘Christiani non omni ex parte justi persecutionem gentilium patie- bantur’. Harnack, misled by the aorist, says ‘auctor dabolum respi- cere videtur, quem tamquam avaritiae principem et auctorem hic infert (?)... censuit igitur, diabolum jam hoc tem- pore catenis onustum esse’. He might have quoted Wolsey’s warning to Cromwell in Henry VIII, ‘ By that sin fell the angels’.
8. T@ povm Gem aopatw] Comp. 1 Tim. i. 17 dopdt@ povo Oc.
matpl ths adnOeias| As in § 3. So also o ©eds rns adnOeias § 19. The Syriac translator takes ‘the Truth’ here to denote Christ Himself (John xiv. 6); comp. Orig. c. Cels. vill. 63 UTO TOU QEod Kat THs povoyevods avT@ adAnOeias. So Papias (Euseb. 7. £. iii. 39) speaks of Christ’s personal disciples as receiving commandments amr avtns THs adnOelas.
Lael
oO
xx] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 261
\ ‘ > / / > - € / > \ IA
Kal THY ETOUpaVvLoV Cwny, QUTW 1 d0ga ELS TOUS alwyas GC A ad /
TWV ALWYWY. aun.
yov THs apGapoias] salvatorem et principem vitae et salutis nostrae S. Il fay] C; delectationem (SOD\2) S; which word elsewhere is a rendering of tpu@7 (see above, § 19) or of ddNavats (see i § 20). alte 7 Od&a] atgue etiam jesu christo domino nostro cum spiritu sancto gloria et honor et imperium (i.e. n dEa Kal yn TYuy kal TO Kpdros) S.
9. Tov caTnpa «7.A.] Acts v. 31 pias. Comp. Zfést. Vienn. 17 (in apxnyov kal ogwtipa compared with LEuseb. #7. £. v. 1) apynyov tis Cons ill. 15 Tov dpxynyov ths (wns: see also Tov Geov.
Heb. ii. 10 rov apynyov ths oetTn-
*
ae, Le cing Br: . a
tdi “ F) fon
math mt? PA
woleyssies
Page
16.
26.
27. 28.
29. 30. 34:
=
NN
3 nul av...[ xapes
La
me WN N
bp S&S N
The lacune in the Alexandrian Manuscript.
[TTpoc] Kopin61oye
[H eéxxAy|ota...y mapot- kovoa. |‘Poynv |
TH Tal porxov |on
nylacpev]ots...r0d | Kupiov
v |uiv.. .rav- To| pao |pos
[Ava tas] aidpvedéovs...[-ye- vop. |évas
[ repulrroces...[ vou |iCopev
meroun| oO ja
[ra]p’ vpiv...[r]yAs Te
vrotac| o |ovres
Aap Bal v lovres
ap| k |ovpevor
Ava prov kat POovolv ot péyt|oroe
atvA[ou edi |yOnoar...€ws davaro| v 7OAncav |
mpo op$arpalvy nd] ... amtrooToXov| s
ILérpov] ds...0vx [eva ov]de dvo
u7| nveyKev | rovous...LapTu- ee
oderAl opevor]...dua Cirol v
kat épw]| IadAos... [ve dec |Eev
[ puya |devbeis ...y[ evo |wevos
elv 7H] dicen
Karnvty| cay |
Page
34.
35:
36.
31:
49.
I
mm & NW N
un
on
La
Tovt|o|
ootéwv pov]
vropvycKor| Tes |
oKappal Te
érixe| tar]...Kevas | kat |
eI pev |
t| 7s tow | nev
Trapado |oews ... [Kat
[kat ti mpo|odextov... Tod trou| noavT jos
[arevio |wpev...[ Kat yv |onev
TO Oc@ | Kat tarp |i adrod
[cwr|npiav...7@ Kol op]
[ dueAG Jwwev...[ Kai] KaTapa- Owpev
yevea [ka]t...€du| «lev
[ 3 ueAe x Popev
[ai] apaprias...dpuadv [ws]
[zpos oe cionA|Gov
Lyis mpGv]...0 yap Balov- Aeds ov|Tws
elonAOov [pev of av |dpes
[adXa ed €|ws...zopevor| rar ie
év[ adAag] ylwovt|oxovoa...o7. | Kvpos 0 @c<os|
bpiv [tHv woldAw tavdryv. Omitted in the colla- tion. For zoAw C has
Te
264
Page
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
49. 12 0 [tpoluos...rots xa[rou]-
0°
65.
68.
KOUG LY yev| naw | avro[d| duxarocvy| nV | dvdacKo|v]...[ov]|rws
2 éhen6[7|re...w[s] movetre
on
|
rounOyoetar dpltv] ..d06%- cetau [vty |
kp\OnoeoGe ws x |pyotev- eae... xpylorevOy |oerau
pee| Tpetre |
[ratty T]H.-.rapayyérl pa- ow}
Eav| TOUS ei|s
[ovra|s...ad[rod — t |azrewo- ppovovvTes
[pyoily yap...[eri] Bra
[ yo |bxLov
[ O¢ |kaov
[k]oi madu
TH yAdoon ait lav
[a jerav
katny|opet A€ywv|...a70 pu- m[ov ovd av|
adto[d]...ev dAw [7
oikw| adrov...| vrype|oias
Altyurrov]...[aix.jopatov
Kael ivos |
éu.| eya |Aopnuovycer ...é[ mt Ts| Barov
d1d0| we |vov. ..7réurr| evs |
Bp|a|dvyAwooos
efadeup|ov]...ev enol ¢ |
amo pi |Wys...[Kkaltorved lua
avravé|Ans am é|uod...77Vv ayad| Xiao w
t\od }~=— gwrnpiov...|yyeno|-
VKD
d1da| Ew ave |uwous...a| ceBet|s
Page
68.
79:
82.
83.
89.
2
3
4 5 4
5 6
| 18
ae)
13 14
15 16
17 18
a”
[ptoal] pe
THs [owt |ypias... [dyad ]Aca- oetar...[ dix |avcoovvyy
[ av Jotéeus
avay|y]eAet...9| 0 |eAnoas
éurool| Clovra...aoré| p |ov
duataynv | a.|dTod
[wr JapexBacews...[to]ds emt TETOY[LEVOUS
mp|oawrrov 6e|
[rod e€oAe |Opedoo...uv7- u[oovvov |
0 O[ixatos]...ad7[ od Kat éx] TAT OV
aldrov épv|oato
pao tryes|...€A[ wiCov |ras
kukrooe| t|
k| at evep }yetuKos
el rt tovs| PoBovpevous
ntiws [Te] Kat...avz7| ov]
Tporepxonevoy s|
Us
éx vex| pav |
kata. Kat{pov]...yuép[a Kat |
dyAodto|wW]...
nl wépa]...... erép| xerau a- Bw |wev
[ws Kal] tiva tpdmov
[éép\Oev 0 o|reipwv...[ €xa- oro |v
tre| covra |
dujadverar]...4 peyalreo- T|ns
[ avic |rnow
ei| ova|
[tdw |uev...[yev }owevov
20 |70|rous
20 2I 22
[A ]éyer [kat exounyOnv eEy| y|epOnv...[ Kai maduy
Page go. 97:
98.
10o.
Iol.
102.
105.
Di.
E
24 I
wm on Am BW N
~ O
[a ee | Om bh W N SS
i ~I
THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT.
[t7) |v capKa pov
metoOna| ews yuo |oKwv
90€[ ws mpoonye|ro...Tamet- vopp| oovvys |
av|Tod du” ade] pov
mpos| AaBav]...€06[naitd|
tov |'Iopayr
éedv| tus... €iAuxpwr| ds |
[ve] yarcta...dedopné[verr |
iepei| s |
Aevtoupy| ody |res
tia7| €|ws
ayaborout| as]
deoror| ns |
peta. exteveial s|
ayab| ov |
6| eo7d |rys...€p| yous |
avt|ov| sec.
eornpice| v |
avulverer Oued |opgoer... [ Ste |puo ev
[emt tov
1 Bp ov| Anja. |ros
14 15 16 17
av| ry C|aa...[dvar lage
Garac|cav x |at...mpodnm- [ ovpyy|oas
[ du |vdpe
[ka |i...[avOpw7 jov
[7 |AnGos
k| at THY Kata |oyeow...7| 7s vis]
av| Tov: KdOov]...ews av [Oa
tovs| €xOpovs cov vzore- diol v Tov ro |dav
e| XPpot | ...avteraca| ouevor| .. OeAnpal Te avrov |
av6| pes aded |por exteveials év Tots| apwdors
[avrod]...oTpal revo |wevous
Page IT3. rig. ft I15.
Ae 9 So |
Evy.
BIGS 1 Eons OG
E30
22 58 24 EAG02 03 5 6
7 a7. S
9
265
| pov |...eveuktex| ds |
érteAo| 6 low... mavre|s|
odo v |
oA[ ov |
vrotaccێoG| w |
cabal s |
paptupetr| w |
pl ap |rupetc bau
[yrw] Kat...ywwolKov ore
et |epos...[avt@] THv...ava- Aoyu| cop. |eBa
otas | vAns|
tives ei lop AOapev ... [ex trot |ov
[o rAa]oas
[eion |yayev ... [rpo]erouua- cas
[avrjov...[rad]ra
[o]petAopev
alee
[a ]bpoves
el KeA Jevorev
[Kai ému]deiEaro
[ras odpa|yidas...r7[ v oxy- vnv |
mpoe|tAev tas] paBdovs
p[aBdos]... BeBXal oryxvia|
mp| onder |
pérXrAew [eoec Gar]
ax[atacra|oia...ovruls
érot|noev...7[6 dvo]ua
povou [cod |
ToAttevoper| ous |
frovek[ or]
[rv] avykovrwv ... év[ Kexv- pa.|re
[tas tov] mvevparos
[ore ov]dev...aapazel zrovn |- [LEVOV
[ovx elupyoere
266
Page 137.10 14a 12 13 bao) a 2 3 E99. EI £2 13 140. 4 PEO.) 3 4 5 6 7 FS. © 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 G2 5 2 3 4 6 eee | 8 9 10
THE EPISTLES OF 'S. CLEMENT.
arose| BAnp|évous .. wx Onoar
. [ede]-
vo avol wo |v
[avlociwy...v0 zal pa|vo- pLov
[v]ro rav...[a]veAnporwv
[e]UxAews... [7] yap
fe|enfoy
[7] Avavias
[ra |vapérw
9 ddێ[a ei]s...7dv ail ovo
aluqv...[o]i dé vrolp|e- VOVTES
[ k oAAnPopev
evpe| Onvar|
[o cds: dedpe]Oa.. .ar| 0
Tov éAd€lous...| evpeOaper |
avOpa| rivys|...7aca|e azo
"Adap] éws...rapq| Gov |
redcwwH€v| Tes ]...€xo| vow |
pavep| wOyoov|rar ... Bact- A[ eas]
tort [@clov...cio€A| Here]
ocov dol ov]
Ou[ wos ]...7u€p[ as |
[éx| tov OnKav
[mpoo|raypata...é|v o|n0- voia.
apeOy| var |
al pé |Onooyr
érexa| Av |pOyoar...a| yp |
apaptialv]|...av7| ov |
él yé|vero
npl dv |...al to |vev
"Ooa. [ov |v rape| réca|nev
[rob avrix| ee |vov...[ade- Ojvar piv |
oiri[v les apxyny| or]
éyer| 9 |Onoav
Lal , Tal v| TAPQATT WILT OV
Page
154.
Phe.
157.
6 [xpi |ua...xareB[n|oav 7 Calv|res ... Oa[ varos peavet
TOu-
8 alvrovs...orpa[ tia avr |ov Q nyovpel vor [avaBa|rat 10 [airialy 11 [épvOp|av...[ 7d xd |npv69-
VQt
Aiy|varov ve
12 aov|vérov|s 13 [ta onpjeta [Kat]... Aiyi- | rrov| 14 [rod @|eparovtos...[ M]wi- oéw|s| 15 [o| deordrys 16 [ov]dev...[ €€ ]owodroyetobau 17 [o é]«Aexros 18 éoporoyyco| »|ae 20 m[{a|Aw 21 ailvé|oews 3 ériotac| Oe ra.|s 4 [kat éyxlexipare 5 [@e0d cis alvauvyow...tad- ta. [ypadpoper | 6 avaBai[vovros «i|s...mouy- cav| Tos | Tecoep |aKovTa sees Teo| cepa- kovt |a 8 [kat tarew|oce...avtov [o Ocds | 9 [Mwi]o7 Mwio?...[ To rax0s] evrevbev 10 [6 Aads olov...[ Aiyvrro]v It ék [THs od00]...[ erotnoa|v 12 [Katetze|v...AeAaAy| kampos | 13 [éWpaxa| tov Naoy 14 [eorw o]KAnpotpaxyndros... [we eSod |eOpedoau 15 e€alrctipw t]o ovopa...vmo- ka twOev | .
Page
THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT.
157. 16 [ce eis €|Ovos...[ Kat ror }v
165.
166.
167.
17 [kal etrev M|wions... Kupre [ades rHv]
15 [ro oTréppa. cou | Ta O€ TEKVO. ...[70 mapBo|ravov
16 édevo[y dé ev Taldw...wpt- pols Kata,
1 | kat |pov...@a| rep Onpw |via
18 ov[vKopi|oGeioa ... ayamry- [roi zocos|
19g tlots adev|opevars ... de- o7md| Tov maTHp
20 ydp| ayabos...made| ver] eis
t|0 éA€|nOnvae 21 m|au|deias 22 [rs] ordoews I viota| yy |re rau dev |- Onre
2 Kkapar| tes |
4 av0ad| eva |v
5 [ev] To ropviw
8 mpojoopale
g vpilv...[d€ vuds
Io éx[«dn éxadovv]...vrnKov- gate Kal egéret|vov
II ov [mpocetyere]...ézo| etre Tas éuas|
12 evlots éd€yxous] ... Tovya- [podv Kaye |
13 amwdci|a émvyedaco lua... [ yvixa
14 av| épxyta...oAefpols Kai
ws av alpixytat
15 O[opuBos 7 dé]...«[araryide
ma |p7
Page
FO:
168.
267
16 vpl[tv OrAds]...ylap, orav er |kadeono be
1 [ovK cioa|xovoopuar...€qr|7q- covoty |
2 evpy|covow]...[ Tov
3 6€ o|Bor .... rpoeiAal vro ovde |
4 mpooéy| ev BovaAais]...€uod|s eXéyxovs |
5 THls éavtdv]...[Kat THs 6 éavtav]...rAyoOyoov| TaL...
At this point the ms breaks off
until 185.
186.
218.
221.
else
225.
239.
240.
5 ...Ao |urov...@eds [ kat | 16 [zalons
t [rolv Kupov
2 [ils Aaov...[W]ux7
3 peyado| m |peres...[ 2 |éorw 4 opetro[pev]...7[ ovrors | 5 [avrov] kai
6 tolds] avOpudrovs
7 olia]...rpaccdr| tov]
8 éuold]...no[ 0]
9 pols]
14 dovdeveltv]...d] ovA levewv 15 aovpdo[p|ov
1 otepaly|wOjvar
11 [ty] érayyeAia
12 tadairwp| ot]... rpo[ py |ruxos 13 «io[w|
14 7|9] Kapdia...calvra]
15 mal Té |pwv
6 e[w |
8 év t[ ots] Kadots
I Tovr[o...
Here the Ms ends.
THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Corrigenda in the collation of the Constantinopolitan ms {C}.
Page
48. arr evbéws
70: ovpavot (OM. ot)
Es Tapat Beipeva OUTWS
74- KaLpOV Kal
93. OU OUV TLS
\ \
papas Kat (OM. Te)
/ ‘\ peas Te Kal
> / a “ evapecTEtTo THO Ocw evdeAex no Lov ava 4 mpoaKALcts
Ne) ON _ Cw WN Tk N & & G CoN fe CO
143. KOAWS (om. Kal)
\ > , Tpos avapvyow
TRANSLATIONS.
te. Pik. Ob. os CLE NEE Be
TU
THES CORLNEEEANS:.
HE Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the
Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from A\I- mighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.
1. By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled. For who that had sojourned among you did not approve your most virtuous and stedfast faith? Who did not admire your sober and forbearing piety in Christ ? Who did not publish abroad your magnificent disposi- tion of hospitality? Who did not congratulate you on your perfect and sound knowledge? For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers and rendering to the older men among you the honour which is their due. On the
292 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
young too ye enjoined modest and seemly thoughts: and the women ye charged to perform all their duties in a blame- less and seemly and pure conscience, cherishing their own husbands, as is meet ; and ye taught them to keep in the rule of obedience, and to manage the affairs of their household in seemliness, with all discretion.
2. And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, yielding rather than claiming submission, sore glad to give than to receive, and content with the provisions which God supplieth. And giving heed unto His words, ye laid them up diligently in your hearts, and His sufferings were before your eyes. Thus a profound and rich peace was given to all, and an insatiable desire of doing good. An abundant outpouring also of the Holy Spirit fell upon all; and, being full of holy counsel, in excellent zeal and with a pious confidence ye stretched out your hands to Almighty God, supplicating Him to be propi- tious, if unwillingly ye had committed any sin. Ye had conflict day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind. Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards another. Every sedition and every schism was abominable to you. Ye mourned over the transgressions of your neighbours: ye judged their shortcomings to be your own. Ye repented not of any well-doing, but were ready unto every good work. Being adorned with a most virtuous and honourable life, ye performed all your duties in the fear of Him. The command- ments and the ordinances of the Lord were written on the tables of your hearts.
3. All glory and enlargement was given unto you, and that was fulfilled which is written; M/y beloved ate and drank and was enlarged and waxed fat and kicked. Hence come jealousy and envy, [and] strife and sedition, persecution and tumult, war and captivity. So men were stirred up, the mean against the honourable, the ill-reputed against the highly-reputed, the foolish against the wise, the young against the elder. For this cause vighteousness and peace stand aloof, while each
="
at lt
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 2743
man hath forsaken the fear of God, and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world.
4. For so it is written, And 2t came to pass after certain days that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God, and Abel he also brought of the firstlings of the sheep ‘and of their fatness. And God looked upon Abel and upon his gifts, but unto Cain and unto his sacrifices He gave no heed. And Cain sorrowed exceedingly, and his countenance fell. And God said unto Cain, Wherefore art thou very sorrowful? and wherefore did thy countenance fall? If thou hast offered aright and hast not divided aright, didst thou not sin? Hold thy peace. Unto thee shall he turn, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go over unto the plain. And it came to pass, while they were in the plain, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. Ye see, brethren, jealousy and envy wrought a brother’s murder. By reason of jealousy our father Jacob ran away from the face of Esau his brother. Jealousy caused Joseph to be persecuted even unto death, and to come even unto bondage. Jealousy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of ‘Egypt, while it was said to him by his own countryman, Who made thee a judge or a decider over us? Wouldest thou slay me, even as yesterday thou slewest the Egyptian? By reason of jealousy Aaron and Miriam were lodged outside the camp. Jealousy brought Dathan and Abiram down alive to hades, because they made sedition against Moses the servant of God. By reason of jealousy David was envied not only by aliens, but was persecuted also by Saul [king of Israel].
5. But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and
CLEM. II. 18
274 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
6. Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multi- tude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dirce +, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body. Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands, and changed the saying of our father Adam, 7hzs now zs bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. Jealousy and strife have overthrown great cities and uprooted great nations.
7. These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as admonishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. For we are in the same lists, and the same contest awaiteth us. Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us; and let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is acceptable in the sight of Him that made ‘us. Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and under- stand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 275
of repentance. Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed were saved. Jonah preached destruction unto the men of Nineveh ; but they, repenting of their sins, obtained pardon of God by their supplications and received salvation, albeit they were aliens from God.
8. The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy Spirit spake concerning repentance. Yea and the Master of the universe Himself spake concerning repentance with an oath; For, as I live, satth the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, so much as his repentance ; and He added also a merciful judg- ment: Repent ye, O house of Israel, of your iniquity; say unto the sons of My people, Though your sins reach from the earth even unto the heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sack-cloth, and ye turn unto Me with your whole heart and say Father, I will give ear unto you as unto an holy people. And in another place He saith on this wise, Wash, be ye clean. Put away your iniquities from your souls out of My sight. Cease Jrom your iniquities ; learn to do good; seek out judgment ; defend him that is wronged: give judgment for the orphan, and execute righteousness for the widow ,; and come and let us reason together, saith He,; and though your sins be as crimson, I will make them white as snow, and though they be as scarlet, [ will make them white as wool, And tf ye be willing and will hearken unto Me, ye shall cat the good things of the earth; but of ye be not willing, neither hearken unto Me,a sword shall devour you; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things. Seeing then that He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of repentance, He confirmed it by an act of His almighty will:
9. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and slorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. Let us fix
18—2
276 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory. Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. ‘Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regene- ration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord.
10. Abraham, who was called the ‘friend, was found faithful in that he rendered obedience unto the words of God. He through obedience went forth from his land and from his kindred and from his father’s house, that leaving a scanty land and a feeble kindred and a mean house he might inherit the promises of God. For He saith unto him; Go forth from thy land and from thy kindred and from thy fathers house unto the land which I shall show thee, and I will make thee into a great nation, and I will bless thee and will magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. And again, when he was parted from Lot, God said unto him; Look up with thine eyes, and behold from the place where thou now art, unto the north and the south and the sunrise and the sea; for all the land which thou seest, I will give tt unto thee and to thy seed for ever; and I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth. If any man can count the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be counted. And again He saith; God led Abraham forth and said unto him, Look up unto the heaven and count the stars, and see whether thou canst count them. So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. For his faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age, and by obedience he ~ offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the mountains which He showed him.
11. For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when all the country round about was judged by fire and brimstone; the Master having thus foreshown that He forsaketh not them which set their hope on Him, but appointeth unto punishment and torment them which swerve aside. For
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277
when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise-minded and not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so that she became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might be known unto all men that they which are double-minded and they which doubt concerning the power of God are set for a judgment and for a token unto all the generations.
12. For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved. For when the spies were sent forth unto Jericho by Joshua the son of Nun, the king of the land perceived that they were come to spy out his country, and sent forth men to seize them, that being seized they might be put to death. So the hospitable Rahab received them and hid them in the upper chamber under the flax-stalks. And when the messengers of the king came near and said, The spies of our land entered wn unto thee: bring them forth, for the king so ordereth: then she answered, The men truly, whom ye seek, entered in unto me, but they departed forthwith and are journeying on the way; and she pointed out to them the opposite road. And she said unto the men, Of a surety I perceive that the Lord your God delivereth this city unto you; for the fear and the dread of you ts fallen upon the inhabitants thereof. When therefore tt shall come to pass that ye take it, save me and the house of my father. And they said unto her, /¢ shall be even so as thou hast spoken unto us. Whensoever therefore thou perceivest that we are coming, thou shalt gather all thy folk beneath thy roof, and they shall be saved ; for as many as shall be found without the house shall perish. And moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God. Ye see, dearly beloved, not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the woman.
13. Let us therefore be lowly-minded, brethren, laying aside all arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Lez not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his riches; but he that boasteth let
278 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
him boast in the Lord, that he may seek Him out, and do judg- ment and righteousness ; most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long- suffering: for thus He spake; Have mercy, that ye may recetve mercy; forgive that 1t may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall ut be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, tt shall be measured withal to you. With this commandment and these precepts let us confirm ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to His hallowed words, with lowliness of mind. For the holy word saith, Upfou whom shall I look, save upon him that ts gentle and quiet and feareth Mine oracles ?
14. Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God, rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy. For we shall bring upon us no com- mon harm, but rather great peril, if we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch out into strife and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which is right. Let us be good one towards another according to the com- passion and sweetness of Him that made us. For it is written: The good shall be dwellers in the land, and the innocent shall be left on tt; but they that transgress shall be destroyed utterly from zz. And again He saith; / saw the ungodly lifted up on high and exalted as the cedars of Lebanon. And I passed by, and behold he was not; and I sought out his place, and I found it not. Keep innocence and behold uprightness; for there is a remnant for the peaceful man.
15. Therefore let us cleave unto them that practise peace with godliness, and not unto them that desire peace with dis- simulation. For Hesaithinacertain place; This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; and again, They blessed with their mouth, but they cursed with their heart. And again He saith, Z7hey loved Him with their mouth, and wrth their tongue they led unto Him, and their heart was not
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279
upright with Him, neither were they stedfast in H1s covenant. For this cause Let the deceitful lips be made dumb, which speak iniquity against the righteous. And again; May the Lord utterly destroy all the deceitful lips, the tongue that speaketh proud things, even them that say, Let us magnify our tongue; our lips are our own; who is lord over us? For the misery of the needy and for the groaning of the poor I will now arise, saith the Lord. TI will set him in safety ; I will deal boldly by him.
16. For Christ is with them that are lowly of mind, not with them that exalt themselves over the flock. The sceptre [of the majesty] of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him. For He saith; Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As achild was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. Thereis no form in Him, neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of men. He was a man of stripes and of towl, and knowing how to bear infirmity: for Hts face is turned away. He was dishonoured and held of no account. Fle. beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we accounted Fim to be in toil and in stripes and in affitction. And fle was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our wniguities. The chastisement of our peace 1s upon Him. With flis bruises we were healed. We all went astray lke sheep, each man went astray in his own path: and the Lord delivered Flim over for our sins. And He openeth not His mouth, because Fle is affiucted. As a sheep He was led to slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer 1s dumb, so openeth He not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. His genera- tion who shall declare? For His life is taken away from the earth. For the iniguities of my people He ts come to death. And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His death ; for He wrought no iniquity, neither was guile found wz His mouth, And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from
280 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
His stripes. Tf ye offer for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of Fits soul, to show Him light and to mould Him with understand- ing, to justify a Fust One that is a good servant unto many. And He shall bear their sins. Therefore He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong; because His soul was delivered unto death, and He was reckoned among the transgres- sors; and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered up. And again He Himself saith; But / am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and an outcast of the people. All they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips ; they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let Him deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him. Ye see, dearly beloved, what is the pattern that hath been given unto us; for, if the Lord was thus lowly of mind, what should we do, who through Him have been brought under the yoke of His grace?
17. Let us be imitators also of them which went about in goatskins and sheepskins, preaching the coming of Christ. We mean Elijah and Elisha and likewise Ezekiel, the pro- phets, and besides them those men also that obtained a good report. Abraham obtained an exceeding good report and was called the friend of God; and looking stedfastly on the glory of God, he saith in lowliness of mind, But 1 am dust and ashes. Moreover concerning Job also it is thus written; Axd Fob was righteous and unblameable, one that was true and honoured God and abstained from all evil. Yet he himself accuseth himself saying, Vo maz is clean from filth, no, not though hts life be but for a day. Moses was called fatthful in all His house, and through his ministration God judged Egypt with the plagues and the torments which befel them. Howbeit he also, though greatly glorified, yet spake no proud words, but said, when an oracle was given to him at the bush, Who am J, that Thou sendest me? Nay, [ am feeble of speech and slow of tongue. And again he saith, Lut [ am smoke from the pot.
18. But what must we say of David that obtained a good
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 281
report? of whom God said, / have found a man after My heart, David the son of Fesse: with eternal mercy have I anointed him. Yet he too saith unto God; Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions, blot out mine iniquity. Wash me yet more from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge mine iniquity, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee only did I sin, and I wrought evil in Thy sight, that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest conquer in Thy pleading. For behold, in tniquities was L conceived, and im sins did my mother bear me. For behold Thou hast loved truth: the dark and hidden things of Thy wisdom hast Thou showed unto me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean. Thou shalt wash me, and I shall become whiter than snow. Thou shalt make me to hear of joy and gladness. The bones which have been humbled shall rejoice. Lurn away Thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine tniquities. Make a clean heart within me, O God, and renew a right spirit in mine inmost parts. Cast me not away Srom Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me with a princely spirit. I will teach sinners Thy ways, and godless men shall be converted unto Thee. Deliver me from bloodguilti- ness, O God, the God of my salvation. My tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness. Lord, Thou shalt open my mouth, and my lips shall declare Thy praise. For, if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, [ would have given it: in whole burnt-offerings Thou wilt have no pleasure. A sacrifice unto God is a contrite spirit ; a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise.
19. The humility therefore and the submissiveness of so many and so great men, who have thus obtained a good report, hath through obedience made better not only us but also the generations which were before us, even them that received His oracles in fear and truth. Seeing then that we have been par- takers of many great and glorious doings, let us hasten to re- turn unto the goal of peace which hath been handed down to
282 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
us from the beginning, and let us look stedfastly unto the Father and Maker of the whole world, and cleave unto His splendid and excellent gifts of peace and benefits. Let us behold Him in our mind, and let us look with the eyes of our soul unto His long-suffering will. Let us note how free from anger He is towards all His creatures.
20. The heavens are moved by His direction and obey Him in peace. Dayand night accomplish the course assigned to them by Him, without hindrance one to another. The sun and the moon and the dancing stars according to His appointment circle in harmony within the bounds assigned to them, without any swerving aside. The earth, bearing fruit in fulfilment of His will at her proper seasons, putteth forth the food that supplieth abundantly both men and beasts and all living things which are thereupon, making no dissension, neither altering anything which He hath decreed. Moreover, the inscrutable depths of the abysses and the unutterable statutes of the nether regions are constrained by the same ordinances. The basin of the boundless sea, gathered together by His workmanship zzto tts reservotrs, passeth not the barriers wherewith it is surrounded; but even as He ordered it, so it doeth. For He said, So far shalt thou come, and thy waves shall be broken within thee. The ocean which is impassable for men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. The seasons of spring and summer and autumn and winter give way in succession one to another in peace. The winds in their several quarters at their proper season fulfil their ministry without disturbance ; and the everflowing fountains, created for enjoyment and health, without fail give their breasts which sustain the life of men. Yea, the smallest of living things come together in concord and peace. All these things the great Creator and Master of the universe ordered to be in peace and concord, doing good unto all things, but far beyond the rest unto us who have taken refuge in His compassionate mercies through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty for ever and ever. Amen.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 283
21. Look ye, brethren, lest His benefits, which are many, turn unto judgment to all of us, if we walk not worthily of Him, and do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight with concord. For He saith in a certain place, The Spirit of the Lord ts a lamp searching the closets of the belly. Let us see how near He is, and how that nothing escapeth Him of our thoughts or our devices which we make. It is right there- fore that we should not be deserters from His will. Let us rather give offence to foolish and senseless men who exalt themselves and boast in the arrogance of their words, than to God. Let us fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us. Let us reverence our rulers; let us honour our elders; let us instruct our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide our women toward that which is good: let them show forth their lovely disposition of purity ; let them prove their sincere affection of gentleness ; let them make manifest the moderation of their tongue through their silence; let them show their love, not in factious preferences, but without partiality towards all them that fear God, in holiness. Let our children be par- takers of the instruction which is in Christ: let them learn how lowliness of mind prevaileth with God, what power chaste love hath with God, how the fear of Him is good and great and saveth all them that walk therein in a pure mind with holiness. For He is the searcher out of the intents and desires; whose breath is in us, and when He listeth, He shall take it away.
22. Now all these things the faith which is in Christ con- firmeth: for He Himself through the Holy Spirit thus inviteth us: Come, my children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desiveth life and loveth to see good days? Make thy tongue to cease from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Turn aside from evil and do good. Seek peace and ensue it. The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are turned to their prayer. Lut the face of the Lord ts upon them that do evil, to destroy their memorial from the earth. The righteous cried out, and the Lord heard him, and delivered him from all his troubles.
284 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
Many are the troubles of the righteous, and the Lord shall de- liver him from them all. Then again; Many are the stripes of the sinner, but them that set their hope on the Lord mercy shall compass about.
23. The Father, who is pitiful in all things, and ready to do good, hath compassion on them that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestoweth His favours on them that draw nigh unto Him with a single mind. Wherefore let us not be double-minded, neither let our soul indulge in idle humours respecting His exceeding and glorious gifts. Let this scrip- ture be far from us where He saith; Weyetched are the double- minded, which doubt in their soul, and say, These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us. Ye fools, compare your- selves unto a tree; take a vine. First tt sheddeth its leaves, then a shoot cometh, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these a sour berry, then a full ripe grape. Ye see that in a little time the fruit of the tree attaineth unto mellowness. Of a truth quickly and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, the scripture also bearing witness to it, saying; He shall come quickly and shall not tarry; and the Lord shall come suddenly into Fits temple, even the Holy One, whom ye expect.
24. Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be here- after; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead. Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at its proper season. Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on. Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh place. The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out of their decay the mightiness of the Master’s providence raiseth them up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.
25. Let us consider the marvellous sign which is seen in
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 285
the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia. There is a bird, which is named the phcenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fulness of time it entereth, and so it dieth. But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun; and in the day time in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return. So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
26. Do we then think it to be a great and marvellous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise? For He saith in a certain place; Aud Thou shalt raise me up, and I will praise Thee ; and L went to rest and slept, I was awaked, for Thou art with me. And again Job saith; And Thou shalt raise this my flesh which hath endured all these things.
27. With this hope therefore let our souls be bound unto Him that is faithful in His promises and that is righteous in His judgments. He that commanded not to lie, much more shall He Himself not lie: for nothing is impossible with God save to lie. Therefore let our faith in Him be kindled within us, and let us understand that all things are nigh unto Him. By a word of His majesty He compacted the universe; and by a word He can destroy it. Who shall say unto Him, What hast Thou done? or who shall resist the might of His strength ? When He listeth, and as He listeth, He will do all things; and
286 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
nothing shall pass away of those things that He hath decreed. All things are in His sight, and nothing escapeth His counsel, seeing that The heavens declare the glory of God, and the fir- mament proclaimeth His handiwork. Day uttereth word unto day, and night proclaimeth knowledge unto night; and there are neither words nor speeches, whose voices are not heard.
28. Since therefore all things are seen and heard, let us fear Him, and forsake the abominable lusts of evil works, that we may be shielded by His mercy from the coming judgments. For where can any of us escape from His strong hand? And what world will receive any of them that desert from His service? For the holy writing saith in a certain place; Where shall I go, and where shall I be hidden from Thy face? If I ascend into the heaven, Thou art there; tf I depart into the farthest parts of the earth, there is Thy right hand ; if I make my bed in the depths, there is Thy Spirit. Whither then shall one depart, or where shall one flee, from Him that embraceth the universe ?
29. Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father, who made us an elect portion unto Himself. For thus it is written: When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, Fle fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Facob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance. And in another place He saith; Lehold, the Lord taketh for Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the firstfruits of his threshingfloor; and the holy of holies shall come forth from that nation.
30. Seeing then that we are the special portion of a Holy God, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness, forsaking evil-speakings, abominable and impure embraces, drunkennesses and tumults and hateful lusts, abominable adultery, hateful pride; Hor God, He saith, reszsteth the proud, but giveth grace to the lowly. Let us therefore cleave unto those to whom
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 287
grace is given from God. Let us clothe ourselves in con- cord, being lowly-minded and temperate, holding ourselves aloof from all backbiting and evil speaking, being justified by works and not by words. For He saith; He that saith much shall hear also again. Doth the ready talker think to be righteous ? Blessed ts the offspring of woman that liveth but a short time. Be not thou abundant in words. Let our praise be with God, and not of ourselves: for God hateth them that praise them- selves. Let the testimony to our well-doing be given by others, as it was given unto our fathers who were righteous. Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are ac- cursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness are with them that are blessed of God.
31. Letus therefore cleave unto His blessing, and let us see what are the ways of blessing. Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac with confidence, as knowing the future, was led a willing sacrifice. Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him.
32. If any man will consider them one by one in sin- cerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him. For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea, and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honour, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holi- ness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God
288 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
33. What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love? May the Master never allow this to befal us at least; but let us hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work. For the Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoiceth in His works. For by His exceeding great might He established the heavens, and in His incomprehensible wisdom He set them in order. And the earth He separated from the water that sur- roundeth it, and He set it firm on the sure foundation of His own will; and the living creatures which walk upon it He com- manded to exist by His ordinance. Having before created the sea and the living creatures therein, He enclosed it by His own power. Above all, as the most excellent and exceeding great work of His intelligence, with His sacred and faultless hands He formed man in the impress of His own image. For thus saith God; Let us make man after our image and after our like- ness. And God made man; male and female made He them. So having finished all these things, He praised them and blessed them and said, /ucrease and multiply. We have seen that all the righteous were adorned in good works. Yea, and so the Lord Himself having adorned Himself with works rejoiced. Seeing then that we have this pattern, let us conform ourselves with all diligence to His will; let us with all our strength work the work of righteousness.
34. The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness, but the slothful and careless dareth not look his em- ployer in the face. It is therefore needful that we should be zealous unto well-doing, for of Him are all things: since He fore- warneth us saying, Lehold, the Lord, and Hts reward ts before His Jace, to recompense each man according to his work. He exhort- eth us therefore to believe on Him with our whole heart, and to be not idle nor careless unto every good work. Let our boast and our confidence be in Him: let us submit ourselves to His will; let us mark the whole host of His angels, how they
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 289
stand by and minister unto His will. For the scripture saith, Ten thousand times ten thousands stood by Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him: and they cried aloud, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of Hits glory. Yea, and let us ourselves then, being gathered together in con- cord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him as from one mouth earnestly that we may be made partakers of His great and slorious promises. For He saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man, what great things He hath prepared for them that patiently await Him.
35. How blessed and marvellous are the gifts of God, dearly beloved! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in boldness, faith in confidence, temperance in sanctification! And all these things fall under our apprehension. What then, think ye, are the things preparing for them that patiently await Him? The Creator and Father of the ages, the All-holy One Himself knoweth their number and their beauty. Let us therefore con- tend, that we may be found in the number of those that patiently await Him, to the end that we may be partakers of His promised gifts. But how shall this be, dearly beloved? If our mind be fixed through faith towards God; if we seek out those things which are well pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we accomplish such things as beseem His faultless will, and follow the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and ini- quity, covetousness, strifes, malignities and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory and inhospitality. For they that do these things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent unto them. For the scripture saith; But unto the sinner said God, Wherefore dost thou declare Mine ordinances, and takest My covenant upon thy mouth? Yet thou didst hate instruction, and didst cast away My words behind thee. If thou sawest a thief, thou didst keep company with him, and with the adulterers thou didst set thy portion. Thy mouth multiplied wickedness, and thy tongue wove deceit. Thou sattest and spakest against thy brother, and against the son of thy mother thou didst lay a stumbling-block.
CLEM. II. 19
290 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
These things thou hast done, and I kept silence. Thou thoughtest, unrighteous man, that I should be like unto thee. I will convict thee, and will set thee face to face with thyself. Now understand ye these things, ye that forget God, lest at any time He seize you as a lion, and there be none to deliver. The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me, and there 1s the way wherem I will show him the salvation of God.
36. This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation, even Jesus Christ the High-priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness. Through Him let us look stedfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up unto [His marvellous] light; through Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge; Who being the brightness of His majesty 1s so much greater than angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name. For so it is written; Who maketh Fis angels spirits and His ministers a flame of five; but of His Son the Master said thus; Zhou art My Son, 1 this day have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession. And again He saith unto Him; Szt Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. Who then are these enemies? They that are wicked and resist His will.
37. Let us therefore enlist ourselves, brethren, with all earn- estness in His faultless ordinances. Let us mark the soldiers that are enlisted under our rulers, how exactly, how readily, how submissively, they execute the orders given them. All! are not prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor rulers of hundreds, nor rulers of fifties, and so forth; but each man in his own rank executeth the orders given by the king and the governors. The great without the small cannot exist, neither the small without the great. There is a certain mixture in all things, and therein is utility. Let us take our body as an example. The head
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 291
without the feet is nothing; so likewise the feet without the head are nothing: even the smallest limbs of our body are necessary and useful for the whole body: but all the members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be saved.
38. So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbour, ac- cording as also he was appointed with his special grace. Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through whom his wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testi- mony to be borne to him by his neighbour. He that is pure in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestoweth his continence upon him. Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we were made; who and what manner of beings we were, when we came into the world; from what a sepulchre and what darkness He that moulded and created us brought us into His world, having prepared His benefits afore- hand ere ever we were born. Seeing therefore that we have all these things from Him, we ought in all things to give thanks to Him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
39. Senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men jeer and mock at us, desiring that they themselves should be exalted in their imaginations. For what power hath a mortal ? or what strength hath a child of earth? For itis written; 7/ere was no form before mine eyes; only I heard a breath and a voice. What then? Shalla mortal be clean in the sight of the Lord, or shall a man be unblameable for his works? seeing that He 1s distrustful against Hts servants, and noteth some perversity against Flis angels. Nay, the heaven ts not clean in His sight. Away then, ye that dwell in houses of clay, whereof, even of the same clay, we ourselves are made. He smote them like a moth, and from morn to even they are no more. Because
19—2
292 5S. CLEMENT OF ROME
they could not succour themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call thou, uf perchance one shall obey thee, or uf thou shalt see one of the holy angels. For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth him that ts gone astray. And TI have seen fools throwing out roots, but forthwith their habitation was eaten up. Far be their sons from safety. May they be mocked at the gates of wferiors, and there shall be none to deliver them. For the things which are prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; but they themselves shall not be delivered from evils.
40. Forasmuch then as these things are manifest beforehand, and we have searched into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master hath commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons. Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by His supreme will: that all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high-priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the levites their proper minis- trations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances.
41. Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 293
been inspected for blemishes. They therefore who do any thing contrary to the seemly ordinance of His will receive death as the penalty. Ye see, brethren, in proportion as greater know- ledge hath been vouchsafed unto us, so much the more are we exposed to danger.
42. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is ae God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they ap- pointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, 7 well appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in fatth.
43. And what marvel, if they which were entrusted in Christ with such a work by God appointed the aforesaid persons? seeing that even the blessed Moses who was a fazthful servant in all His house recorded for a sign in the sacred books all things that were enjoined upon him. And him also the rest of the prophets followed, bearing witness with him unto the laws that were ordained by him. For he, when jealousy arose con- © cerning the priesthood, and there was dissension among the tribes which of them was adorned with the glorious name, com- manded the twelve chiefs of the tribes to bring to him rods inscribed with the name of each tribe. And he took them and tied them and sealed them with the signet rings of the chiefs of the tribes, and put them away in the tabernacle of the testimony on the table of God. And having shut the tabernacle he sealed the keys, and likewise also the doors. And he said unto them, Brethren, the tribe whose rod shall bud, this hath God chosen to be
294 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
priests and ministers unto Him. Now when morning came, he called together all Israel, even the six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the chiefs of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of the testimony, and drew forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only with buds, but also bearing fruit. What think ye, dearly beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would come to pass? Assuredly he knew it. But that disorder might not arise in Israel, he did thus, to the end that the Name of the true and only God might be glorified : to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
44. And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknow- ledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all—these men we consider to be un- justly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblameably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honour- ably, from the ministration which they had +respected+ blame- lessly.
45. Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost ; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. Ye will not find that righteous persons have been thrust out by holy men. Righteous men were persecuted,
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 295
but it was by the lawless; they were imprisoned, but it was by the unholy. They were stoned by transgressors: they were slain by those who had conceived a detestable and unrighteous jea- lousy. Suffering these things, they endured nobly. For what must we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the lions’ den by them that fear God? Or were Ananias and Azarias and Misael shut up in the furnace of fire by them that professed the excellent and glorious worship of the Most High? Far be this from our thoughts. Who then were they that did these things? Abominable men and full of all wickedness were stirred up to such a pitch of wrath, as to bring cruel suffering upon them that served God in a holy and blameless purpose, not knowing that the Most High is the champion and pro- tector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name: unto whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they that endured patiently in confidence inherited glory and honour; they were exalted, and had their names recorded by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen.
46. To such examples as these therefore, brethren, we also ought to cleave. For it is written; Cleave unto the saints, for they that cleave unto them shall be sanctified. And again He saith in another place; W2th the guiltless man thou shalt be guiltless, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the crooked thou shalt deal crookedly... Let us therefore cleave to the cuiltless and righteous: and these are the elect of God. Where- fore are there strifes and wraths and factions and divisions and war among you? Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Wherefore do we tear and rend asunder the members of Christ, and stir up factions against our own body, and reach such a pitch of folly, as to forget that we are members one of another? Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man. It were good for him uf he had not been born, rather than that he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about him, and he cast into the sea, than that he should
296 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
pervert one of Mine elect. Your division hath perverted many ; it hath brought many to despair, many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow. And your sedition still continueth.
47. Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel ? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight. But now mark ye, who they are that have perverted you and diminished the glory of your renowned love for the brotherhood. It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful, and unworthy of your conduct in- Christ, that it should be reported that the very sted- fast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters. And this report hath reached not only us, but them also which differ from us, so that ye even heap blasphemies on the Name of the Lord by reason of your folly, and moreover create peril for yourselves.
48. Let us therefore root this out quickly, and let -us fall down before the Master, and entreat Him with tears, that He may show Himself propitious, and be reconciled unto us, and may restore us to the seemly and pure conduct which belongeth to our love of the brethren. For this is a gate of righteous- ness opened unto life, as it is written; Open me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter in thereby and praise the Lord. This ts the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in thereby. Seeing then that many gates are opened, this is that gate which is in righteousness, even that which is in Christ, whereby all are blessed, that have entered in and direct their path in holiness and righteousness, performing all things without con- fusion. Let a man be faithful, let him be able to expound a deep saying, let him be wise in the discernment of words, let him be strenuous in deeds, let him be pure; for so much the more ought he to be lowly in mind, in proportion as he
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 297
seemeth to be the greater; and he ought to seek the common advantage of all, and not his own.
49. Let him that hath love in Christ fulfil the command- ments of Christ. Who can declare the bond of the love of God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? The height, whereunto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love joineth us unto God; Jove covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no di- visions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in con- cord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect ; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God: in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh, and His life for our lives.
50. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvellous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection. Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God’s grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of God. For it is written: Exter into the closet for a very little while, until Mine anger and My wrath shall pass away, and [ will remember a good day, and will raise you from your tombs. Blessed were we, dearly beloved, if we should be doing the commandments of God in concord of love, to the end that our sins may through love be forgiven us. For it is written; Blessed are they whose tniguities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed ts the man to whom the Lord shall impute no sin, neither ts guile in his mouth. This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
51. For all our transgressions therefore which we have com-
298 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
mitted through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set them- selves up as leaders of faction and division, ought to look to the common ground of hope. For such as walk in fear and love desire that they themselves should fall into suffering rather than their neighbours; and they pronounce condemnation against them- selves rather than against the harmony which hath been handed down to us nobly and righteously. For it is good for a man to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and death shall be their shepherd. Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea, and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened, after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.
52. The Master, brethren, hath need of nothing at all. He desireth not anything of any man, save to confess unto Him. For the elect David saith ; F wll confess unto the Lord, and it shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and rejowe. And again He saith; Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows to the Most High: and call upon Me in the day of thine afftic- tion, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. For a sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.
53. For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, go down quickly hence, for My people whom thou leddest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity : they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 299
tmages. And the Lord said unto him; J have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it ts stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Way, not so, Lord. Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. O mighty love! O un- surpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master ; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth. that himself also be blotted out with them.
54. Who therefore is noble among you? Who is com- passionate? Who is fulfilled with love? Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters. He that shall have done this, shall win for himself great renown in Christ, and every place will receive him: for the earth ts the Lords and the fulness thereof. Thus have they done and will do, that live as citizens of that kingdom of God which bringeth no regrets.
55. But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions. We know that many among our- selves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and re- ceiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds. The blessed Judith, when the city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord de- livered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less
300 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
peril did Esther also, who was perfect in faith, expose herself, that she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel, when they were on the point to perish. For through her fasting and her humiliation she entreated the all-seeing Master, the God of the ages; and He, seeing the humility of her soul, delivered the people for whose sake she encountered the peril.
56. Therefore let us also make intercession for them that are in any transgression, that forbearance and humility may be given them, to the end that they may yield not unto us, but unto the will of God. For so shall the compassionate remem- brance of them with God and the saints be fruitful unto them, and perfect. Let us accept chastisement, whereat no man ought to be vexed, dearly beloved. The admonition which we give one to another is good and exceeding useful; for it joineth us unto the will of God. For thus saith the holy word; The Lord hath indeed chastened me, and hath not delivered me over unto death. For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. For the righteous, it is said, shall chasten me in mercy, and shall reprove me; but let not the +mercyt of sin- ners anoint my head. And again He saith; Blessed is the man whom the Lord hath reproved, and refuse not thou the admonition of the Almighty. For He causeth pain, and He restoreth again: He hath smitten, and His hands have healed. Six times shall He rescue thee from afflictions: and at the seventh no evil shall touch thee. In famine He shall deliver thee from death, and in war He shall release thee from the arm of the sword. And from the scourge of the tongue shall He hide thee, and thou shalt not be afraid when evils approach. Thou shalt laugh at the unrighteous and wicked, and of the wild beasts thou shalt not be afraid. For wild beasts shall be at peace with thee. Then shalt thou know that thy house shall be at peace: and the abode of thy tabernacle shall not go wrong, and thou shalt know that — thy seed 1s many, and thy children as the plenteous herbage of — the field. And thou shalt come to the grave as ripe corn reaped in due season, or as the heap of the threshing floor gathered together at the right time. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 301
protection there is for them that are chastened by the Master: for being a kind father He chasteneth us, to the end that we may obtain mercy through His holy chastisement.
57. Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters, and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stub- bornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s roll, than to be had in exceeding honour and yet be cast out from the hope of Him. For thus saith the All-virtuous Wisdom ; Behold I will pour out for you a saying of My breath, and I will teach you My word. Because I called and ye obeyed not, and [ held out words and ye heeded not, but made My coun- sels of none effect, and were disobedient unto My reproofs ; there- fore I also will laugh at your destruction, and will rejoice over you when ruin cometh upon you, and when confusion overtaketh you suddenly, and your overthrow 1s at hand like a whirlwind, or when anguish and beleaguerment come upon you. For it shall be, when ye call upon Me, yet will I not hear you. Evil men shall seek Me, and shall not find Me: for they hated wisdom, and chose not the fear of the Lord, neither would they give heed unto My counsels, but mocked at My reproofs. Therefore they shall cat the fruits of their own way, and shall be filled with their own ungodliness. For because they wronged babes, they shall be slain, and inquisition shall destroy the ungodly. But he that heareth Me shall dwell safely trusting in hope, and shall be quiet From fear of all evil.
58. Let us therefore be obedient unto His most holy and glorious Name, thereby escaping the threatenings which were spoken of old by the mouth of Wisdom against them which disobey, that we may dwell safely, trusting in the most holy Name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who with
302 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regret- fulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen.
59. But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin. And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our heart, that we may know Thee, who alone abides? Highest in the high, Holy in the holy ; who layest low the inso- lence of the proud ; who scatterest the tmaginings of nations; who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low ; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive ; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scannest the works of man; the Succour of them that are in peril, the Saviour of them that are in despair ; the Creator and Overseer of every spirit ; who mul- tipliest the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honour us. We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succour. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the faint-hearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 303
Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.
60. Thou through Thine operations didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create the earth. Thou that art faithful throughout all generations, righteous in Thy judgments, marvellous in strength and ex- cellence, Thou that art wise in creating and prudent in esta- blishing that which Thou hast made, that art good in the things which are seen and faithful with them that trust on Thee, pitiful and compassionate, forgive us our iniquities and our unrighteousnesses and our transgressions and shortcomings. Lay not to our account every sin of Thy servants and Thine handmaids, but cleanse us with the cleansing of Thy truth, and guide our steps to walk in holiness and righteousness and singleness of heart, and to do such things as are good and well-pleasing mn Thy sight and in the sight of our rulers. Yea, Lord, make Thy face to shine upon us in peace for our good, that we may be sheltered by Thy mighty hand and delivered from every sin by Thine uplifted arm. And deliver us from them that hate us wrongfully. Give concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth, as Thou gavest to our fathers, when they called on Thee in faith and truth with holiness, [that we may be saved,| while we render obedi- ence to Thine almighty and most excellent Name, and to our rulers and governors upon the earth.
61. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, that we knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing re- sisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the go- vernment which Thou hast given them without failure. For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men glory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel ac- cording to that which is good and well-pleasing in Thy sight,
304 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
that, administering in peace and gentleness with godliness the power which Thou hast given them, they may obtain Thy favour. O Thou, who alone art able to do these things, and things far more exceeding good than these for us, we praise Thee through the High-priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom be the glory and the majesty unto Thee both now and for all generations and for ever and ever. Amen.
62. As touching those things which befit our religion and are most useful for a virtuous life to such as would guide [their steps] in holiness and righteousness, we have written fully unto you, brethren. For concerning faith and repentance and genuine love and temperance and sobriety and patience we have handled every argument, putting you in remembrance, that ye ought to please Almighty God in righteousness and truth and long-suffering with holiness, laying aside malice and pursuing concord in love and peace, being instant in gentle- ness; even as our fathers, of whom we spake before, pleased Him, being lowly-minded towards their Father and God and Creator and towards all men. And we have put you in mind of these things the more gladly, since we knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God.
63. Therefore it is right for us to give heed to so great and sO many examples, and to submit the neck, and occupying the place of obedience to take our side with them that are the leaders of our souls, that ceasing from this foolish dissension we may attain unto the goal which lieth before us in truthfulness, keeping aloof from every fault. For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. And we have also sent faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably, who shall also be witnesses between you and us. And this we have done that ye might
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 305
know that we have had, and still have, every solicitude that ye should be speedily at peace.
64. Finally may the All-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well-pleasing unto His Name through our High- priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.
65. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom is glory and honour, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for ever and ever. Amen.
CLEM. II. 20
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
RETHREN, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as
of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead. And
we ought not to think mean things of our Salvation: for when we think mean things of Him, we expect also to receive mean things. And they that listen as concerning mean things do wrong; and we ourselves do wrong, not knowing whence and by whom and unto what place we were called, and how many things Jesus Christ endured to suffer for our sakes. What recompense then shall we give unto Him? or what fruit worthy of His own gift to us? And how many mercies do we owe to Him! For He bestowed the light upon us; He spake to us, as a father to his sons; He saved us, when we were perishing. What praise then shall we give to Him? or what payment of recompense for those things which we received ? we who were maimed in our understanding, and worshipped stocks and stones, gold and silver and bronze, the works of men; and our whole life was nothing else but death. While then we were thus wrapped in darkness and oppressed with this thick mist in our vision, we recovered our sight, putting off by His will the cloud wherein we were wrapped. For He had mercy on us, and in His compassion saved us, having beheld in us much error and perdition, even when we
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 307
had no hope of salvation, save that which came from Him. For He called us, when we were not, and from not being He willed us to be.
2. Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not. Break out and cry, thou that travailest not; for more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. \n that He said, Rejozce, thou barren that bearest not, He spake of us: for our Church was barren, before that children were given unto her. And in that He said, Cry aloud, thou that travailest not, He meaneth this; Let us not, like women in travail, grow weary of offering up our prayers with simplicity to God. Again, in that He said, For the children of the desolate are more than of her that hath the husband, He so spake, because our people seemed desolate and forsaken of God, whereas now, having believed, we have become more than those who seemed to have God. Again another scripture saith, J came not to call the righteous, but sinners. He meaneth this; that it is right to save them that are perishing. For this indeed is a great and marvellous work, to establish, not those things which stand, but those which are falling. So also Christ willed to save the things which were perishing. And He saved many, coming and calling us when we were even now perishing.
3. Seeing then that He bestowed so great mercy on us; first of all, that we, who are living, do not sacrifice to these dead gods, neither worship them, but through Him have known the Father of truth. What else is this knowledge to Himward, but not to deny Him through whom we have known Him? Yea, He Himself saith, Whoso confesseth Me, Him will I confess before the Father. This then is our reward, if verily we shall confess Him through whom we were saved. But wherein do we confess Him? When we do that which He saith and are not disobedient unto His commandments, and not only honour Him with our lips, but with our whole heart and with our whole mind. Now He saith also in Isaiah, Ths people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
20—2
308 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
4. Let us therefore not only call Him Lord, for this will not save us: for He saith, Wot every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness. So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary. And we ought not rather to fear men but God. For this cause, if ye do these things, the Lord said, Though ye be gathered together with Me in My bosom, and do not My commandments, I will cast you away and will say unto you, Depart from Me, I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.
5. Wherefore, brethren, let us forsake our sojourn in this world and do the will of Him that called us, and let us not be afraid to depart out of this world. For the Lord saith, Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered and said unto Him, What then, tf the wolves should tear the lambs? Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are dead; and ye also, fear ye not them that kill you and are not able to do anything to you, but fear him that after ye are dead hath power over soul and body, to cast them into the gehenna of fire. And ye know, brethren, that the sojourn of this flesh in this world is mean and for a short time, but the promise of Christ is great and marvellous, even the rest of the kingdom that shall be and of life eternal. What then can we do to obtain them, but walk in holiness and righteousness, and consider these worldly things as alien to us, and not desire them? For when we desire to obtain these things we fall away from the righteous path.
6. But the Lord saith, Vo servant can serve two masters. If we desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable for us: For what advantage is it, if a man gain the whole world and Jorfeit his soul? Now this age and the future are two enemies, The one speaketh of adultery and defilement and avarice and
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 309
deceit, but the other biddeth farewell to these. We cannot therefore be friends of the two, but must bid farewell to the one and hold companionship with the other. Let us consider that it is better to hate the things which are here, because they are mean and for a short time and perishable, and to love the things which are there, for they are good and imperishable. For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. And the scripture also saith in Ezekiel, Though Noah and Fob and Daniel should rise up, they shall not deliver their children in the captivity. But if even such righteous men as these cannot by their righteous deeds deliver their children, with what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?
7. So then, my brethren, let us contend, knowing that the contest is nigh at hand, and that, while many resort to the cor- ruptible contests, yet not all are crowned, but only they that have toiled hard and contended bravely. Let us then contend that we all may be crowned. Wherefore let us run in the straight course, the incorruptible contest. And let us resort to it in throngs and contend, that we may also be crowned. And if we cannot al! be crowned, let us at least come near to the crown. We ought to know that he which contendeth in the corruptible contest, if he be found dealing corruptly with it, is first flogged, and then removed and driven out of the race-course. What think ye? What shall be done to him that hath dealt corruptly with the contest of incorruption? For as concerning them that have not kept the seal, He saith, Tezr worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh.
8. While we are on earth, then, let us repent: for we are clay under the craftsman’s hand. For in like manner as the potter, if he be making a vessel, and it get twisted or crushed in
310 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
his hands, reshapeth it again; but if he have once put it into the fiery oven, he shall no longer mend it: so also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance. For after that we have departed out of the world, we can no more make confession there, or repent any more. Wherefore, brethren, if we shall have done the will of the Father and kept the flesh pure and guarded the commandments of the Lord, we shall receive life eternal, For the Lord saith in the Gospel, // ye kept not that which ts little, who shall give unto you that which ts great? For I say unto you that he which ts faithful in the least, 1s faithful also in much. So then He meaneth this, Keep the flesh pure and the seal unstained, to the end that we may receive life.
9. And let not any one of you say that this flesh is not judged neither riseth again. Understand ye. In what were ye saved? In what did ye recover your sight? if ye were not in this flesh. We ought therefore to guard the flesh as a temple of God: for in like manner as ye were called in the flesh, ye shall come also in the flesh. If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward. Let us therefore love one another, that we all may come unto the kingdom of God. While we have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in the hands of God the physician, giving Him a recompense. What recompense? Repentance from a sincere heart. For He discerneth all things beforehand and knoweth what is in our heart. Let us therefore give unto Him eternal praise, not from our lips only, but also from our heart, that He may receive us as sons. For the Lord also said, These are My brethren, which do the will of My Father.
10. Wherefore, my brethren, let us do the will of the Father which called us, that we may live; and let us the rather pursue virtue, but forsake vice as the forerunner of our sins, and let us flee from ungodliness, lest evils overtake us. For if we be dili-
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 311
gent in doing good, peace will pursue us. For for this cause is a man unable to attain happiness, seeing that they call in the fears of men, preferring rather the enjoyment which is here than the promise which is to come. For they know not how great torment the enjoyment which is here bringeth, and what delight the promise which is to come bringeth. And if verily they were doing these things by themselves alone, it had been tolerable: but now they continue teaching evil to innocent souls, not knowing that they shall have their condemnation doubled, both themselves and their hearers.
11. Let us therefore serve God in a pure heart, and we shall be righteous; but if we serve Him not, because we believe not the promise of God, we shall be wretched. For the word of prophecy also saith: Wretched are the double-minded, that doubt an their heart and say, These things we heard of old in the days of our fathers also, yet we have waited day after day and have seen none of them. Ve fools! compare yourselves unto a tree; take a vine. First tt sheddeth tts leaves, then a shoot cometh, after this a sour berry, then a full ripe grape. So likewise My people had tumults and afflictions: but afterward they shall receive good things. Wherefore, my brethren, let us not be double-minded but endure patiently in hope, that we may also obtain our reward. For faithful is He that promised to pay to each man the recompense of his works. If therefore we shall have wrought righteousness in the sight of God, we shall enter into His kingdom and shall receive the promises which ear hath not heard nor eye seen, neither hath it entered into the heart of man.
12. Let us therefore await the kingdom of God betimes in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of God's appearing. For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when His kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female. Now the two are one, when we speak truth among ourselves, and in two bodies there shall be one soul without dissimulation. And by the outside as the inside He
312 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
meaneth this: by the inside He meaneth the soul and by the outside the body. Therefore in like manner as thy body appeareth, so also let thy soul be manifest in its good works. And by the male with the female, neither male nor female, He meaneth this; that a brother seeing a sister should have no thought of her as of a female, and that a sister seeing a brother should not have any thought of him as of amale. These things if ye do, saith He, the kingdom of my Father shall come.
13. Therefore, brethren, let us repent forthwith. Let us be sober unto that which is good: for we are full of much folly and wickedness. Let us wipe away from us our former sins, and let us repent with our whole soul and be saved. And let us not be found men-pleasers. Neither let us desire to please one another only, but also those men that are without, by our righteousness, that the Name be not blasphemed by reason of us. For the Lord saith, Every way My Name ts blasphemed among all the Gentiles ; and again, Woe unto him by reason of whom My Name is blas- phemed. Wherein is it blasphemed? In that ye do not the things which I desire. For the Gentiles, when they hear from our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at them for their beauty and greatness ; then, when they discover that our works are not worthy of the words which we speak, forthwith they betake themselves to blasphemy, saying that it is an idle story and a delusion. For when they hear from us that God saith, /¢ zs xo thank unto you, tf ye love them that love you, but this ts thank unto you, if ye love your enemtes and them that hate you; when they hear these things, I say, they marvel at their exceeding goodness; but when they see that we not only do not love them that hate us, but not even them that love us, they laugh us to scorn, and the Name is blasphemed.
14. Wherefore, brethren, if we do the will of God our Father, we shall be of the first Church, which is spiritual, which was created before the sun and moon; but if we do not the will of the Lord, we shall be of the scripture that saith, Wy house was made a den of vobbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 333
the Church of life, that we may be saved. And I do not sup- pose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us. Now the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that, if any of us guard her in the flesh and defile her not, he shall receive her again in the Holy Spirit: for this flesh is the counterpart and copy of the spirit. No man therefore, when he hath defiled the copy, shall receive the original for his portion. This therefore is what He meaneth, brethren ; Guard ye the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit. But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wan- tonly with the Church. Such an one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. So excellent is the life and immor- tality which this flesh can receive as its portion, if the Holy Spirit be joined to it. No man can declare or tell those things which the Lord hath prepared for His elect.
15. Now I do not think that I have given any mean counsel respecting continence, and whosoever performeth it shall not repent thereof, but shall save both himself and me his coun- sellor. For it is no mean reward to convert a wandering and perishing soul, that it may be saved. For this is the recompense which we are able to pay to God who created us, if he that speaketh and heareth both speak and hear with faith and love. Let us therefore abide in the things which we believed, in righteousness and holiness, that we may with boldness ask of God who saith, Whzles thou art still speaking, I will say, Behold, I am here. ¥or this word is the token of a great promise: for the Lord saith of Himself that He is more ready to give than he that asketh to ask. Seeing then that we are partakers of so
314 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
great kindness, let us not grudge ourselves the obtaining of so many good things. For in proportion as the pleasure is great which these words bring to them that have performed them, so also is the condemnation great which they bring to them that have been disobedient.
16. Therefore, brethren, since we have found no small opportunity for repentance, seeing that we have time, let us turn again unto God that called us, while we have still One that receiveth us. For if we bid farewell to these enjoyments and conquer our soul in refusing to fulfil its evil lusts, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus. But ye know that the day of judgment cometh even now as a burning oven, and the powers of the heavens shall melt, and all the earth as lead melting on the fire, and then shall appear the secret and open works of men. Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin. Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving than both. And love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin.
17. Let us therefore repent with our whole heart, lest any of us perish by the way. For if we have received commands, that we should make this also our business, to tear men away from idols and to instruct them, how much more is it wrong that a soul which knoweth God already should perish! There- fore let us assist one another, that we may also lead the weak upward as touching that which is good, to the end that we all may be saved: and let us convert and admonish one another. And let us not think to give heed and believe now only, while we are admonished by the presbyters; but likewise when we have departed home, let us remember the commandments of the Lord, and not suffer ourselves to be dragged off the other way by our worldly lusts; but coming hither more frequently, let us strive to go forward in the commands of the Lord, that we all having the same mind may be gathered together unto life. For
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. . 315
the Lord said, / come to gather together all the nations, tribes, and languages. Uerein He speaketh of the day of His appearing, when He shall come and redeem us, each man according to his works. Azd the unbelievers shall see His glory and His might: and they shall be amazed when they see the kingdom of the world given to Jesus, saying, Woe unto us, for Thou wast, and we knew it not, and believed not; and we obeyed not the presbyters when they told us of our salvation. And Thezr worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh. Ue speaketh of that day of judgment, when men shall see those among us that lived ungodly lives and dealt falsely with the commandments of Jesus Christ. But the righteous, having done good and endured torments and hated the pleasures of the soul, when they shall behold them that have done amiss and denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds, how that they are punished with grievous torments in unquenchable fire, shall give glory to God, saying, There will be hope for him that hath served God with his whole heart.
18. Therefore let us also be found among those that give thanks, among those that have served God, and not among the ungodly that are judged. For I myself too, being an utter sinner and not yet escaped from temptation, but being still amidst the engines of the devil, do my diligence to follow after righteousness, that I may prevail so far at least as to come near unto it, while I fear the judgment to come.
19. Therefore, brothers and sisters, after the God of truth hath been heard, I read to you an exhortation to the end that ye may give heed to the things which are written, so that ye may save both yourselves and him that readeth in the midst of you. For I ask of you as a reward that ye repent with your whole heart, and give salvation and life to yourselves. For doing this we shall set a goal for all the young who desire to toil in the study of piety and of the goodness of God. And let us not be displeased and vexed, fools that we are, whensoever any one admonisheth us and turneth us aside from unrighteous-
316 AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
ness unto righteousness. For sometimes while we do evil things, we perceive it not by reason of the double-mindedness and un- belief which is in our breasts, and zwe ave darkened in our under- standing by our vain lusts. Let us therefore practise righteousness that we may be saved unto the end. Blessed are they that obey these ordinances. Though they may endure affliction for a short time in the world, they will gather the immortal fruit of the resurrection. Therefore let not the godly be grieved, if he be miserable in the times that now are: a blessed time awaiteth him. He shall live again in heaven with the fathers, and shall have rejoicing throughout a sorrowless eternity.
20. Neither suffer ye this again to trouble your mind, that we see the unrighteous possessing wealth, and the servants of God straitened. Let us then have faith, brothers and sisters. We are contending in the lists of a living God; and we are trained by the present life, that we may be crowned with the future. No righteous man hath reaped fruit quickly, but waiteth for it. For if God had paid the recompense of the righteous speedily, then straightway we should have been training ourselves in merchandise, and not in godliness; for we should seem to be righteous, though we were pursuing not that which is godly, but that which is gainful. And for this cause Divine judgment over- taketh a spirit that is not just, and loadeth it with chains.
To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent forth unto us the Saviour and Prince of immortality, through whom also He made manifest unto us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Lh. PEPPOLVTUS::OBiv PORES:
HE PERSONALITY and life of Hippolytus are beset with
thorny and perplexing questions on all sides. Of what country was he a native? Where and how did he spend his early life? Under what influences was he brought in his boyhood and adolescence? Was he a simple presbyter or a bishop? If the latter, what was his see? Of the works ascribed or attributed to him, how many are genuine? What were his relations to the Roman See? Was he guilty of heresy or of schism? If the one or the other, what was the nature of the differences which separated him? Was this separation temporary or permanent? Was he a confessor or a martyr, or both or neither? What was the chronology of his life and works? More especially, at what date did he die? Has there, or has there not, been some con- fusion between two or three persons bearing the same name? What explanation shall we give of the architectural and other monumental records connected with his name?
These questions started up, like the fabled progeny of the dragon’s teeth—a whole army of historical perplexities confronting us suddenly and demanding a solution—when less than forty years ago the work entitled Pz/osophumena was discovered and published to the world. To most of these questions I shall address myself in the dissertation which follows. The position and doings of Hippolytus are not uncon- nected with the main subject of these volumes. In the first place; whereas the internal history of the Church of Rome is shrouded in thick darkness from the end of the first century to the beginning of the third, from the age of Clement to the age of Hippolytus—scarcely a ray here and there penetrating the dense cloud—at this latter moment the scene is suddenly lit up with a glare—albeit a lurid glare—of light. Then again; we have some reason for believing that the earliest western list of the Roman bishops may have been drawn up by Hip-
218 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
polytus himself, and it is almost absolutely certain that the first con- tinuator of this list, in whose work the earliest notice of Hippolytus occurs outside his own writings, was a contemporary (see above, I. Pp. 255, p- 259 sq). The questions asked above have not indeed in very many cases any immediate connexion with the matters with which we are directly concerned; but they hang very closely together one with another, and this seemed a fit opportunity of placing before the reader the results, however briefly, yet with some sort of completeness, of the investigations and discoveries which have been stimulated by the publication of the Phzlosophumena.
i ANCIENT REFERENCES FO*AIPPOLYVTOS:
Following the course which I have pursued in other cases, I shall here gather together the ancient documentary evidence and traditions relating to Hippolytus, considering that I shall best consult the con- venience of my readers as well as my own, by so doing. At the head of these are placed the references from Hippolytus himself to his own life and writings. In so doing I shall take the liberty of assuming pro- visionally the Hippolytean authorship of several writings, deferring the reasons for so assigning them till the proper occasion. The cross-refer- ences from the one to the other in these writings are the most import- ant and unsuspicious evidence of authorship. I shall also include some notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter, a contemporary of Hippolytus ; because the two are frequently confused in ancient authorities—so much so as to arouse the suspicion that Gaius was only another name for Hippolytus, and that he had no distinct personality. This question also I shall discuss presently.
These notices will be cited in the discussions which follow as 42, with the number and letter, and (where necessary) the page.
1. Hu1ppotytus [c. a.D. 230].
(a) Refutatio Haeresium i. prooem. (p. 2, Miller).
Oddéva pdOov tov Tap’ "EAAnoL vevopicpévwov wapartytéov. Tota yap kal Ta dovorata abrav Sdypata wyynréov Sia tH brepBdddovoay Tav aipe- TUKOV paviay, Ol dia TO OLWTaY aTroKpUTTELW TE TA AppyTa éavTav pvoTHpLa évopicOnoav ToAXots Meov ceBev: ov Kai tada perpiws TA Soypata é&eOE- peOa, od Kara Aewrov éroeiEavTes, GAN’ adpopepads eA€yEavtes, pydev akvov Hynoapevor TA appyra. avtav eis Pos aye, drus Oe aiviyparwv nudv éxbe- péevov ta Sdgavta adtois ainyvvOévres punmote Kal Ta appyta é&evrovTes
nr > , , , aN. per / , he 22 abéous em wElEwrev, TAVOWVTAL [re] THS aroyiorou Yvorys KQL abeuirou ETT LX EL-
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 319
, b 3 5 x e x \ 5 4 3 ‘\ ‘\ e , 3 , pyoews. GAN eel opd py Svtwrovpevors adrovs THY yueTépav emueckerav A 3 ~ pnde AoyiLopevors, ws Weds paxpoOvmet iw aitdv Bracdypovmevos, orws 7 BD a aides Oevres petavonowow % ereivaytes dikaiws KpiOdor, BracGels rpoerpe , ber a A Sale , A \ @& ? 2\ 2 x as deiEwv aitav Ta aroppyTa pvoTypia...tadra dé Erepos ovK éeySer } TO ev A e / > exkAyoia mapadobey ayiov rvedua, OV TUXOVTES TPOTEPOL Ot amoaTONOL peETE- a a , e e A , , ~ Socav Tots opOds mwemictevKoow: av ypets duddoxor TvyxXavovTes THS TE QUTHS YapiTos peTEexoVTES apxiepaTeias TE Kal SidacKadias Kal Ppovpol THs A , exkAnoias edoyrpévor ovK oPOadru@ vuoralopev ovdé Aoyov opHor gwwTawev K.T.A,
This extract is taken from the text of Diel’s Doxographz Graecz (Berolin. 1879) ; the remaining extracts, from the edition of Duncker and Schneidewin.
(6) Ref. Haer. vi. 42 (p. 202). ‘ ‘\ ‘\ e , , ] “~ 4 A Kai yop kai o paxapios tpecBitepos Hipyvatos mappyciairepov Ta 3 td . \ A 4, \ > , 3f£/ € ehéyxw tpocevexGeis Ta Tovatra Aovopata Kat amoAvtpwcets ef€HeTo, adpo- Pepeatepov cituv & mpaccovoL, ols evTUXOVTES TIVES ATOY HPVHVTAL OUTWS , ce J “a “ ‘ ‘ ea , > maperdnpévat, act apvetobar pavOavovres. 510 ppovtis nuty yeyevntar axpt- Béorepov emilnrica Kai avevpety AeTTOpEpas, a Kal év TO TPwWTwW AoUTPO Tapadidoact K.T.A.
i) Ae. Baer. vi. 58 (p. 221°Sq)-
“A raparibévar pou ovk edogev, ovta PAvapa kal dovotata, non TOU paKa- plov mpecBurépov Eipyvaiov dewas kat rerovnpevws ta dSoypata aditav due Aeyéavtos, map ov Kal adtdv edevpypara [rapeAndaperv] eiderxvivtes abrovs IvOayopeiov gitocodias Kat aotpoddywv reptepyias TadTa operept- capévous eyxadelv Xpiot@ Tavta mapadedwxévar.
(dq) Ref. Haer. ix. 6, 7 (p. 278 sq). TIoAXod toivuv Tov wept Tacav aipécewy yevomevov yyty aydvos pnbev ye dveféXeyxtov Katadirovet, TepirelreTaL viv 6 méyLoTos ayuv, exdinynyoac Gat ‘\ é \ b) se aie > , ¢e / 3 e > aA \ kal dued€yfar tas é€d’ nyiv éravactacas aipéces, d: av Tiwes auabets Kal todpnpot diackedavvvew érexeipnoav THY exkAnoiav, MEyLOTOV TAapaxoV KATO. TavTa TOV KOTMOV ev TAL TOls TiTTOIs euBadAovTes. SoKel yap emt THY GpXNyov TOV KaKaV yevowevynv yvounv opynoavras dieéyEat, tives ai Tavrys GpxXal, Orws evyvwoTor at éxpuaddes aitTns araci yevopevat katappovnbacr. 3 a“ lal Teyévytai tis ovopate Noyros, 7 yéver Zuvpvatos. ovtos eionyjnoato Ps > asic , , e , \ \ , 2 , aipeow ex Tov HpakXetirov doypatwv: ob dudkovos Kat pabyrys yiverat ‘Exi- aA ae / yovds Tis TovvoHa, Os TH Puy émidnunoas éréorerpe THY AOeov yvdmnv. , 7 \ / .s / 3 / A 3 , ) , pabytrevoas KAcomévys, kat Biw Kat tpdrw adAdTpios THS éxKAyoias, éxpa-
ebay
\ / 3 > an ~ / / , \ 5) r! Tuve TO Odypa, KaT éxeivo Kalpod Lepupiver duérev vouilovros tTHv éxxAnoiar, 3 \ 2 , \ > 5 A a a / / / avopos idudtov Kal aicxpoKepdovs: [ds] TO Kepder tpoapepopevw TeLOdmevos
7, A A A Kir , 6 , 6 \ 3 x e /, OVVEXKWPEL TOLS TPOTLOVOL TH EOMEVEL PaUNTEVEOUAL, KAL AUTOS vTOOvUpO-
320 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
a , ~ a lel PEVOS TO XpOVH ETL Ta adiTAa Opunto, TvpBovAov Kai TvVAywVLGTOD TOV KAKOV ¥ x A , = \ ¢ ‘ ‘ 3 a Y EAR! ‘ ovtos avT@ KadXictov, ov tov Biov Kai rnv édevpebeicay aiperw pet od Todd > , "A ~ \ / ‘ La / éxOycomat. tovtwy Kata diadoxnv duemewe TO didacKadeloy KpaTvVopevoV Kat eradgov dua to cvvaiperOar avtois tov Zepupivov Kai tov Kadduortov, Kaito. nav pydérote ovyxwpnoavtwy, adda mAEoTAKLs avTiKaberTUTwV \ > \ \ , \ ” / \ > / e Tpos avrovs Kal dueAeyEavTwy Kal axovtas Biacapevwv THV adyOerav opodo- ns a \ N ¢ ° , Sele N A > , , e , yew" ot mpos ev wpav aidovpevor Kai bro THS AANGeias Tvvayouevor wpodo- 3 > ‘ mi a ek \ | | U > , youv, met ov ToAd b€ eri Tov adtov BopBopov avexvAiovTo. (e) Ref. Haer. ix. 8 (p. 280). > - a AXN «i Kai mpotepov Exxertar bf yNuov ev Tots Procogovpevors y doga e , 3 , Cal A \ “ iA A A > Ld HpakXeirov, adda ye doxel tpocavarapaxOyvar Kal viv, Orws dua Tod éyyt- ovos edéyxov ghavepas didayOdow of rovtov vouilovres Xpiotod civar pwaby-
‘ > A > \ lal A TAS, OVK OVTAS, GAG TOU OKOTELVOD.
(f) Ref. Haer. ix. 11—13 (p. 284 sq). \ > , \ Tavrnv tyv aipeow éexparvve KadXuortos, avnp év Kakia Tavovpyos Kal ir \ A: r¢ a) , ‘\ A 3 A 6 , . \ 7, eh, ToikiAos mpos tAavyv, Onpwuevos Tov THS eriaKoTNS Ypovoyv. tov Zepuptvor, A A Bd a) avopa idwityv Kal aypdupatov Kal ameipov Tdv éxKAnoLATTLKOY Opwr, OV 4 , Nee , > / 2 2. Ss , +” meOwv Sopact kai araitnoerw areipynpevats Hyev els 6 EBovXreTO, OvTa Swpo- / a“ > A > “ Anmrnv kai pirapyvpor, érebev aet craves euBareiv avapérov Tav adeAgar, hes \ > if te 7 , / ‘ e “~ io QUTOS TA appoTepa pépyn VoTEpoV KEpKw7retots AOyous POS EavTod diAtay , ‘ a“ X > , / 4 a XN > 3997 KatacKkevalwy, kai Tots wev adneay [A€ywv ouoia] Ppovoder mote Kat idiav A > 3 a a) Ta Opowa ppovetv [A€ywv]| yrata, tadw 8 ad Tois Ta ZaBedrXiov odpoiws, dv i avtov 2&€ duvapevo Goiv. év yap Ta vd ynudv tapavetoba Kal avtov 2geaTyoe Suvapevov KatopOodv. yap To ”: p l > > , a \ A a , 3 / c.3 > re Vn , ovK éoxAnpiveto, nvika d€ ov TO KadXiotw euovaley, vr avTov avereteto \ \ , \ / Ld “ a: a € X mpos To doypa TO KXeomévous pérew pacKovros Ta Opo.a poveiv. oO € , X \ 4 > A > > / vO be ” c 5 , > TOTE Mev THV TaVvoUpyiay avTOD ovK évoel, avOis dE EyVH, ws dUNYNTOMAL pET A , , /, A > ov TOA. avtov dé tov Zepupivov mpoaywv Sypwocia ereHe Néyew: “Eyo oda ° A \ > a“ ‘\ \ > an ¢ HOE ‘ Q g eva @eov Xpictov Incoty, kat tAnV avTov ETEpov ovdEeva yevnTov Kat 7aGy- > e > Py e , ” ” tov: mote dé A€ywv: Ovy o Ilaryp améfavev, adda 0 Yios: ovtws aravorov A a e \ tA / e A > THV oTagW ev TH AOD SueTHPHTEV? OV TA VONMATA yVOVTES NMELS OV TVEXW- A ) , XN 3 , e ,w a ) ? a 3 > , podpev, eA€yxovtes Kal avtikaGiorapevor vTep THS aAyOeias: Os eis amovotay aA x : A a e A + > , Xopav Oia TO TavTas avTOD TH VroKpicer GrvTpEexeLY, NUas S€ ov, amrexader Sag) , 3 A \ / \ > “A ae ae. 4 ‘ / nuas diWéous, éenav tapa Biav Tov évdourvxodvra avTG iov. TovTov tov Biov A , \ dst \ / ce / Soxel uty ayarntov éxécOa, eel Kata TOV avTOoV xpovov Hulv éyeyovel, lal a a / > \ > ra ‘ , oTws dua TOD pavyvat TOU ToOLOVTOV THY avaTTpOPyY EvETLYVWOTOS Kal TAXA lal A Sf 7 = Tots vodv éxovow evynOys yévytat 7 dua ToUTOU éiKEXElpNLEVY AlpeTis. OUTOS 5 / . A A 5 , » 4 , e .Y 7 aA > ~ éuaptupynoev ert PovoKiavod érapxov ovTos “Pwyys 0 O€ TpOTOsS THS avTOv / a paptupias Toad. jv" / \ a »* Oixérns érvyxave Kaprodopov tivos avdpos miuctod ovtos é« THs Kai- Jaa 4 , e / 7 \ e al wn > 42 gapos oikias. TovtTw 0 Kapzodopos, ate dy ws micT@, XpHua ovK oALyov
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 32%
?, kateriorevoev, erayyeapevos Képdos mpocoicev ex tpaypyarteias tpameLe- tuys: Os AaBo imelav € ipnoev ev TH A {Vy TLTKLVY) AuKH, @ ns Os AaBwv tparelav érexeipnoey ev TH Neyomevyn TiTKWH ToUTALKH, © OUK XN 67 ral , 3 14) e \ ~ \ ) X A vk odtyat tapabjKar TH ypovw érioTEVOnoay dro xNpov Kat adeAPwv TpoO- i bd oxnpatt Tov Kaproddpov. o d€ egadavicas ta mavta yrope. ov Tadra / ? ‘ > A , e > A mpagavtos ovk eurev Os amayyeiky TO Kapropopw: o b€ én amaiteiv Xo > > ~ ~ \ c , \ \ \ ~~ / Oyous Tap avTov. Tatta cuvidwv o KadXoros Kal tov rapa Tov deamoTou , € , ai 2 \ ‘ \ / , a kivduvov vpopwpevos, atédpa thy pvyynv Kata Oadacoav Tovovpevos: Os ev ‘\ X A 3 A Tl / ¢ \ > / y Save a. Né pwv mAotov év to Iloptw eromov mpos avaywyyv, orov étvyxave wAEor, 7 “ / \ avéBy mAevadpevos. aA’ ovde ovTws Aabeiy SedvvyTar- ov yap éAuTev ds > , nn 7 \ / c \ > \ ‘\ \ if arayyeihn TH Kapropopw to yeyevnévov. 0 O€ émiotas Kata Tov Ayeva A la A A > \ éreipato ert To mAotov opyav kata [Ta] peunvuwévas TovTo d€ nv éoTOS ev cal ~ \ / c / peow TH Apert. Tod dé wopOpews Bpadvvovtos idwv réppwHev 0 Kaddtotos \ 8 4 x > “A Xr , \ \ ¢ \ Ab ie O A tov decroTny, OV év TH TAOiw Kal yvods EavTov crvelnpOal, nhetdnoe Tod A Nee A , »” e \ > \ 6 x, ce be fqv Kai €oxata Tatra Aoywoapevos eppupev Eavtov eis tTHV Gadacoav. ot de A / 5 \ / y 25% > 4 ~ ‘\ 3 \ vavTa. KatamyonoavtTes eis TA TKapN aKovTAa avToV aveiAovTo, Tov Oe azo nn wn , , \ 7 nw e \ 3 4 > TS yas peyaha Bowvtwy' Kal ovTws TO Seo7roTH TapadoGels éxavynxOn eis \ e | 4 ray € , . , , ? XV / c THv “Pwpnv, dv o dearotns eis tictpiwov KatéGeTo. xpovov be dieAOovTos, ws \ / oupBaiver yiverOar, tpoceAOovtes adeApoi rapekadovy tov Kapzrodopor, 4 > , (oe / ‘ / / 2 aN ¢ a ” oTws eayayn THS Koacews Tov dparérnv, hacKkovTEs aVTOV OModAoyeELY ExEW , y= PY , ea , c 3 , A “Sa Tapa Tis xpnWa amoKkeipevov. Oo d€ Kapzodopos, ws evAaBys, Tod pev idiov ~ ~ ~ “~ > eheyev adeidety, tov 5€ tapabynkav dpovtileww—zroAXoi yap aito arexAaiovTo 7 ~ A \ A€yovTes, OTL TO adtod Tpocxypatt erictevoay TH KadAtoto, a TerioTEvKeEL- ‘ \ ee > ~ . te c \ \ »” ? , gav—xai mweobeis éxehevoev eayayeiv aitov. o de wndev Exwv arrod.dovat, A 4 2 , \ , \ \ a“ / , kai wadw amodivpackew py Suvapevos dia TO PpovpetaGa, TéexVQV Oavarov 2 / \ , , > / e ate, / 7 ee erevonoe, Kal caBBatw oKnWapevos amlévar ws eri ypewoTas, wpunoev ert \ \ A na THY cuvaywynv Tov “lovdaiwy cuvnypever, Kal oTas Katectaclaley avTar. ¢ \ 4 e > > a 2 / ak \ y > , oi d¢ Katactaciacbévtes tr aitov, evuBpicavtes aitov Kal tANyas éupopy- a > gavtes €ovpov eri tov Povoxiavov érapxov dvta THS TOAEwS. aTeKpivayTO /, e A a 8¢ rade- “Pwpator cvveywpyocav nyuty Tovs tatpwous vopous Sypocia avarye- f Ls pg ee \ Se , SL Aw , > vwokew, ovtos d€ érece\Owv exwAve Katactacialwy yuov, PaocKwv elvat Xpioriavds. tod de Bovexiavod tpo Byyatos tvyxavovtos Kati Tots im’ “lov- 5 , , A wn , > A 2 »” ec > aiwv Aeyopévors kata tod KadXiotov ayavaxtovvtos, ovk éduev 0 aTray- 7 ~ 7 \ , ec .Y 4 > \ \ lal ~ yethas 7@ Kapzoddpw ta mpaccopeva. o O€ oretoas eri TO Bnpya Tod > / > / / , / \ \ 3 “A , > / > érapxouv é€Boa- Aéouat, kipre Povoexiavé, py ov aiT@ TioTeve, OV yap EoTL , ~ / e Xpiotiaves, apopynv dé Entel GOavatov ypypata pov todd adavicas, ws > , A ies , e \ “~ / c ~ A amodeigw. Ttav dé ‘lovdaiwy troBoAnv Tovto vopicavtwv, ws CytodvTos Tov ~ , A , Kapzrodépov tatty TH mpopace efeAéoOar avtov, wadAov éripGovws Kate- 4, A A ‘ Bowv rod érdpxyov. o de KiwyOels im aitav, pactiywoas adtov edwxev eis / pétadXov Sapdovias. peta xpovov Oe érépwv éxel OvTwv papTipwv, GeAnoaca c > 7 Mapxia épyov tu ayabov epyacacba, ovca piAdbeos raddaxy Kopddov,
A , ‘ , ah + sc2s a > ‘ Y > TpooKa ET APLEVY) TOV AAKAPLoV Ovtxropa, OVTQ €TLOKOTOV THS E€KK OLAS KaT
CLEM. II. 21
522 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
> a i a U4 , ea 2 / , e X , > €xelvo KaLpov, érypwra, Tives elev €v Yapdovia paptupes. Oo S€ rdavTwv ava- A & Sgea es, \ A / 3 y+ > ». X\ / > dovs Ta ovopata, TO TOD KadXiorov ovk edwxev, cidws Ta TeTOApymeva Tap 3 ~ “A > a > / e / A ~ / , \ avTov. TvxXOvCA oy TAS afiwoews y Mapkia wapad Tov Kopoddov, didwor tv > 7 \ ‘\ / arokvoy.ov éerictoAnv “YaxivOw tiwi oradovt. zperButépw, Os AaBdv du€- ‘ X53 \ a 3 a lal ~ mrevoev eis THV Dapdoviav, Kat arodods TH KAT eKElvo KALPOD THS Xwpas emt- , 3 / \ , \ cal 7 e % ~ TpomevovT, areAvoe TOS paptupas 7AnV TOU KaAXiorov. o dé yovureTav \ , er \ oh oA a > , \ 5 € fans Kal OakpUwv ikereve Kal attos TvxELV aToAvcews. Svtwrnbets ovv 6 “Yaxw- > lod \ , > Bos agvot tov émitporov...... , packwv Opéfas eivar Mapkias, taooopevos 3 a \ ae 4 ¢ \ \ 3 / \ \ / &e avT@ TO axivovvov: o d€ weioOels améAvoe Kat Tov Kaddorov. ov mapaye- / ¢ Ovt / ” 6 5% A 4 IAN? > \ 4 \ > vopevov 0 Ovixtwp ravu nxXGero eri TO yeyovott, GAN eel evaTayxvos HV, ag / Sie A e \ ~ » > ‘ > ‘\ ‘ yovxace puvdacoopmevos O€ TOV iO TOoAAGY OveLdov (ov yap HY paKpaV Ta. ee:3 3 A X /, ) + be x A K / > , , vr avTov teroAunpeva), €Tt O€ Kal TOV Kaproopov avtumimtovtos, meyer 3 \ / > "A a] Me C057 > tee As 5 “~ ae e avrov Katapeve é€v AvOelw, opicas avTa pyvaidv ti extpopys. pe ov a / AY \ \ \ , a koiunow Zepuptvos cvvapapevov avtov cxwv mpos THY KaTacTacLW TOD »Y / Me a ioL lal \ a \ > \ cal "A 6 s > .Y KANpov, ETiMLNTE TO Wiw KAKO, Kal TOUTOV pETAyaywV ao TOD AvOeiov eis TO / , e 2 N \ / \ , a KOLLNTHPLOV KaTETTHTEV. Ww aEl GvVOV Kal, KabwWs POacas rpocizov, vro- / 3 \ 4 > / ld “ » / / 4 Kpioe aitov Oeparetwr, eEnpavice pte Kpivar ta Aeyopeva Svvapevov pyre A \ a / 2 4 “4 Were Y \ a ¢ e al voowTa THV TOU KaAXiorov ériBovdnv, TavTa avT@ mpos a YOETO OpLAOdVTOS. 7 ‘ \ A / \ / , og a la A ovTw peta THY TOV Zedupivov TeAevTyV vouilwyv TeTvXNKEVaAL OV eOnpGTO, TOV bd] , e \ a > “a \ aBérAdov aréwoev ws py ppovodtvta opbas, dedouxws ene Kat vopilwv ovTw , ? / \ \ \ > / id ¢ Ake 7 divacbat arotpipacbat THY mpos Tas éxxAnoias KaTyyopiay, ws pn GAAoTpiws A > > , N A \ , , dpovov. yVv ovv yoys Kat wavovpyos Kal él xpovw ovvypTace trodXovs. 4 Se \ \ 3N\ PY / 5] ~ dt \ 0 de an ¢ Exwv O€ Kal TOV lov eyKElmevov Ev TH Kapdia, Kal evléws pndev Ppovarv, apna X\ \ > , \ 3 n / \ \ / ee. ae > / > na d€ Kal aidovpevos Ta adnOyn Eyerv, dua TO Snpocia yuiv ovedilovra eizety, \ \ \ \ ~ a“ lal diGcol éore, adda Kal dia To v0 TOD SaBeArAXiov cvxvads Katnyopeicbat ws / ‘\ / 4 > ~ L 4 U /, ‘ iA nrapaBavra THY mpuTnV TiaTLY, éepEedpev alpeow ToLavde, A€ywv Tov Adyov Se > e?7 3) oe \ / iit x 4 aA Sc A \ GUTOV €ival VOY, GUTOV Kal TaTépa ovomate ev Kadovpevov, Ev dé OV TO A > , > + > , + \ er 4 \ \ \ 35 Tvedpa adiaipetov’ ovK aAXo eivat zatépa, ado bé viov, Ev € Kal TO avTO a / / + / Umapyew* Kal Ta TavTG yéuelv TOD Gelov TVEYpaTOS TA TE GVW Kal KaTw* Kal > Ait an f. ‘\ ~ > 4 A \ , > \ elvat 70 ev TH TapPevw capKwbev Treva ovy Erepov Tapa Tov Tatépa, adda an S \ / > 7 \ €v kal TO aUTO. Kal TOUTO ElvaL TO EipNEVOV? OV TWLOTEVELS OTL eyw eV D i io yp év é€m“ol; To pev yap Breropevoy, orep éort TO TATpl Kal O TaTHp ev Emoc; bev yap JLEVOV, OTTED eOTiV »” an > \ es \ \ 49 A ean \ n “ > avOpwros, ToUTO elvat TOV ViOV, TO O€ Ev TH VIO ywpynOev Trvetpa TovTO €lvaL \ tg > , / 7. «A , , / \ es > ay ee c % TOV TaTepar ov yap, Pyoiv, épw dvo0 Geovs, watrépa Kal vidv, aAN’ Eva. oO yap PY 7, A / \ / \ / 5 /, € 4 ev avT® yevouevos Tatip tpochaBopevos THY capka eOeorointev Evwoas e “ i Be , 7 e ta 0 / \ eX ¢ 0 / XN “ a EaUTO, Kal éroingey Ev, ws KaheioOar taTépa Kai viov Eva Oeov, Kat TOvTO EV Aa / \ § , ra) > 5 , Ue \ , bé a dv mpocwrov pn dvvacGat etvar dv0, Kal OUTwWS TOV TaTépa TupTeToVOEvaL TH ea > ‘ / / \ / / Noa = / vid od yap Géde Eyer TOV waTépa TeTovOévar Kal ev elvat TPOTWTOV...... 3 nw A 5 A 4 / c > , A 4 ec vA expvyetv THY eis TOV waTépa BAacdypiav o avoynTos Kat ToLKiNos, 0 avw KaTw Y 4 \ “~ > a \ 7 oxedalwv BrAacpyias, iva povov Kata THs adnGeias Néyew Soxy, ToTE pev / us ‘ / “ eis TO SaBeAAlov Soypa eumirtwv, rote dé cis TO Oeoddtov ovk aidetrar.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 323
A ¢ 4 / / A \ ~ > , TowatTa o yoys ToAunoas ovveotycato didacKaXetov Kata THs éxKkAnolas 9 8 8 L& \ A \ \ \ 5 \ A > 6 4 A ovtws dudagas, Kal mpM@Tos Ta pos Tas ydovas Tois avOpwrois cvyxwpetv erevonoe, Néeywv TacW UT avtov adiceobar apaptias. o yap rap éré i noe, dEy paptias. yap map €répw Twi , \ - \ + BI Ct / > / guvayonevos Kat Aeyouevos Xpiotiavos el TL av apapty, paciv, ov oyilerac > ~ e e , 5 5 , A A K ANG An & a ° > aUT@® 7 GamapTia, ei tpocdpawor TH TOV KadAtctov cxody. ov TH dpw ape- , \ / , Md \ me FS a Ley oKomevor TOANOL cuveidnow TerAynyoTes Gua TE Kal VO TOAAOV aipécewv > , \ / ~ lA c > “~ amoBAnbevres, Twes d€ Kal eri KaTayvwce ExBAnTOL THS exKAnTias UP HudV / P Lal / Aa nn yevomevor, mpocxwpyoavtes avtots érAnfuvay to didacKkadetoy advtod. ovTos / o / ¢ , \ \ / al edoypmaticev Orws ei éxickoTos apapto. tT, ei Kal mpos Oavatov, py dev / , eee / eee 5 A2KZ \ , \ 5 / KatatibecOar. eri tovTov npgavto ériocKoTo. Kal mpecBUTEpor Kai diakovor or \ / , 6 > HN / > be y > / a (yapo. Kat tplyapo. kabictacbar eis KAnpous: ei de Kal Tis ev KANpw dv \ ~ ~ / e \ ec / yop.oin, pévew Tov To.ovTov év TO KANPH ws py NuapTHKOTA él ToUTW 4 5 n~ \ e \ nm ] 4 e , \ , 9S e s . pacKkwv cipnoGar to vrd Tov aTooToAov pyfev- od Tis ci O Kpivwv adA- / \ \ “~ \ ~ AoTtptov oixéeTnv; GAAA Kai wapaBodrnv tov Cilaviwv pos Todtro édy , y \ , A pe AéyerGar: apete ta Lilavia cvvavéerv TH Gitw, TovTecTW ev TH éx- Xr 4 .Y e , tAX \ \ \ \ ~ N a 5 ec , KAyolia Tovs aaptavovtas. ada kat tTHv KiBwrov Tov Nae eis opoiwpa > X / » 4 3 ® \ , \ hv \ , \ / \ exxAyalas Epy yeyovevat, év y Kal KUves Kal AVKOL Kal KOpaKEsS Kal TaYTa Ta \ x > / 7 / ” > > > / c 4 4.2 Kafapa Kai axaGapta: ovTw dackwv dety eivar ev exkAnola opotws Kat doa ‘\ cal \ > ? > 7, & mpos TovTo Ovvatos HV cuvayew oVTwWS YpuHnVvevoev, OV Ol Akpoatal yabEvTes A , , > , e a A aA e An Tots doypace diapevovoty eumailovres éavTots Te Kul 7oAXOLs, OV TO SidacKa- r s / 4 %, 5 ‘ \ x 6% , oe hs OR X 8 \ \ €lw Guppeovow OxXAoL. 410 Kat TANOdvVoVTAL yavpLWmevoL ert OXAOLS OLA Tas c , a 3 / c 4 e / 3Qvh ec lal nOovas, aS ov cuvex¥pyoev 0 Xpioros: ov KaTadpovyncayTes ovdev apapTeiy , ’ Ch is A 3 A \ \ \ \ Kwhvovol, PagKovtTes avTov adievat TOIs EvOOKOVTL. Kat yap Kal yuvaléty LYRE > * > a / > / 3 / nv A 267 \ erétpewev, ei avavopor elev Kal ndtkia ye exxalowrTo avatia 7) éavtdv agiav py / a Gi. \ / a 4 g a bY (see 2 BovrAowTo Kafaipeiy dia TO vopipws yapnOqvar, exew eva ov ay aipnowvrac , 4 eon 4 5] , \ A / > \ > \ .¥ GvyKo.TOV, €iTe OiKéryV eite eNevOEpov, Kal TovTOV Kpivety avTi avdpos py , , 4 + lad x / | vopw yeyapnuevnv. evOev npEavro erixeipety tictal Aeyopevar atokiows dap- , n \ \ / MaKOLS Kal TepideopelaOat Tpos TO TA GvAAGpPBavopeva KaTaBadrAEV, dua TO / 5 , / » / / 2¢ > aA 6 ‘ \ , pyre x Sovrov BovAcoHar Exew TExvov pyte €& EdTEAODS, dia THY ovyyéveLaY e e Lal ¢ > / ” Kal UTEepoyKov ovciav. Opare cis oonv avéBetav exwpyceEV O avojos poryetay ‘ , ) A Sten / Osi AA / a / e X € Kat povov év TO avT@ divdacKwy Kal éri TovToLs TOls TOAUHMacL EavTOvS ot \ , > an A amnpvOpiacpevot kafodixny exxAnoiav atrokaXety éryerpovar, Kal TLVEs Vopt- > , > A / , , Covres «0 TpaTTEe GuVTpPeXOVTW autos. el TOVTOV TpwTWSs TeTOAUYTAL Sev- 3 rf / ; Tepov avtois Pamtiopa. A \ Ss ¢ f / , e , \ Tatra perv ovv 0 Gavpaciitatos KaddXduotos cuveotycato, ov duapéver TO an / ec. / \ ud \ la , al didacKadrelov pvrtacoov ta ey Kai tTHv mapadoow, py duaxpivov tice det al A 7.3 , / \ / 24? e \ \ ey} Ae KOWwwvely, Tao. O akpitws TpoTdépov THY KoLYWViay: ap Ov Kal THY TOD OVO- ~ \ \ / A , patos pmeréecxov erikAnow Kadcicba dia TOY TpwWTOTTATHTAVTA TOV TOLOVTWY , , epywv KadXorov KadAoriavot. Me \ / \ / / “~ /, b] 2 ‘ Tovtov xara mdvta Tov Koopov dSinynbeions THs didacKkadias, évidav THY 4 cA / b' > / / > 4 , mpaypateiav avynp doA.os Kal amrovoias yew, “AdkiB.iadys Tis KadXovpevos,
PQs
324 : EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
oixdv év ’Arrapela ths Supias, yopyotepov Eavtov Kai edpvérrepov év KvBetats A tal A 4 4, ,
kpivas ToD KadXiorov, érqOe rH “Puyn hépwv BiBrov twa, packwv TavTyv a a > Af
aro Snpav ris TapOias tapeAnpevar tive avdpa Sixavov HAxacat.
(g) Ref. Haer. x. 1—5 (p. 310).
/ 4 2 a / a \ a CN sy 2 - Tade eveorw év TH Sexaty TOU Kata Tacav alperewv EXEyXOU \ / eTLTOULN TAaVTWV TOV piiocdgur,
> X\ “a ~ ee 4 ET LT OLY TAC WV [roy] QALPETEWYV,
Pe Yo
pes beso. A / ec A > , / Kal él wact, Tis 0 THS aAnOeias Aoyos. A“ ~ \ 4 5. Tov AaBipwhov tadv aipécewy od Bia Siappygavres, adAa povw a , > ud éXéyxw adnbeias Suvaper Siarvoarres, tpooysey eri TV THS aAnOeias azo-
devEuv k.7.A. (2) Ref. Haer. x. 6 (p. 311).
an /, SuprepiAaBovres tolvuev ta ravtTwv Tév Tap “EAAno. copav Soypata év / / \ be ~ e , 3 U4 A \ \ iN A / técoapot BiBrios, Ta dé Tols aipervapxyas ev TevTE, VOV Tov wept aAnNGELas
Noyov év a erei~opev, dvakepadaLrovpevor mpaOTov Ta Tact SedoKypeva.
(2) \ Mes. aeaer. x. 4Z0 ((p. 13g).
*Hoav 8é otro. 68 éOvn, dv Kai Ta Ovopata éxteBeipeba ev Erépars BiBAots.
(2) fee Siar. x. 32 (p. 334).
/ \ / > a \ 4 Ei diropabyoover Kai Tas ToUTwv ovoias Kal Tas aitias THS KaTa TaVvTA 8 , 3 é / »y ° , ¢ na BiBr , netovpylas émilntycovow, eicovtar évtvxovtes nuav BiBAw mepLexovey A A 4 3 \ nw iy A Ilept tHs Tov mavtos ovalas: TO dé vov ixavov elvar ékPéobar tas ai- / a 2 / fi A a / \ / a / 2Q7 tias, as ov yvovtes “EAXgves koud TO Adyw Ta pépy THS KTicews edd~avav > ve TOV KTiCaVTA ayVONTAVTES.
\Y) Ke, Haer, x. 34 (p. 338).
Tovovtos 6 repi 70 Oelov adyOys Adyos, © avOpwro. “EAAyvés Te Kat Bap- Bapo., Xaddatoi te Kai “Acovpio, Atyvmtioi te Kai AiBves, “Ivdoi Te Kat AiOiores, KeAtoi te kat of otpatnyovvtes Aativol, tavtes Te of THY Eipwrnv “Aciav te kat AuBinv KatoKodytes, ois av Bovdos eyo yivoual, prravOpwrov Aoyou vrdpywov pabytys kal pirtavOpwros, orws tpoadpapovtes didaxO7re
> e “ , cm / TAP NLWV, TIS O OVTWS Weos.
2. CHAIR OF Hippoiytus [c. A.D. 236?].
The date of the statue of Hippolytus will be discussed hereafter. It is sufficient to say here that it must have been erected within a few years of his death. He is seated on a chair, of which the base is inscribed on the back and two sides. The inscription on the back, which is curved, is here marked A. It stands on the right-hand side
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 325
of this curved back to one facing the same way as the statue, and is mutilated. The left-hand side of the back was without any inscription. The inscriptions on the right and left sides (the spectator still facing the same way), which are straight, are here marked B, C, respectively. The positions of the inscriptions may be seen from the engravings of the chair in Fabricius 1. p. 36 sq. For the inscriptions themselves see also Boeckh-Kirchhoff Corp. Zuscr. Graec. 8613 (Iv. p. 280).
A.
[mpoc Toye toydal]loyc [Trep! O1KONOM lac [eic Toye y]aAmoye [eic THN er |racTpIMy@ON 5 YTep TOY KATA IW ANHN EYAarfeAlOY KAI ATTO KAAY VEC TEP YAPICMATOON 10 ATTOCTOAIKH TIAPAdO cic \PONIKOON Tpoc EAAHNAC KAI TIPOC TIATWONA 15 H Kal TIED] TOY TIANTOC TIPOTPETITIKOC TIPOC CE BHDEINAN ATTOAEIZIC YPONGN TOY TIACYA 20 KATA €N TO TTINAKI @AAl IC TIACAC TAC [Pda ac Trep! OY KAI CAPKOC ANACTACEWC 25 TEP! TATABOY Kal TIOBEN TO KAKON
_In 1 2 the remaining letters might be part of -was or -mas or -vias. In l. 14 matwva is obviously an error for rAatwva. In 1. 20 kara is apparently an error for kara 7a and not for xa@a (as taken by Kirchhoff). In]. 21 if the first word is cor- rectly read wda:, the second ts is an itacism for ets.
326 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. B.
ETOYC A BaciAelac adEZANAPOY AYTOKPATOPOC Efe NETO H Al TOY TIACYA EIAOIC ATTPEIAIAIC CABBAT@ EM BOAIMOY MHNOC [ENOMENOY ECTAI TOIC €ZHC ETECIN KAO WC YTIOTETAKTAl EN TO TIINAKI EFENETO AE EN TOIC TIAPOd YHKOCIN KAOW@C CECHMEIWTAI ATTONHCTIZECBHAI AE
A€l OY AN ENTTECH KYPIAKH
After this follow the tables for the calculation of the Passover ac- cording to a cycle of sixteen years. The times of the celebrations of the Passover mentioned in the Old Testament are noted by the side of the respective days from the eZoAoc down to the magoc ypictoy. Seven cycles are given so as to exhibit the relations of the days of the week to the days of the month.
CG: ETE] AAEZANAPOY KAICAPOC TO & APYH Al KYPIAKAlL TOY TIACYA KATA ETOC Al AE TIAPAKENTHCEIC AHAOYCI THN AICTTPOE?2.
Then follows a table in which the days of the month on which Easter Day falls are given for 112 (i.e. 16 x 7) years, le. from A.D. 222 to A.D. 333, calculated in accordance with the above cycle. The dis mpo e& is the dissextum, and the wapaxevryces (‘marks in the margin’) here promised are omitted by the carelessness of the stone-cutter, though the leap-years are marked in the previous table of cycles by SS.
3. Eusesius [c. a.p. 325].
(a) Wistor. Hales. N.-25.
Ovdev F HTTov Kai éxkAnovactiKos avyp, Taios ovopati, kata Lepuptvov “Pp at Oo \ > , ov" cd bn Ul / 4 4 \ re) , - ,
wpaov yeyovws éemiaKomov: os 0n LpoxAw THs Kata Ppvyas mpolotapevw
, > , 8 Ay 6 \ 5 \ 5 ‘\ A . a , » 6 wn yvopns éyypadws diadexGets avta On TalTa wept Tov ToTwV, EvOa TOV eipnmevov aTooTOAwV Ta iepa oKyvopata Karat ébevrat, byoiv:
"Eyo be Ta TpoTava TOV aTooTOAWYV exw Oetfar. ea yap GedAnoys > fal pe \ \ A aL UN \ cay \ > , ¢ / \ / dmeNOciv ext tov Batixavov 7» emt THY Odov THY ‘QoTiav, evpyoes Ta Tpd- Tala TOV TAUTHV LOpuTapLevewv Tv exkAnotav.
(6) Hist. Eccl. ii. 28.
/ m
Kara rtovs dednAwmévovs xpovous étépas aipeoews apxnyov yever Oat
J Tas ae KypwOov TmapeAndapev. L'atos, ov puvas no TpOTEpov TapateGepat, €v
A / 5 nw / “a X\ ~ > nw A TY PEPOEevy AVTOV Cytyoe TavtTa rept TOU avTov ypaet’
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 327
“AAAa Kal KypwGos o 8 aroxadtWewy ws id arootdAov peyadou , , ea c i ie3 , 2 A , , yeypappevwv Tepatoroyias nytv ws dv ayyéAwv ait@ dederypévas wWevdo- pevos ereoaye, Aeywv peta THY avacTacw ériyeov etvac TO Bacideov ~ A \ / > / 4: e a > c \ \ £ tod Xpuctod, kal madw eérifvpiais Kat ydovais év ‘lepovoadnu thv capKa / / \ 3 \ e , la la A A moAutevopevyv Sovreverv. Kal éxOpos trapxwv Tats ypadpais Tov cod
apiOmov xiAvovtaetias év yaw éoptys Oélwv tAavav éyer yiver Oa.
(ey ffest. Eccl, Wil. 31. 2 ae a aA , ee a , > ls , , Kai év td Tatov dé, ob puixpo tpoo9ev éuvnoOnpev, duadoyw IpoxAos, \ a > A \ / \ A / \ a / 3 a mpos Ov eroreito thy Cytnow, wept THS Bidiwrov Kat Tov Ovyarépwv adrod onl a ~ 7 TeXevTAS ovvadwy Tots exTeHeiow ovTW PyTiV: / / Mera robdrov d€ mpodytides Téecoapes at Diriarov yeyevynvtar év ‘Tepa- a \ \ > , ¢€ / Ro > \ rn Sac ~ \ woke TH Kata THV Actav' 0 Tados avTwVY EOTLY EKEL, KGL O TOU TaTpOS avT wv. apt fist. Sci. Vii 20: + aA u x Hxpalov dé kata totro mAelovs Aoyior Kal exkAyoLaoTiKoL avdpes, wv \ > / a \ > / 4 + a ec a Kat emioTtoAas, ass mpos aAAynAovs SieXapatrov, eT. viv cwlopevas evpeEtv y+ aA \ ) ec A > , > ~ > 5 if £ A eVTopov. atl Kal eis nuas epvAdyOynoav ev TH Kat AiXiav BiBdAtobnKy zpos A / TOU THVUKade THY avTOOL SierovTOs exKAnoiav “AXE~avdpov erioKevacbeioy, > > e \ > \ ‘ Y ~ \ ~ e / acy :S > \ ap 7s Kal avTol Tas vAas TAS peTa XElpas VToMécEWs eri TavTO ovVA- a , a , \ b] a \ , yayetv dedvvypefa. tovtwy BypvAAos ovv éemiotoAats Kal cvyypappatov diadopovs diAokaXias KkatadéAoirev. ericxoros 8 ovTos WV TOV KATA c Bootpav “ApaBwv: woavtws d€ Kat ‘ImmoAvtos, érépas wov Kal avtos mpo- p Pp ? p > a N > eats exkAynolas. AGE dé eis yas Kat Tatov Aoywrtatov avdpds duaAoyos eri Pwyns cata ZLepuptvov mpos Upoxdov THs Kata Ppvyas aipéoews v7ep- PAXOUVTA KEKLVNMEVOS, ev w TOV OL evaVTias THY TEPL TO TUVTATTELY KaLVaS ypadas mporéreiav te Kal TOApav éeriotopilwv Tov TOD Lepovd amoaToAoV A lal \ c \ dexarplav povwy etitToAGv pvnmovevet, THY Tpos EPpatous py ovvapiOuyoas tats Aourats: érel Kal eis devpo mapa “Pwpaiwy tisiv ov vopilerar Tod
> v2 , amroacToAov TVYXAVEL.
fey. £test. Freel. Vii 32.
Tore d9Ta Kai ‘ImmoXvtos ovvtattwov peta TAELoTWV aAAwy UVropvnaTwY Kal TO TIED| TOY TACYA TeTonTa, cvyypappa, EV @ TOV XpovwY avaypa- yy éxOewevos Kai Twa Kavova ExKaLoEeKaeTNploos TeEpl TOV TATXa TpOGets emt To mpwtov eros AXeéadvdpov avtoxparopos Tovs xpovous Teprypaper. av dé AowTaV aiTov ovyypaypatwov ta eis nuas eAOCvTa éotl Tade™ CIC THN EZAHMEPON, E1C TA META THN €ZAKMEDON, TIPOC MAPKI@NA, EiC TO ACMA, E1C MEPH TOF iezeKIHA, TEP] TOY MACcYAa, TPOC ATACAC TAC aAlpéceic’ mAcioTa te GANa Kal mapa ToAdots evpous ay
cwlopeva,
328 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
4. LIBERIAN CHRONOGRAPHER [A.D. 354]. (a) Depositio Martyrum (see above, I. p. 251). Idus Aug. Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Calisti.
There is reason to believe that this notice is not later than A.D. 335 (see I. p. 250, 264) and may have been much earlier.
(6) Catalogus Episcoporum (see above, I. p. 255).
Eo tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbiter exoles sunt deportati in Sardinia in insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano cons.
[A.D. 235]. , This notice in all probability dates from about A.D. 255 (see I. p. 263). 5. EPpipHANIus [c. A.D. 375].
diaeres. XXxi. 35 (p. 205). a val > #©& ~ - > °
“Hyets 6€ apxeoOevtes Tots Te Tap yudv AexGetow oALyots Kal Tots vz0 a“ “ > / / / La ld A “~ ‘ Tov THS adnOeias cvyypapewv TovTwv exOeiot Te Kai ovvtaxGeior, Kal opavtes OTL aAXAOu werovyKacr, pyyt € KAynpys kat Eipnvatos kat “IxrdXdvtos Kal aAXot mAeiovs, ot kal Oavpactws THY KaT adToVY TeTOLnVTAaL avaTpoTyY, “ lal lal > lal ov Tavy TL TO KapaTw Tpocbetival, ws Tpoeirov, YOeAnTapev, ikavwOévtes Tots
Tpoeipnpevols avopact K.T.A.
6. APOLLINARIS? [c. A.D. 370].
Mai Script. Veter. Nov. Collect. 1. p. 173.
’ArroAwvapiov...EiaéBios 0 Tlapidov Kai ‘Irrodvtos 0 aywrartos éri- oKxoros Pwuns arexalovor tHv mpoKemevyv TOO NaBovxodovecop dopacw TH Tov tpopytov Aavind ortacia.
A comment on Daniel ii. 34 in a Catena; see Lagarde p. 171. Reasons will be given below (p. 431 sq) for questioning the ascription to Apollinaris.
7. Damasus [a.D. 366—384].
(a) ILnscriptio in Coemeterio Hippolytz.
HIPPOLYTVS FERTVR PREMERENT CVM JVSSA TYRANNI PRESBYTER IN SCISMA SEMPER MANSISSE NOVATI TEMPORE QVO GLADIVS SECVIT PIA VISCERA MATRIS DEVOTVS CHRISTO PETERET CVM REGNA PIORVM QVAESISSET POPVLVS VBINAM PROCEDERE POSSET CATHOLICAM DIXISSE FIDEM SEQVERENTVR VT OMNES SIC NOSTER MERVIT CONFESSVS MARTYR VT ESSET
HAEC AVDITA REFERT DAMASVS PROBAT OMNIA CHRISTVS
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 329
This inscription is preserved in a S. Petersburg ms (formerly of Corbei, and afterwards of S. Germain des Prés) which contains a sylloge of inscriptions, and is described in Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1881, p.5sq. The sylloge is printed in De Rossi’s Zuscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. i. p. 82, where also (p. 72 sq) it is described. A full account of this particular inscription, which appears on fol. 24 sq, is given in the same Bud/. l.c. p. 26 sq. It is headed Xn geo Hypolite martyrae, and by an error of the scribe the last line of another inscription, belonging to the martyr Gordianus (see pp. 14, 39), ‘Praesbiter ornavit renovans vicencius ultro’ has been attached to it. In 1425 the reigning Pope Martin V issued an order that marble and other materials might be taken from the desolate and ruined suburban churches to construct the pavement of S. John Lateran; and accordingly De Rossi has found and deciphered three fragments of this very Damasian inscription from the cemetery of Hippolytus embedded in the pavement of this distant basilica.
(4) Lnscriptio altera in eodem Coemeterio.
LAETA DEO PLEBS SANCTA CANAT QVOD MOENIA CRESCVNT ET RENOVATA DOMVS MARTYRIS [HIPP]OLITI O RNAMENTA OPERIS SVRGV[NT AVCTORE DAM|ASO N ATVS QVI ANTISTES SEDIS A[POSTOLICAE]| INCLITA PACIFICIS FACTA ES[T HAEC AVLA TRIVMPHIS| SERVATVRA DECVS PERPETV|AMQUE FIDEM|
HAEC OMNIA NOVA QUAEQVE VIDIS LE[O PRESBYTJER HORNAT,
where the first six lines give an acrostich LEONIS, and gwuaegue is contracted into qq in the inscription itself. Damasus is described as ‘natus antistes,’ because his father had been ‘exceptor, lector, levita, sacerdos,’ as Damasus wrote in another inscription (Bul. di Archeol. Crist. 1881, p. 48); and thus he himself was, as it were, born to his future high office in the Church.
This inscription is given by De Rossi in the Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1883, p. 60 sq (comp. 2d. 1882, p. 176). It was found in the vestibule leading to the crypt of S. Hippolytus.
8. HiERoNyMus [a.D. 378— 400] (a) De Vir. 1. 59.
Gaius sub Zephyrino, Romanae urbis episcopo, id est, sub Anto- nino, Severi filio, disputationem adversus Proculum, Montani sectato- rem, valde insignem habuit arguens eum temeritatis super nova pro- phetia defendenda, et in eodem volumine epistulas quoque Pauli trede-
330 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
cim tantum enumerans quartam decimam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit non eius esse; sed apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apo- stoli non habetur.
(b) De Vir. Tl. 6x.
Hippolytus, cuiusdam ecclesiae episcopus—nomen quippe urbis scire non potui—in ratione paschae et temporum canone scripsit et usque ad primum annum Alexandri imperatoris sedecim annorum circulum, quem Graeci €KKAIAEKAETHPIAA vocant, repperit, et Eusebio, qui super eodem pascha decem et novem annorum circulum, id est, évveaxaidexae- Typida Composuit, occasionem dedit. Scripsit nonnullos in scripturas commentarios, e quibus haec repperi: zz Hexaemeron, in Exodum, in Canticum Canticorum, in Genesim, tn Zachartam, de Psalmts, in Esatam, de Daniele, de Apocalypst, de Proverbits, de E-cclesiaste, de Saul et Pythonissa, de Antichristo, de Resurrectione, contra Marcionem, de Pascha, adversus Omnes Hereses, et TPOCOMIAIAN de Laude Domint Salvatoris, in qua praesente Origene se loqui in ecclesia significat. Huius aemulatione Ambrosius, quem de Marcionis heresi ad veram fidem correctum dixi- mus, cohortatus est Origenem in scripturas commentarios scribere, praebens el septem et eo amplius notarios eorumque expensas et librari- orum parem numerum, quodque his maius est, incredibili studio cottidie ab eo opus exigens. Unde et in quadam epistula épyodwxryvy eum Origenes vocat.
(c) £pist. xxxvi. 16 ad Damasum (I. p. 169, Vallarsi).
Quoniam autem polliciti sumus et de eo quid significaret in figura adjungere, Hippolyti martyris verba ponamus, a quo et Victorinus noster non plurimum discrepat ; non quod omnia plenius executus sit, sed quod possit occasionem praebere lectori ad intelligentiam latiorem ; ‘Isaac portat imaginem Dei Patris, Rebecca Spiritus Sancti, ete.’
After this follows a long quotation from Hippolytus in which the history of Esau and Jacob is figuratively explained. The letter was written A.D. 384.
(d@) £pist. xlviii. 19 ad Pammachium (1. p. 232, Vallarsi).
Scilicet nunc enumerandum mihi qui ecclesiasticorum de impari numero disputarent, Clemens, Hippolytus, Origenes, Dionysius, Euse- bius, Didymus, nostrorumque Tertullianus, Cyprianus, etc.
Jerome is defending himself against a charge of misinterpretation affecting the odd and even days in the account of the Creation in Genesis. This letter was written A.D.
393° (ce) LZpist. \xx. 4 ad Magnum (I. p. 429, Vallarsi). Hunc [Clementem] imitatus Origenes decem scripsit S¢vomateas,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 331
Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans...Scripsit et Miltiades contra Gentes volumen egregium. Hippolytus quoque et Apollonius, Romanae urbis senator, propria opuscula condiderunt.
Jerome is defending himself against the charge of desecrating theology by illustra- tions from secular literature. This letter was written A.D. 397.
(f) pist. \xxi. 6 ad Lucinium (1. p. 434, Vallarsi).
De sabbatho quod quaeris, utrum ielunandum sit; et de eucha- ristia, an accipienda quotidie, quod Romana ecclesia et Hispaniae observare perhibentur, scripsit quidem Hippolytus vir disertissimus ; et carptim diversi scriptores e variis auctoribus edidere.
This letter was written in the year following the preceding, A.D. 398.
(g) Lpést. \xxxiv. 7 (1. p. 529). Nuper sanctus Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenis] compi- lavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur.
This letter is assigned to A.D. 400.
(4) Comm. in Daniel. ix. 24 (Vv. p. 689).
Hippolytus autem de eisdem hebdomadibus opinatus est ita; ‘Septem hebdomadas ante reditum populi etc.’
(¢) Comm. in Matt. i. praef. (vu. p. 7).
Legisse me fateor ante annos plurimos in Matthaeum Origenis viginti quinque volumina...et Theophili Antiochenae urbis episcopi commentarios ; Hippolyti quoque martyris et Theodori Heracleotae, etc.
This commentary was written A.D. 398.
(2) Chronicon it. p. 179 (ed. Schone). Geminus presbyter Antiochenus et Hippolytus et Beryllus episcopus Arabiae Bostrenus clari scriptores habentur.
A notice under Ann. Abr. 2244, Alexandr. 6.
g. RurFinus [fT A.D. 410]. Flist. Eccl. vi. 16.
Unde et nos, ut fateamur quod verum est, totius huius operis nostri et historiae conscribendae materiam sumpsimus. Erat ergo inter caeteros et Beryllus scriptorum praecipuus, qui et ipse diversa opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus hic fuit apud Bostram Arabiae urbem maximam. Erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit episcopus.
332 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
This passage corresponds to H. £. vi. 20 of Eusebius (see above, p. 327). The rest of Rufinus’ translation may be passed over. This extract alone is given here, because its looseness has apparently been the occasion of much error respecting the see of Hippolytus.
10. PRUDENTIUS [c. A.D. 407]. Peristephanon ; De Passione S. Hippolyti (p. 440 sq, ed. Dressel).
Innumeros cineres sanctorum Romula in urbe Vidimus, O Christi Valeriane sacer. Incisos tumulis titulos et singula quaeris Nomina? difficile est ut replicare queam. 5 Tantos iustorum populos furor inpius hausit, Cum coleret patrios Troia Roma deos. Plurima litterulis signata sepulcra loquuntur Martyris aut nomen aut epigramma aliquod. Sunt et muta tamen tacitas claudentia tumbas 10 Marmora, quae solum significant numerum. Quanta virum iaceant congestis corpora acervis, Nosse licet, quorum nomina nulla legas. Sexaginta illic defossas mole sub una Relliquias memini me didicisse hominum ; 15 Quorum solus habet comperta vocabula Christus, Utpote quos propriae iunxit .amicitiae. Haec dum lustro oculis, et sicubi forte latentes Rerum apices veterum per monumenta sequor ; Invenio Hippolytum, qui quondam schisma Novati 20 Presbyter attigerat, nostra sequenda negans, Usque ad martyrii provectum insigne tulisse Lucida sanguinei praemia supplicii. Nec mirere, senem perversi dogmatis olim Munere ditatum catholicae fidei. 25 Cum iam vesano victor raperetur ab hoste, Exsultante anima carnis ad exitium, Plebis amore suae multis comitantibus ibat; Consultus, quaenam secta foret melior, Respondit: Fugite, o miseri, exsecranda Novati 30 Schismata ; catholicis reddite vos populis. Una fides vigeat, prisco quae condita templo est; Quam Paulus retinet, quamque cathedra Petri. Quae docui, docuisse piget: venerabile martyr Cerno, quod a cultu rebar abesse Dei.
35
40
45
5°
55
60
65
7°
75
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.
His ubi detorsit laevo de tramite plebem, Monstravitque sequi, qua via dextra vocat,
Seque ducem recti, spretis anfractibus, idem Praebuit, erroris qui prius auctor erat:
Sistitur insano rectori Christicolas tunc Ostia vexanti per Tiberina viros.
Illo namque die Roma secesserat, ipsos Peste suburbanos ut quateret populos.
Non contentus humum celsae intra moenia Romae Tingere iustorum caedibus assiduis.
Taniculum cum iam madidum, fora, Rostra, Suburram,
Cerneret eluvie sanguinis affluere:
Protulerat rabiem Tyrrheni ad littoris aram, Quaeque loca aequoreus proxima Portus habet.
Inter carnifices et constipata sedebat Officia, exstructo celsior in solio.
Discipulos fidei, detestandique rebelles Idolii, ardebat dedere perfidiae.
Carcereo crinita situ stare agmina contra Iusserat, horrendis excrucianda modis.
Inde catenarum tractus, hinc lorea flagra Stridere ; virgarum concrepitare fragor.
Ungula fixa cavis costarum cratibus altos Pandere secessus et lacerare iecur.
Ac iam lassatis iudex tortoribus ibat In furias, cassa cognitione fremens.
Nullus enim. Christi ex famulis per tanta repertus Supplicia, auderet qui vitiare animam.
Inde furens quaesitor ait: Iam, tortor, ab unco Desine: si vana est quaestio, morte agito.
Huic abscide caput; crux istum tollat in auras, Viventesque oculos offerat alitibus ;
Has rape praecipites, et vinctos coniice in ignem: Sit pyra, quae multos devoret una reos.
En Tibi, quos properes rimosae imponere cumbae, Pellere et in medii stagna profunda freti;
Quos ubi susceptos rabidum male suta per aequor Vexerit, et tumidis caesa labarit aquis.
Dissociata putrem laxent tabulata carinam, Conceptumque bibant undique naufragium.
Squamea coenoso praestabit ventre sepulcrum
334
80
85
go
95
I0o0
105
LTO
T15
EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Bellua consumptis cruda cadaveribus.
Haec persultanti celsum subito ante tribunal Offertur senior nexibus implicitus.
Stipati circum iuvenes clamore ferebant Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populis:
Si foret exstinctum propere caput, omnia vulgi Pectora Romanis sponte sacranda deis.
Insolitum lethi poscunt genus, et nova poenae Inventa, exemplo quo trepident alii.
Ile supinata residens cervice, Quis, inquit, Dicitur? affirmant dicier Hippolytum.
Ergo sit Hippolytus, quatiat, turbetque iugales, Intereatque feris dilaceratus equis.
Vix haec ille: duo cogunt animalia freni Ignara, insueto subdere colla iugo:
Non stabulis blandive manu palpata magistri, Imperiumque equitis ante subacta pati:
Sed campestre vago nuper pecus e grege captum, Quod pavor indomito corde ferinus agit.
Iamque reluctantes sociarant vincula bigas, Oraque discordi foedere nexuerant.
Temonis vice funis inest, qui terga duorum Dividit, et medius tangit utrumque latus,
Deque iugo in longum se post vestigia retro Protendens trahitur, transit et ima pedum.
Huius ad extremum sequitur qua pulvere summo Cornipedum refugas orbita trita vias ;
Crura viri innectit laqueus, nodoque tenaci Astringit plantas, cumque rudente ligat.
Postquam composito satis instruxere paratu Martyris ad poenam verbera, vincla, feras:
Instigant subitis clamoribus atque flagellis, Iliaque infestis perfodiunt stimulis.
Ultima vox audita senis venerabilis haec est: Hi rapiant artus; tu rape, Christe, animam.
Prorumpunt alacres, caeco et terrore feruntur, Qua sonus atque tremor, qua furor exagitant.
Incendit feritas, rapit impetus, et fragor urget : Nec cursus volucer mobile sentit onus.
Per silvas, per saxa ruunt: non ripa retardat Fluminis, aut torrens oppositus cohibet.
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
$55
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.
Prosternunt sepes et cuncta obstacula rumpunt: Prona, fragosa petunt; ardua transiliunt.
Scissa minutatim labefacto corpore frusta Carpit spinigeris stirpibus hirtus ager.
Pars summis pendet scopulis; pars sentibus haeret ; Parte rubent frondes; parte madescit humus.
Exemplar sceleris paries habet illitus, in quo Multicolor fucus digerit omne nefas.
Picta super tumulum species liquidis viget umbris, Effigians tracti membra cruenta viri.
Rorantes saxorum apices vidi, optime papa, Purpureasque notas vepribus impositas.
Docta manus virides imitando effingere dumos Luserat et minio russeolam saniem.
Cernere erat, ruptis compagibus, ordine nullo Membra per incertos sparsa iacere situs.
Addiderat caros gressu lacrymisque sequentes, Devia quo fractum semita monstrat iter.
Moerore attoniti atque oculis rimantibus ibant, Implebantque sinus visceribus liaceris.
Ille caput niveum complectitur, ac reverendam Canitiem molli confovet in gremio.
Hic humeros truncasque manus et brachia et ulnas Et genua et crurum fragmina nuda legit.
Palliolis etiam bibulae siccantur arenae, Nequis in infecto pulvere ros maneat.
Siquis et in sudibus recalenti aspergine sanguis Insidet, hunc omnem spongia pressa rapit.
Nec iam densa sacro quidquam de corpore silva Obtinet, aut plenis fraudat ab exsequlis.
Cumque recensitis constaret partibus ille Corporis integri qui fuerat numerus,
Nec purgata aliquid deberent avia toto Ex homine, extersis frondibus et scopulis:
Metando eligitur tumulo locus; Ostia linquunt: Roma placet, sanctos quae teneat cineres.
Haud procul extremo culta ad pomoeria vallo Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis.
Huius in occultum gradibus via prona reflexis Ire per anfractus luce latente docet.
Primas namque fores summo tenus intrat hiatu
335
336
160
165
170
175
180
185
Igo
195
EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Illustratque dies limina vestibuli.
Inde, ubi progressu facili nigrescere visa est Nox obscura, loci per specus ambiguum,
Occurrunt caesis immissa foramina tectis, Quae iaciunt claros antra super radios.
Quamlibet ancipites texant hinc inde recessus Arcta sub umbrosis atria porticibus:
Attamen excisi subter cava viscera montis Crebra terebrato fornice lux penetrat.
Sic datur absentis per subterranea solis Cernere fulgorem, luminibusque frui.
Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur opertis, Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo.
Illa sacramenti donatrix mensa, eademque Custos fida sui martyris apposita,
Servat ad aeterni spem vindicis ossa sepulcro, Pascit item sanctis Tibricolas dapibus.
Mira loci pietas, et prompta precantibus ara Spes hominum placida prosperitate iuvat.
Hic corruptelis animique et corporis aeger Oravi quoties stratus opem merui.
Quod laetor reditu, quod te, venerande sacerdos, Complecti licitum est, scribo quod haec eadem,
Hippolyto scio me debere; Deus cui Christus Posse dedit, quod quis postulet, annuere.
Ipsa, illas animae exuvias quae continet intus, Aedicula argento fulgurat ex solido.
Praefixit tabulas dives manus aequore laevi Candentes, recavum quale nitet speculum.
Nec Pariis contenta aditus obducere saxis, Addidit ornando clara talenta operi.
Mane salutatum concurritur: omnis adorat Pubis; eunt, redeunt, solis adusque obitum.
Conglobat in cuneum Latios simul ac peregrinos Permixtim populos relligionis amor.
Oscula perspicuo figunt impressa metallo ; Balsama diffundunt; fletibus ora rigant.
Iam cum se renovat decursis mensibus annus, Natalemque diem passio festa refert,
Quanta putas studiis certantibus agmina cogi, Quaeve celebrando vota coire Deo?
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.
Urbs augusta suos vomit effunditque Quuirites, Una et patricios ambitione pari.
Confundit plebeia phalanx umbonibus aequis
- Discrimen procerum, praecipitante fide.
Nec minus Albanis acies se candida portis Explicat, et longis ducitur ordinibus.
Exsultant fremitus variarum hinc inde viarum ; Indigena et Picens plebs et Etrusca venit ;
Concurrit Samnitis atrox habitator et altae Campanus Capuae, iamque Nolanus adest.
Quisque sua laetus cum coniuge, dulcibus et cum Pignoribus, rapidum carpere gestit iter.
Vix capiunt patuli populorum gaudia campi, Haeret et in magnis densa cohors spatiis.
Angustum tantis illud specus esse catervis Haud dubiui est, ampla fauce licet pateat.
Stat sed iuxta aliud quod tanta frequentia templum Tune adeat, cultu nobile regifico,
Parietibus celsum sublimibus, atque superba Maiestate potens, muneribusque opulens.
Ordo columnarum geminus laquearia tecti Sustinet, auratis suppositus trabibus:
Adduntur graciles tecto breviore recessus, Qui laterum seriem iugiter exsinuent.
At medios aperit tractus via latior alti Culminis exsurgens editiore apice.
Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal Tollitur, antistes praedicat unde Deum.
Plena laborantes aegre domus accipit undas, Arctaque confertis aestuat in foribus,
Maternum pandens gremium, quo condat alumnos Ac foveat fetos accumulata sinus.
Si bene commemini, colit hunc pulcherrima Roma Idibus Augusti mensis, ut ipsa vocat
Prisco more diem quem te quoque, sancte magister, Annua festa inter dinumerare velim.
Crede, salutigeros feret hic venerantibus ortus, Lucis honoratae praemia restituens.
Inter solemnes Cypriani vel Celedoni, Eulaliaeque dies currat et iste tibi.
CLEM. II.
22
507
338 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Sic te pro populo cuius tibi credita vita est, 240 Orantem Christus audiat omnipotens. Sic tibi de pleno lupus excludatur ovili, Agna nec ulla tuum capta gregem minuat. Sic me gramineo remanentem denique campo Sedulus aegrotam pastor ovem referas. 245 Sic, cum lacteolis caulas compleveris agnis, Raptus et ipse sacro sis comes Hippolyto.
iY.) *PALLADIUS) [CMA D, 42a}. FTist. Lausiac. 148 (Patrol. Grace. XXXi1. p. 1251, Migne). "Ev addw BiBrWapio ervyeypappevw “Irrodvtov Tob yvwpipov Tav amootoAwy evpov Suyynua ToLovToV. Eiyeveotarn tis Kal wpauotarn mapbevos vmqpxev év TH KopivOw x.7.X.
12. THEODORET [4.D. 446]. (2) Dialogus i (tv. p. 54 sq, Schulze). TOY Arioy immoAyToOy émIcKOTOY KAI MAPTYpOc, EK TOY Adroy tof eic TO Kypioc Toimainel Me Kat xiBwros dé ex EvdAwy K.T.X. TOY aytoy ék to¥ Adroy TOY eEic TON EAKANAN KAl THN ANNAN.
>
"Aye 5y por, & Sapovydr, x.7.A. TOY aytoy €k TOY AOroy TOY Eic THN APYHN TOY Hcaloy. Aiyirtw pev tov Kocpov azeikace K.T.A. (2) Dialogus ii (Iv. p. 130 sq). TOY Arloy immoAyTOY éTICKOTOY Kal MAPTyPOC, EK TOY AOPOY TOY EIC THN T@N TAAANTWN AIANOMHN. Tovtovs 5€ Kat Tovs ETEPOOOEOUS pyoelev ay TUS “yeLTVLGV K.T.A. n > n > n \ ! ‘ > ~ TOY AYTOY EK TEC Tpoc BACIAIAA TINA ETTICTOAHC. "Amapynv ovv tovrov héyer TOV KEKOLUNMLEVWY, ATE TpwTOTOKOY TOV veKpOv k.T.A. an > n > n ’ n >? na \ > TOY ayToy €K TOY AGroy TOF eEic TON EAKANAN Kal EIC THN ANNAN. Kal Oud TOUTO TpEls KaLPOL TOU evLAVTOD mpoETUTOVVTO €is auToOV TOV
cuoTnpa K.T.A,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 339
> i] \
TOY aytofy é@k tof Adroy TOY Elc THN WAHN THN Me- rAAHN.
‘O tov drodwAdta ék yas Tpwrotactov avOpwrov K.T.d.
TOY aytoy ék THc EpMHNEiAc TOY B Yyadmoy.
Otros 6 mpoedOay eis Tov Koopov Meos Kal avOpwros éhavepwOn x.7.X.
TOY ayToy éK« TOY Adroy Elc TON KF WAAMON.
"Epxera. éxt tas ovpavias tuAas, ayyeAot avtTd cvvodevovar «.T.A.
(c) Diéalogus ili (iv. p. 232 sq).
TOY Arioy immoAYyToy émicKkdTOY Kal MApPTypoc: €K THC TPOC BACcIAIAA TINA ETTICTOAFC.
“Arapynv ovv Totrov Aéyer THY KEKOLUNMEVWY, ATE TPWTOTOKOY TOV veKpov k.T.A.
TOY ayTOY Ek TOY AGroy eEic TOYC AYO AHCTAC.
“Apdotepa tapécye TO TOD Kupiov capa TO KOTWH, Aiwa TO iepoy Kal Udwp TO aytov K.T.A.
(2) Haereticae Fabulae ii. 3 (IV. p. 330).
Kata tovtov dé [tod KypivOov] od povov of rpoppnbevtes ovvéeypaiay, ada ovv éxeivors kai Taios cat Avovucwos 6 ris “AXeEavdpéwv érioKoros.
(¢) Haereticae Fabulae ii. 5 (IV. p. 331).
Kat @eddotos d& o Buldvrios 6 oKuteds tavTa ToiTw [7d “Apréporr] TeppovynKws éTépas yyyoato ppatpias. Tovtov d€ Oo TpirpaKkapios Bixtwp 0 THS Powys éricKxoros amexynpréev, Ws Tapaxapatar Teipadevta THs éxkAy- gias ta doypara. Kata THs TovTwv aipécews 6 CMIKPOC ovveypady AABYPINGOC, ov Twes Opryévous UrokapBavover roinna, ad 6 XapakTnp eheyxer TOs AEyovtas. elite OE Exeivos elite aANos cuveypaie, ToLOVdE eV avt@ dinyetrar Suyynpa. Natad.ov py tiva, k.t.X.
(f) aereticae Fabulae iii. 1 (IV. p. 340 Sq).
kata tovtwv [Trav NuxoAairdy] Kat o mpoppnbels avvéypaye KAnyns Kat Ripnvatos kal ‘Opvyevyns kai “ImmoAvtos éricxoros Kal paptup.
(¢) Haereticae Fabulae ili. 3 (IV. p. 342).
kata dé IIpdKxAov tis auras aipécews [THs Kata Ppvyas| mpoorarev- cavtos cvvéypawe Taios, ov cal mpoobev éuvncbnpev.
(2) Lpistolae 145 (IV. p. 1252).
kal ot tovtTwy mpecButepor “Tyvarios kat IloAvKapzos kal Eipnvatos kai ‘Iovotivos kat ‘Immodvtos, ov of mAelous ovK apxepéwv mpoAdprrover povov, adda Kal TOV papTUpwv diakoopmover Xopor.
22—2
340 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
13. GELASIUS [A.D. 492—496].
Bibl. Patr. viu. p. 704 (Lugdun.) : see Lagarde, p. go sq. HIPPOLYTI EPISCOPI ET MARTYRIS ARABUM METROPOLIS IN MEMORIA HAERESIUM ;
‘Hic procedens in mundum Deus et homo apparuit etc.’
14. ANDREAS OF C&SAREA [c. A.D. 500 ?].
(a) Ln Apocalyps. Synops. (Cramer’s Catena, p. 176). Ilept d€ rov Georvevorov tis BiBXAov o év aylous Bacidevos Kat Tpnyoptos 0 Oetos tov Aoyov kai KvpiAdos kai Tamias kai Eipnvatos cat MeOddi0s Kat
e , te | XA , 3 / / ImmoXvtos, OL EKKANOLAGTLKOL TATEPES, exeyyvot muotwoad Gat.
(2) Ln Apocalyps. xiii. 1.
Tots d€ ayious Mefodiw Kai “Immodvtw Kai érépois eis adtov Tov > , \ \ , > , > A , nw , avtixpiotov To mapov Oypiov ekeiAnmrat, €k THS ToAVTapaxov Tov Biov tovtov Jadacons Kal ToAvKipovos eSepxopmevov K.T.A.
Hippolytus is also quoted on xii. 18 and on xvii. to (comp. Cramer’s Catena, p. 385).
15. LiBER PONTIFICALIS [c. A.D. 530, A.D.?].
On the two recensions of the Zzber Pontificalts and their respective dates see above, I. p. 303 sq.
A. Relating to S. Hippolytus. (a) Vita Pontiani |a.D. 230—235]| 1. pp. 62, 145 (Duchesne).
Eodem tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbiter exilio sunt deputati ab Alexandro in Sardinia insula Bucina, Severo et Quin- tiano consulibus.
The same in both recensions, but ‘deportati’ for ‘deputati’ in the later (see above, _ I. p. 255).
The date of the exile does not fall during the reign of Alexander, but of Maxi- minus. The text of the Liberian Catalogue has ‘insula nociva’ (see above, I. p. 255), which is doubtless correct (see Duchesne’s note, p. 146); but there was an island ‘Bucina’ or ‘ Bucinna,’ one of the Aigates; Pliny V. Z. iii. 8, § 92, Steph. Byz. s.v. The latter however wrongly calls it a ‘ city’ of Sicily.
(b) Vita Gregorit [11 [a.D. 731—741] 1. p. 419. Item in ecclesia beati Genesii martyris tectum noviter restauravit ; ubi et altare erexit in nomine salvatoris Domini Dei nostri etc.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 341
(c) Vita Hadriani [a.D. 772—795| 1. p- 511.
Simul et cymiterium beati Yppoliti martyris juxta sanctum Lau- rentium, quae a priscis marcuerant temporibus, noviter restauravit. Pari modo et ecclesiam beati Christi martyris Stephani, sitam juxta praedictum cymiterium sancti Yppoliti, similiter restauravit.
(@) Vita Leonis ITI |a.v. 795—816] 1. p. 12.
Fecit autem hisdem almificus pontifex in basilica beati Yppoliti martyris in civitate Portuense vestes de stauraci duas, unam super corpus ejus et aliam in altare majore.
(e) Vita Leonts IV [a.v. 847—855] 1. p. 115 sq.
Ipse vero a Deo protectus et beatissimus papa multa corpora sanctorum... infra hujus alme urbis moenia congregavit mirifice. Nam et corpora sanctorum martyrum 1111 Coronatorum sollerti cura inquirens repperit; pro quorum desiderabili amore basilicam quae sanctorum fuerat nomini consecrata... in splendidiorem pulcrioremque statum perduxit... eorumque sacratissima corpora cum Claudio, Nicostrato... Ypolito quidem, cum suis famillis numero xXvlll... pariter sub sacro altare recondens locavit.
tt. ). 125.
Obtulit et in ecclesia beati Ipoliti martiris, qui ponitur in insula Portuensi, que nuncupatur Arsis, vestem de fundato habentem gam- madias ex argento textas I, vela de fundato numero III.
There seems to be some confusion between this notice and the last in Dollinger p- 38. We read of ‘insulam quae dicitur Assis (v./. Arsis), quod est inter Portum et
Hostia,’ Vita Silvestri 1. p. 184. The island between the two branches of the Tiber is clearly meant; but why it was so called, does not appear; see Duchesne’s note,
F899:
B. Relating to S. Laurentius.
(a) Vita Silvestri [a.D. 314—335] 1. p. 181.
Eodem tempore fecit [Constantinus Augustus] basilicam beato Laurentio martyri via Tiburtina in agrum Veranum supra arenario cryptae et usque ad corpus Laurenti martyris fecit gradus ascensionis et descensionis. In quo loco construxit absidam et exornavit marmoribus purphyreticis et desuper loci conclusit de argento, et cancellos de
argento purissimo ornavit, qui pens. lib. 1, et ante ipsum locum in crypta posuit etc.
(6) Vita Xysti LIT [a.D. 432—-440] 1. p. 233 sq.
Item fecit Xystus episcopus confessionem beati Laurenti martyris
342 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
cum columnis porphyreticis et ornavit platomis transendam, et altare et confessionem sancto martyri Laurentio de argento purissimo, pens. lib. L, cancellos argenteos supra platomas purphyreticas, pens. lib. ccc. Absidam supra cancellos cum statua beati Laurenti martyris argenteam, pens. lib. cc. Fecit autem basilicam sancto Laurentio, quod Valentinianus Augustus concessit, ubi et optulit etc.
(c) Vita Pelagit IT (A.D. 579—590] I. p. 309. Hic fecit supra corpus beati Laurenti martyris basilicam a funda- mento constructam et tabulis argenteis exornavit sepulchrum ejus.
(2) Vita Hadriant |a.D. 772—795]| I. p. 500.
Fecit in aecclesia beati Laurenti martyris foris muros, scilicet ubi sanctum eius corpus requiescit, vestem de stauracim; et in aecclesia maiore aliam similiter fecit vestem. Nam et tectum eiusdem beati Laurenti bassilicae maiore, qui iam distectus erat et trabes elus confracte, noviter fecit.
(e) 2. p. 504. In ecclesia vero beati Laurentii martyris atque levite foris muros hulus civitatis Romae fecit vela etc.
(f) 7%. p. 505.
Item ipse ter beatissimus praesul in basilica maiore, quae appellatur sancte Dei genetricis, qui aderat iuxta basilicam sancti Laureptii martyris adque levite ubi eius sanctum corpus requiescit, foris muros huius civitatis Romae, obtulit vela de stauracim etc.
(g) 72. p. 508.
Immo et porticus quae ducit ad sanctum Laurentium foris muros a porta usque in eadem basilicam noviter construxit. Hic idem almi- ficus vates eandem basilicam sancti Laurentii martyris ubi sanctum elus corpus quiescit, adnexam basilicae maioris quam dudum isdem praesul construxerat, ultro citroque noviter restauravit. Immo et aecclesiam sancti Stephani iuxta eas sitam, ubi corpus sancti Leonis
episcopi et martyris quiescit, similiter undique renovavit una cum cymiterio beatae Cyriacae seu ascensum eius.
[ey ae. 1) GLI: Fecit autem idem praesagus antistes in confessione beati Laurentii
foris muros imaginem ex auro purissimo in modum evangeliorum, elusdem beati Laurentii effigies continentem, etc.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 343
16. CyYRILLUS OF SCYTHOPOLIS [c. A.D. 555].
Vita S. Euthymit p. 82 (Hippol. Of. 1. p. ix sq, Fabricius).
"Erovs méumtov éénkooTov TeTpaKocLogTOD KaTa TOUS cvyypadevTas Xpovous V70 TAY ayiwy Tatépwv “ImToAUTOV Tod wadaLod Kal yvwpipov TAV arootoAwy Kat Exidaviov Tob Kumpwrov x.7.X.
17. GREGORY OF Tours [c. A.D. 577].
Hist. Franc. 1. 30 (1. p. 47 sq, ed. Arndt et Krusch).
Sub Decio vero imperatore...Xystus Romanae ecclesiae episcopus et Laurentius archidiaconus et Hyppolitus ob dominici nominis confes- sionem per martyrium consummati sunt.
18. EUSTRATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 578]. Adv. Psychopannychitas 19 (Hippol. Of. i. p. 32, Fabricius). A€fel TOINYN IMMOAYTOC O MAPTYC KAI ETTICKOTIOC PamHC EN T@ AEYTEPW AUTO EIC TON AANIHA TOIAYTA.
, > \ > iv A Cf “~ > Tote pev ovv cvotas Alapias apa tots Nourots du vuvov k.T.A.
Ig. STEPHANUS GoOBARUS |[c. A.D. 575—600?]. Photius Bibliotheca 232 (p. 291 B).
e 3 , "Ett O€ wotas vroAnes eoxev “Immodvtos kai “Exupavios rept NixoAaov Tov evos Tov £ diakdvwv Kal OTe itxupas avTOD KaTaywucKovoU, k.T.d.
ce an \ ‘\ c \ , "Ort ‘ImmoAvtos kai EKipnvatos tyv mpos “EBpatovs éruotoAnv LavAov OUK exelvou elval dace.
Tivas urodnwes elyev 0 aywwratos ‘Imrohvtos rept THs TOV MovtavioTav aipecews, Kal Tivas o ev aytows THS Niaons Tpyyopuos.
20. LEONTIUS oF ByzaNtIuM [c. A.D. 620].
(a) De Sectis Act. iii. § 1 (Patrol. Graec. LXXXVI. p. 1213, Migne). "Eyévovto 5é év Tots xpovois Tots amo THS yevVyTEwWS TOV XproToU pExpL “ 4 / / \ / Y ? / c
ts Bactreias Kwvotavtivov didacKxado. Kai matépes olde’ ‘Tyvatios o @coddpos, Hipnvatos, “lovotivos diAocopos Kat paptus, KAjyys Kat ‘ImmoAvtos érioxoro. Popys, x.7.X.
(2) c¢. Lestorium et Eutychem Lib. i (tb. p. 1312).
TOY Arloy immoAYToOy €tIcKOTIOY Kal MAPTYpOc EK TON EYAOTIM@N TOY Badadm. ‘
~ \ , a Iva detxy To cvvapdorepov exwv ev EavTe@ k.T.X.
344 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
21. CHRONICON PASCHALE [c. A.D. 630].
p. 12 sq (ed. Bonn. ).
‘ImmoAutos Tolvuy 6 THs evoeBelas paptus, éricKoTos yeyovws TOU kaXovpevov Ildptov wAnoiov tHs “Powys, EN TH POC ATIACAC TAC AIpECEIC CYNTAPMATI eypawer emt €Eews ovTUS.
‘Opa pev odv Ste dirovetkias TO epyov. A€yer yap ovTws* eroinoe TO
4, eS \ / A c 4 \ 4 5 \ > X na a / c macxa 0 Xpiotos TOTe TH Huepa Kai erafev’ dio Kape det, Ov TpoTOV oO Kipios éroinoev, ovtw movetv: metAavytar dt py) ywooKwv OTL @ Kapa éracxev 0 Xpiotds ovK ehaye TO KaTa Vomov TaTXa, OdTOS yap HV TO TATXA TO TPOKEKNPVYLEVOV Kal TO TEAELOVMEVOY TH WPLTMEVY NMEPG.
kal madw 0 atts EN TH TPOTW AOP@ TOY TMeEpl TOY Arloy TACYA CYPFPAMMATOC ElpyKeEV OUTS"
Ovdé év Trois mpwrots ovde ev ToIs eo yaTOLS K.T.A.
Wordsworth (pp. 51, 267) ascribes this passage to Peter of Alexandria, and so apparently did Bunsen (Wordsworth p. 51, Ddollinger p. 1g) in his earlier work, but in his second edition (1854) he does not say anything of the kind (I. p. 420). The authorship of Peter of Alexandria could only be maintained on the supposition that the whole passage after the mention of his name (p. 4) is his; but this is impossible for two reasons; (1) The writer quotes from ‘the great Athanasius the luminary of the Alexandrian Church’ (p. 9), who was only a very little child when Peter flourished ; (2) He uses such language as aeurapOévou Kal kara adjOecay OeoroKov Mapias (p. to), which would be an anachronism in the mouth of Peter. A better case might be made
out for Athanasius, but the author is probably the writer of the Chronicon Paschale himself.
22. CONCILIUM LATERANENSE [a.D. 649]. Labb. Coc. vil. p. 287 (ed. Coleti). TOY ArlOY IMMOAYTOY EmicKOTIOY Kal MApTypoc €k TOF TEp! BEOAOLIAC AOPoY. To Oédew exer 0 Meds, ov TO py OeAewv, k.7.X. tb. VIL. p. 293.
TOY ArlOY IMTOAYTOY ETICKOTOY KAl MAdptypoc ék TAC ElC TO TACYA EZHPHCEWC.
“Odos jv | év| mace Kat mavtaxod, yeuioas O€ TO Tav k.T.X.
23. ANASTASIUS APOCRISIARIUS [A.D. 665].
Epist. ad Theodos. Gangren. (Patrol. Lat. CXx1x. p. 664 sq, Migne).
Praeterea misi ad praesens cum hac epistola mea Deo honorabilibus vobis...rotulam habentem testimonia ex dictis sancti Hippolyti episcopi
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 345
Portus Romani ac martyris Christi Dei nostri...Hunc quippe librum Byzantii nobis antequam passi fuissemus delatum, cum hunc totum vellemus transcribere, subito juxta consuetudinem suam insistentes adversarii latronum more rapuerunt, et non valuimus ex ipso plusquam haec octo testimonia tollere.
TOY ArloY ImMmOAYTOY ETICKOTIOY TOpTOyY, HfOYN TOY Atl- MENOC POMHC, KA! MAPTYPOC TAC AAHOEIAC, EK TOY KATA BHpwNoc kal HAIKoc (Vv. lL HAIKI@NOC) TON AIPETIK@N TrEpl BEOAOLFIAC KAl CAPKWCEWC KATA CTOIYEION AOLOY, OV y apxy, "Ay.os, ay.os, aytos Kipios caBaw), dovyyte pwvy Bodvta ta cepadip tov cov dogalwou’
"Arreipoduvapw yap OeAnoe: Tod Ocod .7.A.
24. ANASTASIUS SINAITA [c. A.D. 680].
(a) Hodegus 23 (Patrol. Grace. UXXX1X. p. 301, Migne).
IMMOAYTOY €MICKOTOY PM@MHC EK TOY TEP! ANACTACEwC KAI APOapCIAC ADroy.
"Ecovra, pyciv, év TH avactacet ot avOpwrrot k.T.X.
(4) Quaestiones 41 (p. 592, Migne).
immoAytoy €k TOY eic TO ACMA ACMATON.
Kat ov waca y wAovola avtn yvdous; Tov dé TA puaoTypia k.T.X.
(c) Quaestiones 48 (p. 604, Migne).
ITMMOAYTOY €K TOY €IC TON AANIHA.
Tov yap odypadv Kvnwav Tov voy émiKpatovowv él Ta Lxvy THY TOOMV K-T.A.
25. PsEUDO-JOHN oF Damascus [c. A.D. 700 ?].
(2) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. u. p. 787, Lequien).
TOY APIOY IMMOAYTOY POMHC.
Tavta O€ KaT avayKyy éxopev SinynoacOa, dws THY Varovolay, K.T.X.
(2) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. i. p. 781).
IMMOAYTOY E€MICKOMOY Pa@MHC TrEpI ypICcTOY Kal TOY ANTI- YPIcToy.
adda TovTwV év mpooirin cis SdEav Ocod cipnuevov.
26. GERMANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 720].
Rerum Eccl. Contempl. (Patrol. Graec. xcvi. p. 417, Migne).
~ c / “ Tovto Kal ‘Immodvtos “Pwuns kal 6 adytos KupiAdos A€yovow ev Tots
346 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
.Y ye Ss , / > a n ~ nw Tept tov Avtixpiotov Aoyos avtav év TO ELakiTXLALOTTH TEVTAKOLOOTO / ere. THV eAAOVTAY Tapovoiav Ever Oa.
See Overbeck Quaest. Hippol. p. 30 sq.
27. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM [a.D. ?].
De Pseudo-prophetis (Chrysost. Op. Vill. app. p. 79).
ILod ‘Iyvatios 70 Tob Ocod oixntrypiov; ov 0 Avovvowos 70 werevov TOU ovpavod; tod ImmdAvtos 0 yAvKitatos Kai evvoveTaros;
This work is manifestly spurious. The reference to Dionysius the Areopagite in
this very passage is a sufficient evidence. We have no means of ascertaining its date; but it was evidently many generations later than Chrysostom.
28. GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS [A.D. 792].
(a) Chronographia p. 674 (ed. Bonn.).
‘ImmoAvtos tepos ptAdcodos ericKxoros Iloprov tov Kata tiv “Pony opodpa duarperas nvOe év TH Kata Xpiorov pirocodia, tAKloTa WuywodedH CWTATTOV VTopyypaTa. €E1C TE yap THN EZAHMEPON Kal Eic TA META THN €ZAHMEPON, EIC TOAAA TE TON TPODHT@N, MAAICTA l€ZEKIHA KAl AANIHA T@N MEPAAQN, ETL BV EIC TA ACMATA Kal Eic AAAAC TIANTOIAC TAAAIAC Kal N€AC fpaddc, év ols Kat ec THN EN TIATM@ TOY BEOADTOY ATIOKAAYYIN, TIPOC MAPKIONA kal TAC AOITIAC AIPECEIC, Kal TON EZKAIAEKAETHPIKON TOY TACYA KANONA €6€VeTo Teprypawas eis TO mpwTov Eros “AXeEavdpov ToD Mappaias TOUTOV, Kal TvvTOMwS pavat Jeoppadys ToTapos TH exkAnola Covrwv vapatwv yéeyove, TOV LapTupLKOV TrEepLOéuevos OTEpavov Tpos TH TENEL.
(6) Chronographia p. 685 (ed. Bonn.). , ‘ > , \ “a \ / \ / e A ‘ / Tavu yap oAtyov Tepit TOV KaTa TOvTE TOUS XpOVoOUS LEpwV Kal paKkapiwy / > / , / / ¢ / lal Tatrépwv eripvnobeis, KAjpevtos Aeyomévov Stpwpatéws, “Imrodvtov Tod iepopaptupos, Adpixavod tov toropixod, Avovuciov tov peyadov “Ade€av-
Spelas, kat aAAwv. P ’
29. NICEPHORUS [7 A.D. 828].
Antirrhetica i. 13 (Spicil. Solesm. 1, p. 347):
TOY APIOY IMMOAYTOY EMICKOTIOY TOpTOY Kal MAPTyPpOCc EK TOY KATA BHPWNOC KAI FAIKIMNOC T@N AIPETIK@N AGroy ov n apxn’ “Ayvos, aytos, ayvos.
To yap ameipov kat ovdéva Aoyov 7) TpoTov K.T.A.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 347
30. GrorcIuS HAMARTOLUS [c. A.D. 810].
Chronicon iii. 134, p. 336 (Migne, Patrol. Graec. cx. p. 521).
Ob pv dé dAAG Kal oO Oetos ‘Immodvtos ‘Pwuns rept Tov KypvyparTos Kal THS TeAcWoEws TOV arocTdOAw SdieEiav ey: “Iwavyyns [dé] 0 adeAdos TaxwBov Kypiocwv év 7H “Acia tov doyov [Tob evayyediov| eéEwpicby év
, Cal / c | n , < , 5 Cal , > Ilatpw tH vyow v7o Aopetiavod Baoéws “Pons, Kaxetbev wadw eis lal A 3, > > ‘\ > / "Edecov éx THs eLopias avaxAnOeis tro NepBa kai To Kat avtov evayyedvov , »” \ \ > , , > , e \ ovyypawapevos, vba Kat tTHv aroxaAupw Ocacapevos eTehevTNTEV, OV TO Neiavov LyrynGev ody edpeOn.
31. Puortus [c. ap. 850].
(a) Luibliotheca 48. "A , 6 i , \ an , a5 = 9.4 cy 2 veyvocOn ‘Iwoymrov ep! TOY TANTOC, o &v adAols aveyvwy émvypa- , \ an a \ > U . 4 XN \ an a popevov TED! THC TOY TANTOC aiTiac, év adAos d€ TEP! THc TOF \ > ' 5 \ > \ / / X\ > > a TANTOC oOyciac. é€ote dé év dvat Aoydios. Seixvuogr dé ev adtots \ / a mpos éavtov otaciagovta IlAdtwva, éX€éyxer O€ Kai wept Wuyns Kal vAys > / Kal avactacews “AAxivovv GAodyws Te Kal Wevdds cizovta, avrevodye dé \ Hering \ , A c , , , , , TaS oikelas Tepl TovTw”v Tov Vrofécewy Sokas, Seixvuci Te pec BUTEpov n~ , 3 FF a ‘ ‘EXAnVwv TOAA@ TO ‘Tovdaiwy yevos. dogaler b€ GvyKetobar Tov avOpwrov 2 by \ a te ee 2 , a \ \ > , €k Tupos Kal yys Kal VdaTOS, Kal ETL ex TVEVpATOS, O Kal WuynVv ovomalet. \ = 4 5 ~ , o , TEpt ov TVEVpLATOS avTats A€Leotv OVTW Hyot. , 7 lal , Tovrov to kKupwitepov aveAouevos aya TO owpatr erAace, Kal dua > “~ “~ mavTos peAovs Kal apOpov mopeiav avT@ Kateckevacev’ 6 TO CwpatL X \ \ x a lal 3 A + A , ouutAacGev Kai dua mavtTos duKvovpevov TO avT@ elder Tov BXeropevov , , \ a x ! e , \ \ , ie cwpatos TeTUTWTAL, THY ovoiay de YuypoTEpoV DrapxeL pos Ta Tpla, Ov wv An , TO COMA TVVNPHLOCTAL. > A“ “A > 7 Ovrw pev ody avagins THS Te TOV Tovdaiwy wept avOpwrov dvatodoyias A sues \ A ” Sd \ \ / > , , \ Tatra citwv Kal THS adAys aiTov TEpi Tos Adyous acKYyoeEws, dieEEtoL Kal % a £ wn \ / ~ An > m~ Tepl THS KoTpoyovias Kehadrawwdds. wept pevtot Xpirtov tod adnOwod ~ “A “a lal > > A cov nav ws eyyvota Geodoyet, KARoW TE avTiv avapbeyyouevos Xpicrod, \ \ A yf > > ¢ Kal THV €K TaTpOs appacToy yEévvnow apeuTTws avaypapwv. “O tias ” ‘ > lal c > , ” \ , > , JAA imws Kat apdidogety, ws lwonmrov ein TO ovvTaypariov, avareioeev. ovdéey \ \ al / > A \ A 6 / 53 \ > cal S€ TO THS Ppdoews AVTO pos Ta v7OoXoLTaA TOU avdpos a7rodel. = \ a ¢ > ¢ ‘ ? Evpov d€ év rapaypadais ote ovK eotw o Adyos ‘lwoynrov, dAAad Taiov \ , > ‘p / 8 , ¢ , X \ Twos mpeaButépov ev Pwyn diatpiBovros, ov hac. ovvtagar kat TON Aad- , " e \ , , \ , a A BYPINQON’ ov Kat duaAoyos éperar mpds [IpdxAov twa iréppaxov THS THY ~ , > a Movravoctay aipecews, avertypadouv dé xatadepbevtos tod oyou Paci ‘\ \ > , / \ A tous pev Iwonrov érvypawat, tors 5€ “loverivov tod paptupos, adAovs 8é
, 7 ‘\ % / Kipynvaiov, womep Kat tov AaBvpwOdv tives éréypayav Opryévous. eet
348 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
of. > a A c Tatov éort rovnua tH aAnOea Tod cuvtetaxotos Tov AafBupiwGov, ws Kal > A > a , , , e an > A ‘ autos év TO TéLa ToD AafvupivOov duesaptipatro éavtod civar Tov TrEPI a a ' > mace >” THic TOY TANTOC OYcIac Aoyov. ei 8 ErEpos Kai ovx OVTOS EOTLY, OUTH / »” re ‘ A , , ~ @ A fou yéyovev evdndov. Tovtov tov Tatov mperButepdv pact yeyevyo0ar THs 4. / 5 /, a te 27 A , an > s Kata Pwunv éxxAnotas éxt Ovixtopos kat Zedupivov tav apxlepewv, XELpO- a \ SIA Ay a ay, , \ Ed 4 TovnOnvar d€ avtTov Kal éOvav éricxorov. auvtagar d€ Kal eTepov Aoyov / a > ' ' \ ' \ idtws KATA THC APTEMM@NOC AIPECEWC, KAL KATA TIPOKAOY d€ o7ov- daotov Movravod orovdaiav duadew ovvretaxevat, ev 7) TpioKaideKa. movas erioToAas apiOetrar [lavdov, ovk éykpivwv tTHv pos “EBpaiovs.
(2) Libliotheca 121.
c ’ c ITTOAYTOY KATA AIPECEWN BIBAIAADION. 5 4 , c Aveyvwobn BiBrtdapiov “Immodvrov' pabytyns dé EHipynvatov o ‘Inzo- = \ , \ Autos. qv O€ TO GUVTaypa Kata aipécewy APB’, apxiv Tovovpevov Aoat- / \ , ~ \ A / Geavovs, Kat pexpt Nontov xat Noyriavev diadapBavov. tavtas d€ dynow , A c na e e , eXeyxors vToBANOAVvaL opstrAodvvTos Kipynvatov, wv Kat avvoww o “ImmoXdvtos / z Tovovpevos TOOE TO PuBAiov hyot ovvTeraxevar. THV 5€ dpaciw cays eote Kal UTOTELVOS Kal GrrépiTToOs, €i Kal mpos Tov "ATTLKOV OUK émloTpédetat f + a 7 ba \ Aoyov. A€yer O€ adAa TE Tia THS axpiBeias evTopeva, Kal OTL Y TpOS c fal > ‘4 e EBpaiovs érurtoAn ovK éott Tod amoaroAov TlavAov. Aé€yetar dé odTOS \ al rad a \ , > / e \ / “4 Kat tporouirciv TH AGO Kata pipynow ‘Optyévovs, od Kal cuvybys pariora Lar \ a 4 e A c \ , a7 ah \ / ec kal épactys Tov Noywv VrNpXEV, Ws Kal TpotpeWacbar avrov THY Eelav vmo- / “a b. 4 pvynpatica, ypapyv, éyKatTaoTyYoas aVTw Kal VTOypadéas ETA Taxvypadous A LES , / > / ee \ a U cme Kal €tépovs TorovTouvs ypadpovtas eis KaAXos, ov nV Kal THS Samavyns avTOS A nw > ~ > \ XOpnyos’ Kal TadTa VINpEeTOvpEVOS AUTO aTalTEly AVTOV aTApaLTATWS TO EpyoV, > e \ >. \ / > lal aA > a A > / ~ €€ ov Kal épyodiwKTnv év pula Tov emicToAM@v mapa ‘OQpvyevovs KAnOjVvaL,
mretora b€ Kal ovTos Aéyerar cvyyeypaevar.
(c) Bibliotheca 202.
c \ >
ITTOAYTOY EMICKOTOY KAI MAPTYpOC e€iC TON AANIHA EPMHNEIA* KAl AGFOC TrEpl YpICTOY Kal ANTIYPICTOY.
> , c , 5 / \ / e / > \ /
Aveyvwc6y ImmoXvtov érirko7rou Kal paptupos Epunveta eis Tov Aavund., kata Aeéw pev ov Tovetrar THY avaTTvéLy, TAY TOV vobV ye, ws Eos Eizely, ov Tapatpexer* ToAAG pevTOL GpXaLoTpOTWS Kal OUK eis TO VETEPOV SuNKpLBw-
/ , 2 2 9 4 3 DY 4 / , eT 2 \ \
pevov katahéyet. GAN exelvwv ovk av ein Sikaros oyov vréxew" Tovs yap 2 ‘ / / ? , ? a cal / > > apxnv Gewpias kataBadromévovs ov dikas azraiteiy ToY Tapepevwv, adr > lal , ., A lal 5 a A 5 ,? y a , a ayarav patioTa avTAs Te THS eTLBOAHS Kal ep OToV av KatadnWews THV duacKkoroupevwv tpoywpoin. To d€ THY TOD Avtixpictov Tapovciay, Ka Hv Kal 4 Tod aicOyTod Koopov Todde GuVTéAELa LoTaTal, pyde Tots pabytats deoevors TOU Ywrhpos amoxadvWavtos, €ita avtTdav tTavTnV TevTaKoT ios
»” ] ‘\ nw e , , c \ lal > \ / an ereow aro Xpiot0d vraxGévta mweprypapacbar, woavel TOV ato TpwTNS TOU
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 349
/ tal e , a, 58 , \ ‘ , > A Koopov KataBoAns éaxiryxiAiwy erdv cuvTedovpevur, Kal THY Siadvow avTod cal xv nw , eheotavat, Toto Kal Oepuorépas av ein TOV mpoonKovTOS yvwpns, Kal 7 ) , > , > , 3 3 > 3 / ~ 4 , c aropacis avOpwrivys ayvoias, add’ ovk érimvoias THs avwHev duedéyxe. 7 Se , 3A \ \ 4 x 3 Lov , = Loe xX e 4 > ‘ E Ppacis aVT@ TO caés OTL pariora, oikeousevyn TpETroL av Epunveia, ei Kal ‘igh \ ud , \ a tovs Artixovs ov Te para Oeopous dvowretTa.. 4 ° nw A Qo 4 \ nr \ . ! SvwvaveyvwcOy avtov Kat erepos AOyos TEP! YPICTOY KAI ANTIYPIC- > = 4 aZON nw Xo ioe 8 , \ \ A U TOY, ¥@ ® H Te avTH Tov Aoywv idea Siarpére, Kal TO THY vonuaTu”
e / / \ > / amovoTepov TE Kal apXaloTpo7rov,
32. CEcuUMENIUS [c. A.D. ggo?]. In Apocalyps. Praef. (Cramer’s Catena p. 173). [pos rovrous kat ‘Imrodvtw 76 “Powys tpoédpm EN TH TOY €1C AANIHA EPMHNEIA AOPOY.
33. ZONARAS [C. A.D. 1120 ?].
(a2) Anna. vi. 4 (p. 267).
"Ev 5€ 76 zpos "EXAnvas avtod Aoye, Os KATA TAATWNOC ETLyeyparrat Tept Thc TOY TANT OC AiTIAC, Ov Kal o dy.os “Iwavyns Aapacknvos pveiav merointar ev TH Tovynbeton atta BiBAw TH Kadovpévy TlapadAAnXra, tTadra
, \ , , \ » > , A A , pyou mavres yap dikatol TE Kal adiKoL éevesrLov TOD Dod Aoyov, k.7.X.
(b) Annal. xii. 15 (p. 620).
Tore OvpBavod ths erickomAs THs “Pwpaiwy moAews TpoeaTHTos Kal ec oA y+ > \ e 4, \ , b} 4 ~ NES / Imrodvtos nvGei avnp iepdtatos Kat coputatos érickoTos Tod Kara “Pujunv Iloptov yevopevos, Os kat moAAd ovyypappata cvveypawaro, diaopa Tis Oeias ypadyns eénynoapevos.
34. SuIDAS [c. A.D. 1100 ?]. p. 1058, ed. Bernhardy. ‘Im7odvtos* ovtos éypawev €ic TAC OpACEIC TOY AANIHA vrournwa kal €1C TAC TIAPOIMIAC COAOM@NTOC.
35. NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS [c. A.D. 1300].
Eccles. Hist. iv. 31.
Tots 5€ xara Sevppov xpovois kal ‘Imrodvros o Loprov tis ‘Pons éricxoros yeyovos axpalov jv. Kal 8) moAAGV vVrOMVnLATwY GvVETaS avTe yeypappévwv, kal TO TEP] TOY TACYA exTMerar ovyypappa, év O THV xpovov avaypadyyv éxOéuevos Kal Twa Kavova ExkaiWeKaernpioos Tept Tod
lal , , macxa poets ext TO mpwtov eros “AXdeEdvdpov Teprypaper Tovs xpdvovs.
350 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Ta ye pnv attod ovyypaypara tatra eiou’ BuBAiov Eic THN EZAHMEPON’ ETEpOV EIC TA META EZAHMEPON’ GVTIPPYTLKOS TIDOC MAPKI@)NA* EIC TO ACMA TON ACMATWN’ EIC MEPH TOY iEZEKIHA’ TEP] TOY TACYA’ CYNTAPMA POC TACAC TAC alpéceEeic Piwodedeotatov’ TEpl TAC ’ n ’ \ > , »y” Lal TApOyciAc TOY ANTIYPicTOy Tepl ANACTACEwC’ Kal GAda mAeioTa. EIC ZAYAPIAN’ TEP! YAAM@N* €1C TON HCalAN’ €1C TON AANIHA’ TEP] ATIOKAAYPEDC’ TEP! TAPOIMI@N’ TEP! CAOYA KAl TTYO8WNOC™ TEP] ETAINWN TOY KYPIOY FMMN IHCOY YpICcTOY €Y ots mapovTos > , Bee. \ \ A ‘ , > , + a \ Opryevovs wpidynoe. Twa d€ TOV Cvyypappatwv éerryfipa Exwv, TO Tepl Xpictod =paptupiw peta tatta TeAewhels Tov THs ayvolas ameTpipato a Py e ae] , 2 \ 5) , A / 2 U [Aw}LoV. e€ WV pact KQl Opcyevnv apxyVv EOKYKEVAL TALS Gevats emuBadrew ypadais. tooatra dé kat Ta ImroAvtov.
36. EBED-JESU [c. A.D. 1300].
Catalogus c. vii (Assemanus Libliotheca Orientalis Ul. p. 15).
Kvpuos ‘ImdAvutos paptus ft 3.cr2.90 walladar’ eo Kal éerioKkomos eypaiye BuBAtov resocha mM wAdanmdaAKa Tept oikovoplas Kal Epunvelayv mzasa :rWhastoarm Ana
nw ~ (4 Aavinr TOU fALKpOu Kal Soveavvas
Lara rian Actas > MOC Q Nasal; xia
KO.L kepada Kata L'atov
Kai aToAoyiay vrép THS aroKaNv- : . wv wa a re meaalx jss qanass Kal Tov evayyeAiov Iwavou river rharataa
TOU amoaToXov Kai evayyeALTTOD, \solvaara we ase
Though this Catalogue was originally written in Syriac, I have thought it worth while to translate the passage into Greek, so as to show its correspondences with other lists of Hippolytus’ writings.
There can be no reasonable doubt that oixovouias (ver. 3) is the right translation, the corresponding Syriac word being an ordinary rendering of oixovoyiéa in its technical sense referring to the Incarnation; see Payne Smith’s Zhes. Syv.s. v. p. 818. The expression ‘the little Daniel,’ if the epithet be correctly so translated rather than ‘ young,’ occurs again 47b/. Orient. 1v. p. 6, where Assemani explains it of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, i.e. the history of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon, though Susanna is mentioned separately in the preceding line. On the other hand Wright
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 351
(Catal. of Syr. MSS of Brit. Mus. i. p. 19) gives an account of a Ms containing the prophets of the Old Testament and other matter, which between Susanna and Baruch has ‘ Daniel the youth (so he translates it) concerning our Lord and the end of the world.’
37: INSCRIPTIONS RELATING TO RELIQUES.
(a) ILnscriptio in Basilica S. Laurentit.
CONTINET HOC TEMPLUM SANCTORUM CORPORA PLURA A QUIBUS AUXILIUM SUPPLEX HIC POSCERE CURA CUM XISTO JACET HIC LAURENTIUS IGNE CREMATUS ET PROTOMARTIR STEPHANUS LEVI TA BEATUS POST HOS IPOLITUS COLLIS RE IO LIGATUS EQUORUM CUM NUTRICE SUA CUM CUNC TA PLEBE SUORUM ROMANUS MILES TRIPHOMIA VIRGO CIRILLA ET QUADRAGINTA QUOS PASSIO CONTINET ILLA JUSTINUSQUE SACER DEFUNCTOS QUI TUMULABAT CIRIACE VIDUA QUE SANCTOS 20 CLAM RECREABAT CUJUS MATRONE FUIT HEC POSSESSIO CARA IPSIUS NOMEN SPECIALITER OPTINET ARA MARTIR IRENEUS QUI TECUM MARTIR ABUNDI DECEDENS SPREVIT FALLACIS GAUDIA MUNDI YLARUS ET ZOSIMUS PELAGIUS 30 HIC RETINENTUR “TERTIUS ET XISTUS CUM MULTIS QUI RETICENTUR
352 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
This inscription was found in the narthex of the lower basilica of S. Laurentius in 1853. It is given in De Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1881, p. 87. The alternate (shorter) lines are in red. It belongs to the xilith century. For the reference in ‘passio illa’ see below, p. 473. In the inscription itself, 1. 13 MILES is written MILEX, and in 1. 29 YLARVS is XLARVS.
(6) Lnscriptio in Ecclesia S. Silvestri.
M4 IN N DNI HEC EST NOTICIA NATALICIORUM SCORUM HIC REQUIESCENTIUM * * MENSE AUGUSTO DIE VIII NA SCORU QUIRIACI LARGI ET SMARAGDE ARCHEL DIE XIII M SS NA SCI YPPOLITI,
where M SS means mensis suprascripti (i.e. August), This table of the inscription, relating to the male saints, was known long ago, and will be found in Muratori /Vouv. Thes. p. MCMLXVI.
MM INN. DNI. HAEC. NOT. NAT. SC[ARUM| HIC REQUIESCENT|IUM | * * MENSE AUG. D. VIII. N. SCAR. MEMMIAE ET JULIANAE D. VIII. M. SS. N. SCAE ARTHEMIAE D. XII. M. SS. N. SCAE CONCORDIAE MENSE SEPT. D. XXX. N. SCAR SOFIAE PISTIS. HELPIS. ET. AGAPE MENSE OCT. D. XIII. N. SCAE CONCHYLE D. XVIII. M. SS N. SCAE TRIFONIAE D. XXVIII. M.-SS. «N. SCAR (\CYRILLAE
This table, relating to the female saints, has been pieced together recently by De Rossi; see Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 39 sq. These were the reliques taken from the demolished and rifled
suburban cemeteries and placed by Paul I between a.pD. 757—761 in his monastery of S. Silvester in Capite.
38. ITINERARIES,
These extracts are taken from De Rossi Roma Sotterranea i. p. 144 sq, where the documents are described and their dates fixed. ‘The
extracts are on pp. 178, 179.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. S53
(a) Ltinerarium Codicis Salisburgensis | A.D. 625—638}.
Postea illam viam demittis et pervenies ad S. Ypolitum martyrem qui requiescit sub terra in cubiculo, et Concordia mulier eius martyr ante fores, altero cubiculo S. Triphonia regina et martyr, et Cyrilla filia eius et martyr, quas meditus Decius interfecit uxorem et filiam, et S. Genisius martyr. Postea pervenies ad ecclesiam S. Laurentii; ibi sunt magnae basilicae duae in quarum quis speciosiorem et pausat, et est parvum cubiculum extra ecclesiam in hoc occidentur. Ibi pausat S. Abundius et Herenius martyr Via Tiburtina; et ibi est ille lapis quem tollent digito multi homines nescientes quid faciunt. Et in altera ecclesia sursum multi martyres pausant. Prima est Cyriaca sancta vidua et martyr, et in altero loco S, Justinus, et iuxta eum S. Crescentius martyr, et multitudo sanctorum, longe in spelunca deor- sum S. Romanus martyr. Postea ascendes ad ecclesiam S. Agapiti martyris et diaconi S. Syxti papae.
In 1. 4 for ‘meditus’ read ‘Messius’; in |. 6 for ‘in quarum...pausat’ read probably ‘in quarum quae speciosior est pausat’; and in l. 7 ‘ occidentur’ should be
read ‘ occidente,’ even if some greater correction is not needed. This is the itinerary attached to William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum.
(6) Lpitome Libri de Locis Sanctorum Martyrum |a.vD. 635—645 |.
Juxta Viam Tiburtinam (prope murum civitatis ecclesia est S. Januaril episcopi et martyris, eademque via) ecclesia est S. Agapiti multum honorabilis martyrum corporibus. Et prope eandem viam ecclesia est S. Laurentii maior, in qua corpus eius primum fuerat humatum, et ibi basilica nova mirae pulchritudinis, ubi ipse modo requiescit. Ibi quoque sub eodem altare Abundus est depositus et foris in portico lapis est, qui aliquando in collo eiusdem Abundi pen- debat in puteum missi: ibi Hereneus, Julianus, Primitivus, Tacteus, Nemeseus, Eugenius, Justinus, Crescentianus, Romanus sunt sepulti, et S. Cyriaca, S. Simferosa, et Justina cum multis martyribus sunt sepulti. Inde in boream sursum in monte basilica S$. Hippolyti est, ubi ipse cum familia sua tota xvilli martyres iacet. Carcer ibi est in quo fuit Laurentius. Ibi est Triphonia uxor Decii Caesaris et Cyrilla filia elus: inter utrasque Concordia et S. Geneseus, et multi martyres ibi sunt.
In 1. 1, 2, the words in brackets are in a later hand. In 1. 11 read ‘sepultae’.
(c) LNotitia Portarum Viarum Ecclesiarum |a.D. 648—682].
Sexta porta et via Tiburtina, quae modo dicitur S. Laurentii, iuxta hance viam iacet S. Laurentius in sua ecclesia et Habundius martyr. Et ibi prope in altera ecclesia pausant hi martyres, Ciriaca, Romanus,
CLEM. II, x
354 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Justinus, Crescentianus, et ibi non longe Ipolitus vel basilica S. Ippo- lyti, ubi ipse cum familia sua pausat, id est xvii [v. 2 xxviii]. Et ibi requiescunt beata Triphonia uxor Decii et filia eius Cirilla et Concordia nutrix eius. Et in altera parte viae illius est ecclesia Agapiti martyris.
(2) Topographia Einstedlensts [after a.D. 750].
In via Tiburtina foris murum in sinistra S. Ypoliti, in dextera S. Laurentii.
(ce) Liber Mirabilium Urbis Romae |later, various recensions]. Coemeterium in agro Verano ad S. Laurentium.
39. WESTERN SERVICE BOOKS.
(a) Sacramentarium Leonianum (Muratori Liturgia Romana Vetus I. p. 400).
Idibus Augusti.
NATALE SANCTORUM HIPPOLYTI ET PONTIANI.
Tibi enim, Domine, festiva solemnitas agitur, tibi dies sacrata cele- bratur, quam Sancti Hippolyti martyris tui sanguis in veritatis tuae ‘ testificatione profusus magnifico nominis tui honore signavit.
(2) Sacramentarium Gregorianum (Muratori Il. p. 112). Idibus Augusti. NATALE SANCTI HIPPOLYTI.
Da nobis, omnipotens Deus, ut beati Hippolythi martyris tui vene- randa solemnitas et devotionem nobis augeat et salutem.
(c) Missale Mixtum Mozarabicum (Patrol. Lat. uxxxv. p. 816 sq).
Hunc [Laurentium] Hipolitus dum sibi traditum asservaret custodia militari etc.
With more to the same effect. So again p. 818.
SANCTI HYPOLITI SOCIORUMQUE EJUS.
But this document has been added to from time to time, and contains saints of the 13th century, e.g. Thomas Aquinas.
(2) Breviarium Gothicum Sanctorale (Patrol. Lat. LxXxxvt. p. 1134 84). Aug. xiii. In festo sancti Hippolyti Martyris. Ferreis percalidus unguibus artifex Armat spiniferi spicula cardui ;
Corrupta penitus viscera martyris Perfundunt rosei flumina sanguinis.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 355
Hinc ad cornipedum terga ferocium Innexu religant; tractus in aspera. * * % Christe Domine omnipotens, qui sanctum martyrem tuum Hippoly- tum, dum equina feritate per spinarum traheretur acumina, etc. There is no trace of any connexion with S. Laurentius here, and no mention of any companions. See more on this subject in De Rossi Lulettino p. 30 sq (1882).
40. CALENDARS AND MARTYROLOGIES.
(a) Liberian Chronographer [a.D. 354]. Successio episcoporum (Mommsen, p. 635; see above, I. p. 255). Eo tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbyter exoles sunt deportati in Sardinia, in insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano cons. [A.D. 235];
Depositio Martyrum (Mommsen, p. 632 sq). villi Idus Aug. Xysti in Calisti iii Idus Aug. Laurenti in Tiburtina Idus Aug. Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Calisti Non. Sept. Aconti in Porto, et Nonni et Herculani et Taurini.
(6) Ancient Syriac Martyrology [c. A.D. 350?] ed. Wright, pp. 4, 8.
Jan. 30. In the city of Antioch, Hippolytus. Aug. 1. On the same day, the commemoration of Xystus, bishop of Rome.
(c) Calendar of Polemius Sylvius [a.D. 448].
iii Idus Aug. Natalis S. Laurentii mart. ii Idus Aug. Hyppoliti mart.
(@) Consular Fasti [a.D. 493].
Decio 11 et Rustico [4.p. 251]. His coss. passus S. Laurentius 111 Idus August.
(ec) Kalendarium Carthaginense.
viii Idus Aug. sancti Systi episcopi et martyris Romae. iii Idus Aug. sancti Laurenti. Idus Aug. sancti Hippoliti.
23—2
356 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
(f) Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Hieron. Of. Xi. pp. 551; 585 sq).
iv Kal. Febr. In Tursia, Constanti, Hippolyti episcopi de an- tiquis.
iii Kal. Febr. In Antiochia, passio sancti Hippolyti martyris.
Prid. Kal. Febr. In Alexandria, Tarsici, Zotici...Gelasi, Hippo- lyti, Ursini, Tyrsi.
viii Idus Aug. Romae in coemeterio Calesti, via Appia natalis Sixti episcopi, et Felicissimi... Laurentii, Hippolyti, et militum centum sexaginta duorum.
iv Idus Aug. Romae via Tiburtina, natalis sancti Laurentii archi- diaconi et martyris. In via Appia Felicissimi. Et alibi Cres- centiani... Pontiani.
Idus Aug. Romae, natalis sanctorum, Hippolyti martyris,
Pontiani episcopi, Cornelii, etc. xiii Kal. Sept. In Portu Romano, natalis sancti Hippolyti mar- tyris. In Sardinia natalis sancti Luxuri, ete. x1 Kal. Sept. Et in portu Romano peregrinorum martyrum. x Kal: Sept: In portu urbis Romae natalis sancti Hippolyti qui dicitur Nunnus cum sociis suis. In Ostia natalis sancti Quiriaci, Archelai.
(g) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum (Patrol. Lat. CXXul. pp. 147, 165, Migne). i Kal. Febr. Antiochiae, passio sancti Hippolyti. viii Id. Aug. Romae, via Appia, Xisti papae et martyris.
vi Id. Aug. Romae, via Ostiensi, Cyriaci martyris cum allis xxi quando viii die mensis Augusti reconditi sunt. v Id. Aug. Romae, Romani militis
Vigilia sancti Laurentii. iv Id. Aug. | Romae Laurentii archidiacon. martyris et militum clxv. Idus Aug. Romae, Hippolyti martyris cum familia sua, et S. Concordiae nutricis ejus.
On the relations of the older Roman Martyrologies see Zenat. and Polyc. 1. p. 554 (ed. 1), p. 570 (ed. 2). 41. FLorus-Bepa [c. a.p. 870].
Patrol. Lat. XCiv. pp. 827, 999 sq.
iii Kal. Febr. [Vacat]. vii Kal. Aug. Romae S. Xysti episcopi.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 357
vi Idus Aug. Natalis S. Cyriaci.
vIdus Aug. Vigilia S. Laurentii. Eodem die Romae S. Romani militis, qui confessione S. Laurentii compunctus petiit ab eo baptizari; et mox jubente Decio cum fustibus exhibitus ac decollatus est.
iv Idus Aug. Natale S. Laurentii sub Decio; qui post plurima tormenta carceris, verberum diversorum, lami- narum ardentium, ad ultimum in craticula ferrea assatus martyrium complevit.
Idibus Aug. Romae S. Ypoliti, qui tempore Decii ligatus pedes ad colla indomitorum equorum sic per carduos tribulosque tractus emisit spiritum; et Concor- diae nutricis ejus, quae ante ipsum plumbatis caesa martyrizatur; et aliorum de domo ejus decem et novem, qui simul decollati sunt.
42. ADO OF VIENNE [fT A.D. 874].
Martyrologium (Patrol. Lat. CXXil1. pp. 224, 318 sq, Migne).
III KAL, FEBR.
Passio sancti Hippolyti martyris qui Novati schismate aliquantulum deceptus, operante gratia Christi correctus ad charitatem ecclesiae rediit; pro qua et in qua illustre martyrium postea consummavit.
VIII IDUS AUG.
Romae, via Appia, in coemeterio Callisti, natale S. Sixti episcopi et martyris et in coemeterio Praetextati sanctorum Felicissimi et Agapiti diaconorum ejusdem, sub Decio imperatore, Valeriano praefecto; qui tenuit beatissimum senem Sixtum episcopum Romanum cum omni clero suo et reclusit eos in custodia publica etc.
[Sixtus, Felicissimus, and Agapitus, are beheaded with others. |
V ID. AUG.
Vigilia sancti Laurentii.
Eodem die Romae, sancti Romani militis qui in confessione sancti Laurentii compunctus petiit ab eo baptizari, et mox jubente Decio cum fustibus exhibitus ac decollatus est.
IV ID. AUG.
Romae natale sancti Laurentii archidiaconi et martyris sub Decio. Cui beatus Sixtus omnes facultates ecclesiae et thesauros, pergens ad coronam martyril, tradidit.
[ Hippolytus his gaoler, seeing the miracle of giving sight to the blind wrought by Laurentius, is converted and baptized. Laurentius is
358 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
brought before the tyrant Decius, ordered to surrender the treasures of the Church, and put to torture. |
Tunc unus ex militibus, nomine Romanus, credidit Domino Jesu Christo et dixit beato Laurentio: Video ante te hominem pulcherrimum stantem cum linteo et extergentem membra tua; adjuro te per Christum qui tibi misit angelum suum, ne me derelinquas. Levatus igitur beatus martyr de catasta et solutus, redditus est Hippolyto tantum in palatio. Veniens autem Romanus offerens aquam misit se ad pedes beati Laurentii ut baptizaretur; qui benedicta aqua baptizavit eum: quod factum audiens Decius jussit eum sibi exhiberi cum fustibus. Non interrogatus coepit clamare, Christianus sum. Et jubente Decio eductus foras muros portae Salariae decollatus est quinto Idus Augusti. Cujus corpus noctu collegit Justinus presbyter et sepelivit in crypta in agro Verano.
[Laurentius then undergoes martyrdom, being roasted alive on a gridiron. |
Mane autem primo adhuc crepusculo rapuit corpus ejus Hippolytus et condivit cum linteis et aromatibus ; et hoc factum mandavit Justino presbytero. Tunc beatus Justinus et Hippolytus plorantes et multum tristes tulerunt corpus beati martyris et venerunt in via Tiburtina, in praedium matronae viduae Cyriacae in agro Verano, ad quam ipse martyr fuerat noctu, cui et linteum dedit, unde pedes sanctorum ex- terserat, et illud ibi jam hora vespertina sepelierunt tv Idus August. Et jejunaverunt agentes vigilias noctis triduo, et multitudine Christi- anorum. Beatus autem Justinus presbyter obtulit sacrificium laudis, et participati sunt omnes.
Eodem die Romae, militum centum et sexaginta quinque. Tunc passi sunt Claudius, Severus, Crescentio, et Romanus, ipso die quo beatus Laurentius, post tertium post diem passionis sancti Sixti.
ID. AUG.
Romae, sancti Hippolyti martyris, sub Decio imperatore, Valeriano praefecto. Hunc beatum Hippolytum vicarium sanctus Laurentius, cum apud eum esset in custodia, baptizavit. Qui de sanctis exsequiis martyris post tertium diem ad domum suam rediens dedit pacem omnibus servis suis et ancillis, et communicavit de sacrificio altaris beati Laurentii martyris. Et posita mensa, priusquam cibum sumeret, venerunt milites et tenuerunt et perduxerunt ad Decium. Quem ut vidit, subridens dixit ei: Numquid et tu magus effectus es, quia corpus Laurentii abstulisse diceris? Sanctus Hippolytus respondit ; Hoc feci non quasi magus, sed quasi Christianus. Decius furore repletus jussit ut cum lapidibus os ejus contunderetur. Et exspoliavit eum veste qua
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 359
induebatur habitu Christiano et dixit ei: Sacrifica, et vives; sin aliter, peries per tormenta sicut Laurentius. Sanctus Hippolytus dixit ; Exemplum merear beati Laurentii martyris fieri, quem tu, miser, ausus fuisti ore polluto nominare. Extensus igitur fustibus et cardis diu caesus est, donec caedentes deficerent. Inde levatus est a terra, et jussit eum Decius vestiri militari veste qua gentilis utebatur, et dixit ei: Recole militiam, et esto noster amicus, et in conspectu nostro utere militia pristina quam semper habuisti. Cumque beatus martyr dixisset ; Militia mea haec est, Christianum firmum militare, unde cupio ad celerem palmam cum fructu venire; iracundia plenus Decius dixit Valeriano; Accipe omnes facultates ejus, et interfice eum crudeli exanimatione. Valerianus itaque, exquisita omni facultate ejus, invenit in domo Hippolyti omnem familiam Christianam, quam conspectui suo praesentari fecit. Et jussit beatum Hippolytum foras muros portae Tiburtinae cum familia sua duci. Beatus vero Hippolytus confortabat omnes, dicens ; Fratres, nolite metuere, quia ego et vos unum Deum habemus. Et decollati sunt promiscui sexus numero decem et novem. Beatus vero Hippolytus ligatus pedes ad colla indomitorum equorum, sic per carduetum et tribulos tractus, emisit spiritum. Nocte venit beatus Justinus presbyter, et collegit corpora, et sepelivit in campo eodem juxta Nympham, ad latus agri Verani, Idibus Augusti.
Eodem die natale sanctae Concordiae, nutricis ejusdem_ beati Hippolyti. Cum Valerianus ad familiam beati Hippolyti sibi prae- sentatam dixisset, Considerate aetates vestras, ne simul pereatis cum Hippolyto domino nostro (¢ vestro) ; respondit beata Concordia, Nos desideramus potius cum domino nostro pudice mori quam impudice vivere. Ad hoc Valerianus ; Genus, inquit, servorum nisi cum suppliciis non emendatur. Et jussit ut beata Concordia cum plumbatis caederetur. Et cum caederetur, emisit spiritum, corpusque ejus est in cloacam projectum. Cumque diu quaereret illud sanctus Justinus, et non in- veniret, ita tristis redditur ut non cessarent flere oculi ejus. Tertio decimo vero die post passionem sancti Hippolyti, venit quidam miles Porphyrius nomine, ad Irenaeum cloacarium qui occulte Christianus erat, et dicit ei; Si secretum possis custodire, divulgabo arti tuae mul- tum ad quaestum ; ante hos dies jussit Valerianus praefectus in con- spectu suo quamdam creditariam Hippolyti plumbatis deficere, et corpus ejus in cloacam jactari: haec in vestibus suis spero quod margaritas habet absconsas vel aurum. Audiens haec Irenaeus, intimavit secreto beato Justino presbytero; qui flectens genua gratias egit Deo. Por- phyrius autem noctu veniens cum Irenaeo invenit corpus sanctum; sed in vestimentis nihil invenerunt. Beatus autem Irenaeus vocavit ad se
360 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
quemdam Christianum Abundium nomine, et tulerunt corpus ejus et perduxerunt ad beatum Justinum; qui gratias agens Deo illud sus- cepit, et juxta corpora martyrum Hippolyti et aliorum sepelivit, vill Kalendas Septembris.
XV KAL. OCT.
Item Romae via Tiburtina, ad sanctum Laurentium, natale beati Justini presbyteri, quem beatus Sixtus ordinavit.
[After speaking of the relations of Justinus with S. Laurentius and S. Cyriaca, the account concludes :|
Hic sanctum Hippolytum et Concordiam, Irenaeum, Abundium, Cyrillam filiam Decii Caesaris, martyres, et alios plurimos sepulturis condivit. Et persecutione Decii, Galli, et Volusiani, confessionis gloria insignissimus fuit.
Romae, in crypta arenaria, sanctorum martyrum Narcissi et Cre- scensionis.
VII KAL. SEPT.
Item natalis sanctorum Irenaei et Abundi Romae; quos Deciana persecutione jussit Valerianus incloacari eo quod corpus beatae Con- cordiae cloacam missum levaverunt. Et ipsorum quoque corpora levavit Justinus presbyter et sepelivit in crypta juxta beatum Lauren- tium. |
XV KAL, NOV.
Item Romae sanctae Triphoniae uxoris Decii Caesaris ; quae, viro suo post interfectionem beatorum Sixti et Laurent divinitus punito, petiit baptizari cum filia Decii Cyrilla a Justino presbytero ; et alia die defuncta est ac juxta Hippolytum in crypta sepulta quinto decimo Kal. Novembris.
VIII KAL. NOV.
Ipso die Romae via Salaria natalis quadraginta et octo militum, qui simul baptizati a beato Dionysio papa; et mox jubente Claudio imperatore decollati sunt. Quorum corpora noctu collegerunt beatus Justinus presbyter et Joannes, et sepelierunt in crypta cum multitudine Christianorum in via Salaria in clivum Cucumeris viii Kal. Novembris, ubi positi sunt et alii martyres centum viginti et unus. Inter quos fuerunt quatuor milites Christi, Theodosius, Lucius, Marcus, et Petrus. Hi videntes ad se venire armatos, rogabant ut primi decollarentur. Scriptum in passione sanctorum martyrum Sixti, Laurentii, et Hippolyti.
V KAL. NOV.
Romae sanctae Cyrillae filiae Decii Caesaris quae sub Claudio principe jugulata et necata est gladio, ac sepulta a Justino presbytero cum matre sua juxta sanctum Hippolytum.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 361
43. MeEN«#a [a.D. ?].
Jan. 30 (p. 230, ed. Venet. 1877). "A@dnots Tov ayiov tepoyaptupos ‘ImmoAdvtov tama “Poyys Kat tov odv a , Af A \ A lal avtTw Kevooupivov, SaBatvov, Xpvoyjs, kat tov Nowrav" ToApy Oardaccav ‘Immedvtos cicdvver e / 7 2 , f oia Kpoatvwy immos év dei rédw * * * e / / a » ea ImzoXvtov TOovTOU TpLaKOOTH EKTaVE pevpa. Autry 7 tepa. opapyupis UrApxev ext THS Baotrcias KAavdiov, 7yenovevovros / lal \ > / ¢ , / \ c x “ Aixapiov tod Kat OvAriov “Pwpvrov kadovpévov’ kal o pev Kevooupivos, payirtpos dv Kal TH Bacirel ayarupevos, éo€Beto Tov Xpicrov AeAnOoTws \ a a c , 3 x \ 3 f > eer kal tov Xpirtiavav vrepnorilero’ yvwobeis de amexdeicOn ev pvdraxy eva vexpov avactnoas émeice TavTas TOUS OTpaTWTas TIOTEDTAL TO Xpict@’ oitiwes tpoorager Too Tupavvov amexehadiabynoav, Kat ory avTots c / A A € / e \ a / \ 9 pakapia Xpvof Kai o TavTns vroupyos ZaPaivos, mpotepov moAXas uTopeivavtes Tyuwpias dia To dSiaKoveivy Tois aylows Kal Tovs ixapas avTav exuaooe Kal €avtovs ddecperv. Tatra pafwv 0 paKkapwwitatos mamas ‘ImmdAvtos, CyAw Oeiw ki7nfeis, ne Nur \ , \ / c <a , a a mr\Ge Kat nreyEe Tov tYpavvov Kata mpocwrov. oO dé Ureplécas TH Ovpo Tpatov pev avtov éBacavice peta TOV akoAovfovvTwy avTd TpecBuTépwv Kal SuaKovwv Kal TOU érioKOTOU" €iTA OnTAS AUTOV TAS XElpas Kal TOUS Tddas év TO BvOG THs Oadracons éppule, Kal ovTws éreAcwOnoav. This is found also in the AZenologium of Basil (Patrol. Graec. CXVI. p. 285, Migne) almost verbatim; but the words tov kai OvAriov ‘Pwpdtrov kadovpévov are omitted. Hippolytus however is called raza simply without the addition of ‘Pops.
August toth (p. 53). TH v tod abrod pyvos pvnyn Tov ayiwv paptipwv Aavpevtiov apxe- dvaxovov, Zicrov rama “Pwynys, cat ‘Imrodvrov. * *% % Tov ‘ImmoAvtov tmrodécpuov Brérw évavTiov TacxXovTa TH KAnoe Talos. omtycav dexaty Aavpevtiov jute ixOuv. [The charge of Xystus to Laurentius and the Martyrdom are then recorded as in the Latin Acts. |
3 HicaxGets 54 Aavpévtios 0 dpxidiaKovos Kal Ta lepa ypypata amactov- > 7 en F \ ‘ \ N Nu es Z a , \ pevos, aityoas apagas Kal Aa Boy tovs xwAovs Kal avamrnpous, ots Sveverpe TA 4 \ a e , > , »” \ ‘ , a Xpypara, Kat tals apatas emuotiBaoas, yyaye mpos Tov PBacir€a: ods
362 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
iowv Kal opy.o eis KeAeveL TOV ayLov Aavpevtiov tupOjvar opodpas, €lTa, A An > a r al > e , Pa) / of ‘ 9 ae BrnPjva ev tH pvdaky. ev N yevouevos lato TavTas OTOL Tpos aUTOV > , ra, apts r , ¢ € A , epoiTwv, W GV EKUTTOS KATELXETO VOONMATL. aTrEp O tpiBovvos KadAXivikos Brérwv, 0 kat TH eipKtTH emiotaray, ériotevoe TH XpioTd Kal eBarricOy. ‘\ lal be / ce i Pi “ “ \ \ a] \ peta ToUTO 0€ TapiaTata. Oo ayltos Aavpevtios TH Baoire, kat pn reoUets Oicar tors cidwros ert eoydpas amAodTa, Kdtwlev VparTopevov Tupds: \ a) 2 a a lal 3 , > ~ A nw \ , lal Kat ev avTy TO Oe@ evxapioTyoas adynKe TO TvEVpA, Kal KNnoElas THS ] , \ ae y 4 opeAopmevyns Tapa TOV Ir7roAvrov TUYXGVEL. Totro yvovs 0 Bactdeds Kal petateupapevos aitoy éxéAevoe Kivapais an na > 7 ad 2 / © iS. rae," ‘ oLonpats paotiywOnvas, eira immo mpoodeOjvat ayplo.ss vp wv emt ToAv tA lal n~ \ nA , / \ o Cal ¢ / ec , cupopevos TO MeO TO Tvedpa mapeOero. Neyerau d€ OTL ™ éBdopy np-Epa. \ \ 6 an Q 7 c Xr. , 4 > A , >. QA peta TO Tale TOV ayLov Imz7oAvrtrov Aextos Kat OvadXeptavos KaOywevor ETL Tov immrov avtav tov adixerOar Tpos To O€atpov é&érvevoay, Kpagas O , 5 ~ 7 lal “4 c na > c Ve c 3 , ts Aex.os €v TH wpa Tov Gavatov avtov: °Q ‘Im7modute, ws aixuadwrov ovTw / > 4 A XA ‘\ c > , 3 & Sedepevoy amrayels ME; éxpage O€ Kal O OvadXepiavos: Ivpivais pe Katyvats oo o lal \ A / tay, \ > / A , ovtws €AKeis; TovTo be OyAov yeyove Ka OAV THY OiKOUPEVHV, KaL TAVTES > / ol , “~ 4 is mn > lal n~ &e c , 5 A éorepewOnoav TH micte: TOD Kupiov nudv “Incot Xpiotov, 6 7 dogo eis Tovs alovas. pny. The same account is given in a much abridged form in the Meno- logium of Basil (Patrol. Graec. CXvIl. p. 580, Migne).
44. S. Petrus Damianus [c. A.D. 1060].
Epistola ad Nicolaum If (Hippol. Of. 1. p. xi, ed. Fabricius).
Beatus quoque Nonus martyr, qui et Hippolytus, memoriae nostrae non praetereundus occurrit; qui nimirum postquam triginta millia Sara- cenorum ad Christi fidem efficacissima praedicatione convertit, post- quam beatam quoque Pelagiam de lupanaribus ad ecclesiae pudicitiam provocavit, postquam denique nonnullos sanctarum expositionum libros luculenter explicuit, tandem episcopatum deseruit, de Antiochenis par- tibus unde erat oriundus abscessit, Romanos fines appetiit: cumque beata Aurea apud Ostiam civitatem saxo cervicibus alligato in mari- nis fluctibus martyrium consummasset, beatus Nonus sanctum cada- ver pia devotione collegit et cum omni diligentia tumulavit. Quem mox idem persecutor, qui dicebatur Ulpius, juxta Tyberis alveum in foveam aquis plenam mergi praecipit; cujus postmodum corpus con- summato triumphali martyrio in civitate, quae Portus dicitur, Christiana devotio sepelivit. Illico audita vox veluti infantium per unam fere horam clamantium, Deo gratias. Qui ergo talem vitae meruit clau- sulam, liquido patuit quia episcopatum deserens coram Deo non incurrit offensam.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 363
45. Passio Sancti Sixt1 LAURENTII HI1PPOLyYTI.
Hippolytus Romanus p. xiii, ed. Lagarde.
Xystus igitur Romae urbis episcopus apud Athenas natus et doctus, prius quidem philosophus, postea vero Christi discipulus, audiens Decium Caesarem Romam esse venturum ait;
[He gives instructions in the face of the coming persecution; en- trusting his archdeacon Laurence with ‘universas facultates ecclesiae’. The treasures are sold by the archdeacon and distributed to the poor. Decius arrives, bringing with him two Persians, Abdo and Sennes, bound for the name of Christ. The tyrant puts Abdo and Sennes to death. Their bodies] noctu a Christianis sublata sunt et posita in cimiterio Pontiani die iii Kal. Augusti. Post haec autem jussit ad se adduci Xystum urbis episcopum.
[Xystus is then condemned to death. |
Decollatus est autem extra muros urbis via Appia in loco qui ap- pellatur clivus martyrum. Rapuerunt autem Christiani corpus ejus et posuerunt in cimiterio Calisti die octavo Id. Aug. Eodem namque die Decius Caesar adduci in conspectum suum beatum Laurentium prae- cepit et ait; Ubi sunt thesauri ecclesiae quos penes te esse cognovimus? Cui beatus Laurentius dicit; Biduo mihi dentur induciae, ut ex omnibus ecclesiis universa deferam. Tunc Caesar jussit ut sub custodia Hip- polyti ducis Laurentius ageret.
{Laurentius converts his guard Hippolytus by his words and deeds. He is then handed over to Valerianus the Prefect of the city, and put to death by roasting on a gridiron. |
Die vero eadem rapuit corpus ejus Hippolytus et condivit aro- matibus et posuit in crypta abditissima quarto iduum augustarum, fecitque illic biduum jejunans et orans. Egressus autem tertia die Hippolytus venit ut ingrederetur domum, et priusquam caperet cibum, a militibus conprehensus est et perductus ad Caesarem. Cui Caesar ait: Numquid et tu magus effectus es, ut corpus Laurentii abstulisse dicaris? Sanctus Hippolytus, cujus jam gloriae corona parata erat, ad laudem intrepidus respondens dixit: Hoc feci non quasi magus sed ut Christianus. Quo audito Decius Caesar ira commotus jussit os ejus contundi lapidibus et exui eum vestem quam habuit et extensum ad cardos ferreos caedi. Post haec autem seminecem jussit duci extra urbem et pedes ejus ligari pedibus equorum indomitorum et dimitti
364 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
in cardeto. Dum autem eum traherent, reddidit spiritum. Tunc corpus ejus rapuerunt Christiani et posuerunt in crypta, quae est juxta agrum praetorianum die id. aug. Post diem autem septimum passionis ejus dedit munera Decius et sedit in curru una cum Valeriano prae- fecto urbis; ut jam descenderent et amphitheatrum introirent, uno momento ambo expiraverunt. Clamabat autem Decius in hora mortis suae dicens: O Hippolyte, quasi captivum me vinctum ducis. Vale- rianus autem clamabat: O Laurenti, igneis me catenis vinxisti et trahis.
46. Acta SS. Cyriaci, HIPPOLYTI, AUREAE, ETC.
Hippolytus Romanus, p. v (ed. Lagarde).
MAPTYPION TOY ALIOY KYPIAKOY, iITTOAYTOY, MAazZIMOY, YPYCAC, KAl TON AOITTION.
"Ev tats ypépars KAavdiov tod tapavopov Bacidéws, mapovtos PiKaptov OvAriov ‘Pwopvddov, péyiotos avnpOy dwwypos Tots THViKADTA ovaW Xprotia- vols. Hv ovv Tis avnp Kevooupivos x.7.X.
(Then follows the account of the good confession of Censurinus who is accordingly imprisoned at Ostia, where he is visited and looked after by one Chryse of royal race, who had undergone many persecutions for Christ. The priest Maximus and the deacon Archelaus offer spiritual ministrations. The guards of Censurinus are struck by a miracle wrought and by exhortations spoken by Maximus. |
Tore opoupadov adravres avtav, 6 Te BAALE, MaEipos, Tavpivos, “EpKov- Avavos, NeBépios, Sropakivos, Myvas, Kopupodc.os, “Epps, Madpos, EvcéBuos, “‘Pwortikios, Movakpios, “Apavotvos, “OAvpmios, Kumpios, Kai @eddwpos o
lal » € \ oy \ \ , lal , / TpiBovvos, eBadov EavTovs apna mpos TOUS Todas TOD pakapiwraTov Magimou TOU mpeo BuTEepov.
[They are all baptized and looked after by Chryse; and Cyriacus the bishop anoints and seals them. Then follows the story of the shoe- maker, who having lost his son, a child of twelve years, is converted to Christ. The child is restored to life and christened Faustinus. Owing to this resurrection, Chryse is accused of magic, and tortured on the wheel and in other ways. Cyriacus, Maximus, and Archelaus are put to death, as are also the soldiers. Cyriacus and Maximus are burned by the presbyter Eusebius on the Ostian Way, on vi Id. Aug. The other soldiers are laid near them. |
a \ aE ‘\ 2 a 4 c , , Tavpivov d€ kat EpxovAravoy év 7 UIdprw ‘Pwyns xaréxpuwer.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 365
{Then Romulus commands Chryse to be brought before him. She confesses Christ boldly. In a fury he orders her to be beaten with leaden bullets, but to no effect. |
~ \ ~ / 5 ~ "ExéXdevoe 5¢ wadw AGov péyav SecpevOnvar Kata Tod TpaxnAov avTis A ~~ Qo \ 7 A a 7 Kal ovtws kpenacbnvar ev TH Oadacoy’ yoTLWoS TO aylov TOpa TrepinOev Ews “A > A 7 e P / ce \ \ c , Tov aiyiadod: drep 0 pakapwitatos Novos 0 Kat perovopacbeis “Immodvtos , \ a / 2 a iol ee, / + 6 \ , cvvyyayev, Kal TOUTO KaTeHapey Ev TO idlw avTAS XwplM, EVHA Kal KATOKEL,
tal ~ ‘ ~ / e£wm TAY TELXewv THS OotTyTlas TOAEWS TH TPO evvéa Kadravdav YerreuPpiwv.
[Then follows the apprehension of Sabinianus a Christian, the pro- curator (émyeAntns) of that district, who is ordered to discover the whereabouts of Chryse’s treasures. Romulus orders him to be cruelly tortured. |
~ AQ > , e , e / c 4, >; ‘ ” Totro d€ akovoas 6 pakapiwtaros ‘ImmoAvtos 6 mperBitepos eAOwv Eat 3 ae wn A A > 5S yy evotiov TOD Pwpyrdrov kal Aaurpa TH pwvy cizev’ °O. abAsE x.7.A. A / TatvTa akovoas 0 doeBéeatatos “Pwyvrdros Ovp6y opddpa Kal tpocérace ‘ Ld 3 fal \ \ a , > , A Tous Todas avTod Kal Tas xElpas Sedepevoy cis BoOvvoy KataxpynpvicOjvat. ~ ° , ce , , > - , >. \ , 4 Tov ovv pakapiov ‘ImroAvtouv BvbiLopévou év TH Teixer eis TOV BoOvvov TopToV ‘\ > / 7 ° yy \ 3 4 c \ / Tov avayopevopevov Ildptov (sic), advw dwvn nxovobn woe dSiactypatos ”? a“ A A \ A a wpas pas, Kabdrep vytinv Neyovtwv edxapiotias TO Ocg Kal év TO TaAVTA
eizely adynKev TO Teva TO Kupiw TH po Sexapuds Kadavddy SerreuBpiwv.
[The rest of the story is taken up with the martyrdom of Sabinianus which is placed v Kal. Febr. |
§ 2. MODERN LITERATURE.
There is no complete edition of the works of Hippolytus. Of the Philosophumena, as a whole, the best and most convenient text is that of Duncker and Schneidewin, but the first book has been edited with special care by Diels; of the other Greek remains, that of Lagarde. The fragments preserved in Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic, must be sought elsewhere. Migne’s edition of the Greek works (without the Piz/osophu- mena) is very Convenient as containing a reprint of the most important parts of Fabricius and De Magistris, besides other materials from older writers.
Of the several lists of the literature connected with Hippolytus the fullest is in Richardson’s Azblographical Synopsis of Antenicene
366 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. -
Literature, Buffalo 1887. The plan of my own list differs from his. My aim is not completeness, but usefulness. For this reason I have struck out a large number of works which have been superannuated either by the discovery of the Phz/osophumena or from other causes. On the other hand I have introduced very many (e.g. a complete list of De Rossi's articles in the Bz//ettino, which bear directly or indirectly on the subject), because I have found them of great use, even where they did not bear the name of Hippolytus on their face. For this same reason also I have mentioned a few of the principal works on the Muratorian Canon, because in the subsequent discussions (see below, p. 405 sq) I have connected it with Hippolytus.
A. £ditions.
BARDENHEWER Des Heiligen Hippolytus v. Rom Commentar zum Buche Daniel (Freiburg im Br. 1877).
Canisius Lectiones Antiguae 11. p. 218 (ed. Basnage 1725). The Chronica in one Latin version (see above I. p. 259), reprinted in Du Cange Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 23 (ed. Bonn).
De LA RvuE Onig. Ofer. 1. p. 872 sq (1st book of Philosophumena).
Diets Doxographi Graecd p. 144 sq p. 553 sq (Berolin. 1879). rst book of Phzlosophumena.
DUNCKER ET SCHNEIDEWIN S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Refuta- tionts Omnium Haeresium Libri Decem (Gotting. 1859).
FapRIclus (J. A.) S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Opera Vol. 1. (1716), Vol. 1. (1718) Hamburg. Works omitting Phzlosophumena.
GALLAND. Libliotheca Patrum i. p. 409 sq.
Tewpyiadns (B.) wept opacews tov zpodytov AavyA, in ’ExkAynoaorKy “Adybera 1885 May.
Gwynn Hermathena vi. p. 397 sq Hippolytus and his Heads against Caius; ib. vu. p. 137 (1889) Hippolytus on S. Matthew xxiv. 15— 22.
HANEBERG Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice etc. (Monachii 1870).
KENNEDY (J. H.) Commentary of St Hippolytus on the Book of Daniel (Dublin 1888).
LAGARDE fippolytus Romanus (Lips. et Lond. 1858). Works omitting Philosophumena.
Analecta Syriaca p. 91 sq (Lips. et Lond. 1858). (Fragments.)
Le Moyne Varia Sacra i. Prol. p. 23, Text p. 53 sq, Il. p. 930 sq notes (ed. 2, Lugd. Bat. 1694) Contra Graecos.
Mat (A.) Script. Vet. Coll. Nov. vu.
Biblioth. Nov. Patr. vit. Pars ui.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 367
MIGNE fatrologia Graeca X. p. 201 sq (Paris, 1857). Works omitting LPhilosophumena.
MILLER (E.) Ovigenis Philosophumena (Oxon. 1851). (Editio princeps of great part of the Phzlosophumena).
MommMsen Uever den Chronographen vom Jahre 354, p. 549 sq (Leipz. 1850), an extract from the Abhandl. der Konigl. Sachs. Gesellsch. ad. Wiaissensch. The Chronica in the second Latin version, with the accompanying works.
RoutH Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula i. p. 45 sq (ed. 2, Oxon. 1840) Contra Haeresim Noetz.
TREGELLES Canon Muratorianus (Oxf. 1867).
WorpswortH fippolytus and the Church of Rome (ed. 2, Oxf. and Cambr. 1880) Philosophumena ix (p. 62 sq); Fragm. de Universo (p. 306 sq).
B. Literature.
ALLARD fiistoire des Persécutions pendant la premitre moitié du Trotsivme Siecle p. 195 sq (Paris 1866).
ARMELLINI (T.) De prisca refutatione Haereseon Origents nomine ete. commentarius (Romae 1862).
Avpt (B.) Les Chrétiens dans ? Empire Romain (A.D. 180—249) p. 428 sq (Paris 1881).
L Eglise et [ Etat (a.D. 249—284) p. 362 sq (Paris 1885).
BaRonius Annales Ecclesiastici s. ann. 226, 229, Il. p. 407, 409 sq (Venet. 1738).
BaxMANN Dae Philosophumena u. die Peraten in Zeitschr. f. die Histor. Theol. (1860).
Benson (E. W., now ArcHeP.) Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 1, p. 188 sq (1854) Ox the Martyrdom and Commemorations of Saint Hippolytus.
BIANCHINI (F.) De Kalendario et Cyclo Caesaris et de Paschali Canone S. Hippolyté ete.
BoLuaNnpD. Acta Sanctorum Januarius Il. p. 1027 (Jan. 30 De S. Aippolyto Presbytero Antiocheno), Augustus 111. p. 4 sq (Aug. 13, De S. Mart. Romanis Hippolyto Concordia etc.), Vv. p. 504 sq (Aug. 22, De S. Lfippolyto Episc. et Mart. in Portu Romano), tv. p. 755 sq (Aug. 24 De SS. Aurea seu Chryse Virgine, Censorino, etc.).
BuNSEN (Cur. C. J.) Aippolytus and his Age (ed. 2, London, 1854).
Caspart Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols etc. Ul. p. 374 sq (Christiania 1875).
Cave Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum Historia Literaria i. p. 102 sq.
368 | EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Cruice Etudes sur de nouveaux documents des Philosophumena (Paris 1853). Histoire de l’Eglise de Rome sous les Pontificats de S. Victor, de S. Ziphirin, et de S. Calliste (Paris 1856).
De Macistris (S.) Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina (Romae 1795) (parts reprinted in Migne, p. 547).
De Rossi (G. B.) Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana
Serie Prima.
pp. 8, 16 sq, 32, 33, 47, (68 sq,.°73((1863)) Basta di §. Lorenzo fuor le mura; UU. p. 33 (1864) Scoperte nella basilica di S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; UU. p. 41 sq (1864) Le due basiliche di S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; Iv. p. 1 sq, p- 17 $q, p- 65 sq, p. 77 sq (1866) Lsame archeologico e critico della storia di §. Callisto narrata nel libro nono det Filosofument ; Iv. p. 37 sq, 63 (1866) LZ monumenti cristiani di Porto; Iv. p. 99 (1866) Lo Xenodochio di Pammachio in Porto; v. p. 49 sq (1867) I monumenti del secolo quarto spettanti alla chiesa di S. Pudenztana.
Serie Terza.
I. p. 16 sq (1876) Scoperte nell’ agro Verano e nel Sotterraneo Cimitero di Ciriaca; 1. p. 145 sq (1876) Arcosolio dipinto del Cimitero di Ctriaca ete.; 1. p. 5 sq (1877) 2 museo epigrafico Cristiano Pio-Lateranense (see p. 15 sq); VI. p. 5 Sq (1881) La Silloge epigrafica d’un codice gia corbetense etc.; V1. p. 26 sq (1881) Llogio Damasiano del celebre [ppolito martire sepolto presso la via Tiburtina; vi. p. 86 sq (1881) Dello scavo fatto nell’ antica basilica di S. Lorenzo per collocare ul sepolcro di Pio LX ete.; VI. p. 93 sq (1881) L’epitafio metrico del papa Zostmo sepolto in SS. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano.
Serie Quarta.
I. p. 9 sq (1882) 22 Cimitero di S. Ippolito presso la Via Tiburtina e la sua principale cripta storica ora dissepolta ; 1. p. 76 (1882) Continuazione delle scoperte nella cripta storica e nelle adjacenti gallerie del cimitero di S. L[ppolito; u. p. 60 sq (1883) Tscrizione storica det tempi di Damaso papa nel Cimitero di S. Ippolyto; iW. p. 7 sq (1884, 1885) L Carmi di S. Damaso; Vv. p- 60 sq (1887) Zhe Hippolytus of the Appian Way.
Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae i. p. Uxx1x sq De Hippoliti Cyclo inventione, etc.; 11. p. 72 sq Sylloge Centulensis p. 82.
Roma Sotterranea i. p. 178 sq, 181, LVotices in the Ltinerartes; p. 263 sq The Hippolytus of the Appian Way; 1. p. 23 sq The Hippolytus of the Appian Way; ii. p. 193—226 (The Acts of Hippolytus and the Greek Martyrs, and the Arenartum Hippolytt), 301—312, 317.
DOLLINGER Hippolytus and Kallistus (Regensburg 1853).
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 360
DRASEKE Zu Pseudo-Hippolytos (Contra Beronem etc.) in Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. X. p. 342 sq (1884); Zu Hippolytos Demonstratio adv. Judaeos, ib. X11. p. 456 sq (1886).
Beron und Pseudo-Fippolytos in Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theol. Xxx. p. 291
sq (1886). DucHESNE (L.) Liber Pontificalis Tome 1 (1886); Tome 1, Fascicule i (1888).
ErRBES Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von Antio- chien in Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. xv. p. 611 sq (1888).
Fapricius 4ibliotheca Graeca vil. p. 183 sq, ed. Harles r8or.
Funk Theolog. Quartalschr. LXit. p. 277 sq (1881) Lst der Basilides der Philosophumen Pantheist? Lx. p. 423 sq (1881) Ueber den Verfasser der Philosophumenen; LXvi. p. 104 sq (1884) Die Zeit der EHippolyt-statue.
GRUBER Die Ophiten (Wirzburg 1864).
GUNDERT Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. Xvi. p. 209 Sq, XVII. pp. 37 Sq, 443 Sq.
GUTSCHMID (A. vy.) Ueber die Verhiltniss d. Hippolytischen Liber Genera- tionts etc. zu Julius Africanus (1856).
HaGEMANN Die Rémische Kirche (Freiburg 1864).
Harnack Dogmengeschichte i. p. 437 sq and elsewhere (1886).
Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus (Leipzig 1873), ZLettschr. f. Histor. Theol. p. 170.
Heinrici Die Valentianische Gnosis etc. (Berlin 1871).
Hesse (F. H.) Das Muratorische Fragment (Giessen 1873).
HILGENFELD Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol. v. p. 400 sq (1862) Der Gnosticis- mus und die Philosophumena; XX1. p. 228 sq (1878) Der Basilides des Lippolytus.
Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums (Leipzig 1884).
Hort in Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. 1. p. 268 s.v. Basilides.
Jacosi Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Christl, Wiss. 1851 no. 25; 1853 no. 24. Herzog’s Real-Encyhlopidie s.v. Hippolytus ed. 2 (1880). Brieger’s Zeitscthr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p. 481 sq (1878) Das ursprungliche Basilidianische System.
JuncMANN WDissertationes in Histor. Eccles. p. 173 sq (Ratisbon 1880).
Kime (E. J.) De Hippolyti Vita et Scriptis (Jena 1839).
LANGEN (J.) Geschichte der Rimischen Kirche (Bonn 1881).
Liesius (R. A.) Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Wien 1865).
Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte (Leipzig 1875). Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. iv. s.v. Valentinus.
CLEM. II. 24
370 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
LumpER Histor. SS. Pair. vi. p. 1 sq (Aug. Vind. 1791); reprinted in Migne.
Notte Theolog. Quartalschr. 1862 p. 624 sq
OVERBECK Quaestionum Hippolytearum Specimen (Jena 1864).
R&vILLE (A.) Revue des. Deux Mondes 1865, i. p. 892; Saint Hippolyte et la Société Chretienne de Rome au commencement du ILI’. Siecle. ©
RoEPER (G.) Philologus vu. p. 511 Sq, 607 sq, 767 (1852).
Ruccerius (Const.) De Portuensi S. Hippolyti Eptscopi et Martyris Sede etc. (Romae 1771), reprinted in Lumper and in Migne. SALMON in Smith-Wace Duct. of Christ. Biogr. 1. p. 506 sq, 509,
Chronicon Canisianum, Chronica Hlorosii; u. p. 679 Gnosticism ; ul. p. 85 sq, Aippolytus Romanus ; iv. p. 80 Ophites etc. Hlermathena 1. p. 82 sq (1874) Chronology of Hippolytus; XI. p- 389 sq (1885) Cross-references in the Philosophumena. Infallibility of the Church, p. 382 sq (London 1888). SmMEDT Dissertationes Selectae (Ghent 1876) De Auctore Philosophumenon p-. 83 sq. TILLEMONT AZemoires I. p. 238 sq, 672 sq. Uxntyorn Das Basilidianische System (Gottingen 1855). VOLKMAR Lippolytus und die Romischen Zeitgenossen (Zurich 1855). Westcott Canon of the New Testament Appendix C (ed. 6, 1888) Muratorian Canon. WorpswortTu (Bp Chr.) S¢ Aippolytus and the Church of Rome (ed. 2, Oxf. and Cambr. 1880).
§ 3. NAMESAKES OF S. HIPPOLYTUS.
Among these stands foremost the hero of Greek story, who has bequeathed not only his name, but also the myth of his death, to the Christian theologian and bishop. I need not however dwell now on this inherited legend, of which I shall have to speak hereafter. I would only remark on one other point of contact, which (over and above the name) might suggest the propriety of adapting the legend of the earlier Hippolytus to the later. The son of Theseus was the type and embodiment of continence in Greek mythology. The opponent of Zephyrinus and Callistus was the champion of purity in the Church— the severe opponent of any laxity which might endanger the virgin discipline of the Christian brotherhood,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 371
But my business now is rather with those contemporaries or nearly contemporaries—real or imaginary persons—who have been blended with the hero of the Tiburtine Way, and thus have confused his per- sonality and involved his history in endless perplexity. Of such name- sakes I single out five.
(1) ippolytus the martyr of Antioch. Déllinger (p. 51 sq) sup- posed that he had read the riddle of this Antiochene martyr’s creation ; and indeed his solution seemed, with the imperfect knowledge which they then possessed, to be highly plausible. He supposed that the same passage of Eusebius which, as translated by Rufinus, had be- stowed on Hippolytus the see of Bostra (see below, p. 428), had also, as adopted by Jerome’, transformed him into a presbyter of Antioch. The notice in the Chronicon of Jerome (Euseb. Chron. 1. p. 179) under the year 227 is ‘Geminus presbyter Antiochenus et Hippolytus et Beryllus episcopus Arabiae Bostrenus clari scriptores habentur.’ Dollinger postulates the omission of ‘et’ in some copies, so that the connexion ‘presbyter Antiochenus Hippolytus’ would be established In the Hreronymian Martyrology we have under iii Kal. Febr. (Jan. 30)
In Antiochia passio sancti Hippolyti martyris. Moreover on the previous day (Jan. 29) we have iv Kal. Feb. Hippolyti episcopi de antiquis,
and on the succeeding (Jan. 31) there is also a mention of a Hippolytus. These all doubtless represent the same person, the notices having been derived from different but allied sources. Accordingly in the Of Roman Martyrology there is a similar notice on the same day
Antiochiae passio sancti Hippolyti,
and consequently his name occurs in this place in Ado and the later Latin Martyrologies. But Dollinger’s hypothesis offers no explanation of the difference of the day, iii Kal. Feb. in place of Id. Aug.
The publication of Wright’s Syriac Martyrology shows that this Antiochene Martyr Hippolytus was a real person celebrated on this day from the beginning.
Later Kanun [Jan.] 30 In the city of Antioch, Hippolytus.
Here, as elsewhere, the contents of this ancient list have found their
1 See AR.8.k. So far as regards to him elsewhere (Vir. /W/ustr. 64), where Hippolytus and Beryllus this notice is he describes him as ‘ Antiochenae eccle- taken from Euseb. H. £Z. vi. 20; but — siae presbyter,’ who flourished under the Eusebius does not mention Geminus. Je- emperor Alexander. rome himself however devotes a few lines
24—2
372 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
way into the Roman Martyrologies through the so-called Hieronymian. But they can tell us nothing about him; except that they transfer to him the notice ascribing the lapse into Novatianism and recantation which belongs first to the Roman Hippolytus. The Greek books are equally ignorant of any circumstances relating to the life or martyrdom of this Antiochene Hippolytus. But the A/enea, like the later Latin Martyrologies, clothe him with borrowed plumage taken from the martyr of the Tiburtine Way—adopting however not the Novatianism but the incidents of the Chryse legend as told in the Roman story (see AR. 44). But both Eastern and Western Martyro- logies preserve for this Antiochene Hippolytus his proper day.
This Hippolytus therefore is a real person distinct from any Roman Hippolytus, as the Syriac Martyrology (p. 646) shows; and it is strange that a modern critic, Erbes, should have confused the two and imagined that he had found support for his theory of the Antiochene origin of the Roman Hippolytus. But he does not seem to have seen the notice in the Syriac Martyrology, which is the key to the whole position. I may mention by the way that the expression, ‘of the ancients,’ de antiguis, 1s Characteristic of this Syriac Martyrology and designates those martyrs and confessors who perished in some earlier persecution than the last under Diocletian, which was recent when the list was first drawn up.
(2) Hippolytus, the Alexandrian connected with Dionysius. In his account of the letters of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 249— 265), the historian Eusebius (4 Z. vi. 46) mentions among others one addressed to the Romans, which he describes as duaxovixy dia “ImroAvtov. This Hippolytus therefore must have been the delegate who was charged with delivering the letter. What may have been the purport of this letter dvaxovixy, de ministerizs or de diaconis, we cannot say. But as we are told on contemporary authority (see I. p. 255) that Fabianus bishop of Rome (fA. D. 250) about that time ‘regiones divisit dia- conibus,’ it is a reasonable conjecture that the letter had some reference to these arrangements. Cornelius the successor of Fabianus informs us (Z7.£. vi. 43) that there were in the Roman Church in his time ‘seven deacons and seven subdeacons.’ We may therefore believe that there is some truth in the notice of the Liber Pontificalis (1. p. 64) found even in its earlier form (c. A.D. 530), which adds to the con- temporary notice above quoted ‘et fecit vii subdiaconos qui septem notarlis imminerent ut gesta martyrum fideliter colligerent.’ At all events this division of the city by Fabianus among the seven deacons was sufficiently important in the eyes of the contemporary chronicler to
HIPPOLYTUS OF -PORTUS. Sia
entitle it to a special notice which is unique of its kind in his chronicle. But however this may be, Hippolytus is a fairly common name, and we should want better evidence than we possess that the Roman Hippolytus was living and able to take a long journey at so very late a date; nor is there any notice which connects him even remotely with Alexandria.
(3) Aippolytus the Greek captain of brigands. In the Vottia Portarum, Viarum, Ecclesiarum, or guide book of the close of the 7th century, which William of Malmesbury has appended to his Gesta Anglorum, there is a notice referring to the papal crypt on the Appian way, ‘non longe pausant martyres Hippolitus, Adrianus, Eusebius, Maria, Martha, Paulina, Valeria, Marcellus’ (Rom. Soft. 1. p. 181). The portion of the Acts of these Greek martyrs is extant in a single Latin ms, of which the text has been carefully edited by De Rossi Rom. Sott. Wi. p. 201 sq. Baronius, who had first published them, took considerable liberties with the ms, so that his text is worth- less. The heading is; ‘Pridie Kl. Decembris festivitas sanctorum martyrum, Eusebii presbyteri, Marcelli diaconi, Hippolyti, Hadrias, Paulinae, Neon et Mariae, Maximi, Martanae, et Valeriae.’ The date given is ‘Valeriano et Lucullo consulibus’’ [4.pD. 265], but the persecut- ing emperor is represented to be Decius [a.D. 250—252] and the Roman bishop Stephen [a.p. 254—257]. They begin by describing how ‘ Hippolytus the monk’ lived in the crypts (‘in cryptis’) where he gathered together the believers in secret. The place is more than once called ‘arenarium.’ Paulina, the wife of Hadrias, is the sister of Hip- polytus, and Maria and Neon are their children, aged thirteen and ten respectively. They are all converted and undergo martyrdom, though not at the same time. Paulina suffers first, together with Eusebius the priest and Marcellus the deacon, and they are buried by Hippolytus in the ‘arenarium’ at the first mile-stone from the city. Then Neon and Maria; and they too are buried, vi Kal. Nov., ‘in ipsa via Appia milliario ab urbe Roma primo in arenario ipso ubi consueverant convenire.’ A few days afterwards Hadrias and Hippolytus are seized and beaten to death. Their bodies are left ‘in eodem loco juxta insulam Lycaoniam’; but a certain deacon* comes by night and reverently deposits them in the same ‘arenarlum’ with the rest v Id. Nov. Nine months later two
1 De Rossi has been able to explain * The present text says ‘ venit quidam how a false consular date became attached Hippolytus diaconus noctu’; but obvi- to this persecution, Bzzl/. di Archeol. ously the transcriber through carelessness Crist. 1887, p. 65. has substituted the wrong name.
374 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Greek Christian ladies, Martana and her daughter Valeria, arrive in Rome. ‘They also die as confessors, apparently starved to death; and are buried in the same place iv Id. Dec.
Though these Acts are free from the accumulation of horrors and of miracles which condemn so many other accounts of martyrdom, their chronological inconsistencies, not to mention other signs, show that they cannot be a contemporary or nearly contemporary record. De Rossi (&. S. 11. p. 200) contents himself with stating that in their present form they ought not to be placed later than about the eighth century.
We have however older evidence for the story than these Acts in two inscriptions which were read by the medieval pilgrims in the ce- metery of Callistus in the neighbourhood of the papal crypt. They run as follows ;
NATA MARIA SIMUL CARO CUM FRATRE NIONE GAUDENTES SACRAM PROMERUERE FIDEM
DIVITIAS PROPRIAS CHRISTI PRAECEPTA SECUTI PAUPERIBUS LARGA DISTRIBUERE MANU
QUORUM PRECLARIS MONITIS MULTOQUE LABORE ACCESSIT SUMMO SANCTA CATERVA DEO
POST ANIMAS CHRISTO TRADENTES SANGUINE FUSO UT VITAM CAPERENT NON TIMUERE MORI
HORUM VIRTUTES QUEM PASSIO LECTA DOCEBIT RITE SUIS FAMULIS DISCET ADESSE DEUM
OLIM SACRILEGAM QUAM MISIT GRAECIA TURBAM MARTYRII MERITIS NUNC DECORATA NITET; QUAE MEDIO PELAGI VOTUM MISERABILE FECIT REDDERE FUNEREO DONA NEFANDA JOVI. YPOLITI SED PRIMA FIDES CELESTIBUS ARMIS RESPUIT INSANAM PESTIFERAMQUE LUEM. QUEM MONACHI RITU TENUIT SPELUNCA LATENTEM CHRISTICOLIS GREGIBUS DULCE CUBILE PARANS POST HUNC ADRIAS SACRO MUNDATUS IN AMNE ET PAULINA SUO CONSOCIATA VIRO. xili K. JUN.
These inscriptions are given by De Rossi Rom. Soft. 111. p. 194 (comp. I. p. 263) and in Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. u. p. 66 sq. For reasons which seemed satisfactory, but which it is unnecessary to repeat here,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 375
De Rossi had inferred that these inscriptions must be anterior to the 7th century and were probably written in the 5th or at the latest in the 6th (111. p. 197). A few letters of the first inscription itself have been discovered very recently (Bud/. di Archeol. Crist. 1887, p. 60 sq), which fully confirm this surmise. They suggest the age of Symmachus as the date of the inscription. The fragment contains the date v Id. Nov. at the heading, which is the day of Hippolytus’ martyrdom.
Our evidence however goes much farther back than this date. In the inscription which pope Damasus (A.D. 366—384) placed in or near the papal crypt he enumerated the illustrious dead who were buried there (see Rom. Soft. 11. p. 23; comp. Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom, 1. p. 66); and among these are specified
HIC POSITUS LONGA VIXIT QUI IN PACE SACERDOS HIC CONFESSORES SANCTI QUOS GRAECIA MISIT,
where we have evidently a reference to this same group of Greek martyrs and confessors of whom this Hippolytus was the chief; though he does not tell us any particulars about them. To one of this group, possibly to Hippolytus himself, may refer the Damasian verses Juser. Christ. Urb. Rom. i. p. 108, where he apostrophizes a certain martyr ‘quod fama refert, te Graecia misit,’ but it throws no additional light on the subject.
Comparing the extant Acts with the inscriptions above cited, which once were read in the cemetery of Callistus, we see that these Acts take up the story at a late point, after the conversion of Hippolytus. They must therefore have lost their beginning; or at all events they presuppose some previous document giving an account of the earlier history. This story related how Hippolytus was the captain of a band of Greek robbers ; how on his voyage he had vowed a vow to Stygian Jove (funereo Jovi) or Pluto; how arrived at Rome he had established himself in an arenarium or disused cave whence sand had been ex- tracted ; how he had been converted to the Christian faith and exchanged the life of a free-booter for the life of a recluse (‘monachi’); how he had been instrumental in the conversion of his companions and gathered together a Christian congregation in this cave; and how finally he had left this arenarium as a catacomb (‘dulce cubile’) for Christian folk—he himself and his companions being buried there.
These are doubtless the martyrs who are commemorated in the Hieronymian Martyrology under xiii Kal. Jul., where the notice as corrected by De Rossi (Rom. Sott. 1. p. 2643; comp. ill. p. 197) from a comparison of Mss runs
376 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Romae in coemeterio Hippolyti sanctorum Honorii, Evodii, Petri, Valeriae, etc.’
thus giving xiii Kal. Jul. where the inscription (as transcribed) has xiii Kal. Jun., so that there must be an error in the one or the other. This is a very common form of blunder, see e.g. /gnat. and FPolyc., Ep. 000, eo. 1; p..633, ed. 2.
On this notice De Rossi points out that the consuls of the year 386, Honorius and Evodius, are mixed up with the names of the martyrs, probably (as he suggests, 111. p. 197) because the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius, commemorated on this same day (xiii Kal. Jul.), were discovered in this year. Marcellus is connected with these Greek martyrs in the Acts, as we have seen; but of Petrus, here associated with them, no account has been given. Of Maria and Neon there are some traces though very corrupt in this M/artyrology under vi Kal. Nov. The bodies of Hippolytus, Adrias, Maria, Neon and Paulina were de- posited in S, Agatha of the Suburra under Leo IX (a. D. 1048—1054); but whether they were translated thither straight from their original resting place we do not know.
A description of the catacomb supposed by De Rossi to be the arenarium of Hippolytus to the N.E. of the cemetery of Callistus is given in Rom. Sott. U1. p. 213 8q, p. 301 sq (see Tay. xlii—xlv). He places it in the second half of the third and beginning of the fourth century. From this sanctuary on the Appian Way, not from the more famous cemetery on the Tiburtine, was taken in the year 1646 the sepulchral in- scription bearing the words aT EPOLITV (ad Hippolytum); see om. Sott. 11. p. 215, Bull. dt Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 48. 3
(4) Hippolytus the soldier, the warder of S. Laurence. Much has been written on the supposed confusion of Hippolytus the theologian and Hippolytus the soldier; and not a few critics have found in this confusion the key to most of the perplexities which confront us in the story of Hippolytus. I shall have occasion to discuss the whole subject at a subsequent point; and it will then be shown that this was not a case of confusion. ‘There was no Hippolytus the warder of S. Laurence distinct from Hippolytus the famous divine: but at a very late period in his legendary career popular opinion transformed him from a cleric into a soldier, connecting him at the same time with S. Laurence.
1 In the Berne Ms, generally our best pian way with the more famous Cemetery authority for the text of this Wartyrology, ofthe more famous Hippolytus ; see Rom. the scribe has inserted VIA TIBVRTINA, Sof¢z. 11. p. 198. thus confusing this arenarium on the Ap-
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 377
(5) Lippolytus of Thebes, a writer of the eleventh century; on whom see Fabricius 4707. Graec. vu. p. 198 sq, ed. Harles. Fragments of this writer are included in Fabricius Hippol. Of. 1. App. p. 43 sq. He is © quoted by Michael Glycas as ‘ImreAutos 0 OnBatos. In Niceph. Call. H. E. ii. 3 a fragment of this writer is given as from Hippolytus és Iloprov ris mpecBurépas “Pudyys érioxoros érvyxavev wv. He was the author of a Chronicle (xpovixov otvtaypa). The accounts De Duodecim Afpostolis and De Septuaginta Discipulis, which have sometimes been included in the works of our Hippolytus, are his.
S$ 4. GAIUS QR AIPPOLYTUS ?
Gaius, the Roman presbyter, plays an important part in the literary history of Christianity at the opening of the third century. If the ravages of time have spared only fragments of his works, he has not been more hardly treated in this respect than many famous writers of the Antenicene Church. Even without the important fragment desig- nated the Muratorian Canon, and the elaborate Refutation of all Heresies discovered in our own generation, both of which works have been ascribed to him by some modern critics, the literary remains bearing his name with the accompanying notes occupy some thirty pages in Routh’s collection. Will it be thought audacious if I venture to question the existence of such a person ?
The works attributed to Gaius by ancient writers and included under his name by Routh are the following:
(1) The Dealogue with Proclus, directed against the Montanists. It is quoted several times by Eusebius, who mentions Gaius as the author (/7. £. ii. 25, 11; 28; 31, vi. 20).
(2) A treatise on the Cause of the Universe, directed against the Platonic’ doctrine. Photius (4. 32. a) states that certain persons attribute it to Gaius. Aconsiderable fragment of this work is extant.
(3) The Lzttle Labyrinth, from which long quotations are given by Eusebius, and which is mentioned by name by Theodoret (AR. 12 e). Of the relation of this work to the Zadyrinth of Photius I shall have something to say hereafter (p. 378 sq).
(4) A treatise Against the Heresy of Artemon, mentioned by Pho- tius (AR. 32. a) as assigned to Gaius.
378 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
But besides the works above enumerated, of whose literary parentage some account must be given, before we can dispose of Gaius, certain facts are recorded of his life, which seem at first sight to give him a substantial existence and to resist any attempt to annihilate him.
We learn from Eusebius that he was a member of the Catholic Church (éxxAyo.actixos avyp); that he was a man of great learning (Aoyuwraros); that he resided at Rome; that he held the dialogue with the Montanist Proclus during the pontificate of Zephyrinus; and that he received only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, thus excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jerome, as usual, derives all his knowledge from Euse- bius, and repeats the same statements somewhat more loosely. Theodoret only knows Gaius as the writer of the Dialogue against Proclus. Photius (AR. 32. a) is somewhat fuller. ‘This Gaius,’ he writes, ‘is reported to have been a presbyter of the Church in Rome during the pontificate of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles.’
I have already alluded to the fact that the ‘Refutation of all Heresies,’ which was brought to light less than forty years ago, was added to the literary achievements of Gaius by several able critics. This fresh honour was the immediate occasion of his downfall. The Refuta- tion is now ascribed by pretty general consent to his learned contem- porary Hippolytus. On this point the representatives of the most opposite schools—Bunsen, Wordsworth, Dollinger—are agreed; and the coincidence with respect to the authorship is the more striking, because the work affords material for manifold theological contro- versy.
Unhappily for the fame of Gaius the Refutation cannot stand alone. Its author must have written all the treatises ascribed by ancient authorities to this learned Roman presbyter with the exception of the Dialogue with Proclus.
The Treatise against Artemon may be conveniently taken first. There cannot be much doubt that this treatise is identical with the Zztile Laby- vinth mentioned by Theodoret (AR. 12. e). For though the extant fragments are directed chiefly against Theodotus, another leading monarchian, yet Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for their preser- vation, says that the work was written ‘against the heresy of Artemon’ (H. £. v. 28); and Theodoret, after mentioning both Artemon and Theodotus, says ‘against the heresy of these men was composed the Little Labyrinth,’ f
The testimony of Photius (4A. 32. a) requires careful scrutiny. After discussing the authorship of the Zveatise on the Universe he men-
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 379
tions marginal notes (év wapaypadais) to the effect that it was written by Gaius, an elder living in Rome, who they say composed Zhe Labyrinth also, and of whom a Dralogue is extant against a certain Proclus, champion of the Montanist sect; which (treatise Ox the Universe) being left anonymous has been ascribed to diverse persons, just as The Labyrinth has been ascribed by one to Origen. But ‘in truth,’ he continues, ‘it is the work of Gaius who composed Zhe Labyrinth, as he himself testifies that the 7reatise on the Nature of the Universe is his.’ ‘They say that this Gaius,’ he adds, ‘composed another treatise also specially directed against the heresy of Artemon, and an important Dialogue against Proclus, a champion of Montanus.’
What does Photius mean by this Zabyrinth ? Shall we identify it with the Zztt/e Labyrinth of Theodoret? Our first impulse is to identify the two; but, if so, Photius must have given an incorrect account, for he obviously contemplates two separate works. This however he might very well have done, since he seems not to have seen the Lii#le Labyrinth. But another solution offers itself, which deserves more consideration. There is every reason to believe that the Summary comprising the roth book of the Phzlosophumena was circulated sepa- rately from the main portion of the treatise, and fell into the hands of some who were unacquainted with the rest. Now in the opening words of this 1oth book Hippolytus says that after ‘breaking through the Labyrinth of Heresies,’ he will proceed to the Demonstration of the Truth. It would seem therefore that this summary was known as the Labyrinth from the opening words. This explains the further statement of Photius that ‘at the close of the Labyrinth he testifies that he wrote the treatise On the Nature of the Universe’; for in one of the final chapters the author of the Philosophumena (x. 32) refers his readers to this work, as his own.
But though different works are probably indicated by the Lztéle Labyrinth and the Labyrinth, the nomenclature points to the identity of authorship. The same person, who would describe a general work on heresies as penetrating a labyrinth, would select as the appropriate title for a special treatise dealing with a particular group of heresies the Little Labyrinth. Thus the reference in the Philosophumena gives an additional confirmation of the Hippolytean authorship of the treatise Against Artemon. Even before the discovery of the PAzlosophumena, Routh had suggested this as the probable inference from the facts before him’.
1 In the Fournal of Philology p. 98 sq, appeared in its original form, I had where this essay Gaius or Hippolytus? identified the Little Labyrinth of Theo-
eno. EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
The Little Labyrinth. The comparison of Eusebius with Theodoret leaves no doubt that by this name the treatise Against Artemon is meant as I have just shown. Gaius therefore is deprived of the credit of the authorship of this work. Indeed the identification of the two supplies additional grounds for turning to Hippolytus as the true author.
To Hippolytus also must be assigned the (Vature of the Universe. For this ascription there are abundant reasons, as I shall show below (p. 395 sq). It is sufficient to say here that the author of the Pefutatio distinctly claims it as his own work ; and no case has been made out for denying the Refutatio to Hippolytus. Indeed we may consider this latter point as established irrefragably, whatever doubt may have been entertained among critics at an earlier date.
[The above paragraphs are taken partly from an article which I wrote in 1868 in the Journal of Philology 1. p. 98 sq, in which I was disposed to maintain that Gaius was only the double of Hippolytus, and that a/7 the works ascribed to the former belong nghtly to the latter. Only here and there a correction of statement has been rendered necessary in the foregoing paragraphs by further knowledge. So far I adhere to my former opinions. But in the light of recent discovery, as I shall explain presently, I feel myself no longer able to maintain this extreme view. It is now quite certain that there was a certain Gaius, against whom Hippolytus wrote. Yet my former discussion seems to me worth while reproducing in part, because it brings out many difficulties attending the question which have never been solved and because it offers some suggestions which may not be useless in other ways even in the light of further knowledge. If we could suppose the writer against the Montanists to be Hippolytus, and the opponent of the Apocalypse some unknown person of the name, we should have a solution of our difficulties; but I feel that I have no right to suggest this solution, except provisionally, with the evidence now before me. |
Thus stripped of his borrowed plumage, Gaius retains only the Dialogue with Proclus the Montanist. Of this work a brief notice is given by Eusebius, who also preserves two or three short fragments. It appears from these that the dialogue professed to have been held in Rome during the pontificate of Zephyrinus ; that Gaius was the orthodox
doret with the Labyrinth of Photius, as the roth book of the Phzlosophumena writers before me had done; but the gives another aspect to the question. The investigations of subsequent critics, show- _ two can no longer, I think, be treated as ing the separate use of the Summary in titles of the same work.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 381
and Proclus the Montanist disputant ; that in defending the prophesyings of his sect Proclus appealed to the four daughters of Philip, who with their father were buried at Hierapolis; and that, as a set-off against these precious reliques, Gaius offered to show his antagonist the tombs of St Peter and St Paul, the one at the Vatican, the other on the Ostian Way. Moreover, a passage is quoted (obviously from a speech of Gaius), which, as the exact expressions have an important bearing on the subject of this paper, I shall here quote at length:
“ But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations purporting to have been written by a great apostle, lyingly imposes upon us marvellous prodigies which he professes to have been shown him by angels, saying that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is an earthly kingdom, and again that men shall live in Jerusalem in the flesh and be the slaves of lusts and pleasures. And, being an enemy to the scriptures of God, he would fain deceive, and says that a tale of a thousand years is to be spent in marriage festivities’.”
Having thus given the facts which bear upon the decision, I will state my hypothesis. Unless I am mistaken, it explains all the pheno- mena better than they have hitherto been explained ; and, if so, it may fairly claim a hearing.
Gaius is simply an interlocutor in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Gaius was his own praenomen; for then he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings. Not being a slave and being in some sense a Roman, Hippolytus must almost necessarily have had two names, if not more; just as his Alexandrian contemporary is styled in full T. Flavius Clemens, and his African contemporary Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Such a combination as Gaius Hippolytus -is natural in itself, and indeed occurs in an extant inscription found at Placentia; Q. POBLICIO L.L.c. HIPPOLYTUS*”. On the latter supposition
1 Euseb. H £. ul. 28 adda cal Xpicrov' cal wddw émidvulas al ndovais KypwOos 6 dv droxadiWewv ws vo amo- é ‘Iepovoadnu Tyy capka moNdTevomévny oro\ov meyadou yeypauuévev Tepatoroyias dovrevew. Kal éxOpos irapywy Tals ypagats hu ws oe dyyékuww at’rd Sederypévas Tod Oeod dpiOudy xudovTaetias Ev yduw Wevddmevos émerodyer, éywy pera THY éopTns OéXwv mravay Néyer yevéoOa. dvdoracw éemlyevov elvat TO Bacidevov Tov 2 Gruter, DCCCCLXXXIX. 4.
382 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
(that Gaius is an imaginary person), we may appeal to the legal formula ‘Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia,’ as suggesting that Hippolytus might avail himself of the name which corresponds to the anonymous N. or M. of our own formularies'. Of the former kind of dialogue, where the author himself is the orthodox disputant, the work of Justin against Trypho may be taken as a type: of the latter, where a fictitious person maintains the right cause, the dispute between Jason and Papiscus by Ariston of Pella will serve as an example’.
I suppose then that the copies of the Dialogue in general circulation were anonymous. The title may have run AdAoyos Tatov cat Ipdxdov (or zpos IpdxXov) 7 Kata Movravorav. A writer, into whose hands this Dialogue fell, would naturally infer, as Eusebius inferred, (and the analogy of Justin’s work would favour the inference), that Gaius was the actual author of the book. The few particulars which Eusebius gives respecting the life of Gaius were doubtless drawn from the Dialogue itself. Those which are added by Photius came from the other writings attributed to Gaius, from the Cause of the Universe or the Labyrinth, or perhaps even from the efutation itself. The critics, whom he quotes and to whom he is indebted for these particulars, had observed the cross references from one work to another and correctly inferred therefrom the identity of authorship. Among these cross references was one which connected the authorship of the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus with the other works, just as these are connected among them- selves and proved to belong to the same author. Hence Gaius assumed to be the author of the Dialogue was credited with the other works also.
This is the explanation of the fact that all the particulars, which are predicated of Gaius, are predicated or predicable of Hippolytus also. They both flourish during the same pontificates ; they are both styled ‘presbyters,’ and both live in Rome; they both receive only thirteen Epistles as written by St Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews ; they both are men of great learning, though the Roman Church for some generations before and after this time was singularly devoid of
literary eminence. And lastly, we have here an explanation of the
1 So Tertullian AZo/. 3 ‘Nemo re- tractat, ne ideo bonus Gaius et prudens Lucius, quia Christianus’; 726. 48 ‘At enim Christianus, si de homine hominem ipsumque de Gaio Gaium repromittat.’
2 The work of Minucius Felix stands midway between the two; for, while the
chief disputant on the right side is a third person, the writer himself is sup- posed to be present. Another instance of an early polemical writing thrown into the form of a dialogue is the dispute of Archelaus and Manes. (Routh’s el. Sacr. Vv. p. 3 Sq.)
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 383
otherwise not very intelligible statement, that Gaius was appointed ‘bishop of the Gentiles’ (4. 32. a); for Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office (42. 1), and addresses the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge’. If the designation ‘bishop of the Gentiles’ is not strictly correct, it was at least a very easy inference from his language in this work; and probably he expressed himself similarly elsewhere, when the occasion demanded, as for instance in the treatise on the Universe addressed to the Greeks.
To this identification of Gaius and Hippolytus another ancient notice also points. The extant manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Poly- carp profess to be derived ultimately from a copy which was ‘tran- scribed from the writings (or manuscripts or lectures) of Irenus the disciple of Polycarp by Gaius who also was intimate with Irenzeus2.’ Now I shall not stop to enquire whether this postscript to the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom contains authentic matter or not; but in any case it would seem that the transcriber here intended was none other than our Gaius, the Roman presbyter; for he is the only notable per- sonage of the name and age, whose attestation would be of value to accredit the genuineness of the narrative. If so, it is remarkable that he is represented as a disciple of Ireneus. For Hippolytus also at- tended the lectures of this father, and was much indebted to them for the materials of his earlier Compendium against Heresies. In his later Refutation also he twice mentions Irenzus as ‘the blessed elder,’ and in the second of the two passages avows his great obligations to him (Ref. Haer. vi. 42, 45). May we suppose that Gaius in the Dialogue with Proclus expresses himself similarly with respect to this father ?
Again, the hypothesis of an anonymous copy falls in with another class of facts mentioned above. The knowledge of Eusebius was limited in character and extent by the materials within his reach. To the library at Caesarea, collected by the diligence of his friend Pamphilus, we probably owe the valuable remains of early Christian literature which he has preserved to us; and, where this library was defective, his know- ledge would be defective also. Now it appears to have contained some volumes bearing the name of Hippolytus; for, though he passes over
1 x. 31, 32, 34- In the close of the Eipyvatov uadyrod rod Tlo\vkdprrov, 6s Kal
treatise, which is wanting, he may have alluded to his episcopate more directly, in connexion with the Gentiles to whom this peroration is addressed.
> n ’ \ Jee bd ~ “ Tara weteypavaro uev Taios €x rwv
guveTouTevcaTo T@ Hipnvalw; or, as it appears in the Moscow MS, ék TovTwy ov, ws mpodéXexTat, Tov Tov Eipnvatov ovy- ypauparwy Taios wereypayaro (see Jenat. and Polyc. Il. pp. 401, 403, ed. 2).
384 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
this father very lightly, he gives a list of several books written by him, adding, ‘And you may find very many works besides still extant in the hands of many persons’ (#7. Z£. vi. 22). But, in addition to the works which he enumerates, the library also contained another stray volume, from which the writer’s name was accidentally omitted, and of which Eusebius therefore did not recognise the authorship. This volume comprised the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, the Little Labyrinth, and the Cause of the Universe. ‘The first of these Eusebius ascribes to Gaius (of whom he evidently knows nothing besides), because Gaius is the orthodox interlocutor. The second he quotes but quotes anonymously, not knowing who was the author. Of the third it is worth remarking this negative fact, that he has not included it in his list of the works of Hippolytus, though it is so included in the catalogue on the statue. From its subject it probably would not assist his historical researches, and he therefore does not quote from it, and probably did not read it. In the same form also—perhaps in a copy transcribed from the arche- type in the Cesarean library—the three anonymous treatises fell into the hands of the critic or critics mentioned by Photius. They saw from the cross-references that the three works must be ascribed to the same author ; and, either following Eusebius or drawing the same easy but incorrect inference independently, they attributed the Dialogue against the Montanists to one Gaius. To Gaius therefore this anonymous volume was assigned.
But independently of the theory itself, are there reasons for sup- posing that Hippolytus ever did write against Montanism? There is at least a presumption, that so ruthless a scourge of heterodoxy in all its forms should not have left this type of error unassailed. Besides writing two general works against all the heresies—his earlier Compen- dium, the little book read by Photius, and apparently preserved (though not without considerable modifications) in the Latin treatise attached to the Praescriptio of Tertullian (see below, p. 413 sq), and his later and fuller work, the Refutation, first brought to light and published in our own generation—he likewise attacked in special treatises the more im- portant heresies which were rife in his own age and church. We have seen how he refuted the monarchian doctrines of Theodotus and Artemon, by which the Roman community was assailed about this time. We have moreover an extant fragment of a work against Noetus (whether an independent treatise or not), whose heretical views also threatened this same church in his day. He wrote likewise against Marcion. It would seem strange therefore if so persistent a champion
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 385
of orthodoxy had been silent about Montanism, which was certainly one of the most formidable antagonists of the Catholic Church among the Roman Christians at this time.
On the other hand, in the Aefiutation he dismisses this heresy very briefly. Bunsen complains that ‘the whole article is meagre,’ and fails to fulfil the promise which Hippolytus made at the outset, that he would leave no form of error unanswered. I think this meagreness is easily explained on the hypothesis which I have put forward. Just as in a previous section Hippolytus had dismissed the heresy of Theodotus (though second in importance to none in its influence on the Christian history of his time) with a very few lines’, because he had controverted it in the Little Labyrinth, so now he disposes of Montanism with the same despatch, because he either has written, or intends to write, a special treatise on the subject. If the words which follow refer, as they perhaps do, not to the Noetians who are mentioned just before, but to the Montanists who are the main subject of the paragraph, this polemical work was still an unaccomplished project. ‘Concerning these,’ he says, ‘I will write more in detail at a future time.’ The supposition that the Dialogue was not yet written, though projected, is quite consistent with the fact, that the discussion which it reproduced purported to have been held during the pontificate of Zephyrinus. The Refutation indeed was not written till after the death of Callistus, the successor of Zephyrinus. But, as Callistus only held the see for four years (219—223), no long time need have elapsed between the supposed date of the discussion and the publication of the Dzalogue, so that no dramatic propriety would be violated. But on either supposition, whether the Déalogue existed already, or was only planned in the author’s mind, the fact would explain why he is satisfied with this very cursory notice of the Montanists in his great work.
From this Dialogue also Stephanus Gobarus (4. 20) may have quoted, when, as represented by Photius, he stated ‘what opinions the most holy Hippolytus held concerning the Montanists.’ The account of these heretics in the Refwtation is almost too short to explain this
1 Ref. Haer. viii. 19. Another case in point is the article on the Quartodecimans (viii. 18), who are dismissed still more summarily. Hippolytus had discussed them in his treatise On the Passover. In all these three cases Bunsen (A7- polytus 1. pp. 376, 382, 385) supposes that our manuscript has preserved only an abstract of what Hippolytus wrote.
CLEM. II.
The account I have given in the text seems to me much more probable. At the same time I am disposed to think that the Refutation was left unfinished by its author, and that he had intended to expand these meagre articles, making use of his special treatises for this purpose. This hypothesis will explain much which
needs explanation in the form of the work.
25
386 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
language. And, if the Latin of the Pseudo-Tertullian at all adequately represents his earlier work, the Compendium also was equally brief. Indeed in the later work he does little more than repeat the statements of the earlier respecting these heretics.
It only remains to enquire, whether the extant fragments of the Dialogue are consistent with the hypothesis that Hippolytus was the author.
As regards style, the work might well have been written by this father; though any inference drawn from such scanty extracts can have but little value. The matter however presents some difficulty. The inference has been often drawn from the passage quoted above (see p. 381)’, that the writer of the Dialogue considered the Apocalypse of S. John to bea forgery of Cerinthus; and, if this inference were true, my hypothesis must be abandoned; for Hippolytus not only quoted largely from the Apocalypse as a work of S. John, but also, as we have seen, wrote a book in its defence. This adverse interpretation however may reason- ably be questioned. It is difficult to see how an intelligent person should represent the Apocalypse as teaching that in the Kingdom of Christ ‘men should live in the flesh in Jerusalem and be the slaves of lust and pleasures,’ and again that ‘a thousand years should be spent in marriage festivities®.’ It is hardly less difficult to imagine how a man of great learning, as the author of the Dza/ogue is represented to have been, could have reconciled such a theory with the known history and tenets of Cerinthus. It must be confessed indeed that Dionysius of Alexandria appears so to have interpreted the language of Gaius in the Dialogue. At all events he speaks of some previous writers (twés Tov Tpo nov) as maintaining that the Apocalypse was written by Cerinthus, and describes their views in language somewhat resembling the passage of the Dialogue (Euseb. H. £. vii. 25 ; comp. ill. 28); though he him- self, while questioning the Apostolic authorship of the book, has the good sense and feeling to reject this solution as untenable. It is not so clear that Eusebius also understood the passage in the same way.
1 Neander (II. p. 441 Bohn’s transl.) writes thus: ‘Moreover it deserves con-
know in what respect the opinions of these two fathers were contrasted by
sideration in this respect, that by Stephanus Gobarus the judgments of Hippolytus and of Gregory of Nyssa respecting the Mon- tanists are set one against the other, so that we may conclude that the former belonged to the defenders of Montanism.’ And others have attributed Montanizing views to Hippolytus. But we do not
Stephanus, if they were contrasted. At all events Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks quite as strongly against the Montanists as the case justifies.
2 The word ydauos however need not signify a marriage festival, as it is used elsewhere of festivities generally; e.g. LXxX, Esth. iv. 22.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 387
On the other hand Theodoret adopted a different interpretation. ‘Cerinthus,’ writes this father, ‘also invented certain revelations pre- tending to have seen them himself (Ws avros rePeapévos). Against him not only have the above-named persons written, but with them also Gaius and Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria (4. 12 d).’ So interpreted, the passage signifies that Cerinthus set himself up for ‘a great apostie’ who had revelations’: and this is more in accordance with his attitude towards S. John as it appears in other ancient notices. But, whatever be the exact bearing of the words ws vad amocroXov peyadov yeypaypevor, the description is inappropriate to the Apocalypse of our Canon. Nor indeed is it likely that an orthodox presbyter of the Roman Church should have so written of a book which a contemporary presbyter of the same Church reverenced as the genuine work of an inspired Apostle; for the author of the Déa/ogue does not write as one who is putting forward an opinion which would be contested by his own compeers.
If may be said, however, that at all events Gaius attacks the millen- narians, whereas Hippolytus himself held millennial views. But both propositions involved in this statement are open to question. Gaius did indeed condemn a sensuous millennium, but it is by no means clear that the passage goes so far as to condemn Chiliastic doctrine in all its forms. On the other hand it is not certain that Hippolytus was a Chiliast at all, while it is quite certain that he must have scouted all Chiliastic views which wore a sensuous garb. As regards the first point, he does indeed maintain that the world will last six thousand years, cor- responding to the six days of creation, and that afterwards will come the reign of Christ, of which the Sabbath is the type’, but the parallel is not pressed so far as to insist upon the same duration for his antitypical sabbath as for his antitypical working-day; and he elsewhere speaks of the second Advent in such a way as to leave no room for a millennium. It is at least remarkable, that though he again and again enlarges on eschatological subjects he is wholly silent on this one point, even where the subject would naturally lead him to state the doctrine, if he held it*. But, if it is hardly probable that Hippolytus held Chiliastic opinions
1 See the parallel given by Routh (II. p. 139) from Apollonius in Euseb. 7.Z. v. 18, fuipovmevos Tov amrdcTOAOY, KaboNKHY TWA guvTatdmevos emicro\nv, speaking of one Themiso, a Montanist. The more natural interpretation of the words however seems to be, that Cerinthus palmed off his
forged Apocalypses under the name of some Apostle, perhaps S. Peter.
2 Hippol. Fragm. 59 (on Daniel), p- 153 (Lagarde).
° See the treatise on Antichrist through- out (especially c. 44 sq), besides several fragments bearing on the subject.
25—2
388 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
of any kind, it is quite certain that he would have condemned, as strongly as any one, the sensuous conception of the millennium attributed by Cerinthus in the Dza/ogue. ‘Inthe resurrection,’ he writes, ‘men shall be as angels of God: that is to say, in incorruption and immortality and immutability (apevoia). For incorruptible being is not born, does not grow, does not sleep, does not hunger, does not thirst, does not toil, does not suffer, does not die, is not pierced by nails and spear, does not sweat, does not shed blood: such beings are those of the angels and of souls released from bodies; for both these are different in kind from (Erepoyevets), and alien to, the visible and corruptible creation of the (pre- sent) world’.’
When the above essay was written, I had thought also that the Heads against Gaius, which are mentioned in Ebedjesu’s list (A. 37) might have been this very Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, which Euse- bius mentions; and that owing to a careless heading, or to a superficial impression derived from its opening sentences, it might have been taken to be written against Gaius, because the interlocutor Proclus, who perhaps opened the debate, was found arguing against him. ‘Thus the last vestige of evidence for the existence of Gaius as distinct from Hip- polytus would have disappeared. But only last year Prof. Gwynn of Dublin discovered and published from Dionysius Barsalibi several frag- ments from this very treatise, in which Hippolytus maintains against Gaius the genuineness and authority of the Apocalypse of S. John (see below, p. 394 sq). Gaius therefore is alive once more, though he seemed to me to be dead. But, whether this is really Gaius the Roman presbyter or another, may perhaps be still an open question.
§ 5. THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS.
With most writers the obvious order would be the life first and the works afterwards. The works are the fruit and consequence of the life; the works live and flourish after the life is ended. But with Hippolytus it is convenient to reverse the natural order. We know next to nothing about Hippolytus except what we learn from his own works; and, as the genuineness of the productions ascribed to him is beset in many cases with great difficulties, we are quite powerless to deal with the life, until the preliminary questions affecting these are first settled.
1 Hippol. Fragm. 9, p. go (Lagarde).
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 389
In the following account I have been greatly assisted by J. A. Fabri- cius Bib/. Graec. vu. p. 183 sq (ed. Harles); Bunsen Aippolytus and flis Age \. p. 514 sq (1854); Caspari Zaufsymbol u. Glaubensregel 11. P- 377.8q; and especially Salmon in Smith-Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biogr. Ul. p. 91 sq s. v- ‘ Hippolytus Romanus,’ whose list is the most careful and complete.
His work may be divided conveniently for my purpose into four classes ;
(a) Biblical and Exegetical ;
(Bs) Theological and Apologetic ; (c) Historical and Chronological ; (p) Herestological.
Where a strictly logical classification is impossible, and where in many cases either from the character of the writing itself or from the defect of our information we may doubt where to place any particular work, this rough division will suffice.
A. BIBLICAL AND EXEGETICAL.
1. Zhe Muratorian Canon. ‘The reasons for assigning this work to Hippolytus require to be stated in full, and are given in a separate section. See below, p. 405 sq.
2. On the Hexaemeron. This work on the days of Creation seems to have been well known in early times. It is mentioned in several lists, and Jerome (42. 8. g) tells us more especially that S. Ambrose in his extant work on the same subjects made great use of it. Some frag- ments are given in Lagarde, p. 123-141. The reference of Jerome to the charge brought against himself of misinterpretation in explaining the odd and even days of Creation (AZ. 8. d) must be to this work.
3. On the Sequel to the Hexaemeron. This work (eis ta pera Hv é€ayprepov) is mentioned by Eusebius and others. The commentary /x Genesim, included by Jerome in his list, is probably the same. It would deal with certain passages in the patriarchal history. Jerome elsewhere (Af. 8. c) gives a mystical interpretation of one of these from Hippolytus. Isaac symbolizes God the Father, Rebecca the Holy Spirit, ete.
4. On Exodus, only in Jerome’s list. It is questionable whether » won 7 peyadn in Theodoret’s quotation (42. 12. b) has anything to do with the Song of Moses Exod. 15.
5. On the Benedictions of Balaam. ‘This work is quoted by Leon-
390 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
tius of Byzantium (AA. 21. b), but there is a v. 1. “ABpaap for Badaap (see Lagarde, p. 140). The blessings of Balaam are a more likely subject to have been chosen by Hippolytus; and a copyist would be tempted to substitute the commoner word ’ABpaap. The extract itself contains nothing which is decisive.
Fabricius (11. p. 33 sq) gives extracts from some Arabic mss at Oxford of a Catena on the Pentateuch, which contains numerous pas- sages ascribed to ‘Hippolytus the expositor of the Targum.’ We are not encouraged either by the source of these extracts, or by their con- tents, to regard them as a genuine work of our Hippolytus.
6. On Elkanah and Hannah. ‘Vhis discourse is twice quoted by Theodoret (4A. 12. a, b).
7. On Saul and the Witch of Endor (repi Saovd kai 7iOwvos) or, as it is described on the chair, [eis tyv ey|yaorpiuvOov. It is found also in Jerome’s list. This same incident is made the subject of a discus- sion by Hippolytus’ contemporary Origen ; and his representation of it was considered so important that it was specially answered by Eusta- thius of Antioch. ‘The two tracts have been recently edited together by Jahn in Gebhardt u. Harnack Zexte u. Untersuchungen, 1886.
8. On the Psalms. Theodoret (AR. 12) quotes from the com- mentary on the 2nd, the 23rd, the 24th, and (if he means this by Tv wdonv THY peyadnv), the 119th Psalm. See also in Migne (p. 611) a fragment on the 77th Psalm, published by Bandini (Catal. Cod. Graec. Medic. 1. p. 91). There is likewise a possibility that the Demon- stration against the Jews may be a commentary on Ps. 1xix.
There is also a long passage extant (Lagarde, p. 187 sq) entitled the ‘hypothesis’ or ‘introduction of Hippolytus the bishop of Rome to the Psalms,’ which seems to show the influence of Origen’s Hexapla (Over- beck Quaest. Hippol. p. 6 sq). The genuine introduction of Hippolytus appears to be preserved in the corresponding ‘Syriac (Lagarde’s Azad. Syr. p. 83), and confirms Overbeck’s view, as pointed out by Salmon (‘Hippolytus Romanus,’ p. 103). The writer of the extant Greek frag- ment has worked together materials of Hippolytus and Origen. We find a characteristic trait of Hippolytus which appears much more definitely in the Syriac than in the Greek. In the Chronicon he enumerated the 72 nations of the earth (25 from Shem, 15 from Japhet, and 32 from Ham); and in the Phzlosophumena (x. 20) he refers to his enumeration. Now in the Syriac fragment he tells how David’s four chief singers had each 72 players of instruments under him, corresponding to the 72 nations, which again he distributes in the same way, 25 to Shem, 15 to Japhet, and 32 to Ham.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 391
9. On the Proverbs, mentioned in several lists. Some fragments are given in Lagarde, p. 196; and one long additional passage in Migne p. 616 sq from Mai 762. WVov. vil. il. p. 71 (1854).
10. Ox Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome. <A quotation is given by S. de Magistris as from Anastasius of Sinai, but it is not in the printed editions ; comp. Lagarde p. 201.
11. On the Song of Songs in several lists: see Lagarde p. 200 sq. Apparently extant ina Syriac translation; Assem. 270/. Orient. 1. p. 607.
12. On Lsaiah, mentioned by Jerome. Theodoret (42. 12. a) quotes from the beginning of it. See Lagarde Azppol. p. 142 and Anal. Syr. p. 87.
13. On Jeremiah. Atleast Assemani (4707. Or. 1. p. 607) mentions the existence of such a work, but does not state whether it is a com- plete commentary.
14. Ox parts of Ezekiel, in the list of Eusebius. The work on ‘the four living creatures’ is mentioned by Assemani (472 Orv. 1. p. 607) as extant in a Syriac translation.
15. Ox Daniel, in most of the lists, though not in Eusebius. Apparently a very popular work and several times quoted (42. 8.h, 18, 32, 33, 35). This work is the subject of a careful monograph by Bardenhewer (1877), who had pointed out that the long and important Chigi fragment (Lagarde p. 151 sq) does not preserve the Commentary of Hippolytus in the original form. For the fragments known when this work was written see Lagarde p. 145 sq, Migne p. 633sq. Quite recently a very important discovery has been made. Georgiades has published in the “ExxAnowaorixy “AdyGea, May 1885 for the first time, Anal. Syr. zepi opacews TOD tpopyTod AavijAr Aoyos 8’, and is preparing a greater work for which he is collating in the libraries of Europe. Meanwhile Kennedy (Dublin 1888) has reprinted the Greek text with an English translation. As the fourth book contains the last six chapters, Georgiades infers that Asyos a contained the History of Susannah, Aoyos f’ the Song of the Three Children, and Aoyos y the earlier portion of the Canonical Daniel. On p. 13 & TH zpo TavTys BiBAw oceonpavtac we ought pro- bably in the light of this new discovery to see a reference to the 3rd book, as the prophet was divided in Hippolytus. Hippolytus states (p. 42) that our Lord was born on viii Kal. Jan. on the 4th day, in the 55th year of Augustus being the 5500th year from Adam; and that He was crucified in His 33rd year, on viii Kal. Apr. on Friday (zapackevj) in the 18th year of Tiberius, in the consulship of Rufus (Fufius) and Ru- bellio, or (as it is elsewhere expressed) ‘duobus Geminis’ (see I. p. 253). He thus places the Crucifixion on March 25 a.D. 29, and the Birth on
392 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Dec. 25 B.C. 4, which he regards as the 42nd of Augustus. If this be the genuine text of Hippolytus (and there seems no reason to doubt it), the information is highly important. It shows that the date which we find elsewhere for the Crucifixion in the Liberian chronicle expresses Hippolytus’ deliberate view. This date also of the Crucifixion is involved in the Paschal Tables. For the reasons which led Hippolytus to fix on this day, though not the real full-moon in A.D. 29, see Salmon in Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. ‘Chronicon Canisianum’ 1. p. 506; ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 111. p. 92 sq; and Hermathena 1. p. 96. But it has a still more important bearing. In the corresponding frag- ment in the Chisian fragment of Daniel (Lagarde p. 153) we have exactly the same statement érafe 5€ TO TpiaxooTd Tpitw ere, though without the same particulars. Salmon (ermazh, |.c.) expresses his sur- prise that, while Hippolytus defends the authenticity of the fourth Gospel and founds his chronology of the passover on S. John (see U1. p. 104), he has not in the Paschal Tables and in the Chronicle made the usual inference from S. John’s account as to the duration of our Lord’s ministry. This indeed would be the more surprising because his master Irenzeus not only does this, but exaggerates the inference from S. John, alleging the tradition of the elders that Christ’s ministry ex- tended over many years and thus refuting the Valentinian argument for their thirty ceons derived from the thirty years of Christ’s earthly life’. He therefore supposes that ‘thirty third’ was a transcriber’s cor- rection in the Chisian fragment to improve the chronology. Now however that this new authority is discovered it seems impossible to maintain this view. If the crucifixion which he certainly places ‘ duobus Geminis’ Le. A.D. 29, and the duration of our Lord’s life to His 33rd year, are both inconsistent with the reckonings of the Chronicle and the Paschal Tables, the inconsistency must be allowed. The real difficulty is with the Paschal Tables, where the renecic xc is placed on iv Non. Apr. in the 2nd year of the first cycle, and the ta@oc xc on viii Kal. April in the 16th year of the second, thus making an interval of 31 years within a few days between the two, it being assumed that the renecic means the visitation. As the Commentary on Daniel was apparently written much earlier than the other works, perhaps Hippo- lytus saw some way meanwhile of fitting in the three passovers of S. John into his later chronology. At all events he cannot have been unaware of the difficulty.
In the ordinary Greek Bibles Susannah precedes, the Song of the Three Children follows, and last comes the Book of Daniel proper,
1 Tren. Haer, ii. 22; see Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 245 sq.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 393
This was doubtless the case with the copy of Hippolytus. The long fragment (Lagarde p. 145 sq) relating to Susannah has every appearance of being the introduction to the whole work. MHippolytus begins by explaining why, though the events took place later, they are recorded at the beginning of the work (9 ioropio. yeyevnrar VOTEpoV, mpoeypadyn be Ts BiBAov zpwrys); for it was customary, he adds, for the scribes to record things in reversed order (voteporpwra), as we find with many visions of the prophets. It is needless to say that Susannah signifies the Church, and the two elders are the two peoples, the Jewish and the Gentile. This mystical interpretation constituted its great attraction to the fathers. But what is the Zz¢#/e Daniel, which according to Ebedjesu (A. 36) Hippolytus commented on? It is commonly explained of the ordinary LXx apocryphal additions to Daniel (Susannah, the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon); but these would all be included ordinarily under Daniel, and in Ebedjesu’s list Susannah is specially mentioned. In Wright’s Syriac JZSS Lrit. Mus. 1. p. 19 (see above, p- 350 sq) there is a fragment from the ‘ Daniel the less (or the youth) on our Lord and the end of the world.’ It seems to be a distinctly Christian apocryphal writing. Daniel is represented as preaching the future judgment in the language of S. John’s Gospel ‘He will come to His own, and His own will not recognise Him...I am not able to ex- plain who He is, but by the Spirit in a mystery. The servant is not able to overcome his master, but I give signs and preach concerning Him.’
The book recovered and published by Georgiades evidently preserves the Commentary of Hippolytus in its original form. Bardenhewer had surmised that in the long fragment of the Chisian ms (Lagarde p. 151—168) it was much compressed; and this new discovery has confirmed his suspicion.
Moreover this new discovery throws some light on the date of the work. Bardenhewer (p. 68), impressed by the language used of the persecutions of the Church, places it as early as 202. To this early date Salmon (111. p. 104) objects, calling attention to the fact that according to Eusebius (. £. vi) Judas, writing on the 70 weeks of Daniel, brought his chronography down to the roth year of Severus and maintained that the coming of Antichrist was imminent (767 réte wapetvac), and he argues that at least a dozen years must have elapsed to ‘allow the minds of the Christians to cool down.’ But now that we have the complete words of Hippolytus, we see that the excitement was still at a red heat and that probably this treatise was written to calm men’s fears. He mentions apparently this very Judas; ‘I will relate,’ he says, ‘what took place not long ago (ro ovpPav ov rpo wodAvd xpovov) in Syria,’ where a
394 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
certain leader of the Church led himself and others astray, persuading ‘many of the brethren with their wives and children to go out into the wilderness to meet Christ.’ He adds that if his wife, who was also a Christian, had not been wiser than himself and prevailed upon the gover- nor, he would have slain them all as robbers. He mentions also another ruler of a church in Pontus, whom I do not know whether it is possible to identify, ‘a pious and humble man, but with no firm grasp (u7 rpocéywv aggadds) of the scriptures,’ who, misled by visions, staked his credit on the immediate coming, and the people sold their lands accordingly.
16. On Zachariah, mentioned by Jerome.
17. On S. Matthew. This is not included in Jerome’s list, but he himself (4. 8. i) especially elsewhere mentions Hippolytus as having written on this Gospel. De Magistris has given an extract on éovovos in the Lord’s prayer, purporting to come from Hippolytus (Migne p- 700); and quite recently Gwynn has printed and translated from the Syriac of Dionysius Barsalibi (Hermathena vu. p. 137, 1889) a long and important comment on Matt. xxiv. 15—22, which may have come from this work. Indeed Barsalibi (p. 142) seems to state this ‘in the Commentary on the Gospel,’ as if distinguishing it from an earlier quotation taken from some other work. Assemani (4702. Ov. 1. p. 607) mentions Hippolytus as writing on the five persons omitted in S. Matthew’s genealogy.
18. From the way in which they are quoted by Theodoret (42. 12. b, c) Zhe Discourse on the Distribution of the Talents, and The Discourse on the Two Thieves would seem to have been separate homilies, not portions of a Commentary.
What may be the source of the fragments relating to the early chapters of S. Luke (Lagarde p. 202), we do not know. There is no notice of any Commentary on this Gospel. They may have been taken from the zepi oixovoyias, or from almost any of his theological works,
19. Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of S. John. From the preposition (vzép, not wep) and from the association of the two works together, it is a safe inference that this was an apologetic work, directed against those persons who objected to both works alike, because they described our Lord as the Adyos; but they must have contained much exegetical matter. Indeed we may suspect that Epiphanius borrowed the name aAoyo ‘the irrational ones,’ from Hippolytus; for these jokes are very much in his way; e.g. voytos, avonros (1x. 10), and dokos, doxetv, doxytai (vill. 1). Dionysius Barsalibi states that Hippolytus, like Irenzeus, holds the Apocalypse to have been written by John the Evangelist under Domitian (Gwynn Hermathena vu. p. 137).
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 395
The Heads against Gaius are mentioned in the list of Ebedjesu (AR. 37) as a separate work. But they have every appearance of being extracts from that part of this apologetic work which relates to the Apocalypse. I have already considered what relation these bear to the notices of other writers relating to Gaius the Roman presbyter (p. 388).
B. THEOLOGICAL AND APOLOGETIC.
20. Demonstratio c. Judacos ( Arobextixn mpos ‘lovdaiovs), A large portion of this treatise was first published by Fabricius (11. p. 2 sq) from a Vatican MS communicated to him by Montfaucon.
But besides this Greek portion De Magistris (p. 435 sq) connected with it, as part of the same work, a Latin treatise commonly printed — among the spurious works of Cyprian (eg. Hartel’s edition, ul. p- 133 sq). So far as I can discover, he had no ground whatever except his own arbitrary assumption for assigning it to Hippolytus. At least he gives none. If there is no reason for assigning this work to Cyprian, it seems even less possible to maintain the Hippolytean authorship. Yet Bunsen (I. p. 450) accepts it without a question, describing it as ‘far more interesting than the part preserved in the Greek text.’ The connexion of this Latin tract with the Greek fragment is purely arbitrary. On this subject see Draseke Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. XII. p. 456 sq (1886).
This might seem at first sight to be part of his commentary on the 69th Psalm. But the mutilated title on the Chair cannot be so well supplied as by [mpoc toyc 1oyAajioyc. Moreover the Jews are directly addressed again and again, @ ‘lovdate, & “Iovdaio. Again, though it is largely taken up with the exposition of this one psalm, it is not wholly so. Lastly; the sequence of scriptural authorities quoted (p. 66 sq Lagarde) Aavid 6 cos xpiotos, ws 0 péyas “lwB, depw Oy és pecov Kat THY mpodyteiav Yodopwv, kat tadw o Aavid év Wadpots, kal radw Yodromuv, points to a more general treatise than the exposition of an individual psalm.
21. On the Nature of the Universe or, as it is described on the Chair, Against the Greeks or Against Plato or Concerning the Universe. I may observe by the way, that according to the general arrangement of titles (see p. 325) xpovixoy is a distinct work from zpos “EAAnvas k.t.’., and that the two should not be fused, as is sometimes done. Thus the genuineness and identity of the work are established on the best possible authority. Nevertheless Photius (42. 32. a) found it ascribed in his copy to Josephus; but he saw that this was impossible owing to
396 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT,
its distinctly Christian theology. He adds that he has found it stated in some notices that it was really written by Gaius the Roman presbyter, the author of the Labyrinth. This Labyrinth, as I have shown elsewhere (see above, p. 379), is probably the tenth book of the Phzlosophumena, in which Hippolytus distinctly mentions himself as having written a treatise Concerning the Nature of the Universe (Ref. x. 32). Photius further mentions the report that, having been left anonymous, it is assigned by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and by others to Irenzeus, just as some assign the Zadyrinth to Origen. In the so-called John Damascene (Sacr. Parallel. u. pp. 755, 789) it is twice quoted, and ascribed in the one passage to Meletius, in the other to Josephus. By Joannes Philoponus (Lagarde, p. 124), who gives a few lines, it is ascribed to ‘Josephus the Hebrew’ and entitled wept rjs tod mwavtos airias. In the ms from which Hoeschel first printed the important fragment (Lagarde p. 68) in his notes to Photius (Phot. Op. iv. p. 362 Migne) it was ascribed to Josephus, and seems to have borne the title rept THs Tod wavtos aitias 7 ovaias. The resemblances of language and substance bespeak the same authorship with the Phzloso- phumena, even if we had not the author’s own certification (see Wordsworth, p. 211 sq). Wordsworth (p. 306) gives the latter part of Hoeschel’s fragment (from p. 27, 1. 5, 6 péyas Tav duxaiwy x.7.. Lagarde, onward), where it is carried a few lines farther from an Oxford Ms, Barocc. 26, which however had been previously printed by Hearne. This additional part contains the apocryphal quotation, 颒 otis dv evpw vpdas, érl TovTos Kpiv@, which is quoted by Justin Martyr and several fathers (Resch Agrapha p. 112 sq, 226 sq, 290 sq, in Gebhardt u. Harnack Zexte u. Untersuch. vy. Hft. 4, 1889). This is quoted as from Ezekiel (i.e. the pseudo-Ezekiel) by some of the fathers; and it is noticeable that Clem. Alex. Quis div. Salv. 40 (p. 957) after xpwvo ends the quotation in the same way as Hippolytus, xai wap’ exaora Boa to TéAos TAVTwV.
In the long extant fragment Hippolytus addresses the Greeks more than once, and he mentions Plato by name (p. 70, Lagarde). Photius also says that he refutes Alcinous ‘concerning the soul and matter and resurrection,’ and shows after the manner of the Christian apologists generally, and indeed of Josephus, ‘the much greater antiquity of the Jews than the Greeks’ (4. 32. a). Alcinous is not mentioned in the extant fragments.
In the passage of the Phdlosophumena (x. 32) he expounds briefly the cosmogony which was the foundation of this treatise. God was absolute and alone. He created from simple elements, fire, spirit,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 397
water, and earth. Those creatures which are composed of more than one element are capable of dissolution. The soul is pure air or spirit (zvevpa). The great interest in the extant fragment is the application of his cosmogony to explain the intermediate state, which was a favourite subject of Hippolytus.
22. An exhortation addressed to Severina (mpotpertixos pos SeBy- petvav), This is mentioned on the Chair, and it is generally identified with mpos BacwWida twa erucrody twice quoted by Theodoret (42. 12. b, c). The fragments have reference to the Resurrection, and more especially to Christ as the arapyy. No princess bearing the name Severina is mentioned anywhere either in inscriptions or in literature. Bunsen supposed that she was a daughter of Alexander Severus, but he only married in 229, and his daughter, if he even had one, can only have been four or five years old at Hippolytus’ death. Le Moyne identified her with Severa the wife of Philippus; and Dollinger (p. 25) with Julia Aquilia Severa the second wife of Elagabalus. But no reason is given why either of these should have been called Severina. As no princess of the name is known, it is perhaps better to identify the Baoris of Theodoret with Julia Mammea the mother of Alexander.
22*. A letter to a certain princess twice quoted by Theodoret (4X. 12. b,c). See the last section.
The quotation in Anal. Syriac. p. 87 sq (Lagarde) belongs not im- probably to the same work. It runs as follows ;
‘OF HIPPOLYTUS BISHOP AND MARTYR On the Resurrection to the Empress Mammea; for she was the mother of Alexander who was at that time emperor of the Romans.’
‘Now the cause of the heresies of the Nicolaitans was first brought forward in like manner by Nicolas—he was one of the deacons who were elected at the first and is recorded in the Acts—when he was troubled by strange spirits saying that the resurrection had taken place; sup- posing that the resurrection was to believe in the Messiah and to be baptized, not meaning the resurrection of the flesh.’
To him Hippolytus goes on to trace the errors of Hymenzus and Philetus and of the Gnostics; and he couples with them the false teachers at Corinth, explaining S. Paul’s language ‘we have this treasure in earthen vessels’ of the gift of immortality; for ‘what is our dead flesh but these vessels before mentioned, into which the treasure of incorruption being put makes them immortal ?’
This may be the passage to which Stephanus Gobarus refers (AR. 20), but the same opinion was expressed by Hippolytus in both his general works on Heresies.
398 EPISTLES OF S, CLEMENT.
23. On the Resurrection, mentioned by Jerome (AR. 8. b), and on the Chair (zrepi @cod Kai capKos avactacews).
24. A Homily on the praise of our Lord and Saviour (rpocopsdta de Laude Domini Salvatoris) mentioned by Jerome as having been de- livered before Origen. I shall have occasion to refer to this again, as it is one of our very few chronological land-marks (see below, p. 423). It is possible that this homily is the zept oixovouias of the Chair and Ebedjesu (4. &. 37).
25. On Christ and Antichrist. This work is mentioned by Jerome under the title ‘de Antichristo,’ and under the further title wept Xpucrod kat “Avttxpiotov by Photius who read it.
A spurious work bearing the title wept tis ouvtedeias Tod KOopoV Kal Tept Tod Avtixpiotovu Kal eis THV devTépay Tapovalav Tod Kupiov ypav Inood Xpiorov was published by Joannes Picus (Paris 1556), and still retains a place in the editions (e.g. Fabricius 11. p. 4 sq, Lagarde p. 92); but it is universally condemned as spurious. It begins “Ezevdy) of paxapioe x.7.X.
The genuine treatise, which was read by Photius, entitled zepi rod cwoTnpos ndV “Inood Xpiotod Kai wept tod “Avtexpiorov was first published by Gudius (Paris 1611), and will be found in Fabricius 1. p. 4 sq and in Lagarde p. 1—36. It is apparently almost complete. It is addressed to one ‘brother Theophilus,’ possibly like the Theophilus whose name the Acts bears on the forefront, an imaginary person; and, as it deals with prophecy affecting the future of the Roman empire, Hippolytus not unnaturally cautions his friend in the language of S. Paul to Timothy to guard the deposit carefully, and only to commit it to faithful and discreet disciples. The general scheme of the world’s history and the end of all things is the same which this father has evolved from Daniel’s prophecy as described above; though in some respects it is more fully drawn out. He deals with the mystical number of the beast in the Apocalypse, mentioning the alternative explanations Teitan, EYANOac, and AaTeiNoc, as Irenzeus has done before him (/Zaev. v. 30. 1), and deciding in favour of the last (p. 26). For other obligations of Hippolytus to his master in the work on Antichrist see Overbeck p. 70 sq.
On the whole there seems to be reasonable ground for Overbeck’s contention (p. 88 sq), that this work was written at a time of perse- cution, and therefore presumably in the age of Severus, about A.D. 200. The awe of the Roman power, and the warnings of caution, both point in this direction. The coincidences of interpretation, which he mentions between Hippolytus and Origen, are curious but not sufficient, I think, to establish on either side any direct obligation of the one from the other ; which is improbable in itself.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 399
26. On the Holy Theophany (eis ta ayia Oeopavea). This is a discourse on the Baptism of our Lord, preserved in a Gale ms Trin. Coll. 0. 5. 36 at Cambridge. It was probably addressed to candidates when they presented themselves for baptism (see Wordsworth, p. 224). Though it is nowhere quoted (at least under this name), so far as I am aware, by ancient writers, there is nothing which Hippolytus might not have written.
C. HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL.
27. Chronica. This work is mentioned on the Chair, and even without this certification it contains unquestionable internal evidence of its authorship. The original Greek is lost; but it is extant in two Latin translations, of which the one first published by Canisius may be conveniently consulted in Ducange Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 96 sq (ed. Bonn.) under the title Zzer Generationis; the other, being incorporated in the collection of the Chronographer of 354, is admirably edited by Mommsen. In this latter connexion I have had occasion to speak of it at length in my previous volume (I. p. 258 sq). It is brought down to A.D. 234 (the xiith year of Alexander), when doubtless it was com- pleted. It is not in any strict sense a chronicle, but is partly ethno- graphy and partly chronography. One of its main purposes, as with most early apologists, was to show the superior antiquity of the Jews to the Classical nations of antiquity.
28. Paschal Tables’. This record is found inscribed in full on the sides of the Chair, where it is described as amodeéis ypdvwv tod racyxa kata |ta| év t@ mivax. The more important parts of it are given above (AR. 2). It is a calculation of the times of Easter according to a cycle of sixteen years from a.D. 222—333. Salmon however has given strong reasons (//ermathena 1. p. 88 sq; Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Ant. s.v. ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 11. p. 93) for supposing that it was issued A.D. 224. It has received great attention from Scaliger, Bucher, Bianchini, and others; and more recently from De Rossi and from Salmon, who have rendered very efficient service. The table not only calculates the Easters for more than a century, but likewise fixes all those mentioned in the Old Testament. Thus it affords many tests for establishing the authorship of works ascribed to Hippolytus, as well as for the criticism of his life in other ways. I shall have occasion more than once to refer to it for these purposes.
1 This work is mentioned by Eusebius _ construction the calculation was found to and Jerome, as well as by others, and be incorrect, and it had to be abandoned
seems to have excited considerable at- in favour of other systems. tention, though within a few years after its
400 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT
D. HERESIOLOGICAL,
29. The Compendium against all the Heresies, an early work, founded on the lectures of Irenzeus. This will be considered immediately in a section to itself. See below, p. 413 sq.
29*. Against Noetus. Reasons will be given presently for sup- posing that this is only the peroration of the previous treatise ; which is known to have ended with the heresy of Noetus.
29**, Avainst the Heresy of Artemon. The reasons for assigning this work to Hippolytus have been given already (p. 377 sq).
Only one objection of apparent force to the Hippolytean authorship is alleged by Salmon (p. 98). The anonymous writer against Artemon (Euseb. 7. Z. v. 28) speaks of Victor as the 13th bishop of Rome from Peter; whereas in the Liberian list Cletus and Anacletus are made two distinct persons, so that he would be the 14th. I have anticipated this objection, and shown already (1. p. 282 sq) strong reasons for believing that Hippolytus cannot be made responsible for these blunders in the earlier part of the papal list.
30. Against Marcion. This treatise is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome and by others, and seems to have been one of considerable importance. As the fundamental idea of Marcion’s theory was the dual principle of good and evil (Ref Haer. vil. 30 avtirapabeots ayabod Kal KaKOv, Vil. 31 9 TpwTy Kat Kaapiwtary Mapkiwvos aipeois €€ ayabovd KQL KAKO TV oveTacw Exouca), there is every reason to think that this is the same treatise which is designated on the Chair ‘ Concerning the Good and whence cometh the Evil.
31. Concerning Spiritual Gifts (xapwopartwv) the Apostolic Tradition. This work is mentioned on the Chair, but its purport has been differently explained. For reasons which I have given in another instance (p. 395), we must regard this as a single title, and not, as has been suggested (see Caspari 111. p. 390), separate it and regard it as giving two distinct works; (1) wept yxapicparwy, and (2) aoarodixy mapddocs. The Apostolic use of the word xapicpara seems to furnish the safest key to the purport of this work. In his discourses on the ‘Witch of Endor’ and the ‘Blessings of Balaam’ Hippolytus sought to explain some of the anomalies attending the bestowal of these graces, and it seems probable that in this treatise he attempted to give something like a systematic exposition of the whole subject based upon the Apostolic teaching. The vagaries of Montanism more especially would force it on his notice, as pressing for some reasonable treatment. How far and under what
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 401
circumstances was the presence of moral or intellectual obliquity consistent with the bestowal of such exceptional graces from above? In fact all those questions which are suggested by S. Paul’s account of the abuses in the Corinthian Church, and many more which start up when we stir the question ourselves, must have been more rampant in early ages, when the disciples were face to face with similar phenomena in heathendom. |
This I believe to have been the intention of our author’s treatise respecting charismata. On the other hand a wholly different explanation has been sometimes given of it. It is supposed to have been a code of Church ordinances or constitutions regulating the appointment to ecclesiastical cffices. Though this view does not commend itself at first sight, it can claim a large amount of traditional support of a certain kind. I cannot however reckon in this the statement of Jerome (AR. 8. f) who quotes Hippolytus as explicit on the point whether fasting should be observed on the sabbath and whether there should be a daily celebration of the eucharist. He might have delivered himself of such dicta in many other places, as in his treatise on the Hexaemeron or in his books on the Paschal Festival or in his Demonstration against the Jews. But there is extant in the Alexandrian Church a code of 38 Canons first published by Ludolf (a.p. 1691) and bearing the name of ‘ Abulides,’ which is only another transliteration of Hippolytus, here styled ‘first patriarch of the city of Rome’ and ‘chief bishop of the city of Rome’; though Wansleb who first called attention to these canons (1672, 1673) did not know who could be meant. These have been recently re-edited by Haneberg Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice (Monachiu 1870), who has given reasons for supposing that they were originally written in Greek. Connected with these are the dsataéers tov avTOY ayiuv arocToAwy Tepi xelpoTovLaV Oud IroAvrov, as they are called in the Ms from which Lagarde has edited them (J/omac. 380), and their designation is similar in others (see Caspari 111. p. 387). Corresponding to the 8th Book of the AZostolic Constitutions are two early elements in Greek, from which it was apparently compounded and amplified : (1) Avdackadia tav ayiwy adrootéhwv Tept xapitpatwv Corresponding to Apost. Const. vil. 1, 2 (Rel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. p. 1 sq, Lagarde), which contains a sort of preface concerning spiritual gifts; and (2) Avaraéets «.7.A. as already given, corresponding to Agoszt. Const. vii. 4 sq (p. 5 sq) on ecclesiastical offices, etc. The name of Hippolytus is attached to this latter only. Yet here we have seemingly the explanation which we seek. Not improbably to these ecclesiastical rules were prefixed (with modifications) some remarks of the genuine Hippolytus from the work
CLEM. II, 26
402 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
whose title is given on the Chair; and in this way he came to be regarded as the author of the Canons themselves. It is hardly probable that even in their present comparatively simple form they can have been his product, as they are attributed to the several Apostles, ‘I Peter first,’ ‘I the beloved of the Lord,’ etc., and prefixed with the fiction ‘We the twelve Apostles of the Lord met together in conjunction with Paul the vessel of election our fellow-Apostle and James the bishop and the rest of the presbyters and the seven deacons.’ We have also Canons extant in Syriac designated ‘Ordinances of the Apostles given through Hippolytus’ (Wright’s Syrzac Catal. of MSS of Brit. Mus. 1. Pp. 949, 1033, 1037). All these Canons which are ascribed to Hippolytus are apparently simpler and allied forms of the ordinances in the present 8th Book of the AZostolic Constitutions. As against the supposition of the Hippolytean authorship however of the portion zepi xapirp.arwv, Caspari (111. p. 389) observes that it presents no coincidences of conception with the parts of the genuine Hippolytus where we should expect to find them, the conclusions of the fefutatio and of the Treatise against Voetus ; whereas several may be found with the other parts of the Apostolic Constitutions. On the other hand I note—what seems to me a more weighty consideration on the other side—that in this very short treatise consisting of five octavo pages great emphasis is laid on two topics which are characteristically Hippolytean; (1) The enumeration of the prophetesses, to which Hippolytus devotes a section in his Chronicon (Mommsen p. 641, Ducange 11. p. 108); (2) The stress laid on the history of Balaam, which Hippolytus made the subject of a special treatise (see above, p. 389). We can imagine how Hippolytus, starting from the discussion of the yxapiopara generally, might have been led to speak about some of the special gifts mentioned in S. Paul’s two lists (1 Cor. xii. 28, Ephes. iv. 11), and that some later editor, working up the material of Hippolytus and others, would give to it the name of this father. The fact that Hippolytus is designated ‘an acquaintance (yvwpyzos) of the Apostles’ by Palladius (4. 11), as soon as the early decades of the fifth century, is significant in this connexion. It seems to indicate that some such work had been already attributed to him ; and at all events it shows that a spurious progeny was fathered upon him as coeval with the Apostles. The next writer who so designates him, 70d adauovd Kal yvwpiwov tov arocréAwv (AX. 16), lived in the middle of the sixth century. There seems therefore to be some ground for the opinion of Bunsen (see esp. II. p. 412 sq) and others, that the treatise mentioned on the Chair lies at the root of the tradition respecting the authorship ; but when with him we expunge the ‘ We the Apostles’ and
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 403
other dramatic parts, we introduce a vital change into the document, which is altogether capricious, and we have no basis of criticism for the reproduction of the Canons of Hippolytus, if he drew up any.
This appears to me the most probable account. At the same time I do not wish to speak with any confidence; for this would not be justified without a thorough investigation of the origin and development of the Afostolic Constitutions such as I cannot pretend to have given.
32. On the Passover. This work must be carefully distinguished from the Paschal Cycle with the Paschal tables engraved on the Chair. It is mentioned separately in the lists both of Eusebius and of Jerome. From the reference in the Chron. Pasch. (4A. 22) we find that it consisted of more than one book. Along with Irenzeus and (so far as we know) all the Asiatic fathers of the school of S. John’, Hippolytus maintained that our Lord Himself was the true Passover, suffering on the 14th Nisan, and thus superseding the legal Jewish passover. This position he took up also in both his general books against the heresies, the early Compendium and the later Refutatio. It may be regarded therefore as written to refute the Quartodecimans, as the fragments in the Chron. Pasch. (42. 22) show.
33. The Philosophumena or Refutation of All Heresies, his final work, probably left incomplete at his death. This will demand a section to itself *.
SPURIOUS HIPPOLYTEAN WORKS.
(rt) The treatise Contra Beronem et Helicem (?) haereticos de Theo- logia et Incarnatione Sermo is now almost universally allowed to be spurious, though accepted as genuine by Dorner (Lehre v. der Person Christi 1. p. 536 sq) and by Bunsen (1. p. 448 sq) in our own generation, as at an earlier date it had been defended by Bull. Its rejection by most recent critics, e.g. Haenell, Kimmel, Fock, Dollinger, Overbeck, Caspari, Draseke, and Salmon, has left it without a friend; and I have no inten- tion of defending a hopeless cause.
Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, or Papal Nuncio at Constantinople (a.p. 665), saw this work at Constantinople and made a few extracts from it, which are preserved (AR. 24). It is quoted also (AR. 30) by Nicephorus of Constantinople [t a.p. 828]. The manuscripts vary between “HAckos
1 This is distinctly the case with rest of the school; see Zssays on Super- Claudius Apollinaris, whose language satural Religion, p. 237 Sq- Hippolytus closely resembles; and there 2 [The section in question was never is no ground for separating him from the written. |
26—2
404 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
or “HXtxlovos (“HAtkiwvos) as the companion heretic of Bero or Vero. But no Helix or Helicion is mentioned in the extant fragments; whereas in one place we read (p. 61, Lagarde) Bypwy tis vayyos pel? Erépwv twav THY BaXevtivov davraciav adevres x.t.’. There can be little or no doubt therefore that Fabricius (Hippol. Of. 1. p. 225) was right in his conjecture 7Aikwtov atpetixov for “HAukos tav aiperuxov. On the title see Draseke Zahrb. f. Prot. Theol. x. p. 342 sq.
Of this Vero or Bero we never hear in the heresiological writers of the fifth and earlier centuries. This would be astonishing if the treatise had been genuine or even early. Epiphanius and Philaster and Theo- doret—the two former especially—are eager to make their list as com- plete as possible. Moreover all the three were acquainted with the writings of Hippolytus; and therefore their silence would be the more inexplicable ; for nothing else so explicit or so important was written by Hippolytus on questions of Christology, and we should have expected frequent references and quotations to it.
Moreover, when we investigate the fragments themselves, the trea- tise condemns itself by its style and substance. It is much more philo- sophical in its language than Hippolytus itself. It uses terms and modes of thought which betoken a later stage of the Christological controversy. On this point however it should be observed that xévwow is probably a false reading and that we should probably read éevwow instead (Draseke l.c. p. 344 Sq). Bunsen, accepting the work as genuine, considers one expression only ék ris mavayias aevraphévov Mapias to be interpolated (1. p. 448). Ifthis had been the only difficulty, we should have agreed with him that it ‘proves nothing against the authenticity of the work.’ But, as Dollinger (p. 319 sq) points out, the terminology bristles with difficulties on the supposition that it was a work of the beginning of the first half of the third century. Fock and Dollinger connect it with the Monophysite disputes, and assign it to the sixth or seventh century. The subject has more recently been investigated by Draseke (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XX1X. p. 291 sq, 1886), who would assign it to a somewhat earlier date. He ascribes it to the Apollinarian school, and supposes it to have been written not later than the early decades of the fifth century (p. 318). I need not pursue the subject further. It has no bearing on my theme, the life and opinions of Hippolytus, though not without an interest for the later stages of the Christological controversy.
(2) <A story told at length by Palladius (4A. 11), in which a virgin was placed in great danger to her chastity by the iniquity of the magistrate, and only rescued by the continence and purity of a youth to whom her honour was to be sacrificed,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 405
(3) The Arabic Catena on the Pentateuch, of which mention has been made already (p. 390).
(4) The treatise De Consummatione Mundt, which for some time took the place of the genuine work De Christo et Antichristo; see above, p. 398.
(5) The Afostolical Canons, which however are perhaps not without some foundation of fact; see above, p. 401 sq.
§ 6. THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT.
In the early part of his work (faer. 1. 15, 16) Irenzeus quotes, from one whom he describes as ‘the divine elder and herald of the truth,’ some verses (éupérpws) written against the Valentinian heretic Marcus. They run as follows ;
EidwAoroe Mapxe Kat teparocKore, GOTPOAOYLKYS EMTELPE Kal MayLKHS TEXVNS, dc dv Kparivers THS wAaVys Ta Sidaypara, onpeia O€LKVUS TOS UTO Gov TAAYWLEVOLS, aroctatikns Suvapews eyxeipnpmara,
ad gow xopnyet Gos TaTHp Zatav aei
du ayyeAukns Suvapews “Alalnd roreiv Exwv oe Tpodpomov avTiGéov Tavovpyias,
some slight corrections being made in the sixth line on which all critics are agreed, and which are suggested by the ancient Latin version. It will be observed that our poet is very fond of trisyllabic feet, and that more especially he affects anapzests in the fourth and fifth places. I should add that, as the editors give his text, he does not shrink from a spondee zz guarto ; but we might easily relieve him of this monstrosity by reading dvvayos in both cases, thus giving him two more of his favourite anapzests instead.
In this instance the editors could not well go wrong; for they were warned by éumérpws that some verse was coming, and have printed accordingly. But elsewhere, where there was no such warning, they are altogether astray. Thus in Haer. ii. 17. 4 (a passage preserved only in the ancient Latin version) Irenzus is made to write ;
‘Aquae mixtum gypsum dans pro lacte seducat per similitudinem coloris, sicut quidam dixit superior nobis de omnibus qui quolibet
406 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
modo depravant quae sunt Dei et adulterant veritatem /nz Ded lacte gypsum male miscetur,’ where the Claromontane ms has ‘veritatem Dei, Lacte,’ etc. This is the correct reading (zz being a repetition of the previous mz), but not the correct punctuation. The sentence should run,
‘Dei lacte gypsum male miscetur,’ which in Greek is
@cod yaAaKte plyvuTa: yuwos KaKos,
so that the mixing of chalk and water with milk is not a discovery of modern civilisation. I may mention by the way that not a few of our homely proverbs are anticipated by the fathers. A lively writer like Jerome would furnish several examples. One occurs to me at the moment, ‘equi dentes inspicere donati,’ ‘to look a gift horse in the mouth,’ which Jerome calls ‘a vulgar proverb’ even in his own day (vil. p. 538, Vallarsi).
Nor is this the only instance in which the editors of Irenzus have been at fault. In AHaer. 1. praef. 2 likewise this father quotes one whom he styles in the same way (0 kpeitrwv ypdv, here however rendered melior nobis in the Latin), and who is doubtless the same person. Here the original Greek is happily preserved, which I will write out as it ought to be written, separating the prose from the verse (without how- ever altering a single word);
ec 4 an e ral A ~ , A aA Kaas vro TOU KPELTTOVOS NMOV ELPNTaL éTL TMV TOLOUTWY [Trav atpeTiKar | o OTL \ AWov tov Tipov , x» \ , / opaparySov ovTa Kat moAuTipynToV TLC 7 \ varos évufpile. dua TéxvNs a \ ~~ e / / 7 TOpOMOLOYLEVy, OTOTAV py apy oO oGévwv Soxinacar Kat \ db \ , téxvn duedeySar THY Tavovpyws yevomevnv gq SY oTrav be eTULLyN ce A > \ a» , > , 0 xaXKos €is TOY apyupoV, Tis evKOAWS
an > , /, duvyoerae TOUTOV QAKEPALWS SoKi paras
where however for axepaiws we should probably read axépacos, as the Latin has ‘rudis quum sit.’ Very slight alterations would bring more of the context into the verses. Thus opowvpevy might be substituted for zapopovovpevyn, and orav yap for oray 6é, the Latin having ‘quum enim.’ But this is sufficient to show that several verses are embedded in a passage which the editors print continuously as prose. Probably
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 407
‘our superior’ in the two last passages is the same with the ‘divine elder’ who writes against Marcus in the first.
The employment of verse or of rhythm for theological teaching was not uncommon in these early ages. The heretics had their own psalms, in which they propounded their favourite doctrines. From the orthodox point of view Clement of Alexandria, at the close of his Paedagogus (I. p. 312 sq), has written a metrical hymn in honour of Christ for educational purposes. An anonymous contemporary of Clement, who has been identified for excellent reasons with Hippolytus, is quoted by Eusebius (4. Z. y. 28) as referring to the ‘numerous psalms and songs’ (Wadpot ooo: «at wdat) written by believers in which Christ is spoken of as God. Again; in the fourth century the notorious Za/za of Arius, which was sung in the streets and taverns of Alexandria, will occur to us on the one side, and the poems of the elder and younger Apollinaris on the other. More especially, where a memoria technica was needed, as in the list of the Canon, verse was naturally employed as a medium. In the last quarter of the fourth century we have two such metrical lists of the Scriptures—the one by Amphilochius, the other by Gregory Nazianzen.
The AZuratorian Canon was discovered and published by Muratori in 1740 from a MS in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, originally taken from the ancient monastery of Bobbio. It contains a canon of the New Testament. It is mutilated at the beginning so that it commences in the middle of the second Gospel; and it ends in the midst of an account of certain apocryphal books. Muratori himself attributed it to Gaius, the contemporary of Hippolytus, who flourished under Zephyri- nus. All the necessary information respecting the text will be found in Tregelles’s Canon Muratorianus (Oxford, 1867), and in Westcott’s History of the Canon Appx C.
It is generally allowed that this catalogue emanated from Rome, as indeed the mention of ‘the city’ implies. Of its date we may say that it is ascribed by different critics to various epochs between about a.D. 160 and A.D. 220. The general opinion also is that the document was written in Greek and that we possess only a not very skilful, though literal, translation, greatly corrupted however in the course of transmis- sion. On the other hand Hesse in his important monograph (Das Muratoriscthe Fragment, Giessen 1873) maintains that Latin was the original language; and he has succeeded in convincing Caspar (Zau/- symbol Ill. p. 410) and one or two others. His reasons however seem to me to be wholly inadequate. Thus he lays stress on such forms as Spania, catholica, etc., maintaining that these are admissible in Latin,
408 EPISTLES OF °S.’ CLEMENT.
This may be perfectly true, but proves nothing. I cannot doubt that the usual view is correct. The literature of the Roman Church was still Greek, as we see from the example of Hippolytus; even though Victor, being an African, may have written in Latin. Moreover I am quite unable to explain the phenomena of the document, if it is preserved to us in its original language. The whole cast and connexion of the sentences are Greek. In answer to this view, it is urged that on this hypothesis the document ought to lend itself easily for retranslation into Greek, and that the Greek reproduction ought to throw back light on the meaning of the Latin. To this objection the following pages will, I trust, be a sufficient answer.
But it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the original document was written in verse, like the corresponding lists of Amphilo- chius and Gregory Nazianzen. Yet the more I study the work, the stronger does this conviction grow. Neither in phraseology nor in substance does it resemble a prose document. ‘There is an absence of freedom and equability in the treatment. ‘This is the more remark- able where the writer is dealing with a mere list pure and simple. It is obvious that he has to grapple with a medium which constrains him and determines what form any particular statement shall take.
The Muratorian Fragment has been translated into Greek prose by Lagarde for Bunsen (Axalecta Antenicena 1. p. 142 sq), and by Hilgen- feld (Einleitung in das NV. T. p. 97 sq). Either of these translations would, as it seems to me, justify the contention that Greek was the original language of the fragment, for it reads so much more naturally than in the Latin. I had not read either of these when I made my own verse renderings ; but I note with satisfaction that the last words of the fragment,
Asianum Cataphrygum constitutorem, are translated unconsciously by Hilgenfeld into an iambic line,
tov tov ’Aciavav Katadpptywov Katacrarny, as I had translated it, except that I should substitute xara ®pvyas for Karadpvywr, since the Montanists are always (so far as I have noticed)
called in Greek ot ®ptyes or ot kata Ppvyas, never ot Karadpvyes, at all events for some centuries’. But would not ‘constitutor’ be a strange
1 They are oi Pp’yes in Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 13, p. 605; 20. vil. 17, p. 605; Hippol. Haer. viii. pref., 19, x. 25; Pensehs) a. 2.) tv, 07,..¥. 163° but [ol] Kata Ppvyas Ps-Tertull. [Hippol.] adv.
Omn. Haer. 7 ‘qui dicuntur secundum Phrygas,’ Euseb. @. 2. il. 255 ¥aginee vi. 20; Epiphan. aer. xlviil. 12, 14, pp. 413, 416. In the title of Epiphanius we have karagpuvyaoray, but this is probably
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 409
word for a ‘founder’ in an original Latin prose document? Why also should these Cataphrygians be called Asiatic, except that an epithet was wanting to fill up a line?
Again: the author of Supernatural Religion, . p. 385, accuses the writer of this Canon of going so far as to ‘ falsify’ the words of S. John’s First Epistle in his zeal to get evidence for the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. He was a clumsy blunderer, if this were his design; for his abridgment has considerably weakened the force of the onginal. But his motive, I believe, was much more innocent. He had to squeeze the language of the epistle into his own verse; and accordingly he wrote (as represented by his translator),
dicens in semetipsum quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt haec scripsimus vobis,
which may have run in the Greek ; Neyo és éavtov: ofOarpotow a & éwpdxapmer, Kakykoapev Tots woiv, at O nuav xépes eunradynoay, tu avT éypawaper. Now let us see what can be made of some longer passages ; (x) acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt Lucas obtimo Theophi- lo comprendit quia sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem Tetri evidenter declarat sed et profectionem Pauli ab ur- be ad Spaniam proficiscentis. Epistulae autem Pauli quae a quo loco vel qua ex causa directae sint volentibus intelligere ipsae declarant. Primum omnium Corinthiis scysma heresis in- terdicens deinceps Galatis circumcisionem Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans. aN aroatoAwy mpaces atavtwv BiBdiov vp ev yeypaypevas Aovkas Kpaticty @eoditw ovdAdapBaver, QUTOU TApOVTOS Ws EkaoT empaTTETO’ a corruption for trav xara Ppvyas, though Monk, Serm. 130 (p. 1845, Migne). this error is older than Antiochus the
410 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
c ‘\ / > 5 , e + , ws Kal paxpav [y azdvtos y ovyn| 7abos >
Ilérpov zpodaiver kak wodews 8 eis Szraviav IlavAov mopeiav éxropevopévov cadas. IIavAov 8 émicroAat tives, éx Tivos TOToD, > / ED) of > a ereoTtaAnoav, 7 Tolas e& aitias,
A 3 \ a / a dnAotow avtrai toto. BovAopévois voetv*
~ /
TpaTov ye TavTwv aiperews Kopww6lors
PY , > , oxic, amtayopevwv, eita Tadaras mepitopny,
lal e Bsa. 5 ypapav d€ “Pwpaiourr tagiv, adda Kal > \ reed \ + 8 /, ; apxnv éxetvwy Xpiotov ovta deuxviwv.
For the form and quantity of this last word there is good Attic authority (Menander in Fragm. Comm. Graec. Iv. pp. 93, 245). As regards the martyrdom of S. Peter and the journey of S. Paul to Spain, there can be little doubt, I think, as to the meaning. As S. Luke only records what took place within his own cognisance, his silence about these two important facts is regarded as evidence that they happened in his absence. But whether or not some words have fallen out in the Latin, such as I have given in the Greek, ‘semote [quum esset, silentium ejus| evidenter declarat,’ I will not venture to say.
(2) fertur etiam ad Laudicenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli no- mine finctae ad haeresim Marcionis et alia plu- ra quae ad catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest fel enim cum melle misceri non con- gruit. | heperar d€ Kat n Aaodixetow, 4 8 “AXdeEavdpedow ai, mpos Mapkiwvos aipeow meracpevat ovopate IlavAov: moda + aA’ a Kabodukny ouK avadexeobar duvatov eis éxxAnoiav' ov ovpdéeper yap peédite piyvucbar xoAnv, which last line reminds us of the language of the earlier poet who wrote against the heretic Marcus. (3) pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathe- dram urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio eps fratre
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. ALI
ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se pu- blicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest.
tov 6€ Tlowweva XV A e , s Lal ‘ VEWOTL KOLPOLS YmETEpOLS Ev TH ToAEL ‘Pwpyn ovveypawev éerixabnpevov Iiov ‘Eppas xabédpav rhode “Pwpaiwv rodews \ éexkAnolas adeAdos av émirKoToV* ov 3 5 > , / > > 3 , woT ovv avaywwokey pév, ev O éxxAyola A / ov OnuoctevecOai ode TH AAD xpewv' ovd év tpodytas Svvatov ovde ovvtedciv
) , 5 > \ ° / / amootoAwy és apiuov eis TéAos yxpovor,
where I am disposed to think that ‘completum numero’ is a clumsy translation, perhaps corrupted by transcription, of the idiomatic Greek ouvteXeiv és apiOpnov, ‘ to be classed among the number’; but it would not be difficult to substitute a more literal rendering of the Latin. In this passage the repetitions ‘in urbe roma,’ ‘urbis romae,’ ‘sedente cathedram,’ ‘ ecclesiae episcopus,’ lead me to suspect that we have here some surplusage introduced for the sake of foreigners, when the original document was translated into Latin for the use of (say) the African churches; but I have given them the benefit of the doubt, and retranslated them.
But if this catalogue was originally written in Greek verse, who was the poet? In a paper written some time ago (Hermathena 1. p. 82 sq) on the ‘Chronology of Hippolytus’ Salmon (p. 122 sq) discussed at length the notice of the authorship of Hermas, which the Muratorian Canon has in common with the Liberian Catalogue, of which the earlier portion is attributed on fairly satisfactory grounds to Hippolytus. He there maintains that the writer’s ‘nuperrime temporibus nostris’ cannot be too strictly pressed; that a change came over the Church after the age of Irenzus and Clement of Alexandria, who both quote the Shepherd with deference; that this change took place in the interval between the two treatises of Tertullian, De Oratione and De Pudicitia, the work being treated with respect in the former and rejected in the latter, as having been classed ‘ by every council of your churches among false and apocryphal books’; and that the statement in the AZuratorian Canon was the great instrument in effecting this change. The Muratorian Canon on this showing therefore may be placed at the close of the first century or the beginning of the second, so that there
412 EPISTLES OF 8S.) CLEMENT.
is no difficulty in ascribing it to Hippolytus, or at least in assuming it to have been known to him, and thus to have suggested the note which we find in the Liberian Catalogue. As however I do not see that Salmon elsewhere (Smith and Wace, Duct. of Christ. Biogr. ss. vv. ‘Hippolytus,’ ‘Muratorian Canon’) has so ascribed it, though he still maintains the later date, I presume that he has changed his mind.
Now I should not be prepared to attribute an influence so great to this document, especially if it came from Hippolytus, who was at daggers drawn with the heads of the Roman Church. But nevertheless I am ready to accept the Hippolytean authorship. To this view I am predisposed by the fact that there was no one else in Rome at this time, so far as we know, competent to produce it. It agrees in all respects with the Canon of Hippolytus; both in its rejection of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and its accept- ance of the genuineness of the Apocalypse. Moreover the language used of the Shepherd of Hermas is strongly in favour of the attribution to Hippolytus. But I seem also to see elsewhere direct evidence of the Hippolytean authorship. Among the works of Hippolytus, whose titles are inscribed on his Chair, we read @Aalictacactacrpadac. If correctly copied, this represents dat eis macas Tas ypadas, ‘odes’ or ‘verses on all the Scriptures.’ This might represent two titles; (1) wdai, and (2) eis tacas tas ypadas. In this case the wdat would only be available as showing that Hippolytus wrote metrical compositions, of which these verses on the Canon might be one; and «is racas tds ypapas would represent his exegetical works which, as we learn from Jerome, were numerous, though it would be an exaggeration. But against this separation two objections lie: (1) In no other case in this inscription are titles of two works run together in one line (see above, pp. 325, 395). Thus yponikoon has a line to itself, though only one word. (2) The inscriber has already named the commentary ‘On the Psalms,’ not to mention the treatise on the ‘Witch of Endor’ (tHv éyyaotpivvOov) and the ‘Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,’ which might all have been dispensed with, if «is macas tds ypapas were a comprehensive description of his commentaries and other exegetical works. What then were these ‘odes referring to all the Scriptures’? Might they not describe two metrical compositions relating to the Canon of the Old and New Testament respectively, of which the latter only is preserved, being itself mutilated at the beginning? If this were not sufficient to account for the expression, the collection might, hke Gregory Nazianzen’s, have included poems “On the Patriarchs,’ ‘On the Plagues of Egypt,’ ‘On the Decalogue,’
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 413
‘On Elijah and Elisha,’ ‘On the Miracles of Christ,’ ‘On the Parables of Christ,’ etc. But this seems to me unnecessary. Before the extant leaves in the ms, which begin abruptly in the middle of the description of S. Mark, a sheet or sheets are wanting, and these may have contained the Canon of the Old Testament. This was at least as important as the Canon of the New in the eyes of the early fathers, and’ precedes it in almost every ancient list, e.g. in Athanasius and Epiphanius, in Amphilochius and Gregory Nazianzen. ‘The fragment on the Canon is followed in the ms by a passage from S. Ambrose (De Adrah. i. 3, S§ 15, 16, Of. 1. p. 289); and Jerome tells us (Zfis¢. Ixxxiv. 7) of S. Ambrose that he ‘sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenis] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique segueretur.” If Jerome does not treat the two works of Hippolytus eis rnv éLanuepov and eis ta peta TV é€aypepov as one, at all events Ambrose would use the second as freely as he used the first. May we not then have here possibly (I will not Say more) a passage from a Latin translation of Hippolytus, which Ambrose borrowed verbatim ?
If Hippolytus be the author of this Canon, it was probably one of his earliest works. He seems to have died about a.p. 236, being then in advanced age. Thus his birth may be placed about a.D. 155—160. His literary activity began early; for his Compendium on Heresies for various reasons which I will explain presently cannot well be placed after about A.D. 185 or 190. In this case he might say with only a - natural exaggeration that Hermas wrote the Shepherd ‘temporibus nostris,’ according to his own view of the authorship, which may or may not have been correct.
I may add that in the above translations I have avoided many metrical licenses which Hippolytus might have used. My task would have been much easier if I had indulged in such monstrosities as we find even in cultured writers like Amphilochius and Gregory Nazianzen, writing on the same theme.
§ 7. THE COMPENDIUM AGAINST ALL THE HERESIES.
A work by Hippolytus ‘against all the Heresies’ was widely known among early writers. It is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, it supplied Epiphanius and Philaster largely with materials, and it is probably quoted by the Roman Bishop Gelasius. Photius (42. 32. b) has described this work, which he calls ovvrayywa ‘a compendium,’ rather fully.
414 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
He speaks of it as a little book (BiBAdapiov). It comprised thirty- two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians. It was founded on some lectures of Irenzeus (ope- Aodvros EHipynvaiov), in which these heresies were submitted to refu- tations (éA€yxeus vroBAnOjvar). It was clear, grave, and terse in style; though it fell short of the Attic diction. It was not absolutely accurate in some respects, as for instance in stating that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by S. Paul.
When the great work of Hippolytus—the so-called Philosophu- mena—was discovered and published for the first time by Miller, who — however ascribed it to Origen, several critics, who discerned the true authorship, believed that this was the identical work described by Photius. Bunsen for instance was very positive on this point; though in his later edition he speaks more circumspectly. But a careful inspection showed that the identification was impossible. In the first place Photius calls the work which he describes ‘a little book.’ Now the Phzlosophu- mena is a large book, even in its present mutilated condition; and when it comprised the whole ten books—of which two are lost—could not by any figure of language be called BiBAdaprov. Least of all, would it be designated a ‘Synopsis,’ or ‘Compendium’; for it is even diffuse in the treatment of most heresies of which it treats at all. Secondly; by no feat of arithmetic can the number of heresies which it includes be summed up as thirty-two. TZird/y,; it neither begins nor ends like the work described by Photius. The first heresy dealt with is not the Dosithean, but the Naassene; and the last is not the Noetian, but the Elchesaite. Of its relation to Irenzeus I shall have to speak presently.
But though the Phzlosophumena is not the identical treatise men- tioned by Photius, it recognises the existence of that treatise ; and it does so in such a way as to show that the two were the work of the same author. At the commencement of this longer work the writer states (AR. 1. a) that long ago (mado) he had written to expose and refute the doctrines of the heretics, not minutely (xara Aerrov), but roughly and in their broad features (adpouepds); that they had failed to profit by his moderation, and that now he must speak more plainly and warn them of their eternal peril. Here then we have a description, as having been written at a much earlier date, of the ‘Compendium’ seen by Photius.
But is this ‘Compendium’ still extant in any form or other? At the close of the Praescriptio Haereticorum of Tertullian is added, asa sort of appendix, a brief summary of heresies, which has long been recognised as the work of some other author besides Tertullian. As
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. AI5
this list begins with the Dositheans, it was a somewhat obvious con- jecture that we have here a Latin translation or abridgement of Hip- polytus’ work. This conjecture is as old as Allix Fathers vindicated touching the Trinity p. 99, who is quoted by Waterland (Works v. p. 227); but to Lipsius (Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Wien 1865) the merit is due of rescuing the theory from the region of conjecture and placing it on a solid scientific basis.
The list of the Pseudo-Tertullian contains about thirty-two heresies, one or two more or less, for it is not possible in every case to determine whether a particular designation is intended to specify a separate heresy or not. Moreover it begins, as I have said, with the Dositheans, as Photius describes the Syz¢agma of Hippolytus as beginning; but instead of ending with Noetus, it substitutes another monarchian, Praxeas. How this came to pass I shall explain presently.
But the great testimony to the identity of the Pseudo-Tertullian with Hippolytus is derived from a different source. Two later writers on heresies, Epiphanius and Philaster, have very much in common. They wrote about the same time. Epiphanius commenced his work in the year 374, and the 66th of the 80 sections was written in 376. The date of Philaster’s work cannot be decided with absolute certainty, but it _ seems to have been written about 380. Thus there is no chronological impossibility in the common parts having been derived by Philaster from Epiphanius. But the independence of the two is shown incon- testably by the two following considerations.
(1) The same thirty-two heresies which appear in the Pseudo- Tertullian run like a back-bone through the works of Epiphanius and Philaster, being supplemented in different ways by the two writers at divers points, as far as the close of the second century when Hip- polytus wrote.
(2) After the close of the second century, they have nothing in common, which suggests any plagiarism on either side.
The following list of heresies in the three writers, carried down as far as the Arians, will make these phenomena plain:
EPIPHANIUS PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN PHILASTER Ophites Cainites Sethites Barbarism
Scythism
416
EPIPHANIUS
Hellenism :— Platonists
Pythagoreans
Stoics Epicureans Samaritans :— Gortheni Sebuaei Essenes Dositheus Judaism :— Scribes Pharisees Sadducees
Hemerobaptists
Ossenes Nazarenes
(Nagcapaitor)
Herodians Simon Magus Menander Saturninus Basilides Nicolaitans Gnostici Borborians (Barbelites)
Carpocrates Cerinthus Nazarenes (Nafwpator) Ebionites
PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN
Dositheus
Sadducees Pharisees
Herodians Simon Magus Menander Saturninus Basilides Nicolaitans
Ophites Cainites Sethites Carpocrates Cerinthus
Ebionites
EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
PHILASTER
Dositheus
Sadducees Pharisees Samaritans
Nazarenes (Nazaraei) Essenes Heliognosti Frog-worshippers (Ranarum cultores) Musorites Musca-accaronites Troglodytes De Fortuna Caeli Baalites Astarites Moloch-worshippers De Ara Tophet Puteorites Worshippers of the Brazen Serpent Worshippers in subterranean caves Thammuz-mourners Baalites (or Belites) Baal-worshippers de Pythonissa Astar and Astaroth-worship- pers Herodians Simon Magus Menander Saturninus Basilides Nicolaitans (isti Barbelo venerantur)
Judaites
Carpocrates Cerinthus
Ebionites
EPIPHANIUS
Valentinus Secundus Ptolemaeus Marcosians Colarbasus Heracleon Ophites Cainites Sethites Archontici Cerdon Marcion Apelles Lucian Severians Tatian Encratites Cataphrygians :—
Montanists Tascodrugites Pepuzians Quintillians Artotyrites Quartodecimans Alogi Adamians Sampsaeans (Elkesaeans)
Theodotus
Melchizedekites
Bardesanes Noetians
Valesians
Cathari
Angelici Apostolici Sabellians Origenaeans
Paul of Samosata Manichaeans Hierakites Meletians
Arians
CLEM. II.
PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN
Valentinus Ptolemaeus Secundus Heracleon Marcus Colarbasus
Cerdon Marcion Lucan Apelles
Tatian
Cataphrygians :—
secundum Proclum secundum Aeschinem
Blastus Theodotus
Melchizedekites (Theodotus IT)
Praxeas
(end)
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.
PHILASTER
Valentinus Ptolemaeus Secundus Heracleon Marcus Colarbasus
Cerdon Marcion Lucan Apelles
Tatian
Cataphrygians
Theodotus
De Patris et Filii substantia
Melchizedekites
Noetians
Sabellians (Praxeans) (Hermogenians)
Seleucus
Hermias
Proclianites (Hermeonites)
Florians (Carpocratians)
Quartodecimans
Chilionetites
Alogi
Manichaeans
Patricians
Symmachians
Paul of Samosata
Photinus
Arians
417
418 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
The original treatise of Hippolytus closed with the heresy of Noetus. In place of Noetus, the Latin abridgement substitutes another mon- archian, Praxeas. With this Praxeas we are chiefly acquainted through the tract of Tertullian directed against him’. He came to Rome during the pontificate of Zephyrinus (c. A.D. 199—217), with whom his doctrines found favour, as we learn from Hippolytus that he embraced monarchian views. ‘This is the pontiff respecting whom Tertullian writes (c. 1) ‘Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.’ He moreover says that Praxeas had influenced this bishop by repre- senting his predecessors as having maintained the orthodox doctrine (praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo), just as the same charge is brought against the contemporary monarchians, Artemon and others, by the author of the treatise directed against them, presumably Hippolytus. There can be little doubt therefore that Tertullian writes during the episcopate of Zephyrinus*. It seems clear also that Tertullian borrows from Hippolytus, and not conversely.
[This section was never finished ’®. ]
§ 8. THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
[See above, p. 403. Not written. |
1 See the article Tertullian wider 2 I have stated elsewhere that Victor Praxeas by Noedechen in $ahrd. f. was the bishop attacked by Tertullian: Protest. Theol. X1v. p. 576 sq (1888), in but I am now convinced that Zephyrinus which the relations of Tertullian to is meant.
Hippolytus are traced, showing that the 3 [For the approximate date of the African father is indebted to the Roman, Compendium see below, p. 426.] and not conversely.
PIPrFOLYTUs OF PORTUS. 419
§ 9.
TABLE OF THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS.
We are now in a position to tabulate the various writings of Hippolytus by the aid of our chief authorities Eusebius, Jerome, Georgius Syncellus, Ebed-Jesu, Photius and Theodoret ; and to com- pare the table thus obtained with the list of works inscribed on the Chair. It will be noticed that the results are fairly satisfactory. If we may consider ourselves justified in supposing that we have in the Muratorian Canon and in the Liber Generationis translations of the @dal cis macas tas ypadas and the xpovxa respectively (see above, I. p. 258 sq, Il. pp. 399, 405 sq), in almost every other case we can identify the works mentioned on the Chair with the help of the several lists of Hippolytus’ writings, as they occur in the patristic notices of the saint. Of these lists that of Jerome is the most complete. Again, extracts of some of the works themselves survive in the pages of Photius, Theodoret, etc., and throw much light on the scope and contents of the several treatises. It would be premature to conclude that an absolute identification has in every instance been established. Doubtless in the light of fresh discoveries our present results will require modification. But it is fair to say that the table given below has been worked out at an expenditure of considerable care and attention.
The writings of Hippolytus are arranged and numbered in the order given in § 5 of this chapter (see above, p. 388 sq), where the arguments for the identification of the various writings will be found stated at
greater length.
27—2
Trees
ah VD OLD | 104
anjLoyoup 70 207 geet QoL OripyyT -OuD 10H ete (z£ *yp) snuswmogy $ (FI ane sa “DI PLON DID\ PPI | 43 alt S79 YN S10 ad asfaqoo0d Pr ay alapmy PLM¥ not daua 61 qr ay yo10posy,], z¥r/oan1g amLapyns amt alt S79 (2°2I *‘yP) JerOpoay_T, SvLoliy ong saoxt $79 a (I'S °Y PH) “UOLTIPY mnapyjzpvyy ue *1U1u0d Lr : sypods SD3d YON SYIDYDL SD}OLADL SDYYP S79 UVIADYIDZ UT QI (r€ ‘VF) seping £ (ze ‘y F) Snaaponoz sniuawindy) £ (9 *1€ “yP) sunoyg £(g1 yx nodym nor anys “yP) smiyeasny {(Y *§ yp) snwAuossr zy \laany anjaalinid3 -anl AML \Yliany 10» yawUvng a Sr Wana say, vLoypn \4rna5aq, aoL day 73 ¥y Log "I 4O ‘791g “Wassy) wmnr2U202f wW2 bare ¢y amid (v ‘1 *yR) JeA0poay ], “Od AML DYYOL S79 wavs uy tI 2N40I22 nLvnon PL $79 | -uvQUNIIQUDIUT nnop OL $73 ri IISVUSIIIDE ACT O1 (r¢ “YP) Sepmng soLamroyoz eeahe SDL S)9 S22QAIQLOAT ICT 6 q Se °ur "WV P) XIXO SAIXX ‘IIIXx “II "Sg JOIOpOSY TL S2UJDST IAT Snoryn[ fA sQot 573] 8 DSSiU 109 OY IAT 73 INDS OT -anjdLovd[ha ake 573] L (q “eer yy) J2IOpOI, avaay,, at yo aya AV, aoL $79 9 (q ‘0% *y Pp) snijuoaT (ripndgy, ‘| *A) Wpvyng nor rm7zA0yQ> 10 c UMINpOXT uy F aodanl. aodan (9 °g ‘yp) snuuos1pyT 039 at pLa pL $79 wuasauay ug | -v$2 alt pian pL $73 ¢ (3 ‘p *g ‘y PF) snuAuosatHy aodanlin39 alt $19 | uodauanxary uy aodanlin3a aks $73 z spp [oun uvrsojpvanpy | -vdX svt Snopu ae I OILADAXY ANV TVOIIdIg “Ww SHIVNOS YAHLO ORI TUES NR a en SOW ANOMELE SAIGTSAT YIVFHD HHL = SNXOM
= <_< Sa” SERRE TG i SSS EN Ra a EE ee Set Se
‘ (@ "1€ ‘YP) snyoyg sogaidagvy ‘vasrinopoo0yig (22 yy) “eT “U0, s79lAl33 vXovu o1 79 $(12 *YP) ‘yoseg ‘uolyd wvXovu anojpdy nor dan
DYISDT I wXopu nor dru sio0gndnu lxVoLo
-oup amiprloidnX ras 1g
AQNDN OL
a3g9s OX NOQDADL dau | OF
1uau ~01MD]Y vtIU0D
nam xdvy Sod nam ndny Soda
€b -d apavde'yT aotkony 2703070 ale $79
(9 *zI ‘“yP) JoIOpoayT, Sogaidagvy sodyinlo §(e°1€ “yR) snoyg vamnzidy , sodu {(€1 *ypP) snisvpan wnzsasavy witowaue S(q *1€ ‘wE) snnoyd 401nQ -1V 91g am3.03d10 vLow § (1% “yP) “yoseg uoryD vndnLago s13039d19 SPL svovuD SodL
$13.0 SASAAIDY 513.030 -2010 SDMIOY SDL 1MN | saU2uO SHSLIApPP | -7O SOL SHOPLY sodu
6z
TVOIOOTOISHYH A, °C
Dagan ‘ys audnddvap IMAL ht wXOPL NOL AON uouns unsoguiag | at amagdX ams ch a9 [pL] vLvy vXopu [seeorgn.4auay 139tT7 | -utsn43970¥339 A0L | 29 avyssog ouvy|ar wvXopu gor ydau| QOL amagdX sizraggup 8% (91 ‘YP) (é) “ys49g “TEAD agnraodX | Lz TIVOINOLSI FT
ANV ‘IVOIDOTONOUHD) °*D
| gz
Eb -d apresey wiaapporg why vx 579 (9. “rt ‘YF) suoyd 20L07;dX11a9 yor noL0id yx pau
OJStdYIUUP IT StLOJDAIDS* ULOC] ap
snjv/020570 203.u -nv’T ap pNN0.00d u snj[r/o20470 yan] bz (Foy py) seuy svj0dvghy wy sma nv10nap smaopLonap Wan $(t% *yP) ‘yey *9U0D Sn7Ao0yoIg 2032 IUOUJIIAANSIM ACT soxdv0 WH 203Q du €z%
(‘seT) Lg -d ‘1hg *jeuy wvavuuvpy pr (9 ‘q “eI “yP)
Jo1oposyL, “Yot01u> var, vQ7yr0v—) sodu (v “If ‘yy) sntjoyg § (4 1 ‘ywpy) snyAjoddrzy s700
SQLapL ROL Sut 1d9u 10 ‘sQLanu nor 2d>u
anaiadliug -9% Sod soNIL3dLod x wu
SOLADIL AOL
qa 10 L DAMLDYIT sod yor snalyyry , Sodu Iz Snoj[ngnoy, sor sed] o%
422 BPISTLES OF |3. CLEMENT:
S 10. EARLY AND MIDDLE LIFE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
At different points in his life Hippolytus was brought into personal contact with two great fathers of the Church, in youth or early manhood with Irenzeus, and in middle age with Origen. If we are able approxi- mately to fix these dates, we shall obtain chronological landmarks of some value, where all is uncertain.
1. The connexion of Hippolytus with IrEN#Uus is obvious on all hands. To Irenzus he was largely indebted in both of his general heresiological works—in his early Compendium, which was avowedly founded upon the lectures of Irenzeus, and in his later Phi/osophumena, in which he borrows large passages, sometimes with and sometimes without the name, from the written work of his master. Moreover it is hardly possible to read any considerable fragment of his other extant works without stumbling upon some thought or mode of expression which reminds us of Irenzeus or the Asiatic elders.
When and where then was this personal communication held? Hip- polytus might himself have migrated, like Irenzeus, from Asia Minor in early life ; and thus the instructions which he received from his master may have been given in his original Asiatic home. But his extant writings contain no indication that he was ever in the East, and we therefore look to Rome itself, or at all events not farther than the South of Gaul, for the place of his Christian schooling. We are thus led to enquire when Irenzeus is known to have settled in the West, and more especially when he is known to have visited Rome.
If the story in the Appendix to the Moscow ms of the Letter of the Smyrneans be correct, Irenzeus was teaching in Rome at the time of Polycarp’s death a.p. 155. At all events he paid a visit of longer or shorter duration to the metropolis about a.p. 177, at the time of the persecutions in Vienne and Lyons, after which he himself became bishop of Lyons in succession to the martyred Pothinus*. But there is no reason for supposing that these two occasions exhausted his residence at Rome.
On which occasion can Hippolytus have attended his lectures? Irenzeus’ extant work on Heresies was written as far as the 3rd book (ili. 3. 3) during the episcopate of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 177190) and as
1 Jonat. and Polyc. 1. p. 432 ed. 1 (I- ed. 2). 448 ed. 2); Il. p. 986 ed. 1 (III. p. 402 a Luseb. Alte Va ay Be
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 423
he leaves the reference to this episcopate untouched (viv...rdv. 77s emioKko7s...katTéxet KANpov ’EXevepos), it is a reasonable, though not an absolute, conclusion that Eleutherus was still living when the work was finally published. The earlier work however of Hippolytus, the Compendium, was founded on the lectures, and (as we may infer from the notice) betrayed no knowledge of any published work of his master. On the other hand the later treatise, the P/zlosophumena, quotes large passages, sometimes by name, from the extant work of Irenzus. These facts seem to show that the Compendium of Hippolytus _ was written before the publication of the latter, i.e. at all events before A.D. 190. And we should probably be right in assuming that the lectures were held not later than A.p. 177, and before Irenzeus became bishop of Lyons.
2. We are told by Jerome (42. 8. b) that Hippolytus held in presence of ORIGEN who was then at Rome ‘a homily on the Praise of the Lord (zpocouirta de Laude Domini Salvatoris'). Of Origen we are told in his own language that he had ‘desired to see the ancient Church of the Romans’ (evéapevos tv dpyatotatny “Pwpaiwy éxxcAyolav idetv), and that accordingly he went there in the time of Zephyrinus (c. A.D. I99—217), and after staying a short time (ov 7oAv diarpivas) he returned to Alexandria (Euseb. % Z£. vi. 14). It would seem from this language that it was his only visit to the capital of the world. _ Considering the chronology of Origen’s life, who was born about A.D. 185 or 186, this visit would probably be paid towards the close ~ of Zephyrinus’ episcopate.
At this time Hippolytus must have been at the height of his activity. Before the close of the previous century, as we shall see, he was probably consecrated by his patron Victor to the episcopate with the charge of the miscellaneous population at the Harbour of Rome; and, when Origen visited the metropolis, his feud with the heads of the Roman hierarchy must have been raging. __
It will be observed that, in repeating this incident, Photius (A202. 121) by a strange blunder has ascribed to Hippolytus (42. 31. b) what Jerome (AR. 8. b) tells us of Ambrosius, and thus makes Hippolytus the ‘task-master’ (€pyoduwxrys) of Origen. He must have misunderstood Jerome’s words ‘in hujus aemulationem.’
1, On the possible identity of this inthe list of Hippolytus’ writings on the homily with a work (epi ofxovouias) Chair, see above, p. 398. mentioned by Ebed-Jesu, and included
424 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Seat,
WAS HIPPOLYTUS A NOVATIAN?
About the year 407 the Spanish poet Prudentius paid a visit to Rome. Among other sanctuaries which he visited were the basilica and cemetery of Hippolytus on the north side of the Tiburtine Road, just beyond the walls of the city, of which he has left us an elaborate description in one of his poems (4A. 10). Among other statements he tells us distinctly (ver. 19 sq) that Hippolytus ‘had once dallied with (attigerat) the schism of Novatus’; that he was afterwards con- demned to be executed; that on his way to martyrdom the crowds of Christian friends who accompanied him enquired of him, ‘which was the better party’ (‘quaenam secta foret melior’), the Novatians or the Catholics; and that he replied, ‘Flee from the accursed schism of Novatus; restore yourselves to the Catholic people; let one only faith flourish, the faith that resides in the ancient temple which Paul claims and the chair of Peter. I repent me that I taught what I did; I discern as a martyr that reverence is due to that which I once thought alien to the service of God.’ It is unnecessary to enquire at present whether Prudentius in his description confuses two con- temporaries bearing the same name, Hippolytus the soldier and Hippolytus the presbyter. Recent archzological discovery has shown that this charge of Novatianism belongs to Hippolytus ‘the presbyter’.
Among the many archeological gains which we owe to De Rossi, not the least is the restoration of the inscription placed by pope Damasus [A.D. 366—384] in this sanctuary of Hippolytus and read by Prudentius. Though he has amplified the words of Damasus (as the exigencies of his poem suggested) the close resemblances between the two forbid us to doubt about the source of his information. Now Damasus tells us (42. 7. a), likewise in verse, that ‘Hippolytus she presbyter, when the commands of the tyrant pressed upon him, is reported (fertur) to have remained all along (semper) in the schism of Novatus, what time the sword wounded the vitals of our Mother (the Church)’; but that ‘when as a martyr of Christ he was journeying to the realms of the saints, the people asked him whither they might betake themselves (procedere posset), he replied that they ought all to follow the Catholic faith.’ So he concludes
Noster meruit confessus martyr ut esset ; Haec audita refert Damasus. Probat omnia Christus;
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 425
‘Our saint by his confession won the crown of martyrdom. Damasus tells the tale as he heard i¢, All things are tested and proved by Christ.’
It was very natural that the discoverer and restorer of the in- scription, which was the sole foundation (so far as we can see) of the story in Prudentius, should claim undue authority for its statements. To De Rossi it seems incredible that Damasus could have been mis- taken about events which occurred at least some 120 or I50 years before he wrote (according as the schism of Hippolytus was Novatianism or not, i.e. according as it dated from the age of Cornelius or from that of Zephyrinus and Callistus), especially as he had been reared from childhood amidst the services of the Church. But fivs¢ it must be observed that Damasus simply reports this as hearsay, emphasizing this fact by reiteration and leaving the conclusion to the judgment of Christ—for there is no ground for the inference that the ‘hearsay’ refers not to the lapse into Novatianism but only to the subsequent repudiation of it; and secondly we must remember that the whole history of Hippolytus was shrouded in obscurity to the Roman Christians in the age of Damasus; so much so that his much more learned but somewhat younger contemporary Jerome (4. 8. b), though in possession of a large number of works by Hippolytus, confesses his ignorance respecting the name of the writer’s see. This is a startling fact, and must be taken into account. Indeed the discovery of the inscription of Damasus is the more valuable, because it justifies the solution, which many had proposed on the publication of the Philosophumena to explain the account of Prudentius, namely that the Spanish poet had confused together an earlier outbreak of puritanism at Rome under Zephyrinus and Callistus with a later outbreak thirty years afterwards leading to the appointment of the schismatical bishop Novatian. The Novatianism of Hippolytus was a mere rumour which was circulated in Rome some four generations after his death. We are therefore entitled to weigh it on its own merits. Here two im- portant considerations must be taken into account.
(1) The Novatian schism broke out in Rome in a.p. 250 and led immediately to the consecration of Novatian as anti-pope. A full blaze of light is suddenly poured upon this chapter in the internal politics of the Roman Church by the correspondence between Rome and Carthage preserved in the Cyprianic letters. The minor vicissitudes of the schism are there revealed; names are freely mentioned; the defections and recantations are recorded; and in short there is no period in the history of the Roman Church, until we are well advanced
426 EPISTLES OF S.; CLEMENT.
in the fourth century, of which we know so much. Even the Eastern Churches of Alexandria and Antioch took an active part in the contro- versy, and are represented in the extant literature of the schism. Yet from first to last there is not a mention of Hippolytus, the most learned man in the Roman Church before the time of Jerome ; whose lapse and repentance, emphasized still further by his martyrdom, would accentuate his position with respect to the schism. Who can believe it? Is the error of Damasus, who frankly acknowledges mere rumour as his informant, a difficulty at all commensurate to this?
But besides the documents bearing directly on the Novatian schism, there is another place where we should almost certainly have found a reference to this passage in Hippolytus’ life, if it had ever occurred. The earliest western list of the bishops of Kome (given above, I. p. 253 Sq) was drawn up either by Hippolytus himself or by some contemporary, and ended with the death of Urbanus and accession of Pontianus [A.D. 230, 231]. Its first continuator extends the record from Pontianus [A.D. 231—235] to Lucius [a.p. 253, 254] and must have written immediately after the death of Lucius (see 1. p. 263). He starts with a notice of the deportation of Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus ‘the presbyter’ to the ‘unhealthy island of Sardinia,’ men- tioning the divestiture or resignation of the former. In the interregnum between Fabius (Fabianus) and Cornelius [a.p. 250—251] he states that ‘ Moyses and Maximus the presbyters and Nicostratus the deacon were apprehended and sent to prison,’ and that ‘at that time Noyatus arrived from Africa and separated Novatian and certain confessors from the Church after that Moyses had died in prison’ after a captivity of neatly twelve months. - Again under Cornelius [a.p. 251—253], he mentions that during his episcopate ‘Novatus outside the Church ordained Noyatian in the city of Rome and Nicostratus in Africa,’ and that thereupon the confessors who separated themselves from Cornelius with Maximus the presbyter returned to the Church. ‘These are nearly all the notes which this continuator inserts in the period for which he is responsible, besides dates and numbers ; and they have reference either to Hippolytus or to Novatianism (see I. p. 255 sq; comp. p. 286 sq). Why does not this contemporary writer connect the one with the other, if history had connected them by the signal fact of Hippolytus’ adhesion and recantation ?
(2) But secondly ; the extension of the life of Hippolytus beyond the middle of the second century which would be required if his Novatianism were true, introduces a serious difficulty into his chronology. I have already shown (II. p. 413 sq) that his early work, the Com-
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 427
fendium on Heresies, was probably written at all events before A.D. 190. But, if the Novatianism be accepted as true, he must have lived more than sixty years after this work was published. Moreover the last notice, which we have of any event connected with his life, is the state- ment given above from the Papal Chronicle, which belongs to the year A.D. 235. Yet, if he were really a Novatian and perished in the Decian persecution (A.D. 250—252), he must have been alive some sixteen years afterwards. Not to mention, that the notice itself, by dwelling on the ‘unhealthiness’ of the island, suggests that he perished, as Pontianus also perished, an exile in Sardinia—a too probable result of such banishment to an octogenarian.
I should add also that, though history does repeat itself, we need something more than a hearsay of the age of Damasus to convince us that the same Hippolytus should have ¢w7ce been in schism with the rulers of the Roman Church on the same ground of puritanism, and have ézwice suffered cruel persecution from the heathen rulers, whether as a confessor or as martyr.
We may therefore safely accept the conclusion of those critics, Bunsen, Dollinger, and others, who explained the story of Prudentius by the facts related in the Phzlosophumena'—confirmed as this conclu- sion has subsequently been by the discovery since made that the story had no better foundation than a late rumour.
Sen bed
CHE SBE! OF" HIP POLY TES.
Hippolytus speaks of himself as a bishop. He is so designated by others. What then was his see? Rome was the sphere of his activity while living. At Rome he was commemorated after death. All his recorded actions are connected with Rome or at least with Italy. Whether history or legend be interrogated, the answer is the same. We are not asked to travel beyond Italian ground, nor for the most part beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the world’s metropolis itself.
Hippolytus was by far the most learned man and the most prolific writer which the Roman Church produced before Jerome. It is there- fore the more remarkable that any uncertainty should rest upon the name of his see. It is still more strange that the writers who lived
* Wordsworth however (p. 158 sq) obliged to prolong the life of Hippolytus strives to maintain the accuracy of Pru- accordingly. dentius on this and other points, and is
428 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
nearest to his own time and locality should most frankly confess their ignorance.
Yet this is so. Eusebius (42. 3. d), who wrote within some eighty years of his death and was acquainted with several of his writings, tells us that he was a bishop somewhere or other (€répas ov...mpoeotws éxkAyoias). Jerome, who wrote a little more than half a century later than Eusebius, is equally at a loss (AR. 8. b). He is not dependent on this occasion, as on so many others, on his predecessor; he shows a larger acquaintance with the works of Hippolytus; he had habitually trodden the same ground, which Hippolytus trod when living. Yet he frankly confesses that he has ‘not been able to find out the name of the city’ of which Hippolytus was bishop. Bunsen indeed (1. p. 420) suggests that he could not tell, because he would not tell, and that his reticence in fact means ‘Non mi ricordo.’ For this imputation how- ever there is no ground. The one man of all others, whose antecedents placed him in the most favourable position for ascertaining the details of the earlier history of the Roman Church and who took special pains to preserve memorials of the martyrs—among others of Hippolytus himself—Pope Damasus, the older contemporary of Jerome, says nothing about his see, but calls him simply the ‘presbyter’ (4.2. 7. a), a term of which I shall have to speak presently (see below, p. 435 sq).
At length when this silence about the see of its most illustrious writer is broken by the Roman Church, the notice betrays the grossest ignorance. Gelasius followed Damasus in the papacy after a lapse of about a century (A.D. 492—496). He refers to the Treatise on Heresies as written by ‘ Hippolytus bishop and martyr of the metropolis of the Arabians,’ i.e. of Bostra (42. 13). But this notice, though blundering, is explicable and highly instructive. Eusebius, describing the chief writers of a particular period, mentions that Beryllus was bishop of the Arabians in Bostra, adding ‘in like manner Hippolytus presided (as bishop) over some other church’ (érépas zov). In translating this passage Rufinus (42. 9) drops the érépas wov and renders vaguely, ‘episcopus hic [Beryllus] fuit apud Bostram Arabiae urbem maximam. Erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit episcopus.’ This might imply to a casual reader who had not the original before him that Hippolytus was a predecessor or successor of Beryllus in the same see of Bostra.
The origin of this curious blunder has thus been satisfactorily explained, and it need not therefore give us any further trouble. Nevertheless it has given rise to some modern speculation, which cannot be passed by without a mention. Le Moyne (Varia Sacra tl.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 429
prol. p. 28 sq, ed. 2) with much learning and ingenuity maintained that the see of Hippolytus was not the Port at the mouth of the Tiber, which he calls Portus Ostiensis', but Portus Romanorum or Emporium Romanum, the modern Aden, on the Red Sea*; and he succeeded in persuading several writers of great repute such as Cave, Spanheim’*, and others*. Latterly this view has found no supporters. Of a recent attempt by Erbes to utilise this supposed connexion with Bostra— though shown to be a blunder—in support of his own chronological theories, I have had occasion to speak already. The real value of the notice of Gelasius is the evidence which it affords, that even in his time nothing was known at Rome of the see of Hippolytus.
The general opinion however makes him bishop of Portus the haven of Rome. This view prevailed before Le Moyne attempted to transfer him from the mouth of the Tiber to the mouth of the Red Sea. But Le Moyne’s attempt called forth a vigorous championship of the received view. At the instigation of Card. Ottoboni, bishop of Portus, his librarian Ruggieri, a man of learning and ability, addressed himself to the subject in a treatise De Portuenst S. Hippolyti Episcopt et Martyris Sede, which after many vicissitudes appeared at length as a posthumous work (Romae, 1771)°. This work has given its direction to later opinion on the question; and in our own generation, when the interest in Hippolytus was revived by the publication of the Phz/oso- phumena, there was a very general acquiescence on this point among those who differed most widely in other respects.
Nevertheless it must be confessed that the ancient evidence is very defective. We cannot overcome our surprise that, if his see had been within fifteen or twenty miles of Rome itself, the popes Damasus and Gelasius should have been ignorant of the fact. But the difficulty culminates in the case of Jerome. He was well acquainted with the various works of Hippolytus. His own friend Pammachius built at this very Portus a ‘xenodochium®’ or ‘hospital for foreigners,’ which
Mém. 1. p. 239, 672 sq. 5 The circumstances attending the his-
1 He does not however confuse Portus and Ostia (see p. 29 sq), as Wordsworth
seems to think (p. 259, note 7).
2 There is however, so far as I have seen, no evidence produced to show that the place was called Portus Romanus, its common name being Amportum Ro- manum.
3 Op. 1. p. 777, Lugd. Bat. r7or.
4 Not however Tillemont (as Words- worth says, p. 259), at least in my edition,
tory of the composition and appearance of this work will be found in Words- worth, p. 260 sq. It is inserted in Lum- per, Wist. Sanct. Patr. Tom. viii, and again in Migne, Patrol. Graec. X. p. 395 sq).
6 Hieron. Ffzst. xvi. § 11 (I. p. 410) ‘Audio te [Pammachium] xenodochium in Portu fecisse Romano,’ Zfzs¢. |xxvii.
430 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
became known far and wide and in which Jerome expresses the greatest interest. Did Portus retain no memorial of its most famous bishop, who died a martyr only a century and a half before?
Indeed the earliest authority for placing his see at Portus appears not at Rome nor in Italy, but in Constantinople and the East, two centuries and a half later than Jerome’s Catalogus. In the Chronicon FPaschale |c. A.D. 630] he is described as bishop ‘of the place called Portus near Rome’ (AR. 21)’. From this time forward he is occasionally so called, as for instance by Anastasius the Apocrisiarius or Papal Nuncio at Constantinople a.p. 665 (AR. 23); by Georgius Syncellus c. A.D. 792 (AR. 28); by Nicephorus of Constantinople Ta. D. 828 (AR. 29); and other later writers. The statements of Anastasius and of Nicephorus seem to be founded on the heading to a Ms of the spurious treatise Against Vero, which they both quote (see above, p- 403 sq). We may indeed suspect that this Constantinopolitan ms containing an often quoted and highly important dogmatic treatise (if it had only been genuine) was the single source of the story of the Portuensian episcopate, which seems to have been derived solely through Byzantine channels. The statement is found also in catenz and in other manuscripts containing extracts from Hippolytus.
It should be added also that, besides the defective evidence, the argument which placed Hippolytus in the see of Portus was weighted with another serious objection, which was urged with fatal effect by Dollinger. Bunsen (1. p. 422 sq, 468 sq) projected into the times of Hippolytus an arrangement of the later cardinalate, by which the bishops of the suburban sees presided as titulars of the principal churches in the City itself. Thus Hippolytus, according to Bunsen’s view, while bishop of Portus, would have been likewise a member of the Roman presbytery. This solution was highly tempting; for it seemed to explain how Hippolytus, having a diocese of his own, should inter- fere actively in the affairs of the Church of Rome in the manner described in the Pizlosophumena. It is sufficient to say that Bunsen’s view involves an anachronism of many centuries. The development in the relations between the suburban sees and the papacy is traced
§ to (I. p. 465), Ixvii. § 10 (I. p. 466) ‘Xenochium in Portu. Romano situm totus pariter mundus audivit; sub una aestate didicit Britannia quod Atgyptus et Parthus noverat vere.’ For an in- teresting account of the extant remains of this xenodochium see De Rossi Su//.
adi Archeol. Crist. IV. p. 50 Sq, P- 99 Sq (1866).
1 On the mistaken supposition that we have here the words of Peter of Alex- andria, who flourished more than three centuries earlier, see above, p. 344.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 431
by Dollinger (p. 105 sq); and the late growth and character of these relations are fatal to Bunsen’s theory.
Here Dollinger was treading on solid ground. But, when he maintained that Portus was not at this time and did not become for many generations a place of any importance (p. 77 sq), he took up a position which it is impossible to hold. The rapid growth of Portus, from the time of its foundation, is sufficiently shown by the excavations of the present generation’, even if the extant notices had been in- sufficient. There is no a priori reason why it might not have been an episcopal see in the age of Huppelue if there had been a tittle of evidence to the fact.
On the other hand Dollinger had his own solution of the difficulty, not less tempting but even less tenable. He supposed Hippolytus to have been not bishop of Portus, but of Rome itself. This was in fact the first papal schism, and Hippolytus was the first antipope.
Against this solution three serious and indeed fatal objections lie. (1) It is not justified by anything in the language of Hippolytus himself. If he had put forward these definite claims, he must have expressed them in definite terms. On the contrary he only mentions vaguely his obligation, as a bishop, to stand forward as the champion of the truth. Of his adversaries he never says that they are not the lawfully con- stituted bishops of Rome, but implies that by their doctrinal and practical irregularities they have shown themselves no true bishops. His very vagueness is the refutation to this solution of a rival papacy. (2) The entire absence of evidence—especially in Rome and the West— is fatal to the supposition. There were several papal schisms in the third and fourth centuries—one more especially within less than twenty years of his death. Yet in none of these controversies is there any reference to this one which (if it had existed) must have set the deadly precedent. Moreover we have several lists of the popes dating from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, but in not one of these is there a hint of Hippolytus as an antipope. (3) The evidence, when it does come, is hardly less conclusive than the silence. It is late; it comes from the East; and it means nothing or next to nothing. The first witness quoted is Apollinaris about a.p. 370 (AA. 6). It is a passage in a catena, ascribed, and perhaps rightly ascribed, to this father. But we should require far stronger evidence than we possess, to justify the improbable supposition that one who had the papal lists of Eusebius before him would have called Hippolytus ézioxoros “Powys, meaning thereby that he was bishop of the metropolis of the world. We must
1 See esp. De Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist. Iv. pp. 37 sq, 63, 99 (1866).
432 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
therefore suppose that part of the heading at all events is a later addition. After this we have no earlier witnesses than Eustratius c. A.D. 578 (AR. 18) and Leontius c. a.p. 620 (AR. 20). Consider- ing the late date of these writers, we must regard them as absolutely valueless to prove such a conclusion; more especially as the writers would know that Hippolytus was a bishop and that he lived in or near Rome, so that éricxoros “Pwuys would occur as a loose designation, if they did not take the pains to see whether his name was actually in the papal lists.
But, though the testimony which makes Hippolytus bishop of Portus is late and valueless, the evidence connecting him with Portus is of a very different quality and much earlier in time. Prudentius, who visited the shrine of S. Hippolytus on the Tiburtine Way as we have seen soon after A.D. 400, and gives an account (doubtless imaginary in its main features) of the martyrdom, speaks of the persecutor as leaving Rome to trouble the suburban population and as harassing the Christians at the mouth of the Tiber (‘Christicolas tunc Ostia vexanti per Tiberina viros’). The tyrant, he continues, ‘extended his rage to the coast of the Tyrrhene shore and the regions close to sea-washed Portus.’ After devoting some thirty lines to describing the punishments inflicted there, he says that an old man (‘ senior’) was brought before the tribunal and denounced by the bystanders as the chief of the Christian folk (‘Christi- colis esse caput populis’). If this does not distinctly name him the bishop of Portus, it implies that he held a leading position in the Church, and that this was the scene of his clerical activity. Again after the martyrdom we are told of the disposal of his reliques ;
Metando eligitur tumulo locus; Ostia linquunt : Roma placet, sanctos quae teneat cineres.
Of his later connexion with Portus a few words will be necessary here- after. It is sufficient to say here, that for many centuries his memory has been intimately connected with this town.
If then the see of Hippolytus was neither Portus nor Rome, what was it? But before seeking the answer, we are confronted with a pre- vious question. Had he any see at all, in the common acceptance of the term? It is now the received theory of the Christian Church, that a settled Christian land should be covered with sees, conterminous but not overlapping one another; that each is independent of its neighbour; and that an zmperium in imperio in an intolerable anomaly. The diffi- culties created at times by this theory are great. The Roman Church overcomes them by consecrating bishops zz partibus. The Roman con-
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. — 433
gregations in England in our own time were ruled (owing to legal difficulties) for many years, much to the amusement of Englishmen, by a great Cardinal who was bishop of Melipotamus—a place of which they had never heard. The Anglican Church solves this difficulty in another way. Its exigencies require that there should be a bishop to superintend the English congregations of Asia and Africa; he is ‘Anglican bishop in Jerusalem and the East,’ but Jerusalem is not his see. Still more necessary is it that the congregations on the conti- nent of Europe should have episcopal supervision. This is committed to the bishop of ‘Gibraltar.’ Here indeed Gibraltar is properly a see ; but the theoretical diocese consists of a garrison and its belongings, a harbour, two or three miles of rock, and whole troops of rabbits and monkeys. The main body of the human flock, which the bishop shepherds, is scattered about Europe and the Mediterranean, and would not be found more in Gibraltar itself than in the moon. When the bishop some years ago went to Rome to confirm the English residents there, Pio Nono is reported to have said humorously that he did not know till then that he was in the diocese of Gibraltar. No doubt when Hippolytus lived, the practice of the later Church had already become general, but it cannot have been universal. Indeed from the very nature of the case, the development of the system must have been more or less gradual; though it was the ideal at which the Church would aim. Less than a century had elapsed, when Hippolytus was born, since Timothy exercised episcopal functions in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete; but they were itinerant, not diocesan bishops. Even at the close of the second century exceptional cases would be treated in an exceptional way. The harbour of Portus, now fast supplanting Ostia, was thronged with a numerous and fluctuating population, consisting largely of foreigners—sailors, warehousemen, custom-house officers, dock-police, porters, and the like. A bishop was needed who should take charge of this miscellaneous and disorderly flock. He must be- fore all things be conversant in the manners and language of Greece, the Zingua franca of the East and indeed of the civilized world. Hippo- lytus was just the man for the place. He was probably appointed by bishop Victor (c. A.D. 190—200); for his relations to Victor’s successors, Zephyrinus and Callistus, forbid us to suppose that he owed any pro- motion to them, and indeed his account of Victor generally leads us to look upon this bishop as his patron. This hypothesis accords with his own language speaking of his position. He distinctly designates himself as holding the high-priestly or in other words the episcopal office ; he was described either by himself or by another’ as having been appointed 1 Photius AR, 32. a; see above, p. 348. CLEM. II. 28
434 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. |
bishop of the Gentiles (éricxoros éOvev), thus indicating that he had charge of the various nationalities represented at Portus. This is obviously an archaic expression and may have originated in the time of Hippolytus. At all events in his extant great work, the so-called Phzdo- sophumena, he appeals in his concluding address (4A. 1. 1) to ‘Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldaeans and Assyrians, Aegyptians and Libyans, Indians and Aéthiopians, Celts and Latins on foreign service (ot orpary- yotvres Aartvot), and all those who dwell in Europe, Asia and Libya’ as their counsellor; where the limitation of the Latins seems to suggest that planted at Portus as his head-quarters, he regarded himself by virtue of his commission as a sort of episcopal Chaplain-general of the Forces. Moreover my theory harmonizes very well with another fact. The earliest bishop, connected with Portus after the age of Hippolytus, was present at the Council of Arles (A.D. 313); but unlike the other bishops mentioned in the same list (de civitate Eboracenst, de ctvitate Utica, etc.) he is called not de civitate Portuenst, but Gregorius episcopus de loco gut est in Portu Romae’, as if the same arrangement still prevailed, Portus being the residence of this Gregorius, but not strictly speaking his see.
Occupying this ground, Hippolytus needed nothing more. Here was a sufficient fulcrum for his ecclesiastical lever. He was senior as bishop even to his ecclesiastical superiors Zephyrinus and Callistus. He held that, as a successor of the Apostles, he had a special gift of the Holy Spirit. By virtue of his office, he was an appointed ‘guardian of the Church’ (potpos THs éxxAnoias). He was a man of fiery dogmatic and moral zeal; and, when he saw, or fancied that he saw, the occupants of the Roman see swerving both from the one and from the other, he let fly at them at once. His position is quite intelligible. There is no evidence that he regarded them as deposed and, from his puritanical point of view, himself substituted in their place. But his language implies that in some sense he looked upon them as no true bishops.~ Probably, if he formulated his views at all, he would have said that their doctrinal and moral obliquities had placed their episcopal office and functions in abeyance for the time.
If such was his position, we can well understand why Jerome could not discover his see. In fact he had no see to be discovered. But on the supposition that he was either a schismatical bishop of Rome or the lawful bishop of Portus, no explanation of this ignorance can be given.
1 Labb. Conc. 1. p. 1454 (ed. Coleti). which bishops of Terracina, Praeneste, The previous year a Roman synod was Tres Tabernz, and Ostia are present, but held under Miltiades (zd. I. p. 1427), in no bishop of Portus; see Dollinger, p. go.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 435
ae HIPPOLVTUS THE PRESBYTER.
Hippolytus, the famous writer, unmistakeably describes himself as a bishop. He is so called also by all those from Eusebius and Jerome downward, who were acquainted with his writings. Yet in the only contemporary Latin document—indeed the only contemporary document —he is called ‘the presbyter.’ This is the designation which he bears also in Damasus, the next Latin writer who mentions him; and from Damasus it is adopted by Prudentius. What does this title mean? The contemporary document indeed seems to accentuate the appellation. The compiler of this portion of the Liberian Chronicle (c. a.p. 255) speaks of ‘ Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter.’
The position and influence of Hippolytus were unique among the Roman Christians of his age. He linked together the learning and the traditions of the East, the original home of Christianity, with the marvellous practical energy of the West, the scene of his own life’s labours. Not only was he by far the most learned man in the Western Church, but his spiritual and intellectual ancestry was quite exceptional. Though he lived till within a few years of the middle of the third century, he could trace his pedigree back by only three steps, literary as well as ministerial, to the life and teaching of the Saviour Himself. Irenzeus, Polycarp, S. John—this was his direct ancestry. No wonder if these facts secured to him exceptional honour in his own generation.
The meaning of the word zpeoButepos, ‘the presbyter’ or ‘ elder,’ must be explained by the language of the school in which he was brought up. It does not represent office, but it expresses venerable dignity such as is accorded to those who are depositaries of the wisdom of the past. When Papias speaks of elders’, he means the Apostles and immediate disciples of the Lord—those who were ‘fathers of the Church,’ as we should say, to his own generation. When Irenzus speaks of ‘the blessed elder,’ he means Papias or his own master Polycarp or others belonging to the generation of Polycarp and Papias, albeit their younger contemporaries. When descending a generation lower still, we arrive at Hippolytus himself, we find that his favourite designation of his master Irenzeus is 0 poxapios mpecBirepos. In the fragment agaznst Noetus (p. 43, Lagarde) again Hippolytus uses the same language ‘the presbyters,’ ‘the blessed presbyters.’ The idea of clerical office, if involved at all (which I very much doubt) in this use of the term, is
1 See Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 145. 28—2
436 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
certainly not prominent. Assuredly Hippolytus does not confuse the presbyterate with the episcopate; still less does he deny that Irenzeus was a bishop, which everyone allowed him to be. This leading con- ception of ‘venerable authority’ then seems to have been inherited by Hippolytus’ own scholars and younger contemporaries in their use of the term. There was no man of his own age and surroundings who had the same claims to this title of distinction. An octogenarian, a widely learned divine, and a most laborious and influential writer, with such a spiritual pedigree—what member of the Roman Church, nay what Christian throughout the world, could compete with him ?
When therefore the chronographer, who wrote less than twenty years after his death, states that in the year 235 ‘ Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were banished together, he does not directly or indirectly disparage the latter in comparison with the former. Pontianus is ‘the bishop’ simply, for there was only one bishop of Rome. But Hippolytus has a title of his own, more honorable than any conferred by any office; just as Bede is called the Venerable. There are many bishops and many archdeacons, but there was only one Hippolytus and only one Bede.
But, though this was the meaning of Hippolytus’ contemporaries, it does not follow that later generations understood the terms in the same © sense. When nearly a century and a haif later Damasus speaks of ‘presbyter Hippolytus,’ he probably accepted the designation as he found it, but understood it according to the usage of his own time, of the priestly office or second order of the ministry; and Prudentius followed Damasus. Neither the one nor the other knew anything, except vaguely, about the history of Hippolytus, as their statements show.
Thus therefore the use of the term in the Liberian Chronicle does not imply, as we might suspect (see I. p. 262), a denial of Hippolytus’ claims to the papacy, thus supporting Dollinger’s view that he was the first antipope. Still less does it imply that, though a bishop of a suburban see, he was a member of the Roman presbytery, according to Bunsen’s view.
§ 14. LATER YEARS, BANISHMENT, AND DEATH. The episcopate of Victor was conterminous, roughly speaking, with
the last decade of the first century. Dying towards the close of the century, he was succeeded by Zephyrinus. Zephyrinus held the
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 437
episcopate for eighteen years or thereabouts; Callistus for five. After Callistus succeeded Urbanus about a.p. 230. Victor had been the friend and patron of Hippolytus. With his successors Zephyrinus and Callistus, our saint had a deadly feud. What may have been his relations to Urbanus we know not; but, as his quarrel was not with the pontificate but with the pontiffs, we may presume that harmony was at length restored. If any formal reconciliation was needed, it would now take place; and hence would arise the story of his exhorting all Christian people to unity, which afterwards was connected (as we have already seen) with his supposed lapse into Novatianism. From the accession of Urbanus we may suppose that there was a cessation of those dissensions within the Church of which Hippolytus had been the champion and ringleader.
At the same time the Church of Rome enjoyed peace from external persecution. Early in the year 222 Alexander Severus succeeded to the throne. If he was not a convert himself, he was favourably disposed towards Christianity. The ladies of his family more especially held close relations with the great Christian teachers. Not only Origen in Alexandria, but Hippolytus in Rome, corresponded with one or other of the princesses. The thirteen years of the reign of Alexander marked an epoch of progress and development for the Christian Church. With Hippolytus himself it seems to have been the most fertile period of his literary life. The peace of the Church within and without left him more leisure for literary pursuits ; and the growing physical infirmities of age would direct him towards his intellectual resources, which he would be eager to turn to account for the instruction of the Church. In the first year of Alexander was published his famous work, the Faschal Cycle, which was afterwards chosen to decorate the Chair of his Statue, as his greatest claim to the recognition of posterity. In the thirteenth and last year of this same emperor was finished his almost equally famous Chronicle of the World (see 1. p. 259), which must have been about the latest literary product of its author. During this same period also he must have written his now famous Refutation of all the Heresies, which has laid these latest generations of Christian students under the deepest debt of gratitude and which perhaps remained incomplete when he was overtaken by banishment and death. To this same time belongs also the correspondence with Mammea.
At length this long, laborious, and troubled life was closed by banish- ment and death. In the year 230 or thereabouts Urbanus had been succeeded by Pontianus as bishop of Rome. In February 235 the emperor Alexander was slain at Mayence together with his mother and
438 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
chief adviser Mammea, the correspondent of Hippolytus and Origen. His successor Maximin adopted a wholly different policy towards the Christians. The Roman bishop was banished to Sardinia; and with him was sent the venerable Christian father Hippolytus. This was in the consulship of Severus and Quintianus, A.D. 235. Those modern critics who assign the position of antipope to Hippolytus give a plau- sible reason for this companionship in exile. They infer that the new emperor desired at once to rid the metropolis of the two rival leaders of the Roman Church, and so to restore peace in the city. No such explanation is needed. The pre-eminent influence of Hippolytus as a Christian teacher in the Western world would alone have singled him out for this exceptional distinction conferred by the persecuting tyrant’. We should do too great honour to Maximin, if we were to attribute to him any policy of statecraft. He was a fierce, blood-thirsty soldier, whose only idea of government was coercion®. Against the friends and adherents of Alexander and his mother Mammea he waged an implacable war. To have been a friend of Mammza was to be the unpardonable foe of Maximin. But Hippolytus was known to have corresponded with, and been trusted by, the deceased empress-mother. To Maximin, or to his adherents anxious to secure his favour in Rome, this would be sufficient to convict him*. It was not necessary that the emperor himself should have visited Rome. There were friends at hand ready to execute, or to anticipate, his commands in this matter.
In the Zier Pontificalis (1. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne) the banishment of the two exiles is attributed to Alexander, the names of the same consuls being given as in the contemporary record. ‘This is unques- tionably a mistake. Maximin became emperor in March this year (A.D. 235); and the banishment was the result of the reversal of his pre- decessor’s policy (see I. p. Xciv).
Our contemporary chronicler says nothing of the subsequent fate of Hippolytus. He was concerned only with the Roman episcopate, and the mention of Hippolytus is incidental. Of Pontianus he states, that in Sardinia he divested himself of the episcopate at the close of September in this same year (iv Kal. Oct.), and that Anteros was consecrated two months later (xi Kal. Dec.) in his place. Of his subsequent fate he
1 Of the persecution of Maximin see 3 7b. 9, ‘Omnes Alexandri ministros Allard Les Chrétiens dans [Empire etc. variis modis interemit: dispositionibus p- 418 sq. eius invidit: et dum suspectos habet
2 Capitolin. Maximin 8 ‘Erat enim ei amicos et ministros eius crudelior factus persuasum nisi crudelitate imperium non est.’ teneri.’
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. ~ 439
says nothing; but by describing the place of banishment as ‘insula nociva’,’ he implies that it was fatal to both exiles.
Sardinia was to Rome, what Portland is to England—a station of convicts who were condemned to hard labour in the quarries. By the irony of history, only a few years before, it had been the place of exile of Callistus, the great enemy of Hippolytus ; but Callistus had been pardoned, and returned to Rome, to succeed to the papacy (AZ. 1. f). Sardinia had been a favourite place of deportation for the tumultuous Jews who troubled the peace of the city. On one occasion Tiberius had banished no fewer than 4oo0 to this island’. When the displeasure of the Romans was transferred from the Jews to the Christians, the place of exile remained the same. Hence Jewish and Christian Sibyllists alike denounce this dread island. With the freedom of unverifiable prophecy they foretell that it shall be overwhelmed in the sea, shall be extinguished in ashes, and so forth, at the great retribution’;
apd, viv ov Bapeia peradrAa€yn cis Téppyv.
The old Greek proverb of ‘sardonic’ laughter—whether originating in the hideous grin produced by the bitter herbs of Sardinia or in some other way*—receives a new force and significance on the lips of these doleful prophets. Sardinia, the exultant persecutor, shall ‘laugh on the wrong side of her mouth,’ when the day of vengeance comes’.
The same collection (a.D. 354), which contains the notice of the banishment of the two exiles, comprises another document (see I. p. 249 sq), certainly not later than a.p. 335, and perhaps (so far as regards the particular notice) contemporary with the reference to the exile. This latter document deals with the depositions of the popes and martyrs. From it we learn that Hippolytus was buried on the Tiburtine Way and Pontianus in the Cemetery of Callistus on the same day, the Ides of August. ‘The close of the episcopate of Pontianus, whether by depri- vation or by resignation (see I. p. 286), was Sept. 28, 235. The Liber Pontificalis (1. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne) places his death on Oct. 30, A.D. 236. Ifthis date be accepted, the translation of the bones of the
1 This might be true of the convict 3 Orac. Sibyll. vii. 96 sq; comp. also stations, but of the island generally very iii. 477. different language is held; Pausan. vii. 4 Virg. Aci. vii. 41 ‘Sardois amarior 17. 2 Dapdw yap THv vnoov eis TA tducra _herbis’; see Pape-Benseler Griech. Wor- evdaiwova dvi “ENAddos opiow amédwxev, terd. s. v. Dapdw.
said of an exchange of provinces which > Orac. Stbyll. i. 182 Zapddviov weldnua Nero made with the Senate; see Mar- vyeXdooere Groray Hén TovUTo K.T.X. The quardt Adm. Staatsverw. 1. p. 97. words are put into the mouth of Noah.
2 Joseph. Azéig. xviii. 3. 5.
440 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
two confessors must be deferred. As an imperial rescript was necessary before removing the body of an exile (see 1. p. 287), the day of deposi- tion could not be before the Ides of August 237, as De Rossi places it. But on the other hand, as I have pointed out (1. c.), the date of Pon- tianus’ death in the Liber Pontificalis is open to the suspicion of confusion ; and prudential reasons might have led the friends of the exiles from applying for the necessary permission during the tyrant’s lifetime. Maximin* was slain in April or May 238 (Clinton’s Fast. Rom. \. p. 252). On the whole therefore Aug. 238 seems more probable than Aug. 237. The death of Hippolytus may have occurred at any time from A.D. 235 to A.D. 238.
§ 15. THE STATUE OF HAIPPOLVTUS.
In the year 1551 a mutilated statue of a sitting figure was discovered in the Ager Veranus. The head and upper part of the body were wanting, and there was no name to identify it. Nevertheless its iden- tification as a figure of Hippolytus was undeniable, and has never been seriously questioned. It was found in the very place where Hippolytus had his chief sanctuary; it was evidently the representation of an eccle- silastic and a divine, and (as the chair suggested) probably of a bishop; it presented on the back and sides of the chair a list of theological writings, most of them known to be the works of Hippolytus; more especially there was a Paschal Canon constructed in the first year of Alexander. This completed the identification.
This statue is now in the Lateran Museum, the upper part being restored. It is figured in several works relating to Hippolytus (e.g. Fabricius O/. 1. p. 36 sq; Bunsen I. frontispiece, see pp. 333, 423 Sq, 460; Wordsworth, frontispiece, see p. 29 sq; and in other books (e.g. Kraus Die Christliche Kunst p. 111, 187; Real-Encycl. der Christ. Alterth. i. p. 660). The inscription—so far as it bears on our investiga- tions—has been given above (AR. 2).
But what is the date of this erection? It has been variously assigned to different epochs from the third to the sixth century. I cannot doubt however that Dollinger (p. 291) and Funk (Zheolog. Quartalschr. 1884, p. 104 sq) and Salmon (Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. Hippolytus Roma- nus Ill. p. 96) are right in giving the earliest date. The phenomena indeed are quite inexplicable in any later century. For
(1) The statue is strictly historical. So far as it gives information,
PAEPOLYTUS ‘Or :PORTUS: * 441
this is borne out by what we know from other sources. But the notices of Damasus and Jerome and Prudentius show that the historical Hip- polytus had disappeared in the fourth century. Those twin giants— Ignorance and Myth—had piled their Pelion on Ossa, and stormed the citadel of the Truth with only too deadly effect on this occasion. The inscription on the statue would be possible in Hippolytus’ time or in the next generation ; but we can hardly conceive it at a later date.
(2) The details of the inscription point to a contemporary record. The Paschal Chronicle is given the chief place, being evidently regarded as the chef d’ceuvre of the author—his great claim to posthumous fame. The cycle is calculated for the years a.D. 222—333. But long before this latter date the Romans had been obliged to abandon this cycle, if they ever adopted it, for a more correct system of calculation. Even as early as the year 243 there is evidence that its erroneousness had become too patent to be overlooked, and that a different cycle was calculated in order to take its place. In the year 236, the probable year of its author’s death, the full moon, as calculated by Hippolytus, ought to have fallen on April 5th, whereas it really took place very early in the morning of the gth. In the course of eighty years Hippolytus’ full moon would coincide with the actual new moon. See the calculations of Salmon Chronology of Hippolytus in Hermathena i. p. 82 sq.
(3) These arguments seem conclusive. If any archzological con- siderations should appear to point in the opposite direction, they must be very strong to produce conviction. But in fact none such have been alleged. Some again have supposed that an older statue—intended for some one else—had been utilised and transformed into Hippolytus. For this there is no ground. But even, if it had been so, the fact would not affect the questions with which we are concerned. The arguments remain as strong as ever for the conclusion, that it could not have been transformed into Hippolytus and set up in the Ager Veranus to represent him after the third century, and probably not after the middle of the century.
As I shall have occasion to show presently (p. 443), this parcel of ground on the Tiburtine Way, which became the Cemetery of Hippoly- tus was probably his own property. Thus his friends would be able to set up the statue without interference ; so that there was nothing to pre- vent its erection during his own life-time, though probably it belongs to some date immediately after his death.
By a curious coincidence we have a contemporary representation not only of Hippolytus, but also of his great enemy Callistus. De Rossi (Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1866, pp. 17, 33) gives a contemporary pic-
442 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
ture on glass which figures this pope’s head. If any reliance can be placed on the likeness, he was a person of grave and venerable appear- ance. At all events it is a singular phenomenon that the two earliest ecclesiastics of whom contemporary representations are preserved are these two deadly enemies. We only regret the more that the head of the Hippolytean statue is lost; but perhaps future excavations may disinter it.
§ 16. POSTHUMOUS HONOURS AND SANCTUARIES.
We have seen that the bodies of the two martyrs who had died in Sardinia-—Pontianus and Hippolytus—were brought back to find a resting place amidst the scenes of their former life and work. They were companions in their burial, as they had been companions in their banishment. The same Ides of August, presumably in the year 237 or 238, saw them both deposited with all honours in the suburban Ceme- teries. But, though the day was the same, the place was different. Pontianus, the pope, was laid in the papal crypt then recently con- structed in connexion with the Cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way, but already occupied by his successor Anteros who died after occupying the papal throne a few months (a.pD. 236) and thus preceded him to his grave. His companion in exile Hippolytus found his grave on another of the great roads which stretch across the Campagna—the Tiburtine Way. He was laid in a catacomb constructed on the Ager Veranus—an estate doubtless so called from some former owner.
On this way to Tivoli, not far from the Pretorian camp and less than a mile from the City gate, we are confronted, at least as early as the fourth century, with two famous cemeteries standing almost face to face, each with its proper sanctuary, on either side of the road, which here runs roughly speaking from West to East. On the southern or right side is the more famous of the two, the Cemetery of S. Cyriace connected with which stands the Basilica of S. Laurentius selected by the latest of the popes, whose long tenure of office and notable career alike single him out from the long line of his predecessors, as his last resting-place by the side of the famous deacon of Rome. On the left hand of the same road and therefore to the North, between this Via Tiburtina and the Via Nomentana, is the site of the Cemetery and Basi- lica of S. Hippolytus. The two Cemeteries with their respective sanc- tuaries are quite distinct in ancient authorities; but owing to the fact
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 443
that the shrine and Cemetery of S. Hippolytus were ruined and obscured or obliterated at a comparatively early date, and that many monuments were transferred from it to the larger and more distinguished sanctuary on the south side of the road, its memory was absorbed in the fame of the Basilica of S. Laurentius, and modern writers have inextricably fused and confused the two. The discoveries of recent years, inter- preted by the archeological genius of De Rossi, have corrected the error, and established the distinction beyond dispute.
The sanctuary and cemetery of Hippolytus therefore, with which we are directly concerned, had no connexion originally with the famous basilica of S. Laurentius. Its site is on the sloping ground or ‘mons,’ as it is called on the left of the road, and therefore between the Cemeteries of S. Agnese on the Via Nomentana to the North and that of S. Laurentius (or more properly of S. Cyriace) on the Va Tiburtina to the South. Dated inscriptions have been found in these catacombs, ranging from the close of the third century to the beginning of the fifth’. As it appears to be called the Coemetertum Hippolytz, and as the genitive in such cases generally denotes the owner or founder of the place of sepulture, not the principal saint whose cultus was celebrated there, De Rossi reasonably conjectures that this cemetery was Hippolytus’ own possession®. This seems highly pro- bable for many reasons. It would account for the selection of the spot for his own grave; whereas the circumstances of his burial would have suggested some other locality, in closer proximity to Pontianus his companion alike in exile and in death. It would account, as I have already pointed out, also for the unique honour which was done to him in the erection of a statue on the spot, whether soon after his death or even during his life time, for it would be erected on his own estate. Considering his hostile relations to the heads of the Roman hierarchy during his life time on the one hand, and the persecutions to which he was subjected from the civil powers on the other, the circumstances must have been very favourable in other
1 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. Ser. iv.
Ep. 40- * See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1. c. p.« 15 sq (1882); comp. Rom. Sott. 1. p.
terio’ after ‘Ypoliti.” De Rossi gives other notices indicating that the proper name of these catacombs was Coemetertum S. Hippolytt. In the Martyr. Hieron.
116 sq. The earliest notice of his burial (see above, I. p. 251) in the Defositio Martyrum of the Liberian Catalogue gives ‘ Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Calisti,’ where according to De Rossi we should understand ‘in ejusdem coeme-
xiii Kal. Jul. the reading of the Berne MS is ‘Rome, in cimiterio Yppoliti via Tiburtina,’ where the common text has ‘Romae Hippolyti,’ thus substituting an- other martyr Hippolytus for the place of burial.
444 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
respects to enable his friends to do him this honour. However great their zeal, they must have been secure from molestation on either side; and only the absolute possession of the ground could have given them this security.
Here then he was deposited on the Ides of August the same day on which he was commemorated in after ages for some centuries. But evil days soon overtook the Church of Rome. ‘The next century was crowded with other cares and interests, and the past was forgotten. A sponge passed over the records of Hippolytus and his times; and only the confused smear remained of a once exceptionally vivid and character- istic portraiture. ‘There were the schisms and feuds within the Roman Church itself—popes and antipopes; there were the persecutions which assailed the Christians from without, and bred endless perplexities of discipline within; there were the great dogmatic controversies which harried the universal Church from one end to the other; last, but not least, there were the first rumblings of the dark thunder-cloud in the Northern sky, the earliest inroads of those barbarian hordes who were destined before long to sweep away old Rome in desolation and ruin. At length towards the close of the fourth century on the accession of Damasus came a respite; when men could breathe again, and their interest in the past revived.
Damasus (A.D. 366—384) was a great restorer of the sanctuaries of Rome. ‘The catacombs more especially, as the resting places of the martyrs, received his attention. In this pious work he was ably seconded by the famous calligrapher Furius Dionisius Filocalus, who describes himself as the ‘cultor atque amator’ of Damasus. Rarely if ever, in the history of the Church, has a great leader been fired with such zeal for recording the Christian heroism of the past and found so accomplished an artificer to carry out his designs. Rarely, if ever, has history stood in sorer need of such a chronicler’. Our only regret is that the knowledge of Damasus was not commensurate to his enthusiasm.
Among the many saints of the past whose memory profited by his reverential zeal, was the martyred father of the Church, the venerable Hippolytus. Already a sanctuary enclosed the remains of the saint; but it was enlarged and beautified by Damasus, when on the defeat of the rival faction which had supported the antipope Ursicinus he received the allegiance of the whole Roman Church. The inscription commemorating the event runs as follows
1 For an account of the inscriptions of | graphy—see De Rossi in Bull, dt Archeol, Damasus—their composition and calli- Cvést, Ser. iv, III. p. 7 sq.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 445
LAETA DEO PLEBS SANCTA CANAT QVOD MOENIA CRESCVNT ET RENOVATA DOMVS MARTYRIS HIPPOLITI’.
It is conjectured that he received the submission of the opposite party in this very building. There would be a singular appropriateness in its selection for this purpose; since he supposed that Hippolytus had at one time favoured the antipapal schism of Novatian—a fore- runner of Ursicinus—and afterwards by an opportune recantation had recalled the people from the paths of error to the unity of the Church. This supposed incident in the saint’s career he commemorated in another inscription set up in the same building, to do honour to ‘Hippolytus the elder’.
But Damasus knew little or nothing beyond the fame of Hippolytus as a martyr, and probably as a writer. A confused rumour had reached his ears that Hippolytus had not been always on friendly terms with the popes his predecessors. He concluded therefore, being ignorant of the chronology of the saint’s life, that he must have been an adherent of the Novatian party (see above, p. 424 sq), the chief precedent, which history recorded of rival claimants to the papal throne, before the papal schism which amidst disgraceful and murderous riots had ushered in his own elevation to the see of S. Peter.
At the beginning of the next century occurred the visit of the Spanish poet Prudentius to this shrine.
His collection of hymns entitled Peri Stephanon or De Coronis, ‘the crowns of the martyrs,’ consists of fifteen poems. Most of these commemorate Spanish martyrs like Vincentius and Eulalia, or martyrs already celebrated by festivals in the Spanish Church. But the largest space (2152 verses out of 3875) is devoted to four martyrs especially honoured in Rome, Laurentius, Romanus, Hippolytus, and Agnes, besides a short poem (66 lines) on the passion of S. Peter and S. Paul. Rome therefore may be said to have inspired the collection. But it will be observed that all the four were celebrated in the catacombs lying on the Tiburtine Way or near it. The celebration of the three former moreover took place at the same time of the year within five days of each other (Aug. 9, Aug. 10, and Aug. 13) and in the same locality, in the twin sanctuaries which stood vs @ vis on the Tiburtine Way.
Of the connexion between the cultus of S. Laurence and S. Hippo- lytus I shall have much to say hereafter. But who was the other member
1 AR. 7. b; see above, p. 329. 2 AR. 7. a; see above, p. 328.
4.46 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
of the trio? Romanus is a strictly historical person. He was a deacon and exorcist who suffered in the persecution of Diocletian (a.D. 303), a native of Cesarea in Palestine or the neighbourhood, but actually martyred in Antioch and therefore unconnected originally with Rome. His fame is especially associated with a miracle, which (whatever may be the foundation of fact) is recorded by his contemporary and fellow- countryman, the historian Eusebius ; he astounded the bystanders by speaking distinctly after his tongue had been cut out’.
This was unquestionably the Romanus who is celebrated in the poem of Prudentius. The poet dwells at great length on this very miracle, embellishing it with many hideous accessories. Moreover he adds the incident of a little child-——a mere infant—being summoned by Romanus from among the Christian bystanders and invited by the saint to bear testimony to Christ. The child did this to the edification of the by- standers, though at the cost of its own life. The incident of this infant martyr has no place in the contemporary record of Eusebius ; but it was attached to the story of Romanus at a very early date. I think I see the origin of this edifying appendage to the contemporary account of Eusebius. Some eulogist of Romanus, when he described the constancy of the saint under the threats of the tyrant, would apply to him, perhaps would put into his own mouth, the scriptural words Ps. vii. 2 ‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength because of Thine enemies, that Thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.’ As a matter of fact S. Chrysostom, who nevertheless betrays no knowledge of the infant-martyr, uses this very text in his extant oration on Romanus*. It was only a single step to go from the abstract to the concrete, and to produce the babe in person. Accordingly another orator, apparently a younger contem-
1 Euseb. Mart. Palaest. § g, in the form of this work attached to the Acclesiastical History. See also the other recension, preserved only in the Syriac which is translated by Cureton (pp. 6, 54). The story of Romanus is told likewise in the spurious work de Resurrectione, preserved only in Latin and ascribed to Eusebius, Op. VI. p- 1097 sq (Migne). The part relating to Romanus is given also in Ruinart Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 392. Evi- dently this is not a genuine work of Eusebius, as is apparent (if for no other reason) from the fact that Romanus is made not a cleric, but a soldier; of which
transformation I shall have to speak pre- sently. Nevertheless it was written ori- ginally in Greek, as it shows again and again; e.g. ‘forte proferentium Judaeorum tres pueros’, a literal translation of the genitive absolute (rpodepévrwy ra&v "Lov- daiwyv, ‘the Jews alleging the case of the Three Children’), but utterly without sense in the Latin. It betrays the influ- ence of S. Chrysostom’s genuine oration (see the next note).
Theodoret (Zpzst. 130, IV. p. 1218 Schulze) mentions the name of the martyr, but nothing more.
2 Chrysost. Of. 11. p. 616 (ed. Bened.).
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 447
porary of the golden-mouthed, preaching likewise at Antioch on the Day of S. Romanus in a sermon which is wrongly ascribed to S. Chrysostom himself, makes Romanus ask that a babe (pédos) shall be brought in from the market-place, taken (it would appear) at hap-hazard; and a child is brought, testifies, and suffers accord- ingly’. At all events this addition to the original story must have been circulated before the age of Prudentius. Prudentius however knows nothing, or at least says nothing, about the infant’s name. By later martyrologists it is called Barulas or Baralas. This name appears in the Latin Martyrologies of Ado and others.
Of the connexion of this Romanus—a Palestinian by birth and an Antiochene by martyrdom—not only with Rome but with the sanc- tuaries on the Tiburtine Way, we have ample proof, even if it might not have been inferred from his prominence in the collection of Prudentius. In the inscription, which was put up in the 13th century in the basilica of S. Laurence, we read
CONTINET HOC TEMPLVM SANCTORVM CORPORA PLVRA A QVIBVS AVXILIVM SVPPLEX HIC POSCERE CVRA.
Then, after mentioning Xystus and Laurentius with the first martyr Stephen, the inscription enumerates Hippolytus with his nurse Concor- dia and his family. Then follows next in order
ROMANVS MILES.
Of this inscription I shall have to say more presently*. For my immediate purpose this mention is sufficient. The time also of the festival of S. Romanus nearly coincided with those of S. Laurence and S. Hippolytus as appears from this notice in the Old Roman Martyrology (AR. 40. g), where we have in juxta-position
v Id Aug. Romae, Romani militis
Vigilia sancti Laurentii. iv Id Aug. Romae Laurentii archidiacon. martyris et militum clxv. Idus Aug. Romae, Hippolyti martyris cum familia sua, et
S. Concordiae nutricis ejus ;
1 Op. il. p. 618. The festival of S. Romanus was evidently a great day at Antioch and would give occasion to flights of Christian oratory which influ- enced the transmission and embellish- ment of the story. The oration of our pseudo-Chrysostom is one of these. Its genuineness is condemned on the ground
of style; but the Benedictine editor adds (for reasons given) ‘ crediderem...esse cujusdam presbyteri Antiocheni, qui sub Flaviano alternas cum Chrysostomo con- cionandi partes ageret’; see also Tille- mont J/#ém. v. p. 206.
2 See below, p. 461 sq, 469 sq.
448 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
and we meet with similar notices in Florus-Beda and in Ado and the later Roman Martyrologists.
There can be no doubt therefore that the Romanus of Prudentius and of the Roman Martyrologists is the same person with the Romanus of Eusebius and Chrysostom. But, if so, how do we explain two dif- ferences? (1) The Romanus of Eusebius is a cleric, a ‘deacon and exorcist’; but the Romanus of the Roman Martyrologists is a soldier: (2) The Romanus martyred at Antioch was commemorated on Nov. 18, but the Romanus of the Tiburtine way and of the Latin Church generally on Aug. g, the eve of S. Laurence.
(1) As regards the profession of Romanus the testimony of Eusebius is quite distinct. This martyr was a deacon in one of the villages in the neighbourhood of his own Czesarea; but in all authors after Eusebius his clerical status has disappeared. Even Chrysostom, who was most favourably situated as to time and place for ascertaining the truth, seems to have regarded him as a soldier. He tells how Romanus kept together the army (orparo7edov) of Christ and shifted the shame of defeat from the Christians to the heads of the foes (ras tdv mroXeuiwv Kkedadds, p- 613). He represents the devil as desiring, by cutting out the martyr’s tongue rather than depriving him of life outright, to make him a witness of ‘the lapses and the disaster of his own soldiers’ (rav TTWPLATWV Kal THS Tvyuhopas TAY oiketwy oTpaTiwTav, p. 614). The second passage at all events does not look like a metaphor, though we might be inclined so to interpret the first. But whatever may have been Chrysostom’s own meaning, this figure of Christian warfare was doubt- less the bridge of passage from Romanus the cleric to Romanus the soldier. This appears in the development of the story, when we arrive at the pseudo-Eusebius, who may not improbably have written before the close of the fourth century and whose account appears to be influenced by the eulogium of S. Chrysostom. We are there told that Romanus arriving at Antioch, and finding that ‘many soldiers belonging to the Church had lapsed’ (multos milites cecidisse ecclesiae), pre- sented himself before the judge, and said; ‘Thou shalt not depart exulting, for God has soldiers who cannot be forced to submit’ (habet enim Deus milites qui superari non possunt). This ‘soldier of the Lord’ (Domini miles) accordingly resolves to show his own constancy by resistance. Though Romanus is not distinctly called ‘a soldier’ here, the language implies his military profession. To this account of the pseudo-Eusebius, which we have only in a Latin translation, the Latin Martyrologists seem from several indications to have been indebted. With them at all events he is unmistakeably a soldier.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 440
Of the profession of Romanus the Spanish poet tells us nothing. So far as his direct language goes he might have been either a cleric or a soldier, but he describes him as a noble of ancient lineage (vetusta nobilem prosapia) who by his many services had won the first rank among the citizens (meritisque multis esse primum civem); and at the suggestion of the attendants, the offensive crowd (noxialem stipitem) are removed by the judge, that a man of illustrious rank might not be condemned by a plebeian sentence—a description which ill assorts with a simple deacon ministering in an obscure village of Palestine. We may reasonably assume therefore, that Prudentius too regarded Romanus as a soldier, if he had any distinct conception at all on this point. The poem on Romanus is the Aitce de resistance of the collection. It occupies not fewer than 1140 lines, nearly a third of the whole number. It is made the vehicle for an elaborate attack on the absurdities of idolatry, after the names of the apologists, with an accompanying defence of Christianity—neither the attack nor the defence wanting in vigour and eloquence of a certain kind. We may suspect that Prudentius, having little to tell of the saint himself, poured into this poem the contents of his poetical common-place book. But the immediate impulse to the poem seems to have been given by the festival which he witnessed on the Tiburtine Way.
(2) But what shall we say of the time of the festival, Aug. 9th? Eusebius again is quite explicit as to the day of the martyrdom. His Romanus suffered at Antioch in the first year of Diocletian’s persecution on the 16th Dius, equivalent to xv Kal. Dec. (Nov. 18), or the 7th (it should be the 17th) later Teshri, as given in the Syriac recension, the same day on which his fellow-countrymen Alphzus and Zacchzeus were martyred at Czsarea. Accordingly we find this day assigned to him in the ancient Syriac Calendar, which must date from the latter half of the fourth century (the extant Ms bearing date 412). The festival therefore, as celebrated at Rome, must be the commemoration of some translation—probably the deposition of the reliques in this Roman sanctuary on the Tiburtine way. But the Roman Martyrologies, from the M€Jartyrologium Hieronymianum onward, preserve elsewhere the record of the true day of martyrdom. The fact is that the contents of the Syriac Martyrology, or of some allied Calendar, or both, were shovelled into this valuable refuse-heap of martyrological records which bears the name of Jerome, and so we find:
xv Kal. Dec. In Caesarea natalis sanctorum...Alphaei, Zacchaei,
Romani. xiv Kal. Dec. In Antiochia civitate, Romani monachi, Baralae ; CLEM. II. 29
450 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
where we have a double entry of the same person. The corresponding notice in the Vetus Romanum is
xiv Kal. Dec. Antiochiae Romani monachi et martyris,
where the clerical character of Romanus is still preserved in ‘mo- nachus.’ Again in the later Martyrologists, Ado and his companions, the notice of Romanus of Antioch appears on one of these two days in December, where he is correctly described as a martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, where the prefect’s name Asclepiades is given (after Prudentius), and where the story of the child Baralas is likewise told.
We are now in a position to say something more generally about this journey of Prudentius to Rome, so fertile in its poetical results ; and the investigation is not uninstructive. On his way from Spain to the eternal city he stops at forum Cornelit or Forum Syllae, the modern Imola; and there he pays his devotions at the shrine of the local saint, to which the cathedral of Imola is still dedicated—Cassianus the school-master martyr who was beaten to death with the tablets and stabbed with the stiles of the ungrateful urchins whom he had taught. Here he saw a picture—not less vivid and doubtless not less truthful than the representation of Hippolytus’ sanctuary of the Tiburtine Way which he describes afterwards—of the pedagogue done to death by the beardless monsters in revenge for the castigations of the rod which they must have richly deserved. This is the only poem in the whole collection which commemorates a martyr not connected either with his native Spain or with Rome the object of his visit. At Rome he would probably arrive before the festival of the Passion of S. Peter and S. Paul (June 29th). This indeed might have been the immediate aim of his journey, and would determine the time of his arrival in the city. He describes the unwonted stir among the Roman people,
Plus solito coeunt ad gaudia; dic, amice, quid sit Romam per omnem cursitant ovantque.
He pictures, though briefly, yet notwithstanding some difficulties with the vividness of an eye-witness, the two basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul on either side of the river—their position and features; he describes the ‘sacerdos,’ probably the Roman bishop, as busied from morning to night (so we may perhaps paraphrase the word ‘pervigil’), celebrating the sacred rites, first at the one and then at the other; he speaks of himself with the rest of the crowd as hurrying from the one to the other
Nos ad utrumque tamen gressu properemus incitato, Et his et illis perfruamur hymnis ;
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 451
and he concludes by appealing to all strangers, visitors like himself in the holy city, to profit by the occasion ;
Haec didicisse sat est Romae tibi; tu, domum reversus, Diem bifestum sic colas memento.
This poem was, it would almost seem, written for the occasion. But his chief interest gathers about the three festivals celebrated in the middle of August on the Tiburtine way—those of S. Romanus, S. Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus. The poem on S. Agnes was suggested probably by its proximity; for her martyrdom was celebrated at a different time of the year—in January. The eulogy of S. Cyprian may also have been prompted by this Roman visit; for his commemoration was celebrated in the cemetery of S. Callistus on xviii Kal. Oct. (Sept. 15); but, as Prudentius himself says, Cyprian was celebrated all the world round,
Praesidet Hesperiae, Christum serit ultimis Iberis.
He was, writes the poet, though ‘proprius patriae martyr,’ yet ‘ore et amore noster.’
From this long digression on the hymns of Prudentius and more especially on Romanus, of which the motive will appear presently, I return to Hippolytus. Prudentius gives us a minute and accurate description of what he saw at the commemoration on the Tiburtine Way. There was the picture of the martyrdom over the tomb of the martyr, painted in vivid colours; the mangled limbs scattered here and there; the thorns and thickets stained with the vermilion blood; the weeping friends, following in the rear and gathering the remains into their bosom; one fondling his snow-white head, others his mutilated arms and legs; others wiping up with their clothes or with sponges the blood-bespattered ground, that nothing might be lost of the precious remains. He then describes the sanctuary itself; the crypt with its dark galleries, not far from the city walls; the subterranean recesses lighted here and there with windows in the roof, so that the sun’s rays poured in. Thither the martyr’s body was brought from Ostia, where the martyrdom took place, and there deposited in a shrine gleaming with solid silver. Lining the recess were slabs of smooth Parian marble adorned with gold. From morning to night the tide of worshippers flowed in constant succession, Romans and foreigners ; kissing the precious metal and pouring fragrant ointment on it, their faces bedewed with tears. Nobles and common-folk jostled each other shoulder to shoulder ; visitors, clad in festive white, thronged from all
29—2
452 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
parts; the roads poured in their contingent from every side—from Picenum and Etruria, the rude Samnite, the Campanian from lofty Capua, the citizens of Nola—husbands, wives, and children. Wide though the space, it was all too little for the dense multitudes. But hard by there is another temple ready to receive the crowds, towering upward with its lofty walls; a double range of columns supports the gilded beams of the roof; the aisles end in curved recesses; the central nave rises to a greater height; in front is a lofty tribunal approached by steps, whence the chief priest preaches God. With difficulty does even this larger edifice receive the surging and heaving crowds, thus opening a mother’s bosom to gather and cherish her children. ‘If my memory serves me aright,’ the poet adds, ‘beautiful Rome worships this saint on the Ides of August’; and he urges his bishop, Valerianus of Zaragoza, to whom the poem is addressed, to give a place among the annual festivals to Hippolytus, as places were already given to Cyprian, to Chelidonius, to Eulalia. ‘So,’ he con- cludes, ‘when thou shalt have filled the folds with milk-white lambs, mayest thou be borne aloft and join the company of holy Hippolytus.’ Evidently the cult of S. Hippolytus was at its zenith, when Prudentius visited the shrine; as it naturally would be after the recent architectural and decorative splendours lavished upon it by Damasus.
Of the scene of this multifarious gathering no question can now be entertained. Recent excavations have laid open the subterranean basilica of S. Hippolytus on the north of the Tiburtine Way—the specus excep- tionally spacious for underground sanctuaries of this kind, lit from windows in the roof, substantially as it was seen by the eyes of Pruden- tius. Of this however I shall have to speak presently. But what was the larger edifice which received the throngs too great for the cavern beneath? Was it another basilica of S. Hippolytus above ground on or near the same site? Or was it the more famous sanctuary of S. Laurence on the south side of the road? Not unnaturally critics have inclined to this latter view. The excavations in the cemetery of Hippolytus have not proceeded far enough hitherto to enable us to form a confident opinion. But it must be remembered that at that remote age only the Constantinian basilica of S. Laurence existed— not a very spacious building on any showing. The churches of Xystus III (a.D. 440), of Pelagius II (a.D. 578), and of Honorius III (a.p. 1216), were still unbuilt. The actual condition of the basilica of S. Laurence in the eye of Prudentius—a subject beset with considerable difficulties—will demand a few words of explanation presently.
But what was this picture of the martyrdom so vivid in its details
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 453
which Prudentius saw and described? The most improbable supposi- tion of all is that it represented the actual event. ‘It is more likea poet’s or a painter’s than a prefect’s deed,’ it has been truly said’, ‘to tear an old Christian with horses, whether because of his own un- luckily suggestive name or because of the tale of his namesake ’—the hero of the ancient Greek myth. Some have supposed therefore that a classical sculpture or painting of the son of Theseus, the hero of Greek tragedy, torn to pieces by horses, was discovered in the neighbourhood (Dollinger, p. 39 sq), or removed from elsewhere and placed in the chapel of his namesake. ‘This is a tempting explanation; but unless Prudentius has far exceeded the license of poets in his description, it will not suit the details. What are we to say of the collection of the reliques? What of the ‘venerable white head’ fondled in the lap of the disciples? What of the sopping and sponging up the blood? Obviously we have here not a work of Greek or Greco- roman art, but a product of Christian piety, resembling in its gross realism and bad taste, as well as its intensity and devotion, the pictures of martyrdom with which we are familiar a few centuries later. Cer- tainly it was not a sculpture, unless it had been painted over by some Christian artist; for Prudentius speaks of the vivid colouring, the purple and vermilion, of the scene. Moreover, though we should accept this - explanation of the picture on the Tiburtine Way, we have still to account for the similar painting which the poet saw on this same journey at Imola—the martyrdom of Cassianus not less realistic and described with equal vividness. The martyrdom of Cassianus at ali events had no coun- terpart in ancient Greek legend. De Rossi thinks and gives reason for thinking*, that this representation of Hippolytus’ martyrdom was painted on a very small scale—like a miniature or a Dutch work of art. This seems not improbable ; though no stress can be laid on the fact that recent explorations have not as yet brought to light any traces of its existence. Even if it had been a large fresco, we could not hope to discover any vestiges remaining in a place which has passed through so many vicissitudes as the sanctuary of S. Hippolytus. The most pro- bable explanation seems to be that, the manner of Hippolytus’ death being unknown and some concrete representation being necessary, this early Christian painter selected the fate of his mystical namesake as ‘a pictorial mode of writing above the shrine HIPPOLYTUS MARTYR®*.’
1 Benson Fourn. of Class. and Sacr. this article Ox the Martyrdom and Com- Philol. 1. p. 192. memorations of S. Hippolytus, which I 2 Bull. di Archeol. Crist.1882,p.73 sq. have more than once quoted, was written 3 Benson p. 210. I should say that without the knowledge of recent dis-
454 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
After the visit of Prudentius we find no notice of this cemetery and crypt of S. Hippolytus for nearly a century and a half. Then, during the papacy of Vigilius (A.D. 537—555) a record is preserved of its restoration by one Andreas a presbyter, in an inscription of which fragments have been found on the spot itself and of which the con- cluding lines are’
PRAESVLE VIGILIO SVMP[SERVNT | ANTRA DECOREM PRAESBYTERI ANDREAE CVR|[A] PEREGIT OPVS.
It was a season of great trouble and disaster to the Roman Church in many ways. Rome stood two sieges from the barbarians during this single episcopate, the one from Witiges in a.D. 537, 538, the other from Totila in a. D. 546, 547. The suburban churches and cemeteries were devastated and laid in ruins. It must have been on one of these occasions that the renovation of which the inscription speaks took place.
As the writer apparently speaks of a ‘second’ devastation (ITERVM), it would seem to have been after the invasion of Totila that these repairs were undertaken*. This accords with the language above quoted which gives only the name of Vigilius as dating the epoch (‘praesule Vigilio’); whereas in another case, when the restoration took place presumably after the former siege by Witiges, we are told that pope Vigilius himself ‘hostibus expulsis omne novavit opus*.’ Vigilius was absent from Rome during the last years of his life. The writer in his account of these restorations under Vigilius mentions the skylights in the roof admitting the sun, which were a special feature of this sub- terranean church and which Prudentius had described a century and a half before—here specified as three in number—‘trinum stupuit per specula lumen.’
Connected with this group of saints commemorated in August on the Tiburtine Way was the cultus of S. Genesius, the Roman actor of pantomimes who is said to have suffered in the persecution of Diocletian. He is mentioned in the medieval itineraries in the entourage of Hippolytus as lying near Concordia, between Triphonia and Cyrilla. He must therefore have been buried in the cemetery of Hippolytus*.
coveries, when it was still possible to maintain that the original Hippolytus of the Ager Veranus was not a cleric, but a soldier.
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 59 sq, where the inscription is given in its correct form. The lacunz were incor-
rectly supplied in an earlier number, 20. 1881, p. 40.
2 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 61 sq.
3 Comp. 2d. 1873, p. 46sq; 1876, p. 125.
4 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 23
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 455
His day was vil Kal. Sept. (Aug. 25th). Nearly two centuries later than the above mentioned restorations of Vigilius, we find a successor of Vigilius, Gregory III [a.p. 731—741], restoring the roof of the Church of S. Genesius, and erecting an altar of the Saviour there (AR. 15 Ab). This was presumably some above-ground building erected in honor of Genesius within the precincts of the cemetery of Hippolytus, but we have no adequate information.
Again there is silence for some centuries respecting the basilica of S. Hippolytus; but meanwhile important works were carried out on the opposite side of the Tiburtine Way in the more famous sanctuary of S. Laurentius, which in course of time had a fatal influence on the decadence and obliteration of the humbler cemetery and shrine. As the fate of the two is ultimately connected together, and as some account of the history of the Church of S. Laurence is therefore necessary for the appreciation of my particular subject, this will be a convenient point for a very few words of explanation.
The honour paid to S. Laurence, the deacon of Sixtus III, who perished with his master in the Decian persecution, dates from the earliest times. He was the Stephen of the Western Church. ‘Quam non potest abscondi Roma,’ says Augustine, ‘tam non potest abscondi Laurentii corona’.’ ‘De beati solemnitate Laurentii,’ says the prayer in the oldest Roman sacramentary, ‘peculiarius prae caeteris Roma laetatur; cujus nascendo civis, sacer minister, dedicatum nomini Tuo munus est proprium’ (Zzturg. Rom. Vet. 1. p. 398, Muratori). His festival had a special vigil, which was celebrated from the earliest times— a peculiar honour bestowed on few saints besides. His name appears in calendars which can hardly date more than a generation after his death. It is no marvel then that the aureole which encircled the
sq; comp. fom. Soft. 1. p. 178. There were two martyrs of this name; (1) A notary of Arles who suffered under Dio- cletian, A.D. 303; (2) A pantomime actor of Rome who suffered in this same year or (as some think) A.D. 285 or 286. They are both celebrated on the same day viii Kal. Sept. (Aug. 25) in Ado and the Latin Martyrologists; or on successive days, Aug. 24 and Aug. 25. De Rossi (1. c.) says that the Genesius of the Ager Veranus was the actor. It would seem to me difficult to say that there was no confusion between the two. In the Mar-
tyrologium Vetus both the two are named on the same day Aug. 25, ‘Genesius mi- mus’ and ‘Genesius Arelatensis’; in the old Carthaginian Calendar only the former. In Prudentius (feristeph. 4), who was fresh from the Ager Veranus, Genesius of Arles is mentioned (ver. 36) among other martyrs at Czesaraugusta (Zaragoza). Was there only one Gene- sius after all—first notary and then actor ; just as there was only one Romanus and only one Hippolytus (see p. 462 sq, p- 460 sq)?
1 Serm. 303, Op. V. p. 1233, ed. Bened,
456 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. heads of other neighbouring saints and martyrs—even of the famous Hippolytus himself—should have paled in the light of his unique splendour.
How much truth there may be in the current story about the mode of S. Laurence’s martyrdom, we need not stop to enquire. His day was the fourth before the Ides of August, three days before the com- memoration of S. Hippolytus. As the deposition of Hippolytus on the opposite side of the Tiburtine Way probably took place some years before his death, we must regard the circumstance which brought them into close connexion in time as well as place, as a mere coincidence. But it was fraught with momentous consequences to his posthumous fame. .
The architectural history of the basilica of S. Laurence is strangely complicated ; and the problems have only been solved (not yet com- pletely) in our own generation. The accounts given by Bunsen’ and older writers are altogether erroneous. The excavations of recent years, interpreted by the archeological knowledge of De Rossi and others, have gone far to solve the problem?.
The original basilica of Constantine stood over the tomb of the martyr. It occupied, roughly speaking, the same site as the present chancel, 1.e. as the basilica of Pelagius II. It was orientated in the same way—the apse being at the West end, and the narthex at the East. At the same time that this pope built this church over the tomb, he adorned the crypt itself, in which the body lay, with exceptional splen- dours and endowed it with costly gifts. Damasus adorned his altar with gifts which he commemorated in an inscription on the spot
HAEC DAMASVS CVMVLAT SVPPLEX ALTARIA DONIS MARTYRIS AEGREGII SVSCIPIENS MERITVM*.
Before the close of the century [c. A.D. 400] we read of some works
executed by one Leopardus, a priest—not unknown to us for his zeal
on behalf of other sanctuaries—and commemorated by an inscription’. Towards the middle of the next century, the reigning pope Sixtus III
1 Beschreibung der Stadt 111. Pt ii. p. 312 sq. The error of these older writers in connecting this basilica with the name of Galla Placidia and thus throwing the architectural chronology into confusion is explained by De Rossi, Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1864, p. 433 Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. 1. p. 105.
2 See especially De Rossi Bull. di Ar-
cheol. Crist. 1864, p. 42 sq; 1876, p. 22 sq: and the important notes of Duchesne, Lb. Pont. 1. p. 197 Sq, 235 Sq, 310.
3 Inscy. Christ. Urb. Rom. 11. pp. 82, 117.
* Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1867, p- 53 sq; comp. Zuscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. 1.
p- 155.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 457
(A.D. 432—440) made a highly important addition to the buildings on this ground (42. 15 Bb). He not only adorned the existing confession of S. Laurentius with columns of porphyry and in other ways, the previous work of Constantine having probably suffered in the pillage of A.D. 410 under Alaric; but he built an entirely new and more spacious basilica to the West of the Constantinian church, so that the apses of the two buildings—the old and the new—stood back to back. This building of Sixtus corresponds with the nave of the existing basilica. Its apse was at the East end, and its narthex at the West. This basilica was termed ‘Dei genetricis,’ ‘of the Mother of God’; a designation which would seem especially appropriate at a time when the Nestorian controversy was agitating the Church. This is the ‘basilica major,’ which in the Itineraries of the seventh century is distinguished from the ‘basilica ubi ipse modo requiescit’ (4. 38 b). It bears this name in two inscriptions of the fifth century found on the spot [IN BJ]ASSILICA MAXIO[RE], IN BASILICA MAIORE AD DOMNV LAVRENTIVM ..
Again Pelagius II [a.p. 579—590] enlarged, raised, and generally rebuilt, the smaller basilica to the East, which rose over the body. The Liber Pontificalis 1. p. 309 (Duchesne) speaks of this work as ‘basilicam a fundamento constructam,’ and the existing building shows this language to be hardly an exaggeration. Owing to its superior splendour, when thus renovated by Pelagius, this building is described as ‘ basilica speciosior,’ ‘basilica nova mirae pulchritudinis,’ in the Itineraries (AR. 38 a b) to distinguish it from the larger basilica—the erection of Sixtus III to the West. We are told moreover that Pelagius dedicated his building to S. Sixtus, S. Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus. But there is reason to think that this threefold dedication is earlier than Pelagius. When Sixtus III built his new basilica ‘Dei Genetricis,’ he would naturally turn his attention to the dedication of the older building, which likewise owed new splendours to his munificence, and in which he himself was ultimately buried. What more natural then than that he should have associated in the dedication his martyred predecessor and namesake Sixtus II, who had been associated with S. Laurentius in his life and in his death? If so, Pelagius only accepted the triple dedication as he found it. But he commemorated it in a remarkable way. Over the arch of the apse he placed a mosaic representing the Saviour seated in the centre, while right and left of him were the two Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and the three saints of the dedication, with himself PELAGIVS EPISsc. the builder of the church somewhat in the
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1876, p. 22 sq.
458 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
background. The point to be observed is that SCS YPOLIT, as here represented, has not yet lost his proper personality. Though associated with S. Laurence, he still remains the priest with the clerical tonsure, not the soldier with the military cloak; the doctor of the Church, not the warder and convert of S. Laurence.
The last and greatest change was yet to come. Hitherto there were two basilicas, back to back; the larger—the building of Xystus—facing westward, and the smaller—the original erection of Constantine as rebuilt by Pelagius—facing eastward. In 1216 Honorius III broke through the apses and fused the two. Thus the building of Sixtus became the nave, and the building of Pelagius the chancel, of the combined basilica, as it still exists. The orientation therefore now conforms to our northern type, the chancel being at the East end and the vestibule at the West. Accordingly the mosaic set up by Pelagius, though undisturbed in its main features, no longer looks down the church according to the original design, but looks inward towards the east end.
But, while the basilica of S. Laurence thus grew to greater magnifi- cence, the basilica of S. Hippolytus dwindled from small to less. In the middle of the eighth century the Lombards under Astolph swept over the land, extinguished the exarchate of Ravenna, and besieged Rome itself. The invader dug up and carried off the bodies of the saints and martyrs, as trophies, into his own country. What could the Romans do to meet these successive desecrations of the sanctuaries? The siege of Astolph was in A.D. 756. Of the succeeding popes some, like Paul I (a.p. 756—767) and Paschal I (a.p. 817-824) and Leo IV (a.p. 847——855) pursued the more timorous, but safer course of removing the sacred reliques from the suburban cemeteries to the churches within the city. This was only a more respectable form of body-snatching than the Lombard plundering itself. On the other hand Hadrian I (A.D. 772—795) and Leo III (a.p. 795—816) adopted the bolder policy of restoring the extra-mural sanctuaries. Of Nicolas I (A.D. 858—867) it is recorded that he made a visitation of the churches and cemeteries (‘sanctorum ecclesias ac coemeteria circuibat’)’; but whether this resulted in any definite policy with respect of the smaller suburban sanctuaries, we have not, so far as I know, any information. We read of this same pope as making certain gifts to the church of S. Laurence without the walls’.
These vicissitudes of the papal policy were felt in the cemetery of
1 See Rom. Sott. 1. p. 221. * Lib. Pont. 11. p. 166 (Duchesne).
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 459
S. Hippolytus. Paul I, between a.D. 757 and a.p. 761, founded the church and monastery of S. Silvester in Capite, so called from the head of S. John the Baptist which was its most precious relique—opened several suburban tombs, and transferred to his new foundation the bodies of the saints and martyrs’. In the portico of the church he affixed two tablets containing respectively the names of the male and female saints thus translated; among whom are several from the cemetery of Hippolytus, more especially the body of Hippolytus him- self. Those parts of the inscriptions which refer to the saints buried in the Ager Veranus, will be found above (AR. 37 b).
On the other hand in the Life of Hadrian I (a.p. 772—795) we are informed that this pontiff ‘restored the parts of the cemetery of S. Hippolytus which had fallen into decay from ancient times’, and likewise ‘the church of S. Stephen close to the aforesaid cemetery’ (AR. 15 Ac). It is not clear what building is meant by this last designation—whether the basilica of S. Hippolytus itself called the church of S. Stephen for some unknown reason or some chapel annexed to this basilica and dedicated to S. Stephen*. At all events it must be distinguished from the church of S. Stephen in the cemetery of S. Cyriaca on the opposite side of the Tuiburtine way; for the restorations of the two several churches of S. Stephen are mentioned separately in the Life of Hadrian (Zz. Pont. 1. p. 508, 511), and the situation of each is described *.
Again; under Leo IV (a.D. 847—855) the policy of translation 1s substituted for the policy of restoration. This pontiff, having restored, enlarged, and beautified the basilica of the Quatuor Coronati on the Ceelian, in order to invest it with greater honour, deposited under the altar the body of Hippolytus and his family with others (4. 15 A e). This is the second body of S. Hippolytus, the first having already been translated by Paul I to S. Silvester.
Lastly; at some later date, whether when Honorius III carried out his works in the basilica of S. Laurentius (A.D. 1216) or at some earlier point of time, the reliques in the cemetery of S. Hippolytus seem to have been swept wholesale into the church of S. Laurentius, probably because their own proper resting-place had now fallen hopelessly into ruin. An inscription, though probably a later (13th cent.) copy of the
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 37 [A.D. 468—483] Z2d. Pont. 1. p. 249. On sq. the two churches of S. Stephen see Bu//. 2 76. 1882, p. 23 Sq, p- 53- adi Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 43 Sq, Pp. 52 3 The church of S. Stephen connected sq. with S. Laurence was built by Simplicius
460 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
earlier monument, was read by the pilgrims of the 13th and 14th cen- turies (42. 37 a), which enumerates these precious treasures and among them is a third body of Hippolytus.
Thus our saint and doctor appears as
forma tricorporis umbrae
even in Rome itself; while, as we shall see presently, other bodies of Hippolytus were laid in other cities of Europe. I need not stop to enquire how far this multiplication of bodies was due to the practice of calling any limb of a saint the ‘body,’ even though it might be only a small portion, and how far it arose from the zeal which led to the eager identification of any remains which lay near the supposed place of sepul- ture with the saint who was the object of search.
But, while the body of S. Hippolytus was undergoing this process of multiplication, his personality also was being subjected to a transfor- mation. Baronius accused even an early writer like Prudentius of confusing together the personalities of three distinct namesakes (p. 412): (1) the divine and father of the Church; (2) the martyr of Antioch ; (3) the soldier and gaoler of S. Laurence. He supposed that the Spanish poet had borrowed the Novatianism from the second, and the con- nexion with the Ager Veranus from the third, and had falsely attributed both the one and the other to the first, thus rolling the three into one. Other later writers also have adopted this view, with or without modifications. Possessing information which was not within the reach of Baronius, we are able to exculpate Prudentius from both these robberies. The attribution of Novatianism, as we now find (p. 424 sq), is much older than Prudentius; and, as a matter of fact, is attributed to the Roman divine some centuries before it is attached to the Antiochene martyr, so that the robbery is on the other side. Again, the supposed appropriation of the sepulchre in the Ager Veranus has arisen from an entire mistake; which it will be worth while now to explain.
De Rossi has shown satisfactorily that the supposed confusion of Hippolytus the doctor and divine with Hippolytus the gaoler and convert of S. Laurence is not a confusion at all but a substitution. In fact they do not co-exist. We find no traces of Hippolytus the gaoler in connexion with the Ager Veranus—or indeed, any traces of his existence at all—till the 7th century at least. With Damasus and Prudentius the Hippolytus of the Ager Veranus is a priest. On the sar- cophagus of Apt (see below, p. 467), which may date from the fourth or fifth century, though connected with S. Sixtus, he is not only a priest, but a writer. He is a priest still in the mosaics put up by Pelagius,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 461
when this pope restored the basilica of S. Laurentius (c. A.D. 580); for he is clad in priestly robes. He is so represented likewise in other contemporary works of art, for instance in the mosaic in S. Apollinaris at Ravenna. The earliest work of art to which De Rossi can point as departing from this mode of representation is the Celimontane picture
of the time of Formosus (A.D. 891—8g6), where he is clad in the - military chlamys'.
What is the meaning of all this? As the basilica of S. Hippolytus dwindled into insignificance and fell into ultimate ruin, the cultus con- nected with it was transferred to the imposing church of S. Laurence on the opposite side of the way, while the bodies of the saints and martyrs, or such as still remained in the cemetery of Hippolytus, were transferred thither. Hence the desire to connect with S. Laurence historically those who were connected with him locally; and the various Acts of the Laurentinian Cycle started into being. Of these the most famous was Hippolytus himself, who had the chief place assigned to him in these Acts; while the other members of his entourage, such as Con- cordia, though originally they may have had no historical connexion even with Hippolytus himself, yet were woven into the story, owing to the fact that they were buried in the same cemetery. In the Martyr- ology of Ado (t A.D. 874) we have embedded great part of the Passzon of S. Sixtus, S. Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus, which included likewise the martyrdoms of these minor saints grouped around them, and seems to have served as a guide book for the pilgrims to this Ager Veranus’.
But how was this transformation from the cleric to the soldier effected ? What was the main instrumentality which brought it about? I seem to myself to be able to answer this question with a reasonable degree of probability.
At an earlier point in this investigation (p. 446 sq) I discussed the honours paid to the martyr Romanus in the Ager Veranus, though him- self connected with Czsarea and Antioch. I there pointed out that, though known to have been a cleric on contemporary authority, he was transformed into a soldier within two or three generations of his death; that some reliques were possessed or supposed to be possessed in the basilica or cemetery of S. Laurence; and that he was one of the group of martyrs celebrated in the Ager Veranus in August. His day was the eve of S, Laurence, as it appears in the Martyrologeum Vetus (AR. 40 g);
v Id. Aug. Romae, Romani militis Vigilia sancti Laurentii,
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 34. 2 AR. 38; see below, p. 473.
462 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
but in a list of the reliques on an ancient tablet found in S. Laurence (AR. 37 a), we read
POST HOS IPOLITUS COLLIS RE LIGATUS EQUORVM CUM NUTRICE SUA CUM CUNC TA PLEBE SUORVM ROMANUS MILES,
where the proper name would be easily overlooked and explained ‘a Roman soldier’ as descriptive of Hippolytus. Though this actual tablet is probably not older than the 13th century, it is apparently a copy of an earlier inscription; and at all events the same connexion of names would appear in other documents relating to these martyrs. Thus, having himself been transmuted from a cleric into a soldier, Romanus handed on the same transmutation to Hippolytus.
I am the more encouraged to believe that this is the real account of the change, because I find that in all essential respects Hippolytus the soldier is the mere double of Romanus the soldier. Both the one and the other suffer under Decius; both the one and the other belong to the band guarding Laurence; both the one and the other are cut to the quick by the good confession of the martyr-deacon, and seek baptism at his hands; both the one and the other are put to death; both the one and the other are buried by Justinus in the Ager Veranus. Only in the manner of their death there is a difference. While Romanus suffers in a common-place way, being beheaded, Hippolytus in accordance with the picture of the martyrdom seen by Prudentius is torn to pieces by horses.
Moreover, there is much confusion about the day. The day of Romanus is first given by Ado as the eve of S. Laurence (p. 322), and he is mentioned in direct connexion with Hippolytus in the scenes immediately preceding the martyrdom of S. Laurence (p. 324). Then again he is stated (p. 325)-to have suffered ‘on ¢he very day (ipso die) on which the blessed Laurence suffered.’ This confusion is not insigni- ficant.
Then again; there is a notice in the account of Hippolytus’ martyr- dom, which seems to be a faint echo of the transformation undergone by Hippolytus. Decius orders him to be ‘stripped of the dress which he wore as a Christian’ (‘veste qua induebatur habitu Christiano’) and ‘to be clothed in the soldier’s dress which he wore as a Gentile’ (‘vestiri militari veste qua gentilis utebatur’). ‘Be our friend,’ says the emperor
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 463
to him, ‘and in our presence resume the profession of a soldier which thou didst always follow’ (in conspectu nostro utere militia pristina quam semper habuisti)’. These Acts seem to have been written as I have said, specially for the use of pilgrims to the Ager Veranus; but in the church of S. Laurence the mosaic of Pelagius might still be seen, where Hippolytus was represented as a tonsured priest. Did not this discrepancy need some such reconciliation as the words here ascribed to Decius suggest ?
Connected with the transformation of the priest into the soldier is the ‘familia,’ notably his nurse Concordia, who were martyred with him in the later form of the legend. The earlier calendars and liturgies speak of Hippolytus alone. In later documents and in later mss of the older documents, he is surrounded by his companion martyrs”.
After the close of the ninth century we read nothing more of the basilica or cemetery of S. Hippolytus. Mention indeed is made of the ‘Mount of S. Hippolytus*, the hill at the back of the cemetery in the rith century; but it is mentioned simply as a locality, without any re- ference to the sanctuary which once existed there. When Martin V in 1425 gave permission for the removal of slabs and stones from the desolate suburban catacombs to construct the pavement of S. John Lateran*, the cemetery of S. Hippolytus was one of those rifled for this purpose, as the stones now embedded in the Lateran pavement show (see above, p. 329); though it is not mentioned by name. Yet the rifling was not complete; for the lower part of the statue of Hippolytus was discovered on the spot in 1551. At the revival of learning the individuality of the cemetery of Hippolytus had so entirely disappeared, that the basilicas and cemeteries on the two sides of the Tiburtine Way were hopelessly confused by historians and archeologists under the general name of the ‘Ager Veranus’; and so long as this confusion existed, no satisfactory results were possible. This hopeless state of things continued for more than three centuries. Only in our own gene- ration was this confusion dissipated by the archeological discoveries, interpreted by the antiquarian penetration and learning of De Rossi. The excavations more especially, which have been made since the year 1880, have furnished a final answer to the main questions.
On this Ager Veranus, to the left side of the Tiburtine Way, to one journeying from Rome to Tivoli, had been discovered three centuries
1 See above, p. 358 sq. _3 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 423 2 See the illustrations given by De Rossi comp. Rom. Sott. 1. p. 161 sq. Bull. di Archeol, Crist, 1882, p. 31 sq. 4 7b. 1881, p. 39 Sq; 1882, p. 42.
464 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
ago, as we have seen, the actual statue of Hippolytus. Here also, at a later date, was found an inscription REFR[1I|GERI[0]. TIBI. DOMNVS. IPPO- LITVS. SID (sit). Hence also probably came later still a sepulchral stone bearing the words AT. IPPOLITV. SVPER . ARCOSOLIV, which found its way into the Vatican Museum®*. At length in 1881 the excavations were commenced on this site in right earnest*, and resulted not only in the discovery of the inscriptions recording the works of Damasus (A.D. 366— 384) and of Vigilius (A.D. 537-555), as mentioned already (pp. 328 sq, 424, 454), but in the actual disinterment of the subterranean basilica of Hippolytus, as described by Prudentius and as repaired by Vigilius. It is much larger than such subterranean chapels to the Catacombs generally, as the description of Prudentius would lead us to expect. It exhibits the isolated altar on the bema of the apse, as described by this same poet. It shows traces of the three windows overhead ‘trinum per specula lumen,’ as specified by Vigilius, so as to throw a flood of light into this under-ground church, a feature which impressed Prudentius, though he does not mention the actual number of these lights. It is obviously however not in the state in which it was left by Damasus, but bears traces of the subsequent repairs of Vigilius. Thus inscrip- tions of the age of Damasus, and later, no longer stand in their original position, but have been displaced, so that in some instances they are partly concealed. One such Damasian inscription TIMOTEVS. PRESBYTER in the true Filocalian character (see above, p. 444) must have stood originally in the front of an ‘arcosolium.’ It is now used to construct one of the steps to the bema*. Again the walls, as seen by Prudentius, were lined with glistening white marble; they are now covered with plaster’.
Three other sanctuaries of S. Hippolytus in Rome and Italy deserve a passing notice.
(1) During the papacy of Siricius (A.D. 384—399) one Ilicius a presbyter erected all the buildings which were to be seen in connexion with the church and monastery of S. Pudentiana along the Vicus Patricius (now the Via Urbana), beginning with the MEMORIA SANCTI
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 45.
290. pias.
3 7b. p. 56 sq-
4 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 68, Tav. 1, ii.
5 This Timotheus must have been a person of some importance in the history of the Church. Our first impulse is to
identify him with the Timotheus of Ostia, whose ‘depositio’ is Aug. 22 (xi Kal. Sept.) in the Liberian list. He would thus add another to the saints of the Ager Veranus celebrated in August. This Timotheus however is stated by Ado (and the same is implied in the Liberian list) to have been buried in the Cemetery of Ostia,
HIFPOLYTUS ‘OF “PORTUS. 465 MARTYRIS IPPOLYTI’. This was the period, as we have seen (p. 452), when the fame of Hippolytus reached its zenith owing to the devotion of Damasus; and Siricius, the next successor of Damasus, was the very man to give further encouragement to it, since it is especially recorded in his honour on his tomb that the malcontents of the anti-Damasian faction were at length united under him’. The same reason therefore which had led Damasus to show his reverence for Hippolytus in the sanctuary on the Tiburtine Way, as the champion of unity in the Church in the midst of schism, would lead Siricius also to heap additional honours upon him. But why the selection of the Vicus Patricius and the church of S. Pudentiana for this memoria? De Rossi (Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 16) answers that Hippolytus probably lived in the Vicus Patricius or gathered a Christian congregation there for worship. This must be taken as a mere conjecture, like the similar conjecture respecting the house and memorza of Clement which I have dealt with elsewhere (I. p. 94). But the connexion of the suburban cemeteries on the Tiburtine way with the priests of the ‘title’ of this (the third ecclesiastical) region—on the Esquiline including S. Pudentiana and S, Praxedis—from the fifth century at least is a matter of certainty. These priests seem to have served these cemeteries, and grants of graves were made by them or their prior. Thus we have mention ina sepulchral inscription dated A. D. 491 of a grave acquired by one Fausta in the cemetery of Hippolytus a. pre. TIT. [P]RAx[SEDIS]*. Elsewhere in this same cemetery was found belonging to the year 528 the grave of one HILARVS. LICTOR (lector). TT. PVDENTIS*; and again another of one PB. PRIOR’, whose name is mutilated and who doubtless belonged to this same region and title. It is probable therefore that the presbyter Andreas, who under Vigilius (see above, p. 454) repaired the basilica of S. Hippolytus, was the prior of this title®.
(2) The next Italian sanctuary, which claims a mention in con- nexion with Hippolytus, is Portus, the haven of Rome. From what I Of pope Simplicius (A.D. 468—483) we are told that he arranged respecting the
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1877, p. 15 sq; 1882, p. 15 sq.
2 See Duchesne £70. Pont. 1. p. 217.
3 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 65 sq.
4 Resoconto det Cultori di Archeologia Cristiana 1883, April 1, (Roma 1888).
5 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. \.c.
6 On the connexion of the cemeteries on the Tiburtine Way with the ‘tituli’ of this region see Rom. So¢t, 111. p. 516 sq.
CLEM. II.
service at ‘regio III ad sanctum Lauren- tium’ among other similar arrangements in other ‘regiones’. On the tituli ‘ Prax- edis’ and ‘ Pudentis’ (or ‘Pudentianae’) see also Duchesne Notes sur la Topographie de Rome au Moyen Age p. 22 sq (Rome 1887), extracted from the A/dlanges d’ Archéo- logie.
30
466 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
have said already and shall have to say hereafter, it will be apparent that, whether he was actually bishop of Portus or not, no other place—hardly even the Ager Veranus—is more closely identified with his name by history and tradition alike. The tower of a ruined church in Portus— a landmark seen afar over the surrounding waste—still bears his name. Of Leo III (a. p. 795—816) we are told that he gave certain cloths to the ‘basilica beati Yppoliti martyris in civitate Portuense,’ one to cover his body (super corpus ejus), and another for the great altar (Zzd. Pont. 11. p. 12, Duchesne). Whether it is mentioned at an earlier date, I know not. The ruins are said to belong to the eighth century. The well is also shown, in which according to the Portuensian version of the legend his body was drowned. It is in the /so/a Sacra’, the island made by the original mouth of the Tiber and by the channel cut for the works of Claudius and Trajan at the new Port. Of the identification of Hippolytus with an early Portuensian martyr Nonnus, and of his association with the virgin Chryse in the spurious Acts of the latter, I shall have to speak presently (see below, p. 474 sq).
Though events were preparing the way, as I have shown, for a bishopric at Portus in the age of Hippolytus, the permanent see seems not to have been established till the next century. In the middle ages and afterwards it ranked second of the suburbicarian sees, Ostia taking the precedence.
(3) At the ancient Forum Semproni, the modern Fossombrone, in the valley of the Metaurus on the Flaminian Way about 165 miles from _ Rome, there exist to the present day two castles called respectively by the names of S. Hippolytus and S. Laurence—the same two saints who were celebrated on the Tiburtine Way in the middle of August. Now we find in the Hieronymian Martyrology*® under Feb. 2nd
iv Non. Feb. Romae Foro Sinfronii, via Flaminia, miliario ab urbe centum septuaginta quatuor Laurentii, Hippolyti,
and again under Aug. 6
viii Id. Aug. Laurentii, Hippolyti, et militum centum sexaginta duorum,
in the common text, or as it is otherwise read ‘militum clxv.’ Com- paring these notices one with another and with the actual fact relating
' For the ancient works at Portus see medieval and later condition comp. Nibby Lanciani Ancient Rome in the light of — Analisi 11. p. 602 sq, and see Benson Recent Discoveries p. 231 sq. For the Yourn. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. i. p. Christian remains esp. De Rossi Bud/. di 202 sq.
Archeol. Crist. 1866, p. 37 sq. For the 2 See above, p. 356.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 467
to Fossombrone, we cannot doubt that De Rossi is right in reading ‘milliario’ for ‘militum’ in the second passage, the word having been contracted into ‘mil’’; and in the first passage we should probably substitute clxiiiii for clxiiiii Indeed the 165 soldiers cannot be ex- plained otherwise; for they have no relation to the more modest ‘familia’ of 18 or 19 persons which forms the entourage of our S. Hippolytus in the later form of the legend. With this correction the earlier notice (Feb. 2) will in all likelihood represent the anniversary of the dedication of the sanctuary of these two saints at Fossombrone, whither probably the oil or some other relique of them was taken, while the latter (Aug. 6) represents the annual celebration of their proper festival in the Ides of August celebrated likewise at Fossombrone, as it was celebrated at Rome. In fact both these notices seem to have been introduced into the Hieronymian hodge-podge from some Umbrian or North Italian document.
The reverence paid to this saint outside of Italy need not occupy us long. We have seen (p. 452) that Prudentius recommended his own superior, the Archbishop of Zaragoza, to introduce the cultus of Hippo- lytus; but whether the advice was taken we do not know. At all events he has a place in a Carthaginian Calendar of the fifth or sixth century, where the usage was closely allied to that of the Spanish Church; and in the Gothic Missal, which exhibits the liturgical practice of the Visigoths in Spain in the seventh or eighth centuries (4A. 39, 40). In France the remarkable sarcophagus at Apt near Avignon is proof of the spread of his fame* in the fifth(?) century. Again we find at Arles an early church dedicated to him. In the year 973 one Theucinda petitions the Archbishop of Arles to be allowed to ‘rebuild and restore’ ECCLESIAM IN HONORE BEATI YPOLITI DEDICATAM, which must therefore have been in existence long before*. But his greatest fame in this country is connected with the great Abbey of S. Denis near Paris. About the year 764 Fulrad Abbot of S. Denis brought the bones of S. Hippolytus from the Ager Veranus and laid them for a time in his newly founded Abbey Fulrado-Villiers, thence called St Hippolyte or St Bilt; whence they were translated shortly after his death (c. 785) to S. Denis. Hippolytus was here celebrated as at Rome on the Ides of August, and his martyrdom was represented as in the picture seen by Prudentius in the Ager Veranus. But he was no longer the cleric, but the soldier,
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 36. 3 See De Rossi /uscr. Christ. Urb. 2 7b. 1866, p. 33 sq; 1882, p. 35. Rom. il. p. 267.
30—2
468 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
no longer the doctor of the Church but the convert of S. Laurence; for the transformation had already been made. About the year 1159 pope Alexander III visited S. Denis and, on enquiring whose bones a certain reliquary contained, was told those of Hippolytus. ‘I don’t believe it, I don’t believe it,’ said the pope bluntly, ‘I supposed that he Jay still in the City.’ He had only too much reason for his scepti- cism ; for he might have known that Rome itself contained no less than three bodies of S. Hippolytus, one in S. Silvester, a second in the Quatuor Coronati, and a third in S. Laurence. The saint himself however would stand no trifling. His bones rattled and rumbled in the reliquary, like the roar of thunder, till the pope cried out in terror, ‘I believe it, my lord, I believe it, my lord; do keep quiet.’ The pope made his peace by erecting a marble altar in the oratory of the saint’.
Nor was this the only body of Hippolytus outside Rome. ‘There was, or is, another in the church of S. Julia at Brescia; and another in S. Ursula at Cologne; besides heads and limbs here and there elsewhere.
ony? SPURIOUS ACLS OF LIPlPOLy TCs.
The only Acts of Hippolytus which can pretend to retain even a faint echo of genuine history are those given in the poem of Prudentius (see p. 332 sq); and even at this early date as we have seen fact is choked by fiction. The later Acts have no historical value at all; but they throw some light on the legendary Hippolytus.
These later Acts belong to two separate cycles ; (1) Zhe Laurentian; (2) Zhe Portuensian. The connexion with the true Hippolytus is in both cases local, not historical. In the former the link is the Ager Veranus, the site of Hippolytus’ burial place; in the latter it is the Port of Rome, the site of his practical activity while living.
(i) Acts of the Laurentian Cycle.
We have seen already (p. 458 sq) that owing to the decadence and ruin of the basilica and cemetery of S. Hippolytus the chief memorials of the saints and martyrs once existing there were transferred to the
1 Acta Sanct. Bolland. Aug. 111. p. 9; I. p. IgI. comp. Fourn. of Class. and Sacr. Phitlol,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 469
neighbouring sanctuary of S. Laurentius. The effect of this trans- ference made itself felt on the legend. Henceforward Hippolytus became more than ever a companion and attendant of S. Laurentius, while at the same time he was gradually transformed from a cleric into a soldier.
The extant inscription in the Church of S. Laurentius (42. 37) is an instructive comment on this developement. The enumeration of the sacred reliques there deposited begins with the names of the three persons to whom the church was dedicated by Pelagius (see above, Pp. 457) together with S. Stephen the first deacon and prototype of S. Laurence. It ends with the popes who were buried there, Hilarus, Zosimus and Sixtus III,* together with Pelagius who built the enlarged basilica. Of these it is not necessary to say anything more. Our concern is with the intermediate names ;
Ipolitus collis religatus equorum ; Cum nutrice sua cum cuncta plebe suorum Romanus miles, Triphonia, Virgo Cirilla, Et quadraginta quos passio continet illa, Justinusque sacer defunctos qui tumulabat, Ciriace vidua quae sanctos clam recreabat, Cujus matronae fuit haec possessio cara, Ipsius nomen specialiter optinet ara, Martir Ireneus qui tecum, martir Abundi, Decedens sprevit fallacis gaudia mundi.
The ancient itineraries show us that of the persons here named, Concordia and the supposed ‘familia’—the ‘cuncta plebs suorum’—were originally buried in the crypt of Hippolytus, as were also Tryphonia and Cyrilla, the reputed wife and daughter of Decius Czesar (4 2. 38 b). On the other hand, Romanus and Justinus, Abundius and Irenzeus, lay in the cemetery on the opposite side of the way in which stood the basilica of S. Laurence, as did also Cyriace who, as here stated, was probably the original possessor of the ground and gave her name to this cemetery.
Of those buried in the cemetery of Hippolytus, Concordia, as we learn from the itineraries, lay ‘ante fores,’ i.e. of the crypt or chamber where Hippolytus himself lay. In another chamber (‘altero cubiculo’), lay the two martyrs, Tryphonia the wife and Cyrilla the virgin daughter of Decius—both done to death by this tyrant’s command. ‘Thus the sepulchre of Concordia was between the vault of Hippolytus and that
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1881, p. 86 sq.
470 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
of the two royal martyrs—‘between the two,’ as one of the itineraries says (AR. 38 b, where read ‘inter utrosque’). Concordia is commonly called the nurse (‘nutrix’), but in the earliest of the itineraries the wife (‘mulier’) of Hippolytus. These date from the 8th century. As no record is found in history of any wife and daughter of Decius (whichever Decius is meant), who bore the names Tryphonia and Cyrilla, it has been proposed to read ‘ancillae mulieris’ for ‘mulieris’ in the Martyro- logies: so as to bring the statement within the range of probability; but we are dealing with romance, not with history, and in romance such conjectures are futile as well as unnecessary. Who Concordia may have been, we have no means of ascertaining. It is not probable that she had any other connexion with Hippolytus except the double proxi- mity of the place of sepulture and the time of celebration. This local and temporal neighbourhood would be sufficient to suggest the historical connexion, of which there seem to be no traces before the eighth cen- tury. But what shall we say of the ‘familia’ xviiil (or xvill) in number? The attachment of this ‘familia’ to Hippolytus seems to be later— though probably not much later—than his connexion with Concordia herself; for it occurs in the Old Roman Martyrology. In the earliest of the itineraries, where she is the ‘mulier’ of Hippolytus, the ‘familia’ is not mentioned at all. Even in the Aieronymian Martyrology—the great storehouse of martyrological notices, historical and legendary, early and late—it has not yet found a place. The number was origin- ally xviiii (=xix) and not xviii, as appears not only from the oldest of the itineraries in which it is mentioned, but also from Ado and others. A figure would be easily dropped by transcribers. I believe that I see the origin of this number xviiii (xix). The next day to Id. Aug. is xix Kal. Sept. But the Ides of August is the day of Concordia, as well as of Hippolytus. What if the ‘familia’ of Hippolytus has originated in some calendar for August set up either in the Ager Veranus or else- where, which ran thus
ID. AVG. HIPPOLYTI ET CONCORDIAE ET FAMILIAE EIVS . XIX. KAL. SEPT.. EVSEBII PRESBYTERI ET CONFESSORIS etc.
the next important celebration being the festival of Eusebius on xix Kal. Sept. at least in some calendars, e.g. the Old Roman (Patrol. Lat. CxxIlI. p. 166, Migne), and the xix has got detached from the following words and appended to the preceding? I should add that I cannot lay the same stress as De Rossi on the notice in the zeronymian Martyrology, which gives under viii Kal. Mart.
Romae via ‘Tiburtina ad sanctum Laurentium natalis sanctae Con- cordiae,
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 471
as though this gave the original day of S. Concordia’. It seems to me that the confusion of the cemetery of S. Laurence with that of S$. Hip- polytus shows the comparatively late date of this notice and therefore deprives it of any special value. Whoever she may have been, her original connexion seems to have been with the Hippolytean cemetery on the Tiburtine Way; and there she was celebrated on the Ides of August. I suppose therefore that we have in the Hieronymian Mar- tyrology a confused notice of some translation of Concordia similar to those which we have already considered in the case of Romanus (p. 449) and of Hippolytus himself (p. 439 sq). Even if De Rossi were right about her proper ‘natal day,’ my explanation would hold equally well: since it depends solely on the date of her celebration on the Tiburtine Way, about which there can be no doubt.
Whoever Tryphonia and Cyrilla were, they need give us no trouble. Their days are respectively xv Kal. Nov. (Oct. 18) and v Kal. Nov. (Oct. 28) in the Calendars and Martyrologies, e.g. Ado. ‘They may perhaps have suffered in the Decian persecution about the same time with S. Laurence; though there is some confusion between Decius and Claudius (Gothicus) in the notices of the persecuting tyrant (as for instance in Ado); but their connexion with the Hippolytean legend is due to the fact of their graves being situated near the chambers of Hippolytus and Concordia.
Nor need I spend any time on investigating whether the saints buried on the right side of the Tiburtine Way in the cemetery of Cyriace were historically connected with S. Laurence. Of Romanus I have spoken already (p. 446 sq).
The full-blown legend of S. Laurence and S. Hippolytus is found in Ado, and runs as follows :
On the roth of August (iv Id. Aug.) S. Laurence suffered. Sixtus on his way to martyrdom had entrusted all the treasures of the Church to him. A certain widow Cyriace, living on the Ceelian, had hidden several clerics and others in her house from the persecution and with her he deposited the treasures, at the same time healing her miraculously of many pains in the head. In the Vicus Canarius he found many Christians congregated in the house of Narcissus; he distributed money among them; and he restored his sight to one Crescentio who was blind. Decius, hearing of these hidden treasures in the keeping of Laurence the archdeacon of Sixtus, hands him over to Valerian the prefect, who puts him in charge of one Hippolytus as warder. Hippolytus, seeing him work a miracle on another blind man, one
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 24 Sq, p- 32.
4.72 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Lucillius, is converted and baptized. Meanwhile Valerian presses Laurence to give up the treasures. Asking for time, he gathers together the almsmen and almswomen of the Church, and tells Valerian that these are the treasures. He is beaten and otherwise tortured byDecius for his effrontery. ‘Then he is restored to the keeping of Hippolytus. One of the soldiers, Romanus by name, seeing the conduct of S. Laurence, believes and is baptized. He is beaten and beheaded by order of Decius on v Id. Aug., the day before S. Laurence. S. Laurence himself is then brought before Decius; and after suffering the most excruciating tortures is roasted to death on a gridiron. In early morning Hippolytus carries off the body, wraps it with linen cloths and spices, and delivers it to Justinus the presbyter. The two go by night to the Tiburtine Way to the farm of Cyriace in the Ager Veranus—the same widow with whom Laurence had been at night—and lay him there on iv Id. Aug.
The same day at Rome one hundred and sixty-five soldiers suffered. Then were martyred Claudius, Severus, Crescentio, and Romanus, on the same day as S. Laurence, the third day after the passion of S. Sixtus.
On the Ides of August suffered Hippolytus under Decius the emperor and Valerian the prefect. This Hippolytus the ‘vicarius’ had been baptized as already stated by S. Laurence. Returning home after the burial he was seized and carried before Decius. Here he was com- pelled to strip off his Christian garment and put on ‘the military dress which he wore as a Gentile.’ Then Valerian rifled his house of its treasures and dragged out ‘all his Christian family.’ He and his house- hold were led outside the walls on the Tiburtine Way. ‘The latter were beheaded—male and female—nineteen in number. Hippolytus himself was yoked to untamed horses and thus dismembered. They were all buried by Justinus the presbyter in the same plain ‘juxta nympham’’ by the side of the Ager Veranus.
At the same time perished Concordia, the nurse of Hippolytus. She was put to death by the same Valerian, and her body thrown into the sewer. ‘Thirteen days after her death a soldier, Porphyrius by name, came to Irenzus the sewer-keeper (‘cloacarius’), who was secretly a Christian, and told him where the body might be found having jewels or gold concealed about it, as he supposed. No such treasure however was discovered ; but Irenzeus, assisted by a Christian Abundius, took the body to Justinus, who buried it by Hippolytus and the others.
1 <Juxta nympham’ referstothe springs p.190. They were near the Nomentan of waters in the neighbourhood, which Way and were called S. Petri, because were found infiltrating the soil in the SS. Peter was reported to have baptized
recent excavations; see Bull. di Archeol. there. Crist. p. 19, p- 523 comp. Lom. Soét, 1.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. A73
On vii Kal. Sept. (Aug. 26) Irenzeus and Abundius were ordered by Valerian to be themselves enclosed in a sewer (‘incloacari’) and so perished. They were buried by Justinus ‘in the crypt near S. Laurence.’
On xv Kal. Nov. (Oct. 18) died Tryphonia the wife of Decius Ceesar. Overawed by the divine vengeance which had overtaken her husband after his murder of S. Sixtus and S. Hippolytus, she with her daughter Cyrilla had sought baptism at the hands of Justinus. She was buried ‘ near Hippolytus in the crypt.’
On viii Kal. Nov. (Oct. 25) 48 soldiers were baptized together by pope Dionysius [the successor of Sixtus, A.D. 259—268]. They were beheaded by command of the emperor Claudius [A.D. 268—270] and buried by Justinus the presbyter and John on the Salarian Way ‘in clivum Cucumeris’; also other 121 martyrs. Among these were Theo- dosius, Lucius, Marcus, and Petrus, who asked the honour of being beheaded first. The record is found, adds Ado, in the ‘ Passio sanc- torum martyrum, Sixti, Laurentu, et Hippolyti.’
On v Kal. Nov. (Oct. 28) perished Cyrilla the daughter of Decius by order of the emperor Claudius. She was buried by Justin the pres- byter with her mother near S. Hippolytus. .
On xv Kal. Oct. (Sept. 17) died Justinus, who had buried so many martyrs. His place of sepulture was on the Tiburtine Way near S. Laurence. Laurence had come to him to the ‘crypta Nepotiana’ in the Vicus Patricius, and asked him to distribute the treasures com- mitted to him by S. Sixtus to the poor. He won renown by the glory of his confession in the persecutions of Decius, Gallus, and Volu- sianus,
It is clear that Ado takes this account of these martyrs from a written document, the Passion of S. Sixtus, $. Laurentius, and S. Hip- polytus, to which he refers. It contained not only the Acts of the three principal martyrs, and of others belonging to the Tiburtine Way ; but also of others who perished and were buried on the Salarian Way. These latter seem to have been added, simply because they were reputed to have been buried by the same Justinus.
These Acts quoted and probably abridged by Ado are doubtless the document which is called Passio ILLA in the inscription of the 13th century found in the basilica of S, Laurence (42. 37). It seems to have served as a sort of guide book to the pilgrims in the Ager Veranus.
The Acts, printed by Lagarde (p. xiii sq) from the ms Brit. AZus. 11880 of the ninth century and bearing the same name, are much briefer. An abstract of them is given above (42. 45). The two seem
474 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
not to have anything in common except the main outlines of the story of the connexion of Laurence with Sixtus and of Hippolytus with Laurence. Perhaps however they may both have been founded on some very simple earlier Acts; but the characteristic of the Adonian account—the working up of the history of the saints and martyrs buried in the Ager Veranus into a single narrative—is entirely wanting.
(2) Acts of the Portuensian Cycle.
These Acts are quite independent of the Laurentian, and centre about the person of one Chryse or Aurea, a virgin martyr and prin- cess of royal blood. Hippolytus only plays a very subordinate part, and (as we shall see presently) his name seems to have been introduced as an afterthought. So far as there is any historical back- ground at all, it consists of a group of Portuensian martyrs. No longer the Ager Veranus, but the Port of Rome, is the centre of interest. Moreover the personal surroundings of Hippolytus are all different, being largely clerics.
The persecutors are Claudius, ‘the impious tyrant,’ and the ‘ vi- carius’ Ulpius Romulus. Our first impulse is to identify the perse- cuting emperor with Claudius Gothicus (a.p. 268—270), because this identification reduces the anachronism toa minimum. But this sovereign is not known to have been guilty of any persecution. Moreover Cen- surinus, one of his victims, is represented as saying that Jesus Christ ‘condescended to come from the Father zz his own times (ev Tots npeTépots Katpots) and to be born of a virgin’s womb.’ It would appear therefore that Dollinger (p. 42) is right in supposing that the hagiologist intended the first emperor of this name; or that, if he did not, he con- fused the earlier Claudius with the later. The name Alexander in place of Claudius in some recensions of the Latin copies seems to be a substi- tution to conform to the tradition of the more popular Laurentian Acts.
Censurinus, a leading man of the magistracy (r#s tod paywropiov efovoias), is first apprehended and imprisoned at Ostia. There he is fed and cared for by Chryse; and receives the ministrations of the pres- byter Maximus. Several of his guards, whose names are given—among these Taurinus and Herculianus—seek baptism. ‘Then the bishop Cyriacus comes by night, ‘seals,’ and anoints them. We have then the story of a certain shoe-maker (oxvtevs), whose son is raised from the dead, baptized under the name Faustinus, and carefully tended by Chryse. For this offence she is accused of magic, and subjected to the wheel and other tortures. ‘Then Archelaus the deacon, Maximus the
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 475
priest, and Cyriacus the bishop suffer. At this point of the narrative we hear again of the soldiers, who had been converted by the ministra- tions of Maximus. They are condemned to death and suffer. Of all the rest, who are not here again mentioned by name, we are told that their bodies were laid near the sea on the Ostian Way on vi Id. Aug.; but of Taurinus and Herculianus we are informed that they were buried in ‘the Port of Rome.’ Chryse’s turn comes at length. After being beaten to no effect, as she only received fresh accessions of strength, she was drowned in the sea with a heavy stone about her neck. At this point, when the narrative is more than three-fourths over, the name of Hippolytus first occurs. Her body floated to the shore, was gathered up by ‘the blessed Nonus, also surnamed Hippolytus’ (Novos 0 kat wetovopac Geis ‘Irmodvtos), and buried ‘on her own estate, where also she lived, outside the walls of the city of Ostia, on the ix Kal. Sept.’ Then the torture of Sabinianus the procurator is related for not revealing her concealed treasure; whereupon Hippolytus provokes the wrath of the persecutor by his denunciations, and is condemned to death for this inopportune interference. He is sunk in the pit of the haven called Portus (eis tov BoOvvov roprov tov avayopevoyevov IIdprov) on xi Kal. Sept. At his death the voices of infants are heard for the space of a whole hour giving thanks to God.
The remaining paragraphs of the story recount the martyrdom of Sabinianus and his burial by Cordius (Concordius).
Now in the earliest extant Western Martyrology, which is embedded in the work of the Liberian Chronographer (A. D. 354) and which itself cannot be later than a.p. 335 (see above, I. pp. 248, 250), we have this notice, which throws a flood of light on the Acts of Chryse:
Non. Sept. (Sept. 5th) Aconti, in Porto, et Nonni et Herculani et Taurini.
These were doubtless genuine martyrs of Portus, though whether they suffered in the Decian persecution or later we cannot tell. But the notice had lost the first name by mutilation before it reached our hagiologist ; and the three other names only are utilized. Whence the story of Chryse herself was derived, I need not stop to enquire; nor is it worth my while to spend time on the other adornments of these Acts.
The real interest gathers round Nonnus. Whether this was the Latin word Nonus (like Septimus, Decimus, etc.) or the Greek word Nonnus or Nunnus, we may question. Probably it was the latter, but anyhow the meaning of the Greek word would attach itself to it, and it
476 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
would suggest a cleric. Originally, as is quite evident, the notice had nothing to do with Hippolytus, and the connexion required some ex- planation 6 kal perovouacGeis or (as it is in the corresponding Latin) ‘qui et iam Ypolitus nuncupatur.’ But the great cleric connected with Portus, the patron saint of the place, was Hippolytus the theologian. Hence Nonnus must be Hippolytus. Moreover he is 0 rpeoPurepos ; for Portus knew nothing of Hippolytus the soldier, but only of Hippolytus ‘the elder.’
The remains of an ancient sarcophagus, ascribed to the fourth or fifth century and commemorating Taurinus and Herculanus without any mention of Nonnus' have been found, which seems to show that these two were buried in a separate locality; as indeed the Acts might lead us to expect.
Of the other martyrs mentioned in these Acts some are recognized in the Martyrium Hieronymianum, where we have the notices
xi Kal. Sept. Et in portu Romano peregrinorum martyrum.
x Kal. Sept. In portu urbis Romae natalis sancti Hippolyti qui dicitur Nunnus cum sociis suis. In Ostia natalis sancti Quiriaci, Archelai,
Hippolytus himself having likewise been mentioned on a previous day (xiii Kal. Sept.), but without the description ‘qui dicitur Nunnus’ (see AR. 40 f).
The Greek Acts were first published by S. de Magistris, from whom Lagarde has taken them. The Latin Acts will be found in Act. Sanct. Bolland. Augustus IV. p. 757 sq. The Greek seems certainly to be the original; the story would probably be compiled in this language for the sake of the foreigners frequenting Ostia and Portus. In the Latin the exordium more especially is expanded, so as to give Chryse the principal place on the canvas. |
The AZenea borrowed some features from the Laurentian Acts ; others from the Portuensian. They are brief, but they show a late development of the legend.
We may follow the growth of the legend a step further. In the middle of the fifth century there lived a more famous Nonnus, bishop of Edessa or of Heliopolis or of both, to whom is due the credit of having converted the courtesan Pelagia. S. Peter Damianus (c. A.D. 1060) fuses this Nonnus with Hippolytus (4X. 45). He makes this conversion of Pelagia the crowning feat of Nonnus-Hip-
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1866, p. 49.
HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. A77
polytus after bringing 30,000 Saracens over to the faith of Christ. Then he resigns his bishopric, leaves Antioch his native country, and retires to the mouth of the Tiber. His glorious martyrdom there consummated, and the miraculous voices of the infants giving thanks to God, are a proof that the resignation of the episcopate may on occasions be possible without offending God.
The caprices of tradition would not be complete, unless supplemented by the conceits of criticism. Baronius (p. 411) surmised that Callistus would not suffer so valuable a man as Hippolytus to return to Arabia, but created him bishop of Portus, that he ‘might have him ever close by his side as an adviser in perplexities’, thus bestowing upon him ‘a see of no great labour (modicae curae) but of amplest dignity.’ Strange irony of fate!
I have thus attempted to trace the marvellous vicissitudes of this strange eventful career—marvellous in life, and still more marvellous after death. The appearances of this one personality in history and in legend are as manifold and varied as the transformations of his name; Hippolytus with the Greeks and Romans, Iflites with the Syrians and Chaldeans, Abulides with the Copts and A‘thiopians, Polto with the Italians, Bilt with the French.
ToAAGY GvopaTwv popdy pia.
~
‘ry j (Ta)
\"
A. SAINT PETER IN ROME.
[This excursus is printed in the incomplete state, in which it was left at Bishop Lightfoot’s death. }
BB LHe EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
[Found among the Bishop’s miscellaneous papers. The essay is undated, but it was apparently written before the publication of Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.]
EY;
ent PRRER IN" ROME
(ee subject which I purpose discussing in the present Appendix is
essentially mixed up with controversy; but I hope to treat it as little controversially as possible. It would be impossible to overlook the momentous inferences which depend, or have been thought to depend, on the results of the investigation; but I shall pursue it, as far as pos- sible, as a historical study. Where it is not a question of history it is a question of exegesis. The purely theological aspects, however im- portant, have no place here. The first section, which has the closest bearing on theological controversy, seemed necessary as an introduction to the rest, because it sets forth the incidents which form the basis of discussion.
ei.
THE PROMISE AND THE FULFILMENT.
Even a cursory glance at the history of the Apostles, so far as it appears in the Gospel records, reveals a certain primacy of S. Peter among the twelve. He holds the first place in all the lists; he has a precedence of responsibility and of temptation; he sets the example of moral courage and of moral lapse. Above all he receives special pas- toral charges.
The latest of these is the threefold injunction to feed the flock of Christ. He is appealed to by his patronymic the son of Johanan, the son of God’s grace (S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17). In the other evangelists his father’s name appears under its more familiar abridgement Jonas or Jona, thus being commonly confused with the ancient prophet’s name
CLEM. II. 31
482 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
‘the dove’; but in this latest command, as given by S. John, the name appears in full, Johanan, the grace of God, because our Lord would remind him that he bears about with him in his very name the obliga- tion to the pastoral charge and the promise of grace to fulfil the same, though here again transcribers have substituted the more usual form, thus obscuring the significance.
The case is somewhat similar in the earlier charge to S. Peter, with which I am directly concerned, ‘Thou art Cephas, and upon this rock will I build My Church.’ Here also the Apostle’s name involves a prophecy, which should be unfolded in the future history of the Church. It is important therefore to enquire in what sense the Church of Christ shall be built upon the rock.
Patristic interpretations of the earliest and last ages are mainly twofold.
(1) The rock is Christ Himself. This was the opinion to which S. Augustine, the great theologian of the Latin Church, inclined. Having frequently, as he confesses, explained the ‘rock’ of S. Peter himself, as his master S. Ambrose had done before him in a well-known hymn, he took occasion in his after-thoughts to express his misgivings as to this explanation. The passage is sufficiently important to deserve quotation in full (Refract. 1. 21, Op. 1. p. 32).
In quo dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro quod in illo tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia; qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosi ubi de gallo galli- naceo ait
Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae Canente culpam diluet;
sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est Zu es Petrus...meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus dicens, Zu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni caelorum. Non enim dictum est illi Zu es petra, sed Tu es Petrus; petra autem erat Christus quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat lector.
Here, though he gives the alternative, he himself evidently leans to the interpretation which explains the rock of Christ Himself. This is likewise the view of Cyril of Alexandria, who commenting upon Isaiah xxxill. 16, ‘ His place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks; bread
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 483 shall be given him; his waters shall be sure,’ writes, ‘And it is probable that our Lord Jesus Christ is named a rock for us in these words; in Whom like a cave or like some sheepfold the Church is meant, which has its permanence in prosperity sure and unshaken; for Zhou art Peter, says the Saviour, and on this rock I will found My Church’ etc., the bread and the water being spiritual sustenance’.
(2) The rock is connected with S. Peter, being either his confes- sion or his faith or some other moral or spiritual qualification, capable of being shared by others.
This alternative has already appeared in the exposition of S. Augus- tine. The most explicit declaration of it, however, is found in the typical passage of Origen Comm. in Matt. [xvi. 13] Tom. xu. § 10. ‘But if we also, like Peter, say, Zhou art the Christ the Son of the living God, flesh and blood not having revealed it to us, but the Spirit from heaven having illumined our heart, we become a Peter and it would be said to us by the Word, Zhou art Peter and so forth. For every disciple of Christ is a rock, from whom all they that partake of the spiritual rock which follows did drink; and upon every such rock the whole doctrine of the Church and the polity in accordance therewith is built... But if thou supposest that the whole Church is built by God on that one Peter alone, what wouldest thou say concerning John the Son of Thunder, or any one of the Apostles? Otherwise shall we dare to say that against Peter especially the gates of hell shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the remaining Apostles?... Are then the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone and shall none other of the blessed Apostles receive them ?... Many there- fore shall say to the Saviour, Zhou art the Christ the Son of the living God...and if any one saith this to Him, flesh and blood not revealing it, but the Father which is in heaven, he shall obtain the promises (rév eipnuevwv), as the letter of the Gospel says, to that particular Peter, but as the Spirit teaches, to every one who becomes like that Peter. For all become namesakes (zapdvupor) of the rock who are imitators of Christ the spiritual rock, etc....and so forth as far as shall not prevail against tt. What is ‘it’? Is it the rock on which Christ builds His
1 Cyril. Alex. Zz Zsaz. Lib. iii. Tom. III., p. 460 elds 5€ 64 mou kai mérpay nuty ovouacbat dia TovTwy tov Kiprov t a 5] a \ ’ 2 <1 f nuav Inooty tov Xpirdv, ev w Kkabdrep Tt omnAaoy 7 Kal mpoBdrwv onKds 7 éK- kKAnola voetrac dogarty Kal dxpddavrov éxouca Thy eis TO eb etvar diauovynyv. Ld
yap ef Ilérpos x.7.X. Yet only a little later in the same work he gives a somewhat dif- ferent interpretation, ‘the unshaken faith of the disciple’, Zz JZsaz. Lib. iv. Tom. II., p- 593 emt ra’rn TH WéTpA Oeuehiwow fou Tiy exkAynolav’ TéTpav oiua Aéywv TO dxpadavtov eis rictiw Tod “waOnrod.
ee
A484 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
Church ; or the Church itself, for the expression is ambiguous; or the rock azd the Church, being one and the same thing ?’
With more to the same effect; where nothing could be fuller or more explicit than the language.
This with some modification is the universal interpretation of the fathers for many centuries with those few exceptions represented by S. Augustine’s after-thoughts, who explain it of Christ the rock. They understand it to mean S. Peter’s confession or S. Peter’s faith or S. Peter’s firmness. In other words it is some quality or action in the Apostle at this crisis, which calls forth the Lord’s promise, and to which the same promise attaches wherever it is found in others. Thus Chry- sostom says (/z Matth. Hom. liv. p. 548 A, Ul. p. 108, Field) éri tavrn TH TETpA oikodouyow pov THY éxxAynoiay, TOvTETTL, TH TicTEL THS Opodoyias. Thus again Cyril of Alexandria, as we have seen, explains zérpav... A€ywv TO axpadavrov eis TioTW TOD pabyrTod.
The lesson which the great Alexandrian father, Origen, draws from the Lord’s promise to Peter is recognised also by his contemporary, the great African father, Cyprian. He too distinctly states that nothing is given to Peter here which is not given to all the Apostles; but he superadds another inference. From the fact that a single Apostle is the recipient of the general promise he derives the further lesson of the unity of the Church. Writing on this special subject (De Unit. Eccl. 4, p. 212 ed. Hartel), he explains
‘The Lord speaketh to Peter: Z say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it....I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven. He builds His Church on one, and although He gives equal authority to all His Apostles after His resurrection (et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat) and says, As AZy Father sent Me, so send I you. Receive the Holy Spirit ; whosesoever sins ye remit they shall be remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they shall be retained ; yet, that He might declare the unity, He arranged the origin of the same unity to begin from one by His authority (tamen ut uni- tatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit). The rest of the Apostles verily were what Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of honour and power (pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis), but the beginning pro- ceeds from unity (exordium ab unitate proficiscitur) that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one, which one Church also the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs defines and says AZy dove zs one, etc.’
SAINT PETER IN ROME. A85
This statement however was very unsatisfactory to a later age; and the sentence ‘et quamvis apostolis etc.’ is interpolated thus
et quamvis apostolis omnibus parem tribuat potestatem, unam tamen cathedram constituit et unitatis originem [atque] orationis suae auctoritate disposuit; hoc erant utique et ceteri quod Petrus, sed primatus Petro datur ut una ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur: et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur etc.
Again after the words ‘exordium ab unitate proficiscitur’ comes another interpolation
et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur, et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus consensione pascatur.
Cyprian also elsewhere (Z/7s¢. xxv. 16, p. 820, ed, Hartel) has recourse to the same argument.
Qualis vero error sit et quanta caecitas ejus qui remissionem peccatorum dicit apud synagogas haereticorum dari posse nec permanet in fundamento unius ecclesiae, quae semel a Christo super petram solidata est, hinc intellegi potest quod soli Petro Christus dixerit: guaecum@gue ligaveris super terram erunt ligata et in caelts, et guaecumgue solveris super terram erunt soluta et in caelis, et iterum in evangelio [quando] in solos apostolos insufflavit Christus dicens: Accipite Spiritum sanctum ; st cujus remtseritis peccata remittentur tli; et st cujus tenue- ritis, tenebuntur. Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum apostolis data est et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt et episcopis qui els ordinatione vicaria successerunt.
But, though for controversial aims there is little to choose between the two interpretations which divided patristic opinion for many centuries, we cannot let the matter rest here. An essential difference lies at the root of the two explanations. We are fain to ask, Is Christ the rock, or is Peter the rock, on which the Church is built (however we may explain the latter alternative)? Exegetically they have nothing in common.
Now there are two arguments which mainly weigh with those who explain the rock of Christ, (1) the one from the etymology; (2) the other from the zmagery.
(1) The etymological argument is based on the different form of the words zerpa, zérpos, the rock, the stone. The one should signify the whole mass; the other the detached piece. Hence the one appropriately denotes Christ the body ; the other Peter the member.
486 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
The force of this argument however is altogether shattered on two considerations; (i) S. Peter’s name was Aramaic §5‘3, before it was Greek Iérpos, and in the Aramaic form the one word serves for ‘a rock’ and ‘a stone’; (11) When Grecized, the proper name became perforce Ilérpos, a masculine form being necessary, just as it would have been Ilérpa, 1f a woman’s name had been wanted.
(2) The zmagery supplies, or seems to supply, another potent argument. In the Old Testament the Lord Jehovah is the rock on which His people Israel is built. In the New, Christ is in like manner the solid basis on which the Christian Church rests. More especially is this the case when the image takes the definite form of a building. Should we not expect, that the same application of the image would be carried out here?
As a question of fact, however, Scriptural analogy does not subject us to the tyranny of one application of the image. The relation of Christ to His Church, regarded as a building, is represented in two different ways.
(i) He is the foundation (Oemedwos 1 Cor. iii. 12). The Evangelist is the architect who must erect his building on this, that it may stand. In this sense He is not only the foundation, but the only palpable foundation.
(ii) He is the chief-corner stone (axpoywviatos Ephes. il. 20) which binds the parts of the building together (é€v © waca oixodopy cvvap podoyoupevy k.t.A.). In the latter sense the Apostles and prophets of the Christian ministry are themselves regarded as the @euéAvos on which the edifice is built (érouxodounGévres ert TO Oepedin Tdv azogTOAwV Kal mpopytav).
This latter is the application in the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) where the Church is not a house, but a city, and its twelve foundations are the twelve Apostles. It appears also in S. Peter (1 Pet. 11. 4 sq) where stress is laid on Christ as the chief corner-stone, though the corresponding function of the Apostles as @euéAvos is not mentioned.
It will be seen then that Scriptural analogy leaves us quite free in the application of the image; and our only guide is the logical connexion of the passage. But here there can be little doubt that the sense points not to Christ the speaker, but to Peter the person addressed, as the rock. After the opening sentence, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven,’ which only then obtains its full significance, when we remember (as I have already pointed out) that Barjona, as interpreted by the form in the parallel passage in S. John.
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 487
means Bar-johanan, Son of the Grace of God, the words which follow are directed with all the force which repetition can give them to the person addressed. ‘And I say unto chee (xayw d€ oor A€yw) that thou art Peter (ore od ef Ilérpos), and upon ¢/zs rock (éri tavty TH 7érpa) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give shee (8do0w cot) the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’ ete.
The promise must therefore, as I understand it, describe some historical manifestation which sprang from S. Peter himself, ‘not from a confession or a faith or a constancy such as thine, but from ¢hy confession, ¢/y faith, zy constancy.’ As a matter of exegesis, it seems to be more strictly explained wot of Peter himself; for then we should expect éwi go. rather than ézi tavty 7H rétpa; but ‘on this constancy, this firmness of thine, to which thy name bears witness, and which has just evinced itself in thy confession.’
Though it denotes a certain primacy given to S. Peter, yet the promise is the same in kind—so far Origen is right—as pertains to all the faithful disciples, more especially to all the Apostles. It is said of Peter here ; but it might be said, and is said elsewhere, of the other Apostles. They too are the GeueAvor (Ephes. ii. 20, Rev. xxi. 14); they too have the power of the keys (John xx. 22 sq). ©
But still it is a primacy, a preeminence. There is a /zstorical, as well as a numerical value, in the order tpdtos Sipwv o Aeyopevos Ilérpos (Matt. x. 2) in the list of the Apostles. In what does this primacy consist ?
Obviously Peter cannot be the rock, in any sense, which trenches upon the prerogative of Christ Himself. His primacy cannot be the primacy of absolute sovereignty: it must be the primacy of /zstorical inauguration. When we turn to the Apostolic records, we find that this work of initiation is assigned to him in a remarkable way in each successive stage in the progress of the Church. The same faith, the same courage, which prompted the confession and called forth the promise of Christ, follows him all along, leading him to new ventures of faith.
But, lest we should misinterpret the position thus assigned to him and attribute to it a continuity and permanence which does not belong to it, he vanishes suddenly out of sight; another more striking person- ality assumes the chief place, and achieves conquests which he could not have achieved; his name is hardly ever mentioned. He has fulfilled his special mission, and his primacy is at an end.
488 EPISTLES OF S, CLEMENT.
I ventured to say above (p. 481) that the primacy of $. Peter was manifested not only in the preeminence of his faith and courage, but in the preeminence of his lapse and fall. Of the eleven faithful Apostles he exhibited the most disastrous failure of faith, a failure which was aggravated by the circumstance that it followed immediately upon his confident assertion of fidelity (Matt. xxvi. 35).
In the Christian dispensation the redemption is the sequel to the fall. In the individual believer the sense of weakness must precede the gift of strength. ‘When I am weak, then am I strong.’ Strength is made perfect out of weakness. 5 ES LE JOT Seay Master beforehand (Luke xxii. 31) that he, must ‘be sifted as wheat’ by temptation. This is the price to be paid, that when at length con- verted (ov mote émuotpéas) and not till then, he may ‘strengthen the brethren.’ Hence his fall. Not till after his fall the threefold charge is given him (John xxi. 15—17) to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ’s flock. The charge is given specially to him, because he bears a special love to Christ.
Then comes the resurrection. The Lord is removed, the Apostles meet together with Peter at their head (Acts i. 13). At the first meeting of the general body of disciples he takes the initiative, and the vacant place in the college of the Apostles is filled up (i. 15 sq). On the day of Pentecost he addresses the multitudes of Jews and strangers, but it is especially mentioned that he was not alone re- sponsible (ovv rots evdexa, il. 14). As with the appeal, so with the response. ‘The conviction and the conversion of the assembled crowd is communicated not to Peter alone, but to Peter and the rest of the Apostles (ii. 37, pos tov Ilérpov kat tovs Aourovds aroaroXovs), though Peter is necessarily the spokesman.
So Peter asserts his primacy in the foundation of the Christian Church. For a long period it remains a strictly Hebrew Church, as the Israelites were a strictly Hebrew people. Here not unnaturally Peter takes the initiative at all the great crises of its development. The first occasion when it exercises its miraculous power of grace and healing Peter is the chief agent (iii. 1 sq). Yet even here he is not allowed to act alone. The solidarity of the Apostolate is vindicated in the Apostolic record. The association of John with him is emphasized with almost irksome reiteration at each successive stage in the incident (iii. ver. 1 ILérpos 8 xat Iwdvys avéBawor, ver. 3 idev Terpov Kat ‘Iwavny, ver. 4 atevioas Sé [lézpos eis aitov ov TO “Iwavy etrev BXéov eis yuds, ver. II KparovvTos Sé avtod tov [lérpov Kat tov “Iwavyy, iv. ver. 19 0 de Llérpos kat "lodvyns dwoxpiévres). After the first gift of grace, comes the first
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 489
visitation of anger in the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter asserts his primacy here also (v. 3 sq); and the guilt is punished.
Between Judaism and Heathendom is a great border-land. ‘There are the Samaritans, who can hardly be classified with the one or the other. These must be drawn within the fold. It is a fresh venture of faith, and Peter has the courage to push the frontier forward into the enemy’s country. But here again he does not act alone. The mission to Samaria, which gives its sanction to Philip’s action, is the mission of the whole apostolate, and here again John is associated with him (vii. 14 of & “lepocodAvpos amdatoAo...améoteav pos avrovs Llérpoy kat ‘Iwavynv). But this new conquest involves a new difficulty. The Christian Church in the early centuries was assailed by two opposite forms of heresy in diverse modifications, Ebionism and Gnosticism, the aberrations of Judaic and Gentile thought respectively. The first beginnings of both these conflicts are discerned in the infant Church ; and in both Peter stands in the van of the fight as the champion of the Church. He had confronted the leaders of the Jewish hierarchy (iv. 18 sq, v. 28 sq); and he was now brought face to face with Gnosticism in the person of Simon Magus, ‘the father of the Gnostics.’ Thus his primacy was vindicated in the conflict with heresy also.
But the great conquest of all still awaited him. The Church must become a world-wide Church. A thousand religious fences must be broken down; a thousand prejudices of convention and tradition must be sacrificed; a thousand cherished safeguards, which had hitherto been the life and the purity of the nation, must be abandoned. Who would have the courage to face a change so mighty? By virtue of his primacy Peter is chosen as the recipient of this revelation of revela- tions. He is taught by a special vision to regard nothing as common or unclean, whereas the law divinely imposed on his country had re- garded very many things as common and unclean. Yet unhesitatingly he obeys the command. Cornelius the heathen is baptized ; and at one stroke all the privileges of the Christian Church are laid before the whole heathen world. Do we marvel that this vision, which was at- tended by consequences so momentous, was emphasized at the time by a triple repetition (x. 16 rotvro dé éyevero ézi tpis), and that the recorded vision itself is enforced upon ourselves in the reiteration of the historian (&) -Z0.Sq,' Xi..4 sq)?
Thus the Lord’s promise is fulfilled: the primacy is completed; the foundations are laid on the rock, whether of Peter’s confession or of Peter’s courage or of Peter’s steadfastness. From this time forward the work passes into other hands. The ‘wise master-builder’ piles up the
490 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
later storeys of the edifice, for which his manifold gifts and opportunities had fitted him—his Hebraic elementary training, his Greek academic culture, his Roman political privileges. Paul completes what Peter had begun. The silence of the later Apostolic history is not less significant than the eloquence of the earlier as to the meaning of Peter’s primacy. In the first part he is everything ; in the subsequent record he is no- where at all. He is only once again mentioned in the Acts (xv. 7), and even here he does not bear the chief part. Where the Church at large, as an expansive missionary Church, is concerned, Paul, not Peter, is the prominent personage: where the Church of Jerusalem appears as the visible centre of unity, James, not Peter, is the chief agent (Acts xii. 17, evi bs, xx1./1S, Gal. u. 9, 12). Peter’ retains’ the first place, as mis- slonary evangelist to the Hebrew Christians, but nothing more. Moreover, when S. Paul appears on the scene, he is careful to declare emphatically his independence and equality with the other Apostles. ‘I reckon,’ he says in one place, ‘that I fall short in no whit of the very chiefest Apostles’ (2 Cor. xi. 5 pndev torepnKevar Tov UrepAiav drootdAwv); then again while devoting two whole chapters to recording the achievements of his Apostleship, he repeats almost the same words, ‘I am become a fool; ye have compelled me; for I fall short in no whit of the very chiefest Apostles, even though I am nothing’ (2 Cor. xii. 11). Accordingly he claims all the privileges of an Apostle (1 Cor. ix. 5). Moreover especially, he asserts his absolute equality with Peter (Gal. ii. 7 sq); and he gives practical proof of his independence by openly rebuking Peter, when Peter's timidity en- dangered the freedom and universality of the Church. If there was any primacy at this time, it was the primacy not of Peter, but of Paul.
§*2i THE ROMAN VISIT OF PETER.
The work of the primacy being completed as I have described it in the last section, and S. Peter being miraculously delivered from prison, we are told that having sent a message to James and the brethren he went out and departed to another place (Acts xii. 17 e&eAOwv éropevOn cis repov tézov). This has been supposed to mark the crisis when he transferred his residence to Rome and his labours to the far west.
There is nothing in the language itself, except its mysterious vague- ness, which could suggest such an inference, which is quite inconsistent with known facts. The simple interpretation is doubtless the correct
SAINT PETER IN ROME. A4QI
one, that he retired out of the way of Herod. Indeed so important a fact as his visit to the metropolis of the world would not have been slurred over in this way. When we meet with him again he is still in the East; at the Council of Jerusalem about a.p. 51 (Acts xv. 7); and at Antioch a little later (Gal. 1. 11). Indeed his recognised position as the Apostle of the Circumcision would suggest Palestine as his head- quarters and the East as his sphere of action. Whether within the next few years he paid a visit to Corinth or not (1 Cor. i. 12, 2 Cor. i. 19, x. 12 sq) I need not stop to enquire. A personal visit is not required to explain the power of his name with a certain party at Corinth; and the silence of S. Paul, though not conclusive, is unfavourable to any visit to Greece.
One thing seems quite certain. The departure from Jerusalem during the persecution of Herod took place about a.p. 42; the Epistle to the Romans was written about a.p. 58. During this period no Apostle had visited the metropolis of the world. If silence can ever be regarded as decisive, its verdict must be accepted in this case. S. Paul could not have written as he writes to the Romans (1. 11 sq, xv. 20—24), if they had received even a short visit from an Apostle, more especially if that Apostle were S. Peter.
Nevertheless reasons exist—to my own mind conclusive reasons— for postulating a visit of S. Peter to Rome at a later date, on which occasion he suffered martyrdom there. If these reasons are not each singly decisive, the combination yields a body of proof, which it is difficult to resist.
(1) InS. Peter’s First Epistle, he sends a salutation at the close (v. 13) to his distant correspondents in Asia Minor; ‘The fellow-elect (lady) in Babylon greeteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.’ Who or what is meant by ‘the fellow-elect’? On turning to the opening of the Epistle, we find that it is addressed ‘to the elect sojourners of the dispersion (ékAexrots rapemidyp.ors Suaczropas) in Pontus, Galatia, etc.’ and this suggests that ‘the fellow-elect’ at the close is the Church from which he writes. Indeed there is no individual woman, for whom we can suppose such a salutation appropriate, for we can hardly imagine S. Peter’s wife, if she were still living, placed in this prominent position. Nor again is the context 9 év BaBvAdve ocuvexAexty natural as the description of a person. I should add also that several early authorities (including ») add éxxAnoia; and that the figurative expressions in this epistle (i. 1 tapervdnpos Siacopas, Comp. ii. 11) are in character with this interpretation.
The Second Epistle of S. John presents a close parallel. A saluta-
492 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
tion is sent in the opening verse to the elect lady (ékAexry xupiq) ; at the close is a message ‘the children of thine elect sister (t7s adeAdys cov Ths ékXexTys) salute thee.’ The intermediate language shows that we have here the personification of the communities. It is not an inter- change of greetings between individuals, but between Churches; see for instance ver. 4, ‘I have found some of thy children walking in the truth;’ ver. 6, ‘this is the commandment which ye heard from the beginning ;’ ver. 8, ‘look to yourselves’ after the warning of Antichrist ; ver. 10, ‘if any one cometh to you and bringeth not this doctrine.’
But what is this fellow-elect congregation in Babylon? Can we doubt that it is the Church in Rome? It cannot be the Egyptian Babylon, which was a mere fortress (Strabo xvi. p. 807). If therefore it was not the Great Babylon, it must have been Rome. To this latter more especially the mention of Mark points; for Mark is designated by a very early tradition as S. Peter’s companion and interpreter in Rome. ‘This appears from Papias and the Elders, whose traditions are reported by him (Euseb. H. £. ii. 39); from Irenzeus (/Zaer7. iil. 1. 1) ; from Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. & Z. i. 15), and from Origen (Op. ul. p. 440 Delarue ; comp. Euseb. & Z. vi. 25), the writing of his Gospel being connected with the preaching of Peter in Rome. This tradition is in full accordance with the latest notices in the New Testament (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11), which represent him either as staying in Rome or journeying towards Rome.
Nor was Babylon a new name for Rome, dating from the Neronian persecution. It had been a mystical name for this world-wide power with the Jews before it was inherited by the Christians. As such it appears even in the early Szbylline Oracles (v. 158).
Kai pdr€éer rovtov Baby avtyv te BaBvdAdva ‘Iradias yalav & as «ivexa moAAol dAovTo
c ¢ EBpaiwv ayo mictot Kai vaos adnOys.
(2) The prophecy in John xxi. 18 ‘ When thou shalt grow old, thou shalt stretch out thy hands and another shall gird thee, this He said signifying by what death he should die,’ has always been explained of the crucifixion of S. Peter; and it is difficult to see what other explanation can be given. Nothing, it is true, is here said about the place of martyrdom. But the crucifixion of S. Peter is always con- nected by tradition with Rome, and with no other place. It would be arbitrary therefore to separate the locality from the manner of martyrdom. Unless we accept the Roman residence of S. Peter, we know nothing about his later years and death.
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 493
(3) The reference in the Second Epistle of S. Peter (i. 14) has much the same bearing as the last; ‘Knowing that the putting-off of this tabernacle is at hand, as the Lord Jesus Christ also declared unto me.’ It may be said indeed that grave doubts are thrown on the genuineness of this document. If it were otherwise than genuine it would express from another quarter the belief of the early Church respecting S. Peter’s death ; for it certainly belongs to the primitive ages.
(4) The Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, by the hand of CLEMENT OF Rog, belongs to the year 95 or 96. The writer, turning aside from the Old Testament worthies, of whose heroism he had spoken, directs the attention of his readers (c. 5) to the examples of Christian athletes who ‘lived very near to our own times’. He reminds them of the Apostles who were persecuted and carried the struggle to death (€ws Gavatov 7OAncav). There was Peter, who after undergoing many sufferings became a martyr and went to his appointed place of glory. There was Paul, who, after enduring chains, imprisonments, stonings again and again, and sufferings of all kinds, preached the Gospel in the extreme West, likewise endured martyrdom and so departed from this world. If the use of the word paprupyoas in both cases could leave any doubt that they suffered death for the faith, the context is decisive. But why are these two Apostles, and these only, mentioned? Why not James the son of Zebedee? Why not James the Lord’s brother? Both these were martyrs. The latter was essentially ‘a pillar,’ and his death was even more recent. Obviously because Clement was appealing to examples which they themselves had witnessed. Paul was martyred in Rome, as is allowed on all hands. Is not the overwhelming inference that Peter suffered in this same city also? This inference is all the more certain, when we find that outside this testimony of Clement tradition is constant in placing his death at Rome.
(5) Some ten or twenty years later, in the early decades of the second century, Icnatius (Rom. 4) on his way to martyrdom writes to the Roman Church: ‘I do not command you, like Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a condemned criminal; they were free; I am a slave until now.’ Why should he single out Peter and Paul? He is writing from Asia Minor ; and the locality therefore would suggest John. He was a guest of a disciple of John at the time. He was sojourning in the country where John was the one prominent name. The only conceivable reason is, that Peter and Paul had been in a position to give directions to the Romans, that they both alike had visited Rome and were remembered by the Roman Church.
494 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
(6) Papras of Hierapolis may have been born about A.D. 60—7o, and probably wrote about A.D. 130—140. He related on the authority | of the presbyter John, a personal disciple of the Lord (Euseb. #. £. ill. 39) that Mark, not being a personal disciple of the Lord, became a companion and interpreter (épuyvevtys) of S. Peter, that he wrote down what he heard from his master’s oral teaching, and that then he composed this record.
I have no concern here whether this is or is not the Second Gospel, as we possess it. For my immediate purpose this notice suggests three remarks; (i) When Mark is called épyunvevrns ‘the interpreter’ of Peter, the reference must be to the Latin, not to the Greek language. The evidence that Greek was spoken commonly in the towns bordering on the Sea of Galilee, and that S. Peter must therefore have been well acquainted with it, is ample; even if this had not been the necessary inference from the whole tenour of the New Testament. (11) This notice seems to have been connected by Papias with 1 Pet. v. 13, where Mark is mentioned in connexion with the fellow-elect in Babylon, presumably the Church of Rome. Papias was acquainted with, and quoted from, this Epistle of S. Peter; for Eusebius tells us that he ‘employs testimonies’ from it: and it is plain also from the context of the passage cited by Eusebius that Papias had spoken at greater length about the connexion of Mark with Peter, ‘as I said (ws épyv)’; (111) Papias was so understood by writers like Irenzeus, who had his book before them. It seems a tolerably safe inference there- fore that Papias represented S. Peter as being in Rome, that he stated Mark to have been with him there, and that he assigned to the latter a Gospel record which was committed to writing for the instruction of the Romans.
(7) Drtonysius ofr CorInTH, from whom Eusebius gives an extract (77. £. ii. 25), writes as follows :—
‘Herein ye also by such instructions (to us) have united the trees of the Romans and Corinthians, planted by Peter and Paul (rv azo Ilérpov kai TavAov duteiav yevnbetcav “Pwpaiwy te Kat Kopw6iwv ouve- kepacare). For they both alike came also to our Corinth and taught us; and both alike came together to Italy, and having taught there suffered martyrdom at the same time (xara tov avtov Kaupov)’.
This letter was written about A.D. 170 in answer to a communi- cation from the Romans under his contemporary bishop Soter (see I. p. 369). Ineed not stop to enquire whether the correct reading is putevoavres Or hoityoavtes. The statement may be taken as repre- senting the belief of both Churches. The expression xata tov avrov xaipov need not be pressed to mean the same day or the same year.
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 495
(8) IrEN#UuS about A.D. 190 is still more explicit (aer. ili. 1. 1) :—
‘Matthew published also a written Gospel (ypadyv evayyediov) among the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome. Again after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the lessons preached by Peter.’
A little later he says (Haer. ili. 3, 2, 3); ‘The greatest and most ancient Churches, well known to all men, the Churches of Rome founded and established by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul [hand down] announced to mankind that tradition and faith, which it has from the Apostles reaching to our own day through its successions of bishops. So having founded and built up the Church the blessed Apostles entrusted the ministration of the bishopric to Linus.’ |
Irenzeus spent some time in Rome about A.D. 177, and appears to have paid repeated visits.
(9) The MuratToriAN Canon is generally placed about a.p, 170. I have given reasons already (11. p. 405 sq) for surmising that it may have been an early work of Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenzeus, in which case it may date twenty years later. The writer explains that S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles only records incidents which took place in his presence, and that therefore his silence about the Martyrdom of S. Peter, or the journey of S. Paul to Spain, evidently shows that he was not present on either occasion. Though the actual text is not certain in all points, there can be no reasonable doubt that this is the meaning of the words.
(10) The testimony of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 193—217) in the Ayfotyposets appears from Eusebius (7% Z. vi. 14). He stated that ‘when Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, the bystanders being many in number exhorted Mark, as having accompanied him for a long time and remembering what he had said, to write out his statements, and having thus composed his Gospel, to communicate it to them; and that, when Peter learnt this, he used no pressure either to prevent him or urge him forwards.’ See also Adumbr. p. 1007 (Potter).
(11) The testimony of TERTULLIAN is chiefly of value as showing the prevalence of the tradition in another important branch of the Church at the close of the second and the beginning of the third century. The passages need no comment.
Scorpiace 15.
‘We read in the lives of the Czsars, Nero was the first to stain the
496 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
2
rising faith with blood. Then Peter is girt by another, when he is bound to the cross; then Paul obtains his birth-right (consequitur nativitatem) of Roman citizenship, when he is born again there by the nobility of martyrdom.’
De Baptismo 4.
‘Nor does it matter whether they are among those whom John bap- tized in the Jordan or those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber.’
De Praescriptione 32.
‘The Church of the Romans reports that Clement was ordained by Peter.’
De Praescriptione 36.
‘If thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, whence our authority also is near at hand. How happy is that Church on whom the Apostles shed all their teaching with their blood; where Peter is conformed to the passion of the Lord, where Paul is crowned with the death of John, where the Apostle John, after being plunged in boiling oil without suffering any harm, is banished into an island.’
(12) Garus the Roman presbyter, of whom I have had something to say already (see above, I. p. 377 sq), lived under Zephyrinus and was a contemporary of Hippolytus [c. a.D. 200—220] if not actually identical with him. Arguing against the Montanists of Asia Minor, who asserted the precedent of Philip’s daughters for their special views about pro- phecy, he claims for his own Church the authority of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, whose martyred bodies repose in Rome :—
‘But I can show you the trophies (the reliques) of the Apostles. For if thou wilt go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, thou wilt find the trophies of those who founded this Church.’
This shows that at least at this early date the sites of the graves of the two Apostles were reputed to have been the localities where now stand the basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul.
(13) ORIGEN in the 3rd volume of his Explanation of Genesis (as reported by Eusebius Z. Z. il. 1; comp. Orig. Of. 11. p. 24 Delarue) related that Peter ‘appears to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and Asia; when at last he went to Rome and there was gibbeted head downward, having himself asked to suffer so’; and that Paul ‘having fully preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum, afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome in the time of Nero.’
(14) LAcTANTIUS.
Instit. Div. Ww. 21%.
‘He disclosed to them all things which Peter and Paul preached at
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 497
Rome, and this preaching remained in writing for a record: wherein among many other marvellous things, this also etc.’
But when shall we suppose that this visit to Rome took place? We have seen (see above, Il. p. 491) that as late as a.p. 58, when S. Paul wrote to the Romans, his claim to Rome as virgin soil so far as regards any Apostolic ministrations is fatal to a prior date for the visit. For the next four or five years we have sufficiently precise information in the Apostolic records to preclude this period also. S. Paul spends two years in captivity at Czesarea, and in the autumn of a.p. 60 he sets sail for Rome, arriving there in the spring of 61. In Rome he is detained two whole years a captive, and then presumably in 63 he is released.
His release is not dependent on any one consideration, but is inferred from several. (i) Early tradition speaks of his paying the intended visit to Spain, of which he speaks in the Epistle to the Romans (xv. 28); (ii) He tells the Philippians that he looks forward to being released shortly (i. 25, i. 24), and he is so hopeful that he bids Philemon prepare a lodging for him (ver. 22); (iii) The phenomena in the Pastoral Epistles cannot in most instances be placed during the period included in the Acts; (iv) The date given for his martyrdom by the best authorities is the last year of Nero, which was three or four years after the fire which led immediately to the persecution of the Christians.
But, if he was released, it must have been before the outbreak of the persecution, since so prominent a leader of the Christians could hardly have escaped, if he had still been in the hands of his Roman masters. During the period then of his first and second captivities, i.e. between A.D. 63—67, we are led to find a place for S. Peter’s visit. Thus it will not clash with S. Paul’s relations to the Romans, and might well have taken place without our finding any notice of it either in the narrative of the Acts or in the letters of this Apostle.
S. Peter would then arrive in Rome in the latter part of 63 or the beginning of 64. The Neronian persecutions broke out soon afterwards, and he would be one of the most prominent victims. This accords with the ancient tradition of the different places of sepulture of the two Apostles. Gaius the Roman tells us, that whereas Peter was buried in the Vatican, Paul found his resting-place on the Ostian Way. The Vatican gardens were the scene of the hideous festivities, in which the victims of the fire suffered, and among these (we may assume) was S. Peter (a.D. 64). On the other hand an isolated victim who was put
CLEM. II, 32
498 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
to death some years later (say A.D. 67), as was presumably S. Paul’s case, might meet his death anywhere.
On the occasion of this visit to Rome, as we have seen, S. Peter wrote his Epistles. As I am desirous of avoiding controverted docu- ments, I shall say nothing about the Second—nor indeed is it necessary for my purpose—but confine my attention to the First. Do we find then in this First Epistle any confirmation of the view here suggested of the date of S. Peter’s visit ?
(1) It was written during a season of persecution. No other book of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse, is so burdened with the subject. The leading purport of the letter is to console and encourage ‘his distant correspondents under the fiery trial which awaited them. Nothing in the previous history of the Church answers to the conditions. It was no isolated, capricious attack, but a systematic onslaught. Though it raged chiefly at Rome, its effects were felt in the provinces also. More especially was this the case in Asia Minor, which S. Peter had in view. The letters to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse are evidence of this; and the mention of the martyr Antipas (ii. 13) emphasizes the fact. ‘The emperor’s example had let loose the dogs.
‘Now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness by reason of mani- fold temptations, that the trial of your faith being more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ’ (i. 6, 7).
‘Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation’ (il. 12).
‘If ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled...... having a good conscience, that whereas they speak evil of you as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ ; for it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing’ (iii. 14, 16, 17).
‘Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings’ (iv. 12, 13).
‘If ye be reproached for the Name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you; on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified...If any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf’ (iv. 14, 16).
‘Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God’ (v. 6).
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 499
‘Whom resist, stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren which are in the world’ (v. 9).
These passages point to the crisis, when the persecution had already broken out, or was imminent, and therefore were probably written not earlier than the summer of 64.
(2) The date thus suggested agrees with other indications. With two Epistles of S. Paul more especially the writer shows a familiar acquaintance—the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Ephesians. The one was written to Rome; the other from Rome. They both partake of the character of circular letters. They are there- fore just the two Epistles which would be most accessible to a person in S. Peter’s position. The Epistle to the Romans was written in a.D. 58, but the Epistle to the Ephesians not till a.p. 63.
The following are the parallels to the Epistle to the Romans, and the reader may satisfy himself as to their pertinence.
Romans iv. 24 i Pen 1 3 VL 7 iv. FE, 2 vi. 18 il. 24 vill. 18 Work Vill. 34 Ill. 22 1X. 33 li. 6 sq xl. I ll. 5 Xi. 2 Li Fe xii. 3—8 lv. 10, II Xl. 9, 10 L22, 1 Fy Xlil. 14—I19 ii. 8—r12 xill. I—7 mie A
The parallels to the Epistle to the Ephesians are equally striking. We have seen that the oldest tradition, as recorded by Gaius, re- presents S. Peter as buried in the Vatican and S. Paul on the Ostian Way. But it says nothing about the martyrdom of the two Apostles being synchronous. Dionysius of Corinth states that they were martyred Kata Tov avtov Kxatpov, but the expression must not be too rigorously pressed, even if the testimony of a Corinthian could be accepted as regards the belief in Rome. On the other hand Prudentius (Perzsteph. xii. 5) and others represent them as suffering on the same day, though not in the same year. This highly improbable statement must have had some foundation in fact. What was it? In the list of depositions incorporated by the Liberian chronographer (a.D. 354) we find i Kal Jul. Petri ad Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso cons. [A.D. 258]. 32—2
500 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Now at one time the bodies of the two Apostles were lying in the Cemetery on the Appian Way, properly called ‘Ad Catacumbas,’ in a ‘loculum bisomum,’ which may be seen to this day and over which Damasus (A.D. 366—384) placed the inscription
Hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes,
nomina [limina?] quique Petri pariter Paulique requiris; discipulos Oriens misit, quod sponte fatemur:
sanguinis ob meritum Christumque per astra secuti aetherios petiere sinus et regna piorum.
Roma suos potius meruit defendere cives ;
by which he simply meant that the East gave these two Apostles to Rome, where they became Roman citizens. It isin fact the same which Tertullian expresses in a passage quoted above (Scorp. 15). ‘ Paulus Civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, cum illic martyrii renascitur generositate.’ But being strangely misunderstood it gave rise to the legend that the Greeks attempted to carry off the bodies of the two Apostles, but being pursued threw them down in the Catacombs’. Plainly however the day, the 29th of June, was not originally regarded as the day of martyrdom of the two Apostles, but the day of their depo- sition on some occasion. What then was this occasion ?
The mention of the consulship happily fixes the year. This must refer to the temporary deposition of the bodies in the catacombs of S. Sebastian ; and the notice probably ran originally
il Kal. Jul. Petri et Pauli ad Catacumbas Tusco et Basso cons. but the chronographer of 354 or some intermediate copyist knowing that S. Paul’s body lay in his time on the Ostian Way altered it accord- ingly, inserting ‘Ostense’ after the name of this Apostle®. This was a few weeks before the martyrdom of Xystus II, who suffered Aug. 6, A.D. 258. The two bodies, we may suppose, were deposited in S. Sebas- tian for a time, while their permanent memoriae were being erected, which were afterwards developed into the basilicas of S. Peter’s at the Vatican and S. Paul’s on the Ostian Way. But this temporary deposi- tion fixed the festival of their common celebration in Rome and gave rise to the story that they were martyred on the same day*. On the
1 See a good article Das Alter der Apocr. Apostelgesch. U1. 1. p. 392 Sq.
Graber u. Kirchen des Paulus u. Petrus $ It is actually entered in Ado, under in Rom by Erbes in Brieger’s Zettschr. June 29, ‘Romae natalis beatorum Apo- J: Kirchengesch, Vu. p. 1 sq (1885). stolorum Petri et Pauli, qui passi sunt
2 This is the explanation of Erbes, sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus,’ p- 28, and it is accepted by Lipsius See Erbes, Zc. Pp. 30,
SAINT PETER IN ROME. 501
other hand the true tradition of their suffering in different years survived to the time of Prudentius, albeit he assumed that it referred to succes- sive years. In connexion with this temporary deposition we may place the notice said to be found with exceptional uniformity in all the Mss of the Hieronymian Martyrology on Jan. 25
Romae translatio Pauli Apostoli
which would probably be the day of the restoration to his permanent resting-place, but which was ordered at a later date to be celebrated as the day of his conversion.
§ 3. THE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’ EPISCOPATE.
The twenty-five years of S. Peter’s episcopate had at one time a sentimental and might almost be said to have a dogmatic value. It was unique in the history of the papacy. Though the records of certain periods in its career, more especially its earlier career, are scanty, we know enough to say with certainty that no later bishops of Rome held the see for a quarter of a century until our own day. Now however all is changed. The papacy of Pio Nono has been unique in many ways. It has seen the declaration of papal infallibility: it has witnessed the extinction of the temporal power; and, last of all, it has exceeded by more than a year the reputed term of S. Peter. The twenty-five years therefore have ceased to have any dogmatic or sentimental importance ; and, in dealing with them critically, we need have no fear lest we should be doing violence to any feelings which deserve respect.
But there is a still prior question to be settled before we discuss the length of S. Peter’s episcopate. Was he bishop of Rome at all? He might have been founder or joint founder of the Church there, without having been regarded as its bishop. No one reckons S. Paul as first bishop of Thessalonica or Philippi, of Corinth or of Athens, though these Churches owe their first evangelization to him.
Now I cannot find that any writers for the first two centuries and more speak of S. Peter as bishop of Rome. Indeed their language is inconsistent with the assignment of this position to him. When Dionysius of Corinth speaks of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul as jointly planting the two Churches of Corinth and of Rome, he obviously cannot mean this; for otherwise he would point to a divided episcopate. The language of Irenzeus (iil. 3. 3) again is still more explicit. He describes the Church of Rome as founded by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, who
502 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
appointed Linus bishop. After him came Linus; after Linus, Anencletus; after Anencletus ‘in the zizrd place from the Apostles Clement is elected to the bishopric,’ and the others, when any numbers are given, are numbered accordingly, so that Xystus’ is ‘the sixth from the Apostles,’ and Eleutherus the contemporary of Irenzus ‘holds the office of the episcopate in the twelfth place from the Apostles.’ This is likewise the enumeration in the anonymous author of the treatise against Artemon (Euseb. H. £. v. 28) probably Hippolytus, who numbers Victor ‘the thirteenth from Peter.’
1 See on this passage the remarks in in the text of Irenzus see the note on I. I. pp. 271, 284. For the discrepancies p. 204.
B.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
a Epistle, which bears the name of Barnabas, stands alone in the
literature of the early Church. The writer is an uncompromising antagonist of Judaism ; but, beyond this antagonism, he has nothing in common with the Antijudaic heresies of the second century. These later heretics, Gnostic and Marcionite, took their stand on a dualism in some form or other. They postulated an opposition between the Old Testament and the New. In Marcionism, which flourished about the _middlé of the second century, this doctrine assumes its extreme form. The Old Testament—so Marcion affrmed—was the work of the Demiurge, whose tyranny over mankind Jesus Christ, the son of the Good God, came to destroy. The antagonism was absolute and com- plete ; the warfare was internecine. Of such a doctrine the Epistle of Barnabas exhibits not the faintest trace. On the contrary, the writer sees Christianity everywhere in the Lawgiver and the Prophets, He treats them with a degree of respect, which would have satisfied the most devout rabbi. He quotes them profusely, as authoritative. Only he accuses the Jews of misunderstanding them from beginning to end. He even intimates that the ordinances of circumcision, of the Sabbath, of the distinction of meats clean and unclean, as having a spiritual or mystical significance, were never intended to be literally observed, though on this point he is not quite explicit.
Who then was the writer of this Epistle? At the close of the second century Clement of Alexandria quotes it profusely, ascribing it to ‘the Apostle Barnabas’ or ‘the Apostolic Barnabas’ or ‘the Prophet Barnabas’ ; and, lest any doubt should be entertained as to the identity of the person bearing this name, he in one passage describes the author
504 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
as ‘Barnabas who himself also preached in company with the Apostle (i.e. S. Paul) in the ministry of the Gentiles’? Yet elsewhere* Clement himself refers anonymously to the explanation which our Barnabas gives of the prohibition against eating the flesh of ‘the hare and the hyena,’ and criticizes it freely. He declares his acquiescence in the symbolical interpretation, but he distinctly repudiates the statement on which our author founds it as a physical impossibility. It seems clear therefore that notwithstanding his profuse and deferential quotations he does not treat the book as final and authoritative. A few years later, Ongen also cites this work with the introductory words, ‘It is written in the Catholic (i.e. General) Epistle of Barnabas.’ ‘The earliest notices how- ever are confined to the Alexandrian fathers ; and elsewhere it does not appear to have been received with any very special consideration. Altogether the position, which it occupies in the Codex Sinaiticus, may be taken to represent the highest distinction to which it ever attained. It is there placed, not with the Catholic Epistles, which would have been its proper rank, if it had been regarded as strictly canonical, but after the Apocalypse, in company with the Shepherd of Hermas, as a sort of Appendix to the sacred volume.
This prominence it doubtless owed to the belief that it was written by Barnabas the Levite of Cyprus, the companion of S. Paul. Later criticism however, with very few exceptions, has pronounced decidedly against this view, which indeed is beset with many difficulties. But on the other hand this work is in no sense apocryphal, if by apocryphal we mean fictitious. There is no indication, direct or indirect, that the writer desired to be taken for the Apostle Barnabas. On the contrary, when he speaks of the Apostles, his language is such as to suggest that he was wholly unconnected with them; and he merely addresses his ‘sons and daughters,’ as a teacher who had important trusts to com- municate. How the name of Barnabas came to be attached to the Epistle, it is impossible to say. An early tradition, or fiction, represents Barnabas as residing at Alexandria; but this story might have been the consequence, rather than the cause, of the name attached to the letter. Possibly its author was some unknown namesake of this ‘Son of Consolation.’
At all events we can hardly be wrong in ascribing to it an Alexandrian origin. Its mode of interpretation is Alexandrian throughout ; and its
1 Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 7 (p. 447 ed. is not beyond the reach of doubt. See Potter), 20 (p. 489), v. 10 (p. 683). also Strom. ii. 15, ‘p. 464, where Bar- 2 Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 10 (p. 220,221 nabas is mentioned by name. ed. Potter). It is true that the reference
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 505
earliest reception, as we have seen, is connected with this Church. The beginnings of Christianity at Alexandria are wrapped in obscurity. It would be as rash to reject confidently, as to adopt confidently, the tradition which represents Mark, the ‘cousin’ of Barnabas, as its evangelist. But on the other hand it seems certain that the Alexandrian Church was a flourishing community at an early date. Doubtless Apollos was not the only ‘learned Jew of Alexandria,’ who was brought to the knowledge of the Gospel during the lifetime of S. Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews is steeped in the learning of Alexandria, and was probably written by a member of this Church. When Hadnan visited this city in the autumn of 4.p. 130, he found the Christian Church an appreciable influence in society, extending itself and _pros- elytizing in all directions. ‘I have become familiar with Egypt, which you praised to me,’ he writes to his brother-in-law Servianus afterwards ; ‘it is fickle, uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour. Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to Serapis who call themselves bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue there, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself, whenever he comes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ’ (Vopiscus Vita Saturnini 8). No stronger testimony to the growing power of the Christian Church could be desired than these sarcasms of the sceptical emperor. The Epistle of Barnabas may be regarded as a product of these conflicts between Jews and Christians which Hadrian here describes. The antagonism between the discordant elements which made up the population of Alexandria, is a matter of history; and in the general mé/ée the feuds between Jews and Christians for some generations bore no insignificant part.
The birthplace of this Epistle then seems tolerably certain ; but its date is more open to dispute. It was certainly written after the first destruction of Jerusalem under Titus to which it alludes, and it was almost as certainly written before the war under Hadrian ending in the second devastation, about which it is silent, but to which it could hardly have failed to refer, if written after or during the conflict. The possible limits therefore are A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. It would be mere waste of time to discuss any theories which go beyond these boundaries. But within this period of sixty years various dates have been assigned to it. Among the advocates of an earlier date we may single out Weizsacker, who places it under Vespasian (A.D. 69—79); while Volkmar, who throws it forward to the time of Hadrian (a.p. 119—138), may be taken to represent the champions of the late date. Of the intermediate
506 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
position, occupied by several critics of reputation, Hilgenfeld may be regarded as a typical champion, who dates it during the reign of Nerva (A.D. 96—98).
The conclusion depends mainly on the interpretation of two pas- sages in the Epistle itself.
The first is the more important. ‘The writer warns his readers that ‘the last scandal, or offence, is at hand,’ in other words that the great and final conflict, which is destined to try the faith of the believers, is fast approaching, and he calls their attention to the signs of the last days, as foretold in Daniel, in the following words :—
‘And so also says the prophet; Zen kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall rise up a little king, who shall lay low three of the kings in one (tpets bf ev rGv BactAéwv). In like manner Daniel saith concerning the same; And J saw the fourth beast wicked and strong and untoward beyond all the beasts of the earth, and how that ten horns sprang up out of it, and out of them a little horn (as) an offshoot (wapadvas.ov), and how that it laid low three of the great horns in one (vd & Ttpia Tav peyddwv Kepatwv). Ye ought therefore to understand’ (§ 4).
The first passage is taken from Daniel vii. 24: the second from an earlier verse in the same chapter. But, like the Old Testament citations in this writer generally, they are quoted with a degree of freedom which is, or ought to be, highly suggestive when we come to deal with evangelical quotations in the earliest fathers.
Of the interpretation the so-called Barnabas says nothing. He is evidently referring to the Roman emperors, and common prudence therefore gags his lips, when he would speak of their overthrow. He leaves the solution to the intelligence of his hearers.
When we attempt to read the enigma, we must remember that the writer applies to his own times language which was intended to describe something wholly different. We may therefore expect to find some wresting of the imagery to adapt it to contemporary events. But on the other hand it must have exhibited coincidences sufficiently patent to strike the ordinary mind. Otherwise the writer would not have ventured to leave the application of the prophecy to his readers. He must have discarded the prophecy as unfit for his purpose unless it had told its own tale, if he did not venture to expand it. And again; we may look for the key to the exposition in those modifications of the original words which the writer introduces. The most important of these is the twice-repeated expression vd’ €v—‘in one’ or ‘at once.’ The original prophecy contains no hint that the three kings shall suffer at once or are closely connected together. Lastly; the little horn in the original
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 507
prophecy is plainly the Antichrist; for he is described as making war against the Saints and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the Saints of the Most High; and the time came that the Saints possessed the kingdom (vii. 21, 22). This fact was too patent to be overlooked, and is recognised in all patristic interpretations of the prophecy. It is impossible therefore to suppose that our Barnabas could have interpreted the little horn in any other way. Bearing these conditions of the problem in mind, we may proceed to investigate three solutions of the enigma which have been offered. -
1. In the first place then Weizsacker reckons the ten Cesars from Julius to Vespasian continuously, Vespasian being the tenth. So far he adopts the simple and natural reckoning. But he supposes Vespasian to be the little horn, and the three kings humbled by him to be Galba, Otho, Vitellius. These identifications must be discarded for several reasons. In the first place Vespasian is made the little horn, while at the same time he is one of the great horns. Next; Vespasian, though he humbled Vitellius, can in no sense be said to have humbled Galba and Otho. Indeed, so far was this from being the case, that Vespasian throughout identified himself with the cause of Galba, and the first measure of his reign was the vindication of the memory of this prince (Tac. Hist. 1. 6, iv. 40). Lastly; this interpretation altogether sets aside the distinctive character of the little horn as the Antichrist. Vespasian was never so regarded by the Christians. During his reign they had an entire immunity from persecution, and so rapidly did their influence grow that they even made converts in the imperial family itself. Toa strongly Antijudaic writer, like Barnabas, more especially Vespasian, the scourge of the Jews and the instrument of God’s vengeance on a rebellious people, must have been regarded in a directly opposite light.
2. Hilgenfeld reckons Domitian as the tenth king. He omits Julius as not having been an emperor strictly so called, and Vitellius as never having been recognised in Egypt. The little horn according to his solution is Nerva, a feeble and insignificant prince, who subverted the dynasty of the three great emperors of the Flavian family— Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. But this theory again is open to very serious and (as it seems to me) fatal objections. In the first place there is no parallel elsewhere to this mode of reckoning, which makes Domitian the tenth, and not the twelfth of the Czsars. Whatever might be said in favour of excluding Julius from the enumeration, the exclusion of Vitellius is indefensible. It is a mistake to maintain that
508 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
he was never recognised by the Alexandrians. True, his name does not occur, or at least has not yet been discovered, on the hieroglyphic monuments of Egypt; but, as his reign only lasted a few months, this proves nothing. His name is equally conspicuous by its absence in the Latin Inscriptions of Asia, of Greece, of Thrace and Illyricum, of Cisalpine Gaul, of Spain, of Britain, and throughout the whole collection of Greek Inscriptions. On the other hand, as an evidence that he was recognised in Egypt, we have coins of this reign struck at Alexandria. And in the Sibylline Oracles, which in some cases at least emanated from this country, he has his proper place’. The lists of the Roman ‘kings’ which they give begin with Julius and include Vitellius, ac- cording to the ordinary practice. As Vitellius, like Otho, was duly ac- knowledged by the Senate, and took possession of the Capital, no one at a subsequent period would have disputed his claim to appear in the list. This sanction gave to Otho and Vitellius a position in history which was never accorded to pretenders like Civilis.
Moreover this theory fails, like the last, in not recognising the little horn as the Antichrist. The persecution, which had harassed the Christians under Domitian, ceased under Nerva, for whose memory in consequence they always had a kindly regard, as their benefactor. Hilgenfeld is therefore obliged altogether to ignore the Antichrist in his interpretation. Nor again could Nerva be said without excessive straining of language to destroy the three kings ‘in one’ or “at once.’ Vespasian, the earliest, and Titus the next of the Flavii, died in their beds seventeen and fifteen years respectively before the accession of Nerva.
3. The solution of Volkmar is exposed to still greater ob- jections than the two theories which have been considered hitherto. Like Hilgenfeld, he omits Julius and Vitellius, so as to reckon Domitian the roth king; but he takes the three kings to be the three successors of this last-named emperor, Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. They are said to be three in one, because Trajan was adopted by Nerva, and Hadrian by Trajan. The writer therefore, living in the time of Hadrian, looks forward to the appearance of the Antichrist in the person of Nero or Domitian vedivivus, who shall crush Hadrian and end the dynasty. This theory has the merit of seeing the Anti- christ in the little horn ; but this is its only advantage. Its enumeration — of the Czesars is exposed to the same objection as the last; and its explanation of the three kings in one seems altogether impossible. Nerva had been already dead for twenty or thirty years on this
1 Orac. Sibyl. V. 35, VIII. 50, XII. 5.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 509
hypothesis, and yet the writer is looking forward to the advent of a conqueror who shall smite and humiliate him. Again; the connexion of these three emperors was very slight, the adoption of the successor in each case having been made shortly before the death of the pre- decessor. And though this seems to be a less serious objection than the preceding, the three kings are enumerated over and above the ten, whereas the language suggests that they were in some sense comprised in the ten.
The solution, which I venture to offer, has not, so far as I am aware, been given before. We enumerate the ten Cesars in their natural sequence with Weizsicker, and we arrive at Vespasian as the tenth. We regard the three Flavii as the three kings destined to be humiliated, with Hilgenfeld. We do not however with him contemplate them as three separate emperors, but we explain the language as referring to the reigning sovereign, Vespasian, associating his two sons Titus and Domitian with himself in the exercise of the supreme power. At no other point in the history of the imperial household do we find so close a connexion of three in one, until a date too late to enter into consideration. And lastly; we interpret the little horn as symbolising the Antichrist with Volkmar, and we explain it by the expectation of Nero’s reappearance which we know to have been rife during the reign of Vespasian. No other epoch in the history of the Cesars presents this coincidence of the three elements in the image—the ten kings, the three kings, and the Antichrist—so appropriately. For these reasons we are led to place the so-called Barnabas during the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 70—79).
The enumeration of the ten kings speaks for itself; but the significance of the three kings requires some illustration. When Ves- pasian assumed the supreme dignity, the power of the empire was sustained by Titus among the legions, while it was represented by Domitian in the capital (Tac. His¢. iii. 84, iv. 2, 3). The three were thus associated together in the public mind, as no three persons had been associated before in the history of the Empire. Immediately on the accession of their father the two young men were created Czsars by the Senate and invested with the title of ‘Principes Juven- tutis.’ The first act of Vespasian was to associate Titus with himself as colleague in the consulship, while Domitian was made pretor with consular power. Several types of coin, struck during this reign, exhibit the effigy of the reigning emperor on the obverse with figures of Titus and Domitian on the reverse in various attitudes and with various legends, An extant inscription, on a marble (Eckhel Doctr.
510 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
Num. Vi. p. 320 sq), which has apparently served as a base for three busts, commemorates the emperor and his two sons in parallel columns, Vespasian’s name and titles occupying the central column. ‘Along this path (to glory)’, says the elder Pliny (4. @ ii. 5) ‘now advances with godlike step, accompanied by his sons, Vespasianus Augustus the greatest ruler of any age.’ The association of Titus with his father’s honours was close and continuous. He was seven times colleague to the emperor in the consulate during the ten years of Vespasian’s reign. He was associated in the Pontificate, the Censor- ship, and the Tribunician Power, which represented respectively the religious, the moral, and the political authority of the sovereign. From the moment of his return to Rome after his Eastern victories ‘he never ceased,’ we are told, ‘to act the part of colleague and even guardian of the empire!’ The title Imperator itself was conferred upon him’, so that the language of the elder Pliny is perfectly correct, when he speaks of ‘imperatores Caesares Vespasiani, pater filiusque’ during the life- time of the father®*, On the other hand the relations of Vespasian towards his younger son were never cordial. But the good nature and generosity of Titus interposed to prevent any open breach between the two. He represented to his father that the safety of the empire was dependent on the harmony of the imperial household; and the baseness of Domitian was in consequence overlooked. Coins were struck, which had on the obverse the two sons of Vespasian, with the legend TVTELA . Avcyst1*. At the triumph after the close of the Judaic war, ‘Vespasian,’ says one who witnessed it, ‘preceded in a chariot, and Titus followed, while Domitian rode on horseback by the side, himself splendidly habited and mounted on a horse which was a sight to see”.’
Here then were the very three kings of whom the prophecy spoke. It is true that the obvious interpretation of the words pointed to three several kings belonging to the ten who are mentioned just before, whereas the so-called Barnabas found the three combined in one of the ten together with his sons and colleagues in the kingship. But this mani- pulation was forced upon him by the stubbornness of contemporary facts; and he calls attention to it by repeating the expression ‘three in one,’ which has no place in the original.
But what will be the end of this threefold kingship? It would be
1 Suet. Zz¢. 6 neque ex eo destitit pare WV. H. ii. to.
participem atque [etiam] tutorem imperii 3 So Titus himself is called Titus Im- agere. Compare Plin. Pamneg. 2. perator Caesar, VV. H, il. 22. 2 But not as a przenomen, Eckhel vI. 4 Eckhel vi. 3209.
361 sq. See Pliny WV. Z. vii. 50; com- 5 Joseph. B. J. Vil. 5. 5.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 511
treason to give utterance to the thought which was passing through his mind. He therefore leaves the riddle to the intelligence of his readers. And this he might safely do. Ever since the reported death of Nero, expectation had been rife on the subject of his reappearance. He was thought to live retired beyond the Euphrates, where he was watching his opportunity to swoop down upon the Roman Empire and avenge himself on his enemies’. The wish was father to the thought. For Nero, monster though he was, possessed some popular qualities which made him a favourite with the masses. One after another pretender took advantage of this expectation. One false Nero started up im- mediately under Galba. He was caught at Cythnus and put to death ; but it was thought necessary to take his body to Rome that the public mind might be disabused*. A second appeared about a.p. 80 under Titus, gathered followers on the banks of the Euphrates, and ultimately fled for refuge to the Parthians*. A third, if he be not the same with the last mentioned, threatened the peace of the Roman Empire under Domitian about a.D. 83°. Even in the early years of the second cen- tury Dion Chrysostom could still write, ‘To the present time all men desire him to be alive, and the majority even trust that heis®.’ This belief chimed in with the Christian expectation of the speedy coming of Antichrist and the end of all things. This persecutor of the dis- ciples, this prodigy of wickedness and audacity who outraged humanity and defied nature, the son who murdered his mother, the engineer who would sever the Isthmus and join the two seas—who could he be but the very man of sin, the Antichrist, or the forerunner of the Anti-
christ? Accordingly in an early apocryphal writing, the Ascension of py 2 '
Isaiah, it is said that in the last days Belial shall appear ‘in the form of a man, of the king of unrighteousness, of the matricide,’ and shall ‘ per- secute the Church’. In this respect Christian anticipation only kept pace with Jewish. Two Sibylline Oracles, which date about a.p. 80— both apparently Jewish, and one of them written in Egypt—dwell on this expected return of the matricide, this final scourge of the human race, which shall precede the advent of Messiah’s reign; and from these earlier Sibylline Oracles it is transmitted to the later. The belief in- deed lingered on for several centuries. In the age of Jerome and Augustine some were still found to entertain this opinion. Even S. Martin of Tours himself is credited with it by a contemporary and
1 Suet. Wer. 57. > Dion. Chrysost. Ovad. xxi (p. 504 ed. 20 hag. £78st. 1s 'S, .G Reiske). ® Zonaras xi. 18 (p. 578). 6 iv. 2 sq (p. 17 ed. Dillmann, 1877).
+ Suet. Ver. 57.
ae
512 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.
friend. But it was during the continuance of the Flavian dynasty that the expectation was at a white heat.
Here then was the little horn of Daniel. What more appropriate ? The little horn is represented as springing up from the ten, and yet not counting as one of the ten. It is in fact an offshoot, an excrescence. Hence our Barnabas, with his own interpretation of the prophecy in his mind, unconsciously quotes this word ‘ excrescence’ (tapadpvaduor), as if it were part of the text.
CLEM. II.
EE) GLE SS
I. INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.
Ul. JNDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.
The asterisks mark the passages in which the resemblance is close, and which therefore are printed in the text as quotations.
(1) Zhe Epistle of S. Clement of Rome.
Genesis a. Hee ciart auch ed caw 20 ef Oey a i eee ee 33 yi Tt Se en ee one 6 PRUC MER Pi rete dessa da die: 4 WM ESE 88 apo. ok vases «03 10 St ay ye Ae. eee IO ce TEN? Ls ee ee 10 Ae Bia dr acta dew cpt + Sa 10, 32 ELON Eg rae «coy | 2h t one a's 17 5 S11 ay a a Io BMD AEP she he «eh asin ¥o0 ss 33 car hey Oe Peepers 32 ROMRM EUS eT EA vu. scahy « «swe sans onsices 4 Pe MBEAN oie A ce SUS dei F7 ci cals re ere. OER 17 ca ee are oer 60 REM E Se 20g SBE ose wihsli sb kas 51 MEL, BOL ARE SBT. sw sinue' 53 OS RS 9 I eR ena cao <> 05°52 I LT De lies 7 a Sey ee ae 17, 43 XVL, 22 seeeeseeereseeeeneees 59 BEM SP e a eck chage see ce sss 29 ee ae Se eee 59 ReCMIELONOEIY “IV. 34 oy5.. Ioan sce sc ee ee 29 CD ee ee aoe 60 Te SEP cc 050%- oth pea teak 53 eR tee meee Sve 60 PANN ate erika en 64 Pe ROME OS Or esac Ata at caupe ss 29 EME ERS BOA, a. nc causes 3 MORONEY BEY 8 aaa teeake seca 59 Joshua re eae ee ere es 12 MERLE S18) EO os ono at ae wvigs va dete 12 PRU TAS 2. conecsemedtedes 18 MMOS EM A sch cc te cages vente acts 60 EPCRA TO ecw ondpssensssye es qs 59 Job REE Bote taeeiaa Lebo easms 17 be AG ST ee ee ee 30 SM CEISUL oa ceecs ts sede cos 30
Job
Psalms
SPO e ee ee eeresreneee ee ee ee
Cee eee meee eee ee enee
XXVIll. 25 "XXXVill, 10, II
eee eee weeeee
ee ewe “I
iil. 5 xi (xii). 3 sq XVil (XVIii). 25, 26.......+. XVIii (xix). xxi (xxii). 6sq "Sxl (SMW A Bocuse Xxili (xxiv). I "xvi (EXVIR). Fons fn. cea: XXX (xxxi). Ig XXX1 (xxxli). I, 2 XXX1 (XXXII). IO ........000. XXXii (XxXxill). 13 XXXI] (XXxXIlll). 10 XXXIli (Xxxiv). 20 Exxiit (xxxiv),. FUSq 55245 XXXVI (xxxvii). 365q...... Swe) (GU Ate s adv Pulviad (xix). 4 Pgs. co ctnsns *xlix (le 54,. 55 * xls. (]) FOS o5) axeaan apace *] (li). 1 sq vist, (Dati) 4 sd) sc. cee Tevi (IXvil). 5 ssc 2.teesneaees *)xvili (Ixix). 31, 32 *Ixxvii (Ixxviil). 36, 37 ... *Ixxxvili (Ixxxix). 21 *xcix (¢), 2 *cit (cil) 8G; Bie eee *ettl (€1¥).. des shqgee te senses Tex: (Cx). *cxvii (cxvili). 18
SS ahi
ee
ed
Mh eR Re ek oe
setae eee eee
* OK
eee ee eee esas
see eee eee eee eeeeee
ee
* “% * * precesee e bit en aoe *
eee ee
eee eee ee
ee
516
Psalms *cxvii (cxvili). 19, 20...... 48 Pexvill (CRIK). SEM vss enchay 59
Feil ACKIR). AS (ea ratee 60
SeeKK (CER RU o kse sen oe 7
*cxxxvlii (cxxxix). 7Sq ... 28
* cece KEK), 15 econ ans 38
ides Mt (ea os ae Se Be
POKY (CKIV), Oi osabsnce-neas 60
VETS 1A BASH y ca. sescwee son encere 57 Fal PoE VO cuiayi ae sek aane. see 14
WAALS EB yin ad oe teee se veeuue 56
Pail FAM asta lenbaien etna ss fs 30
POWER hide nadie ans careless 2
SAE tetas hae Reaanoeasduk’ 49
ee ee ee ee 21
PURE: ee oss putas boat pwn is 34
Rare OS vataos.. ayes va veWawns 8 TR ae eee 3
SONG 8 itt 24 Gio ERD Soap can AG 34
SATS 9 ge Sapa eee aia 59
BRITA, Atk Unto heee anes 23
UE RWIL IO a ae teea vanstoade sas 50
Poe E ae Ca ee Se ee 15
Pde oA he cakitw shied vo veniswn sen 34
BUSS 0 Kwek. Ban tess ceses ens io, 17
eT Gees OA ee eee 60
PAMAS RS i jboss peek ds sn seecns 59
AUME MMA apices xte vadend nol 3
Te AE ee 42
PARAECOEM A copie sitnittne svasauns 34
PARAM ISG: Has ck cess cuse > se 16
PARAW MALE p tou Poche deli 0% ois o's'e 0 34
by es eh ae Se iZ
ey | Re Se II
Betenatall Mii. 0) 22 6h. ies ses ees 8 PRBS OMAN citeccns sence 13
WIA IMI EY Shapiro ox res neue 20
PPR MNOS Ose ah oe oa ois 60
Hzelsel = “xviii: 3O5q 2.5. 65.2....000 00. 8 gee C2 nee eee 8
SERIE Veit le cdsns swan ce 59
CRICK WAR RE eo: ats wines soi 50
wily TS Been 9 ge ory ee ee 29
Bieta ee VEE. EO |... 22 Levoca ase rc ones 34 (ELEY S CRN ih Ue a ioe ea 223 MPMRE Na (TAM, EA) bre nanr re carace asassnees 59 ERA Eas Wabash tas tu wintoacds 55
PGE Ry Bie vis shircads whos anne 55
MG PR A Sahai td eps venkes = bd katt Os Ub eee ee 24
ecciis smal My BO F250) cis wetieed vase 59 24 LUBY | AA er 6
Ee EVs ghia Aga ae eee Be ae rs PINs hg TC eta tee coco sss 13
pS Go fas Se 48
PRM est datbewveesses ves 24
ARVO ec Parasth tebe kayensve a. 13
CRI, Oey Wh devatascep uns ® 46
PREM OER: hoGk trakie oseeve vine 46
IAEA CAN 22. ++. 05 wikeweneivatsshves'ces 24 PAW SE 2 aah ayes Sate een <p ono 23
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL
PASSAGES. S. Mark *vit. 6. .s..0-- cosh 15 ix, 4225). 46 *xiv. BE lab deaphee pe 46 me Lake i, Tg) ‘Gisnespschasteseeuamene 63 “Vi. 3OSq)<05,asnna-n ene 13 KUL. Tg svcadsceboaedeeateee 4 "S11. Bcc caonset aiochang ieee 24 ©. John | XK. Oiisciscssecxsyg beeen 48 RIV. X56 cca ccvovests se eeeeeee 49 KVL. 3 sacaknchevectaees cn aeeee 59 VIL LF. spvertenssevcen eee 60 Acts *x5i15 780)" coh cote es eee 18 "EK. 35 ss vasa eke eee 2 KX, SE ose ncenaavoekesenseeeeee 13 601) Ae GPE ee rate 41 Romans. 4. @T- .cc. cscs eee 36, 51 1. 20.5q (..2-besasrocugnemeee 35 TD, Bg ayn <cpiecseeteee eee 47 Py Acs Pee SR 50 Wi, TSQ \.paskedavencaaeyers 33 a Cor, 1s Tg saayswednwaedeeeeenen pref. 1. TOSG “isstoasbennapkeareem 47 ig PPAR ts 34 Th. HO 535014. Ecko 40 1K: G4 dpckpoexetenn coe 5 Xs: B45 29 ian ageeeea nena 48 KUL, By). .0s cages see eee 48 xi. tasq Lactic eo] Kil. Bs BG", Aatemeereernete 37 pat a PEA 49 XV 2B ivcoh tadee seers wees 37 XV. BO ct..keceaeers span 24 > 4 ME te et 65 KWL EY * cee sh soko 38 @ Cor.) 7%: 835 Rae ee 41 XI, 2 380 3c veasev sees eee 5 Galatians aii; 2 /.i0)hesctssge.seee eee 2 Ephesians | 1.175... -gpecuneteee 59 iv..g:Sq .h.$, ths ene 46 iV. 18) stesdelseeeecngeeeee 36 5 Fie reer eme y= Sih 38 Philippians i, 27° .<223s.-sjeeenoseee 3 Fe: Re he 4 Ld. 20. sosagocetn veer eee 38 Ui. TD)! \.cennsh deesee ee ieemene 50 LiL. “Tg actsus dyes vetdse eee 5 IV LS pices: eye 47 Colossians Si, 3): eee 2 x "Timothy i.) 87) !iss;et.--eeeeeeeee 61 11.3 scandsladsaeete wee v4 Oe eee ee ane 60 CO REPRE, Pe Ses 29 1 OR 45 fils 10! .0s0se este eaeaeeee 42 A aN re 21 2 Timothy 1:3) 32: :tiecehetsadtrs is hea 45 IV. GO cidecoyeeee eee eee 44 Titus Ds. ShddeZavabodabeneneonereee I apt MER AR PRE SE Pee 2 Hebrews i. 3 :.i250).4n255 2s eee ee 27 *L. 3) 4} Sy Te 8 eee 36
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.
BPGIMGWS: 1. Siveissesiiaaventsrcssccdarss 16 James Price Ee 49 Tih. By Pi asa ae teete ts aks Epo Tee CLR Ty Ba; 2). ncctundee sokera eoeaeee pref. MTs <5fi.<ors sae dente toes oreo 43 IZ, G) Sicaivss eden vataemeeeee 7 IVS EEspucuivescedesess cet eteo 21 He: Tisicisseeesmeedese renee 30 Whe EO med deeoadeee teste geven es 27 Il. Qe eseresesesecccneaseeees 36, 59 ER LEG Citinanvantcbs canes -~ 12 Abe Aw WG pllereee cake ene 1 Mig BY, Wri nua derwevenles is 50 27 Eg © Geers ree het mors a 4: 2 Mis Ei evar cath secase suse 9 EW. GF Ys cintlute deteetier sane 49 ahr Ts a. ane NS Lae 20 We TO. ie core 38 Ma DZ vids xyacisesssenaeas vs 17 BVT oo fe dete aeeedees 2 BAR. Ee nang susie Cs 13, 19, 63 PS Batok tJ. tA re 30 pO ae a ene eee 56 WisRi give woxhiteee eee 38 0 Se en 64 Wil Qian sis cecesangoennanaiees 2 ey Eee, Oe CL ee Ee G4 sie eben Ry Mé es cceks chev vencuceeee pref. RAPT OE ete en | cre 10 He, BP bedenas'ds aug seeegcemnee 9 5 it Ady ea a I diy Rua suceae trad tas soee eames 7 BAD y DAO. ote. 558.6 I Us D) 241i eGR 2 epee 44 RAM BEM ins pbasdese excesses 21 1 John 2 ho pereiaes ee ds Saeshi pe 49, 50 James VCAMN ei LACS SeP iS cas cvees ge Revelation Sods Fes Re eee 34 YS a ae A 30 (2) An Ancient Homily. PIS 1 HOE) | chests wosen eet eied nee ia... Sx Lukes) *waustons pete 9 Psalms WEG box variates (8.660: 4 a Pa RR A ee NE 5 Leu 826) MeL ee ne ae 17 pan ery Wy Maer aime ene A A 5 CTL En Se cal (US re i Se 16 TRU. Bi esau OR aot ete P Meta Ba MREMCMIEY 0 Getta cadiee ins 3 *EVis BOQ .chissgeseesine eae 8 SAV od fs heuaree eevee ces 16 TEVA DS Bass SORE see 6 7 PA ee Re oe rae 4 BIKY1O4' 2.3 Ae 2 VLE eter ce © creer pore Es, unets WIMEQiicc ot eco theese t3 “FL SM OR SS ESSE Se le BS Se 2 EVs, EQ i635 534 Sg ee 4 SUNG OM.) ot ean ie wats ctdns 15 Wer BO. Wik des sudo sree 4 GENE ES wie Scenes essewaoars Fz We 20 ie cde 20 PIE GA a AUT, svautk dec ig “EROURARS > “IV SR uy. 20k: 5 I PSPCHMAN.. ANU 459 Gite. .tei.csee. ses 8 Vile Oy PELL ee ae 16 re SE ie, CA oe, a ee coe ee 6 TRADE) oe .L pe ikace ee eae 8 Hosea AT) eae pee: ae ee i etCor, Ti Qires tik sp devel ese BE, Fa Es IMA Ei A, cada et kek get 16 Dich ag 5s st es 7 SERNA AEE sudan does vucisives 49° Galatians... wig GO 401.455.2412 ee 9 TE 7 SERRE, ES EPO ore @. 2iphesians.” 1992) cA ka ee I4 ORCS Ria eee Oe E Ee ae 4 AWE LPTs fe ene 1g ah 3 ay eae eee 2 Wis! Oa) Sia ces 13 Sean a eet eee tee sea eee ar Bee" CMe aIA TIS EIR) BM, otis avemtealcareunes 13 555 A DESC, Noe =) Timothy eine 6 ec ae ee 20 pMibe Ath. buch vend Siessyb ales 9 IWNEG Gis. Ri ES 15 NTRS BOB seach toc aces shvia co's 6G, (Hebrewsi. 7m 23 ik see Bi BAM Dd BAG Repel ovads 8 BILR hae ee I WP |e Eh hoe: her aa ar ee 6 IS HEY 6A PAA OE ee 16 eae eh IG! BR O21. aes Sete hae 2 James TOE Di. A ae 4 MAP AEN«. cha ekethdycs cae a 6 PME WON SWichiovds cacrcnmaverecms 16 EO oe La A GaN ihe ais hie (Se Petes) Five Bo ttn hemes ae 16 eR FaRMILA TIZiS. Aiscivecesad s dae che 47... SBeter Le) FG) | Svs er IT MABE OSs veto, ce etaeds 13
i.
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Abbreviations employed, 4
Abdo and Sennes, martyrs, 363
Abraham; in Clement’s Epistle, 43 sq; his title 6 Pidos, 43, 63
Abulides, Egyptian name for Hippoly- tus, 401, 477
Abundius, Abundus; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 469 sq, 472 sq; his burial- place, 469; Ado of Vienne on, 360; inscription relating to, 351
Acontus, a martyr of Portus, depositio of, 355» 475
Aden; never called Portus Romanus, 429; its usual name, 429; not the see of Hippolytus, 429
Ado of Vienne; on the martyrdom of Laurence and Hippolytus, 357 sq, 448, 450, 471 sq; source of his in- formation, 473
Agapitus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 354 357 ; at
Ager Veranus; its position, 442; the name, 442 sq; cemeteries at, 442 sq; burial-place of Hippolytus, 440, 442; probably on his property there, 441, 4433; his statue discovered in, 463 sq; other martyrs buried there, 462; con- fused medieval use of the term, 443, 463; De Rossi’s excavations, 443, 453; 463; inscriptions found at, 464; history of Hippolytus’ basilica there, 444 sq, 451Sq,459; the basilica disinterred, 452, 464; Hippolytus’ bones translated from, 351 Sq, 459,467 sq; other reliques trans- ferred and the cemetery rifled, 351 sq, 459 Sq, 463, 468 sq ; commemorative in- scription, 351, 459, 462, 469; medieval acts and guide books written for pil- grims to, 463, 473; the Laurentian Acts linked with, 468 ; the expression juxta Nympham, 359, 472
Agnes (S.); her cemetery, 443, 445, 451; her day, 451; Prudentius’ poem on, 445, 451; her connexion with other martyrs commemorated by Prudentius,
445, 451
Alcibiades and the Book of Elchasai, 323.59
Alcinous, heretic, 347, 396
Alexander III at S. Denis, 468
Alexandrian Church, its origin and early character, 504 sq
Alexandrian Ms, Clementine matter in the; title, 191, 198 sq; mutilations and lacunze, 240, 263 sq; corruptions, 54, I10, 124, 138, 232 sq5 Hiishoee plicit mention of 2 [Clement] as the work of Clement of Rome in, 193, 200
Almsgiving, its importance in 2 [Clement], 251
Alogi, the name perhaps traceable to Hippolytus, 394
Ambrose (S.), his literary obligations to Hippolytus, 413
Ambrosius, Origen’s ‘task-master’, 330; confused by Photius with Hippolytus, 348, 423
Amphilochius, metrical list of the scrip- tures by, 407, 408, 413
Anacolutha in Clement’s Epistle, 11
Anastasius Apocrisiarius, on a spurious Hippolytean work, 344, 403 sq
Anastasius of Sinai; quotes Hippolytus, 345, 421; onthe Eternal Church, 245 sq
Ancient Homily; see Corinthians, Second Clementine Epistle to the
Andreas of Czsarea, mentions Hippo- lytus, 340
Andreas the presbyter; restored Hippo- lytus’ basilica, 454, 465; perhaps prior of the title of the third ecclesiastical region, 465
Antichrist, treatise of Hippolytus on ; notices, 330, 345, 348, 349; extant, 398, 405; character, 398; date, 398; Nero as Antichrist in Barnabas, 507, 508, 509; in other documents, 511 sq
Antipodes, early fathers on the, 73
Apocalypse of Elias, 106
Apocalypse of S. John; not considered by the Gaius of Proclus the work of Cerinthus, 381; hence no argument
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
against the identification of Gaius and Hippolytus, 386 sq; Hippolytus’ view, 394; Dionysius of Alexandria mistaken, 386; how far Gwynn’s discovery modi- fies this argument, 388
Apocryphal quotations in Clement, 39, 52, 64, 80, 95, 139, 1413 in 2 [Clement], 218, 219, 227, 235, 236 sq
Apocryphal writings ascribed to O. T. prophets, 39 sq; invented by Gnostics, 106
Apollinarian expressions anticipated in early orthodox writings, 14 sq
Apollinaris, a notice of Hippolytus wrong- ly ascribed to, 328, 431 sq
Apollonius on the character of Domitian, 7
Apollos, not reckoned an apostle by Clement, 144
Apostolical Constitutions; imitates Cle- ment’s Epistle, 5, 70, 71, 125, 134, 171; 172, 173, 174, 176; Hippolytus’ name attached to a form of, 401 sq; illustrates 2 [Clement], 222, 249; and cites it as genuine and canonical, 193
Apt, the sarcophagus at, a testimony to Hippolytus’ fame, 467
Arabic Catena on the Pentateuch ascribed to Hippolytus, 348, 423
Archelaus the deacon, in the Portuensian Acts, 356, 364, 474, 476
Arsis, Assis, the island at Portus, 341
Artemon, the treatise against; assigned to Gaius, 348, 377; identical with the Little Labyrinth, 378, 380, 385, 421; and the work of Hippolytus, 380 sq; an objection of Salmon’s considered, 400; see Little Labyrinth
Ascension of Isaiah; date, 106; probably extant, 107; not quoted by S. Paul, 106; makes Nero Antichrist, 511
Assumption of Moses; an alleged quota- tion in Clement from, 65, 81, 86; on the phoenix, 85; minor reference to, 187
Athletic metaphors in 2 [Clement], 223 sq
Atlantis, 73
Augustine (S.), on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 482, 483
Aurea, in the Portuensian Acts, 362, 474; see Chryse
aBavatvows, 134
ayaboroia, ayaboroeiv, 17, 232 ayadorns, 243
ayloypagpa, titles applied to the, g2, 167 dytot (oi), 163
aylompémns, 52
ayvwota, 171
aywyh, 144, 145
aywy and aidy confused in Mss, 223 adedpdrns, 18
aOXety with acc., 259
519
dO pavoros, 171
aiuara, plur., 68
alvov aiwviov, 231
aiperifew, 244
aKourifew, 66
axpoywv.atos, of Christ, 486
adnbeia (4), 195, 216, 257, 260
adNérptos, dAAdPuNOs, 38
avmnros, 259
auBruwretv, duBrudsTTEW, 21
AMETAMENNTOS, GMETAMEARTWS, 19, 169
duvnoikakos, 16, 182
Gpwuos, 102, III, 126
dvaryvos, 96
avaypagpn, 89
avafwirupew, intrans., go
avadvots, 135
avaréXXewv, trans., 71
GVATUNITTELY, Q7
avedet, form, 78
avyjxew, constr., 108, 136, 181
avOpwrdperkos, 241
avtixeiwevos (0), 153
avTimic bia, 212, 213, 231, 236
avTimapeAKew, 254
aQvTituTov, 247
avTopbahmetv, 104
aévovv, constr., 162
adpynros, 69
amépatos, amépavTos, 72
amoxrévvey, form, 220
amo\auBavew, 228
amoNUTpwols, 254
amovo.a, 9
dméaroXo (oi), of writings in N. T., 202, 245
ampoodens, 155
am pooKoTws, 74
AT POT WTOAHUMTWS, IO
apxeTos, 148
apoevddnrus, 239
apxeyovos, accent, 172
apxXn Tov evayyeNiov, 143
apxuepevs, of Christ, 111, 123
aceBys, 174
dcoogos, 258
domtdos, 228
doroxeiv, 256
arnuedew, 116
avevTikov, 247
avrematveTos, 97
apnKew, 93
apiiogevia, Log
dpopunv didovar, AauBavew, 250
Babylon; in S. Peter’s Epistle, 491 sq; as a name for Rome, 492
Balaam, the Blessings of, 343, 389, 400, 02
Eerise called sppayis, 201, 226
Baralas, Barulas, in the story of Roma- nus, 446 sq, 449 sq
520
Bardenhewer, 366, 391, 393
Barnabas, the Epistle of; its character, 503; author, 503 sq; canonicity, 504; country, 504 sq; date, 505 sq; test passages as to date, 506; theory of Weizsacker, 505, 507; Hilgenfeld, 506, 507; Volkmar, 505, 508 sq; the theories criticised and date suggested, 509; the threefold kingship and the coming of Antichrist explained, 509 sq
Baronius, 373; 477
Basil (S.) quotes Clement, 140, 169
Bensly and the Syriac Version of the Clementine Epistles, 36,-47, 69, 147, 158, 176, 215, 255) 257
Benson, Archbishop, on Hippolytus, 367, 453, 466
Bero, a spurious Hippolytean work a- gainst, 345, 346, 403 sq
Bianchini, 367, 399
Bilt (S.); French name for Hippolytus, 477; the Abbey of, 467
Bishops, itinerant and extra-diocesan, 432 sq; illustrated by the episcopate of Hippolytus, 432 sq
Bito, 185, 187, 305
Book of Jubilees, 44, 94
Bostra; Hippolytus associated by Gela- sius with the see of, 340, 428; the error traced, 327, 331, 428
bravium, 28
Brescia, reliques of Hippolytus in S. Julia at, 468
Bryennios ; his edition of Clement, 47, 172, 178, 181, 234, 243) 244, 2573 criticised, 14, 21, 30, 38, 77, 78, 90, 96, 129, 148, 158, 172, 177, 182, 224, 233; 245, 260; assigns 2 [Clement] to Cle- ment of Rome, 204 sq
Bucher, 399 ;
Bucina; mentioned in the Liber Pontifi- calis, 340; its position, 340; the read- ing of the passage, 340
Bunsen, 34, 132, 1341 367, 378, 385; 395: 3972 402; 403, 404, 427, 428, 430)
Bavavoos, 149
Baovrela, opposed to iepwotvn, 179 Bacideov, 222
Bacireds TOV aiwvwy, 180
Baros, gender, 64
BiBrla (7a) of O. T., 202, 245 Bios, 213
Brarrew, 260
Prac gnpev, 9
Cain, meanings given to the name, 22
Callinicus the tribune, in the Acts of Laurence, 362
Callistus, bishop of Rome; his life and relations to Hippolytus, 320 sq, 431 sq,
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
437, 439; his cemetery, 328, 442, 4515 his portrait extant, 441
Canon; in the time of Clement, 205 sq ; of 2 [Clement], 202, 204, 205 sq, 242, 245 Sq ;
Canons ascribed to Hippolytus, 401 sq
Carpophorus, Callistus’ master, 320 sq
Caspari, 367, 401 Sq, 403, 407
Cassianus, picture seen by Prudentius representing the martyrdom of, 450, 453
Cassianus, Julius; quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians, 207, 236 sq, 238, 239; his controversy with Clement of Alex- andria thereon, 207, 236, 239
Cemeteries; (1) of S. Agnes, 443, 445, 451; (2) of Callistus, position, burials and commemorations, 328, 442, 4513 (3) of Cyriace, name, 469, 4723; posi- tion, 442 sq, 469; called the Cemetery of S. Laurence, 442 sq; basilica of S. Laurence at, 442 sq; the church of S. Stephen at, 341, 459; saints and popes buried in, 442, 469, 471; reliques trans- ferred from the cemetery of Hippolytus to, 351 sq, 459, 468; commemorative inscription, 351, 459, 469; (4) of Hip- polytus; see Ager Veranus
Censurianus, in the Portuensian Acts, 361, 364, 474 Sq
Cerinthus as author of the Apocalypse of S. John, 381, 386 sq
Chair of Hippolytus, 324 sq, 395, 400, 412, 419Sq, 440, 463sq; see further fippolytus of Portus
Chiliasm in Hippolytus and other early writers, 387 sq
Christology; of Clement, 13 sq, 57, 91, 102, 205; of 2 [Clement], 200, 205, 211, 230, 248; of other early writers, 13S
Chronica of Hippolytus; notices of, 325, 395, 421; identification of, 399, 419; date of, 437
Chronicon Paschale; quotes Hippolytus, 344, 403, 4213; a passage wrongly ascribed in, 344
Chronology of our Lord’s life in Hippoly- tus’ system, 391 sq
Chryse, in the Portuensian Acts, 361, 3648q, 474 Sq
Chrysostom on Romanus, 446, 448 é
Claudius Ephebus, 185, 187, 305
Claudius Gothicus, in the spurious Acts of Hippolytus, 471, 474
Claudius, in the Laurentian Acts, 358,
472
Clemens, Flavius, his relations to Clement of Rome, 8
Clement of Alexandria; quotes Clement of Rome, 4, 9, 39, 42, 52) 54, 55, 56, 62, 65, 72, 75) 77sO3) 104, tke
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
121, 127, 140, I4], 145, 146 Sq, 149, 164, 168, 172; his use of the Gospel of the Egyptians, 207; does not know 2[Clement], 192; is not its author, 204, 206 sq; on S. Peter at Rome, 495
Clement of Rome; see Clement, Epistle 0
dada mentioned in Hermas; according to Harnack distinct from Clement of Rome, and author of 2 [Clement], 207 sq
Clement, Epistle of; Mss and Versions, 3, 13; other sources of evidence for, 4; titles, 5; date, 8, 25, 125, 134, 144, 185; the writer a Hellenist Jew, 23, 205; his personal relation to the Apostles, 25; his mention of S. Peter, 493; hiscomprehensiveness, 121; com- bines the teaching of S. Peter, S. Paul and S. James, 47, 97, 100, 149; his tolerance, 149, 170; his christology, 13 Sq, 57, 91, 102, 205; the Epistle known to the author of 2 [Clement], 235; the styles compared, 205; the opening words imitated, 5; translation, 271 sq
Clement, Spurious Epistle of, see Cor- inthians, Second Clementine Epistle to the
Clementine Homilies; imitates Clement, 52; and 2 [Clement], 217, 219; relative positions of S. Peter and S. Paul in, 30
Cleomenes, the Noetian, at Rome, 319 sq
Cologne, reliques of Hippolytus at, 468
Compendium against all Heresies; an early work of Hippolytus, 414; its date, 426 sq; not the Philosophumena, 414; probably survives in a Latin summary in the Praescriptio of ps- Tertullian, 386, 414 sq; references to, 400, 413 sq
Concordia, the ‘nurse’ of Hippolytus; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 3543; in Ado of Vienne, 359 sq; in Florus- Bede, 357; her burial-place, 351, 469sq; her day, 356, 470; originally ‘mulier,’ 470; when added to the story of Hip- polytus, 463; her connexion with him merely local, 470
Constantinopolitan Ms, corrigenda in the collation for this edition, 268
Cooper, B. H., 33
Corinth, as a halting-place between the East and Rome,
Corinth, Church at; feuds in the, 20 sq, 43, 120 Sq, 133, 143 Sq, 158
Corinthians, Pauline Epistles to the; allusions in Clement’s Epistle to, 142 sq; both Epistles known to Clement, I42 sq; source of a quotation in 1 Cor. 11. 9, 106 sq
Corinthians, Epistle of Clement to the; see Clement, Epistle of
521
Corinthians, Second Clementine Epistle to the; the title in Mss, and deduc- tions, 191, 198, 211; not the work of Clement, 191 sq, 204 sq; external evi- dence, 192 sq; accepted by the Mono- physites, 193; the appellation ‘ Epistle to the Corinthians,’ 193 sq; from in- ternal evidence a homily, 194 sq, 2533 probably delivered in Corinth, 197, 224; extempore or from manuscript? 197; then read publicly and attached to Clement’s Epistle, 197 sq; not So- ter’s letter, nor Dionysius’ reply, 196 sq; not by a layman, 195, 253; Har- nack’s theory of its Roman origin, 199 sq; the resemblances to the Shepherd of Hermas, 200 sq; date, 201 sq; its evidence to the canon, 202 sq; ortho- doxy of the writer, 202; the form of Gnosticism attacked in, 203; acquaint- | ance of the author with the writings of S. Paul and S. John, 204, 222; with Clement’s Epistle, 235; the author, not Clement of Rome (Bryennios’ view), 204 sq; not Clement of Alexandria (Hilgenfeld’s view), 206; not the Cle- ment of Hermas (Harnack’s view), 207 sq; a Gentile Christian, 205, 213, 2143 its literary merit, 208; lacunze in the archetype of our MS real and supposed, 233 Sq, 2453 analysis, 208 sq; transla- tion, 306 sq
Cotelier, 143, 215, 216
Cotterill, 115
Crescentio, Crescentius, Crescentianus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 358, 471 oq
Cureton, 193
Cyprian on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 484 sq; interpolations in the passage, 484 sq
Cyriace; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 358, 469 sq, 471 sq; inscription re- lating to, 351; gave her name to the cemetery of S. Laurence, 342, 459; probably owned the ground, 469; see Cemetertes
Cyriacus, the bishop, in the Portuensian Acts, 364, 475, 476; in Roman martyrologies, 356; in Florus-Bede,
357
Cyril of Alexandria, on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 482 sq
Cyrilla; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 354, 360, 4733 inscriptions relating to, 351, 3523 references to, 3533 her identity, 470; her burial-place, 469 sq; date of her martyrdom, 471; her day, 471; her connexion with Hippolytus local, 471
Cyrillus of Scythopolis on Hippolytus,
343, 421
522
Kad’ wpav, 236 Kaipos and wpa, 122 KaKoOLOacKaNelV, 234 KahaBpicuds, KdAaBpos, 120 Kavu, 11, 36 KATaVTGY, 34 KaTamdew, 223 KATOLKEW, TApOLKElY, 5 KeKparyelv, 105 Kpué, accent and use, 29 kisoav, 66 koAaBpifew, 120 KoTLav, 224 Kogmikds, 254 kpluara, reading, 71 KUOpas, KvOptvos, form, 65 KUTOS, 71
i]
xaplouara, Hippolytus’ treatise respecting, 400 Sq, 421
xpacba, form, 221
xXwpa, 128, 150
Damasus, bishop of Rome; his episco- pate, 444; inscription on Hippolytus by, 328 sq, 424 Sq, 444 Sq; read by Prudentius, 424; makes Hippolytus a Novatian, 425, 445; the result of a confusion, 425 sq; calls him ‘pres- byter,’ 424, 428, 435; other inscrip- tions of, 375, 464, 500; beautifies the basilica of Hippolytus, 329, 444 sq
Daniel, commentary by Hippolytus on, 391 Sq; patristic notices of, 343, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350; Bardenhewer on, 391; Georgiades’ discovery of, 391; Kennedy’s edition of, 366, 391
Davies, 69, 70, 232
De Magistris, 365, 368, 394, 395, 476
De Rossi; his writings on Hippolytus, 366, 368; discovers inscriptions illus- trating Hippolytus, 329, 351 sq, 374 sq, 443 sq; on the Paschal Tables of Hippolytus, 399; on his cemetery in the Ager Veranus, 443, 453, 463; on his memoria in the Vicus Patricius, 465 ; on the picture of his martyrdom seen by Prudentius, 453; on the Acts of Hippolytus, captain of brigands, 373 sq; on the Cemetery of Callistus, 374 sq; on the day of Concordia, 470 sq
Decius; death of the emperor, 362, 364; in the Laurentian Acts confused with Gothicus, 471; his alleged wife and daughter martyred, 470
Denis (S.), monastery of ; bones of Hip- polytus brought to the, 467; Alexander III at the, 468
Deuteronomy xxxii. 8, 9, reading of, 93 s
iain with Proclus; see Proclus,
Dialogue with
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Dialogues, early Christian, real and fictitious characters in, 381 sq
Dionysius of Alexandria, on the Apoca- lypse, 386
Dionysius of Corinth; on the martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul, 26, 27, 494; the Second Clementine Epistle un- known to, 192; and not his work, 197
Dionysius Barsalibi, Hippolytean frag- ments discovered in, 388, 394
Dodwell, 206
Dollinger ; on Hippolytus of Portus, 368, 403, 427, 430 Sq, 440; on Hippolytus of Antioch, 371; on Severina, 397; on the Treatise against Bero, 404
Domitian ; his close association with Ves- pasian and Titus in the empire, 509 sq; character of the persecution under, 7, 175; allusions in Clement’s Epistle to this persecution, 7, 175
Donaldson, 133, 195
Dorner, 403
Dorotheus the Archimandrite, quotes 2 [Clement], 193, 225
Draseke, 404
Duobus Geminis Cons. as the date of the Crucifixion; probably due to Hippoly- tus, 391 sq; light thrown on this by the treatise on Daniel, 391 sq
Aavaides cai Alpxat, 32 sq Aaveld, form, 24
deomérns, of God the Father, 37 d7Aos, fem., 239
Onucoupyos, 75, 89, 171
dvavvew, 88
duevOUvew, 73, 180, 181 duoikyots, 6
dicraypos, 142
dupuxeiv, Supuxla, dipuxos, 46, 236, 258 SwiexdoxnnTpor, 98 dwiexddvrov, 162
dwow, form, 213
Ebedjesu, the catalogue of; Hippolytus’ works in, 350, 393, 398, 419 Sq, 4235 the Heads against Gaius mentioned in, 350, 388; the Little Daniel, 393
Ebionites; attacked in 2 [Clement], 211, 229; their name, 211sq; their christo- logy, 211 sq; their Gospel, 231
Elchasai, the book of, 324
Eldad and Modad; history of the work, 80; its relation to 2 Peter, 235; quoted in Clement’s Epistle, 65, 80; and in 2 [Clement], 235
Elkanah and Anna, treatise of Hippolytus to, 338, 390, 420
Encratites and the Gospel of the Egypt- ians, 237 Sq, 240
Endor, the witch of, Hippolytus’ work ON, 325, 330, 400, 412, 420
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Enoch called 6 dikatos, 42
Ephebus, 185, 187, 305
Epigonus, the pupil of Noetus, 319
Epiphanius; an alleged allusion to Clem- ent’s Epistle explained, 62, 117; quotes another passage second-hand probably through Hegesippus, 158; date of his work against heresies, 415 ; his indebted- ness to Hippolytus, 413, 415sq; quotes from the Ebionite Gospel, 231
Episcopacy in Corinth in Clement’s time, 120 Sq, 123, 129, 133
Erbes, 372, 429
Eugenius, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Euripides quoted in Clement’s Epistle, 115, 116
Eusebius; on 2 [Clement], 192, 199 sq; probably knew the work, 199 sq; on Romanus, 446; on the works of Hip- polytus, 327, 389 sq, 419 sq; on Hip- polytus himself, 326 sq; ignorant of the facts of Hippolytus’ life, 428; on Gaius, 326 sq, 377 Sq, 380 sq, 384; on Hippolytus the brigand, 373
Eusebius the presbyter, in the Portuen- sian Acts, 364
Eustratius, on Hippolytus, 343, 420
Ezekiel; apocryphal works ascribed to, 39, 40; perhaps quoted by Clement, 39; bipartite division of the canonical book of, 40
Ey ypagos, 139
eyKapdos, 231
éykapmros Kal TéNeLos, 135, 163 eyxUmrTew, 121, 156, 182 €LKTLK@S, IIZ
eitAuxpwas, 98
eis yeveay yeveav, 180 elonKew, 236
EKNEKT) KUPLA, 490 Sq €xNexTs, 169
extevys, 169, 182
EKTLKOS, 113
eAeav, form, 52
EA\NOyLwos, 170, 182 eupurakifew, 137
ev xetpl, 161; &v XEpaly, 223 evadrdé, 48
evapeTos, 181
evVOENEXLT MOS, 125 EVKATANELM A, 55 evomTpigerOat, III evorepvigerbar, 16
évTevius, 257
éfalperos, 120, 186
efdxis, ev 66 TH EBSdum, 165 eLaxovTifew, 53
efeTreiv, 248
egeNiooew, 71
efehoUpat, form, 156 eLepifew, 138
523
é£epifwoev, spelling, 34
éferacuos, 108
efoNeOpevew, 54
érdArAndos, 8
émapxXos, I14
emecepyaverbat, 145
emLOnuia, 220
emeikera, 10, 162, 169, 182
eTLKATAaAAGTTEW, 145
ETLLOVI, 132
ETWOLN, 132
erimé@nros, form, 188
émioxomos and mpecBvrepos in Clement’s Epistle, 129
émiaToAn (7), where more than one Epistle exists, 142
émripdvera, 236
éewOmTns, 173
EpyomapeKTns, 104
épis and kindred words, 20, 140
ETEpoyvwapwy, 46
ETEpoKAW HS, 45, 145
evdoknots, 18, 123
EVELKTLK@S, I13
evnuepetv, evnumepia, 232
evOns, form, 66
evKTatos, 188
evTpayelv, 255
evaTabea, 180, 188
evxaploTia, evxapioTely, 124
evX}, Mporevx7, 126
€pbdiov, 12, 15
Hryewovixov, 66 sq
Tyovpevot, mponyovmevoc, of Church of- ficials, 10, 77, 113
novirddewa, 250, 256
neépas Kal vuxTos, order, 17
Fabian, bishop of Rome, divides the city among the seven deacons, 372
familia of Hippolytus, 351, 354, 356, 357; 359, 47°
Faustinus, in the Portuensian Acts, 474
Felicissimus the deacon, in the Lauren- tian Acts, 357
Filocalus the calligrapher, 444, 464
Fock, 403, 404
Fortunatus, 187, 305
Fossombrone, cult of Hippolytus and Laurence at, 466 sq
Fulrad; brings bones of Hippolytus to France, 467; his abbey St Bilt, 467
Funk, 440
Fuscianus, city prefect, 320, 321
Gaia, Gaius, in legal formule, 382
Gaius, the Roman presbyter; Eusebius on, 326 sq; Jerome on, 329, 378; Pho- tius on, 347, 3778q3 treatises ascribed to, especially the Dialogue against Pro- clus, 377 sq, 407; all belong to Hip-
524
polytus, 13, 377 sq; Gaius perhaps Hippolytus’ prenomen, 381; all par- ticulars about Gaius and Hippolytus identical, 382, 383; probably the same as Hippolytus, 318, 496 ; the reference in the Mss of the martyrdom of Poly- carp, 383; on the Apocalypse, 386; on the millennium, 387 sq; style and mat- ter of the Dialogue, 386; his date, 496; on the graves of S. Peter and S. Paul, 26, 496, 497, 499; the Heads against, in Ebedjesu’s catalogues, 350, 395; fragments discovered by Gwynn, 366, 380, 388
Games, Greek words adopted by the Romans relating to, 35
Gass, 200
Gebhardt; on Clement’s Epistle, 172, 174, 176,177, 178, 184; on 2 [Clement], 195, 224, 240, 257
Gelasius; quotes Hippolytus, 340, 421; confuses his see, 428
Geminus of Antioch, 331, 371
Genesis iv. 3—8 explained, 22 sq
Genesius, martyr, in the Laurentian Acts, 353; buried in the cemetery of Hip- polytus, 454 sq; his church restored by Gregory ITI, 340, 455; two martyrs of the name mentioned, 455; but per- haps only one person, 455
Geography, speculations of the ancients in, 72 sq
Georgiades discovers Hippolytus’ com- mentary on Daniel, 391 sq
Georgius Hamartolus on Hippolytus, 347
Georgius Syncellus; list of Hippolytus’ works in, 346, 419 sq; does not accept 2 [Clement], 193
Germanus of Constantinople on Hip- polytus, 345
Gnomic aorist, 260
Gnosticism; its apocryphal works, 106; its expressions anticipated by Clement, 121; the form attacked in 2 [Clement], 203, 228 sq
Gospel of the Egyptians; its character, 237; held in esteem by the Gnostics, 2373 quoted in 2 [Clement], 202, 207, 218, 219, 236 sq; and by Clement of Alexandria, 207, 236; who had never seen it, 237
Grabe on 2 [Clement], 194, 196
Greeks, Treatise against the, by Hip- polytus, 325, 395 fea Tents:
Gregory Nazianzen, metrical list of the scriptures by, 407, 408, 413
Gregory of Tours, on Hippolytus, 343
Gregory III restores the church of Genesius, 340, 455
Gudius, 398
Gwynn; discovers fragments of the Hip- polytean Heads against Gaius, 366,
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
380, 388; of the Hippolytean com- mentary on S. Matthew, 366, 394
ynyevys, 118
ynpous, ynpet, form, 185
yous, 121, 147
yopyos, 147
ypagetov, ypapeta, of the Hagiographa, 92, 167
ypagdy, ypapat, of N. T. writings, 202, 215, 242, 245
ypapal iépar, of O. T. writings, 156
Hadrian I; restores the cemetery of Hippolytus, 341, 459 sq; the church of S. Stephen, 341, 459; and the church of S. Laurence, 342
Hadrias, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373, 374: 376
Hagemann, 133, 208
Haneberg, 401
Harnack; on Clement’s Epistle, 33, 49, 69, 90,90, 317, 133, 136, 172,095, 176, 185, 186; on the country of 2 [Clement], 199 sq; theories on its authorship, 195,-196, 207 sq; on the mode of its delivery, 198; on its date, 201, 2043 ON passages in it, 213, 230, 241, 244, 246, 249, 250, 254, 260
Hebrews, Epistle to the; imitated in Clement’s Epistle, 10, 18, 37, 42, 455 50, 57, 62, 68, 75, 78, 91, 99; imitated in 2 [Clement], 214, 236, 246, 252; Gaius and Hippolytus on its authorship, 348, 378
Hegesippus; shows no knowledge of 2 [Clement], 192; Epiphanius’ in- debtedness to, 158
Herculanus; in the Portuensian Acts, 474 sq; a genuine martyr of Portus, 475; his day, 355, 4753 depositio of, 3553 sarcophagus commemorating, 476
Herenius, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Hermas, the Shepherd of; its date, 411, 413; illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 46, 76, 81, 118, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 165, 178, 185, 186; its resemblances to 2 [Clement] considered, 200 sq; the doctrine of the heavenly Church in, 200, 244; of the pre-incarnate Son, 200, 230; calls baptism a ‘seal,’ 201, 226; its teaching on marriage, 201; on Judaism, 201; the Clement mentioned in, 107 sq; illustrates 2 [Clement], 214, 218
Hesse on the Muratorian Canon, 369, 407
Hexaemeron interpreted of Christ and the Church, 245 sq
High-priesthood of Christ in Clement’s Epistle, 99, 111, 123
Hilarus, inscription relating to, 351
Hilgenfeld; on Clement’s Epistle, 15, 17,
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
41, 71, 81, 95, 99, 106, 108, 117, 131, F352; 136, 46, 0475 1575 Wy TOT, 172, 176, 177, 178, 187, 1953 identifies 2 [Clement] with the Letter of Soter, 196; on passages in 2 [Clement], 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 244, 250, 257, 2603 on the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, 506, 507 Sq, 509 ; Hippolytus of Portus; interest in his personality, 317; discovery of the Philo- sophumena, 317, 378, 414; the earliest papal catalogue probably drawn up by, 317; contemporary notice of him in the Liberian Catalogue, 318; ancient references to, 318 sq; extracts from his writings bearing on his history, 318 sq; his relations with Zephyrinus and Callis- tus, 320 Sq, 370, 431 Sq, 4373 chair of, 324, 412, 4403 its date, 324, 440; the inscription on, 324 8q, 419 sq; the Pas- chal Cycle on, 326; significance of the discovery, 443; his early and middle life, 422 sq; a pupil of Irenzeus at Rome, 383; his indebtedness to Irenzeus, 422; date of their intercourse, 422 sq; his connexion with Origen, 330, 423; not a Novatian, 424 sq; the story traceable to Damasus’ extant inscription, 424 sq, 445; ignorance and conflicting state- ments as to his see, 427 sq; his association with Bostra based on an error, 428 sq; evidence for Portus as his see late and scanty, 430; yet his connexion with Portus undeniable, 432 sq, 465 sq; character of his bishopric there, 432 sq; Le Moyne’s theory, 429; Bunsen’s theory, 430; Dollinger’s theory of an antipope, 431 sq; evi- dence of the Philosophumena here, 434; by whom appointed bishop, 433; later years and literary activity, 436 sq; his banishment, 328, 427, 438; its date, 438; died in banishment, 427, 439 sq; date of his death, 440; his name- sakes, (i) Hippolytus, the martyr of Antioch, 370 sq; (ii) Hippolytus the Alexandrian, 372; (iii) Hippolytus, Greek captain of brigands, 373 sq; (iv) Hippolytus the warder of S. Lau- rence, no such person, 376; (v) Hip- polytus of Thebes, 377; his identity with Gaius considered, 377 sq; his literary works, (a) biblical and exe- ‘getical, 389 sq; (4) theological and apologetic, 395 sq; (c) historical and chronological, 399 sq; (d) heresio- logical, 384 sq, 400 sq; spurious Hip- polytean works, 403 sq; table of his literary works, 419 sq; editions of them, 365 sq; his title ‘the presbyter’ represents dignity, not office, 424, 428, 435 sq; on the theology of Clement,
525
13 sq; 2 [Clement] known to, 258; on the authorship of the Apocalypse, 386, 394; his chronology of our Lord’s life, 391 sq; perhaps invented the term Alogi, 394; his depositio, 439, 442, 444; his day, in calendars, 355 sq; in the Liberian Catalogue, 355; in itineraries, 353 sq; his burial-place in the Ager Veranus, 442 sq; probably his own property, 441, 443; its proxim- ity to the cemetery of S. Laurence, 442, 444; his cult in Damasus’ time, 465; as described by Prudentius, 332 sq, 445 sq, 451 sq; his basilica in the Ager Veranus, 4448q; enlarged by Damasus, 445 Sq; described by Prudentius, 451 sq; verified by excavations, 452, 464; re- stored by Andreas the presbyter, 454, 465; his reliques transferred to the basilica of S. Laurence, 459; and else- where, 459, 467 Sq; inscriptions on these translations, 351, 461 sq, 469; his story attached to S. Laurence, and he himself transferred from cleric to soldier, 402, 458 sq, 468 sq; becomes Hippolytus the warder, 376, 468 sq; a confusion with the soldier Romanus, 462; evidence of this transference in the Latin Acts, 462 sq; his sanctuary in the Vicus Patricius, 464 sq; in Portus, 465 sq; his well shown there, 466; in Fossombrone, 466 sq; outside Italy, 467; especially in France, Arles, S. Denis, 467; Spurious Acts of; (i) the Laurentian Cycle, 468 sq; here the warder, 471 sq; (ii) the Portuensian Cycle, 474 sq; here the presbyter and his personality grafted on to Nonnus, 476; confused by Peter Damian with the bishop of Edessa, 476; his names in different countries, 477
Hippolytus, bearer of a letter Dionysius of Alexandria, 372
Hippolytus, Greek captain of brigands; his story and companions, 373 sq; acts and inscriptions relating to, 373 sq
Hippolytus, martyr of Antioch; Dollin- ger’s theory of a confusion untenable, 371; a real person, but invested with attributes of Hippolytus of Portus, 372
Hippolytus of Thebes, 377
Hippolytus, son of Theseus, his story adapted to his Christian namesake of Portus, 370, 453
Hippolytus, warder of S. Laurence; no such person, the story a growth out of that of Hippolytus of Portus, 376, 402, 458 sq, 468sq; see Wippolytus of Portus
Hoeschel, 396
Honorius III transfers Hippolytus’ reliques to the cemetery of S. Laurence,
459
from
526
Hort, 117, 1335 179; 369
Iflites, the name of Hippolytus among the Syrians and Chaldzeans, 477
Ignatius; shows coincidences with Clement’s Epistle, gt, 99, 117, 186; his allusion to S. Peter an argument for S. Peter’s Roman visit, 26, 493
llicius the presbyter; erects a sanctuary to Hippolytus in the Vicus Patricius, 464; reason for the choice of this locality, 465
Irenzeus; at Rome, 422, 495; Hippolytus his pupil there, 383, 422; Hippolytus’ literary obligations to, 422; imitates Clement, 149, 150; does not accept 2 [Clement], 192; the title ‘presbyter’ as used by, and as applied to, 435; on the Roman visit of S. Peter, 495; fragments of poetry embedded in the works of, 405 sq
Irenzeus the cloacarius, in the Laurentian Acts, 359, 360, 472 sq
Irenzeus a martyr, inscription to, 351
Isaac, a willing sacrifice, 98
Isaiah lili, notes on, 58 sq
Isthmian games ; alluded toin 2[Clement], 197, 223 sq; their importance at that time, 224
Itineraries illustrating Hippolytus and Laurence, 352 sq, 469 sq
iepwatvn, opposed to Bacidela, 179 ihéws, adverb, 17 ivdddrco Oa, tvdadwa, 79 Sq
Jacobson, 27, 28, 41, 46, 71, 146, 156, 236
James v. 20 explained, 251
Jerome; on 2 [Clement], 192; on Hip- polytus, 329 sq, 389 sq, 419 sq; his ignorance of the facts, 425, 428, 429 sq
Jews, treatise against the, by Hippolytus, 325s 3955 421
Joannes Philoponus, a mistake of, 394
Job iv. 16—v. 5, notes on, 118sq
John (S.), the Gospel according to, known to 2 [Clement], 204, 222
John the Deacon quotes Clement’s Epi- stle, 133
John of Ephesus, source of his information about Clement’s Epistle, 158
Josephus; 38, 39 sq, 98, 125, 130, 161, 184; a work of Hippolytus assigned to,
Judith ; reference in Clement’s Epistle to, 161; date of the book of, 161; Volk- mar on this, 161
Julianus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Justin Martyr; passages illustrating Cle- ment’s Epistle, 49, 55, 57, 588q, 178; illustrating 2 [Clement], 214, 215, 217,
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
218, 221; his description of Christian services supported by 2 [Clement], 195 Justina, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 Justinus; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 354, 462, 472; in Ado of Vienne, 358 sq, 473; his burial-place, 351, 469; in- scription naming, 351
Kennedy’s edition of the Hippolytean fragments on Daniel, 366, 391
Labyrinth; mentioned by Photius, 347 sq, 377, 378 sq, 382; not the Little Laby- rinth, but by the same author, 377, 378 sq; identical with the summary in Phi- losophumena Book x, 379 sq, 396, 421; see Little Labyrinth
Lagarde; on Clement’s Epistle, 34; on Hippolytus, 363, 364, 366, 401, 421, 473,476; onthe Muratorian Canon, 408
laicus, 124
Lateran Council quotes Hippolytus, 334, 421
Laurence (S.); his story in Florus-Bede, 357 Sq; in the Menea, 361 sq; in the Latin Acts, 363 sq; his companions, 353 Sq, 471 Sq; inscription relating to his reliques, 351 sq; their position in itineraries, 352 sq; his cemetery (see Cemeéteries); honours paid him in Rome, 455 sq; his day, 355 sq, 456; basilicas to, 452, 456; notices of them in the Liber Pontificalis, 341 sq, 457; that seen by Prudentius, 456 sq; their archi- tectural history, 456 sq
Laurent on Clement’s Epistle, 28, 33, 69, 116, 139, 187
Laurentian Cycle of the Acts of Hippoly- tus, 468 sq; documents and inscriptions illustrating, 351, 352 Sq, 357 Sq, 361 sq, 363 sq; mutual relation of the docu- ments, 473
Laymen; part played by, in early Chris- tian services, 195 sq; the case of Origen, 195 sq; 2 [Clement] not by a layman, 195, 253 ‘
Le Moyne; on Severina, 397; on the see of Hippolytus, 429; his edition of Hippolytus, 366
Leo III decorates the basilica of Hippo- lytus in Portus, 341, 466
Leo IV transfers reliques of Hippolytus to the Quatuor Coronati, 341, 459
Leontius and John quote Clement’s Epi- stlestor,) 727
Leontius of Byzantium on Hippolytus, 343» 389, 420 set.
Levi, our Lord’s connexion with the tribe of, 99
Liber Generationis, a translation of Hip- polytus’ Chronica, 399, 419
Liber Pontificalis, notices of Hippolytus
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
in, 340 sq; in error as to his banish- ment, 438; notices of S. Laurence in, 341 SQ) 457 :
Liberian Catalogue; on Hippolytus, 318, 328; its silence on his Novatianism, 4263; the word ‘presbyter’ in, 436
Liberian chronographer on the depositio of S. Peter and S. Paul, 499 sq
Lipsius; on the lists of heresies in Epi- phanius etc., 369, 415 sq; on Clement’s Epistle, 71, 99, 108, 109, 132, 133, 160, 161, 176, 178, 196, 233
Little Labyrinth; Theodoret on the, 339, 377; is the Treatise against Artemon, 378, 380, 385, 400, 421; not the Laby- rinth mentioned by Photius, 377, 378 sq; by the same author, 379; the author Hippolytus, 380sq; see Labyrinth
Liturgical expressions in Clement’s Epi- stle, 93, 95, 105, 107, 170 Sq
Logos- -doctrine; see Christology
Lot’s wife, 46
Lucillius, in the Laurentian Acts, 472
Ludolf, 401
Adyns, Ad-yvos, 96
Aaikés, Natkovv, 124
Nap poTns, 107
Aads, 94, 124, 161; mepiovaros, 186 ANecroupyds, of O. T. prophets, 38 Luvoxahdun, 48
Nurordxrew, form, 76
Macarius Magnes illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 26, 28, 57, 72, 178 Mammeza; Hippolytus’ correspondence with, 338, 339, 397) 4373 her death, 8
43
Marcellus the deacon, in the story of Hip- polytus the brigand, 373, 374
Marcia befriends the Christians, 321 sq
Marcion; later than 2 [Clement], 203; treatise of Hippolytus against, 327, 330, 346, 421
Marcus the Valentinian, verses written against, 405, 410
Maria, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373 sq, 376
Mark (S.); his Gospel traditionally con- nected with S. Peter’s preaching at Rome, 492, 494; 495; meaning of épun- veuTns as applied to, 494
Martana, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373, 374
Martin of Tours on the reappearance of Nero, 511
Matthew xvi. 18, 19, patristic interpreta- tions of, 482 sq
Maximin, the emperor; his character, 438; his persecution, 438; his death, 440
Maximus, in the Portuensian Acts, 364
527
Melito on the sacrifice of Isaac, 98
Meneza on the martyrdom of Hippolytus, 361, 372, 476
Metrical; passages embedded in Irenzus, 405 sq; doctrinal treatises, 407; lists of Scripture, 407 sq
Miller publishes the Philosophumena, 317, 367, 414
Molon, 44
Monophysite expressions anticipated in the Apostolic Fathers, 14 sq
Moses, a title of, 154
Muratorian Canon; a translation, 407; from Greek verse, 408 sq; reasons for assigning the original to Hippolytus, 389, 411 Sq, 495; on S. Peter and S. Paul, 4953 reference to the spiritus principalis in, 67 sq; date, 495
Maka pos, 143
MadrAov peifwv, 148
paptupety, udptus, in Christian writings, 26 sq
Mactryoby, wactryopépot, macTiyovdmot, in athletic contests, 225
paraotrovia, 42
peyanrorperns, 42
peNavwrepos, form, 41
peta Séous, reading, 18
perahauBdvew, with acc., 248
pera, 132, 134
meratrapadddvat, 74
Enrw7H, 62
MONLBos, MONLBSos, 251
povoryevys, of the phoenix, 87
pvoepos, form, 52, 96
@uos, MwuooKkotreiv, 126, 185
Narcissus, in the Laurentian Acts, 360, 471
Nemeseus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Neon, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373, 374, 376
Nero; character and date of the perse- cution under, 7, 32, 497; his popu- larity, 511; expectation of his reap- pearance, 509 sq; personifications of, 511; as Antichrist, 511 sq
Nicephorus of Constantinople; quotes Hippolytus, 346, 403; 2 [Clement] in the Stichometria of, 193, 233
Nicephorus Callistus on Hippolytus,
349 Sq | (
Nicolas I beautifies the basilica of S. Laurence, 458
Nicon the Monk; quotes Clement’s Epistle, 53, 140; and 2 [Clement], 193, 216
Noah preaches repentance, 37 sq
Noedechen, 418
Noetus, Hippolytus and, 319, 348, 400
Nonnus; the name, 475; in the Portu- ensian Acts originally distinct from
528
Hippolytus, 476; a genuine martyr of Portus, 475; mentioned in the Libe- rian depositio, 355, 475; in Jerome, 356; identified with Hippolytus, 466, 475 sq; further confused by Peter Damian, 362, 476
Nonnus, bishop of Edessa; his date, 476; his see, 476; converts Pelagia, 476; confused by Peter Damian with Hippolytus, 362, 476
notarii, 197
Notation employed in this edition, 4
Novatianism of MHippolytus, alleged,
3575 42489, 445
voulecia, vovOérnats, 163 vwOpdos, 104
(Ecumenius on Hippolytus, 349, 420
Ophites, teaching of the; as to marriage, 237, 239; as to jealousy, 22
Origen; at Rome, 423; meets Hippo- lytus there, 330, 423; his ‘taskmaster’ Ambrosius, 330, 348, 423; preached as a layman, 195 sq; employed shorthand- writers, 197; on the Eternal Church, 2443; on 1 Pet. iv. 8, 252; on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 483sq; on S. Peter’s visit to Rome, 496; mentions Clement’s Epistle, 159
Ostia; its relation to Portus, 429, 433, 466; in Prudentius associated with Hippolytus, 333, 335; 432
Ostian Way, the traditional place of S. Paul’s burial, 496, 497, 499sq
Overbeck, 390, 398, 403
oi @&w, 241
olomat, olwmeBa, 221, 244, 249
dmoNoynTIS, Ouddoyos, in Christian writ- ings, 27
oudvora, 70
dvoua, 9, 112, 130, 131, 241
opyavoy, 256
épy7 and Oupds, 151
doa, Govos, 17, 212; Kal dixaa, 146, 213, 220, 223, 249
ovv, 217, 241
@ ®, accent, 157 wpa and Kaipds, 122 Ws, ws ovv, 226, 244, 249
Palladius on Hippolytus, 338, 402, 404 Pammachius, xenodochium at Portus of,
42
Paris on the Eternal Church, 245; on the Roman visit of S. Peter, 492, 494; the word ‘presbyter’ as applied to, 435
Paschal I, translations of reliques by,
458 Paschal Tables of Hippolytus, 324 sq,
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
399, 403; their date, 437; when aban- doned, 399, 441; significance of their prominence on the Chair, 441
Passio illa; references to, 352, 469, 4733 a guide-book for pilgrims to the Ager Veranus, 473; quoted and abridged by Ado, 473
Paul (S.); in Rome, 29, 497; his release, 497; his visit to Spain, 30; his subse- quent arrest and death, 497; not martyred with S. Peter, 497 sq, 499; origin of the conjunction of their names, 499 sq; buried in the Ostian Way, 496, 497 sq; his reliques temporarily deposited with S. Peter’s in the cata- combs of S. Sebastian, 500; festival of his translation, 501; his relation to S. Peter in the Church generally, 489 sq; in Rome particularly, 491,
497549
Paul I; transfers reliques to S. Silvester in Capite, 351, 352, 459; commemo- rative inscriptions, 352, 459
Paulina, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373, 374, 376
Pelagia converted by Nonnus, bishop of Edessa, 362, 476
Pelagius II; his basilica in honour of S. Laurence, 342, 456sq; his dedi- cation of it, 457, 469; commemorative inscription, 341 Sq
Peter (S.); character of his primacy, 481 sq; our Lord’s promise, 481 sq; twofold patristic interpretation of the word ‘rock,’ 482 sq; exegetical con- siderations, 485 sq; result, 486; his primacy evidenced in action, 487 sq; his relations to S. Paul, 489 sq; his visit to Rome, 26, 490sq; external evidence for it conclusive, 409 sq, 491 sq; its date, 491, 497 sq; his rela- tions to S. Paul there, 491, 497 sq; his First Epistle written during persecution, 498 sq; date of his martyrdom, 26 sq, 497$q; not martyred with S. Paul, 497 Sq, 499; origin of the conjunction of their names, 499 sq; buried in the Vatican Way, 498, 499; his reliques temporarily deposited with S. Paul’s in the catacombs of S. Sebastian, 500 ; his traditional twenty-five years’ epis- copate, 501 sq; was he ever reckoned a bishop of Rome? 500
Peter (S.), First Epistle of; written in a time of persecution, 498 sq; its date, 499; its coincidence with S. Paul’s Epistles, 499; explanation of ch. iv. 8, 149, 2513; the allusion to 7 cuvexXexT7 in, 491 sq
Peter (S.), Second Epistle of; its authen- ticity, 493, 498; an apparent coinci- dence in Clement’s Epistle with, 37;
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
perhaps not independent of the book of Eldad and Modad, 235
Peter Damian confuses Nonnus, bishop of Edessa, with Hippolytus, 362, 476
Peter of Alexandria; a passage in the Chronicon Paschale wrongly ascribed to, 344; imitates Clement’s Epistle, 26
Philaster; date of his work on Heresies, 415; his indebtedness to Hippolytus,
413, 415 Sq E Philo; illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 44, 45, 98, 130, 164, 183; illustrates
2 [Clement], 214
Philosophical terms adopted by Clement and others, 66 sq, 69, 75, 89, 155, 247
Philosophumena; its discovery, 317, 4143 editions, 365 sq; the work of Hippo- lytus, 377, 378 sq, 403, 4213; extracts and patristic notices, 318 sq, 327, 330,
346; passages from Irenzeus incorpo-
Dies in, 422; the Summary in the Tenth Book published separately and called the Labyrinth, 379 Sq; 396; its evidence as to Hippolytus’ see, 434; see Labyrinth, Miller
Phoenix ; in the classics, 84; growth of the story, 88; its general acceptance, 84sq; its adoption by Jewish and Christian writers, 85 sq; its explana- tion, 86; chronoiogy of its appearances, 85, 87, 89; in Christian art, 87; in Egyptian hieroglyphics, 87
Photius; notices of Clement in, 13, 14, 72, 86, 139; rejects 2 [Clement], 193, 194, 211, 212, 219; on works of Hip- polytus, 347 sq, 396, 419sq; on Gaius, 347Sq, 377; a blunder of, 423
Pitra, 1
Plato, Hippolytus’ treatise against, 325, 347) 395 Sd
Polto, Hippolytus’ Italians, 477
Polycarp, Martyrdom of; see Smyrneans, Letter of the
Polycarp, Epistle of, imitates Clement’s Epistle, 5, 11, 27, 42, 52, 156, 162
Pontianus, bishop of Rome; his episcopate, 437; banishment, death and depositio, 328, 438 sq, 4433 burial-place, 442; the notice in the Liber Pontificalis, 340; date of the close of his episcopate, 439
Porphyrius in the Laurentian Acts, 472
Portuensian Cycle of Acts of Hippolytus, 474 sq; documents illustrating it, 355, 361, 364 sq; their mutual relation, 476
Portus, the harbour of Rome, 429; its relation to Ostia, 429, 433; its growth in importance, 429, 431, 4333 intimately connected with Hippolytus’ history, 466; in what sense his see, 430 sq, 432 sq; the ruined church bearing his name, 466; the well of his traditional
CLEM. II.
name among the
529
martyrdom, 466; the Isola Sacra, 466; gifts of Leo III to, 341, 466; date of the foundation of a permanent see at, 466; its position among suburbicarian sees, 466; xenodochium at, 429
Portus Romanus, as a name for Aden, 429
Potter, 157
Praxedis (S.), connexion of this Church with Hippolytus explained, 465
Preaching in the early Church, 195 sq
Presbyter; as a designation of Hippolytus, 424, 428, 435 sq; a title of dignity, 435; not of office, 435; to whom ap- plied, 435
Primitivus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Proclus, Dialogue with; patristic notices of, 326, 327, 329, 348, 379, 381; the author Hippolytus, 377 sq; Gaius the name of the orthodox disputant, 381 sq; argument from matter, 384 sq; from style, 386 sq
Proverbs, titles of the book of, 166 sq
Prudentius; on Hippolytus, 332 sq; his visit to the basilica of Hippolytus, 424,
date and circumstances of this
4455 visit, 424, 450; the basilica described, 332 Sq, 451; also the picture of Hip-
polytus’ martyrdom, 451, 453 sq; de- scription of the commemoration, 451; of the basilica of S. Peter and S. Paul, 450; present at the feast of their passion, 450; subjects commemorated in his Hymns, 445, 449; the Roman saints associated with the Tiburtine Way, and the month of August, 445, 451; onthe Novatianism of Hippolytus, 424; on Romanus, 445, 449
ps-Chrysostom on Hippolytus, 346
ps-John Damascene on Hippolytus, 345, 396, 419 sq
ps-Justin ; date and country, 200; perhaps refers to 2 [Clement], 193, 200, 233, 234, 250, 256
ps-Tertullian, obligations of the Prae- scriptio to Hippolytus, 386, 414 sq
Pudentiana (S.), the church and mon- astery of; its position, 464; date, 464; Hippolytus’ sanctuary at, 464 sq; its connexion with him explained, 465
maniyyeveria, 42
TwauBdravov, 165
Tmavay.os, 108, 169
TavapeTos, 10, 19, 138, 166, 178 TwavOapapTwros, tavGauapTyTos, 256 TavTaduKos, 256
mavremomTns, 162, 185 TWAVTOOUVA{LOS, 7
TWAavTOKparoptKds, TWavTOKpaTwp, 7, 41 mapayyeNla, 128
Tapayew, 234
34
530
TAapaKANTOS, 222
mapadoyiverbat, 255
mTapatroueiv, 137
mapatoN\Nta bat, 253
TapaTTwaos, 170
mapapudd.ov, 506 sq, 512
Taporkeiv, Tapotkla, 5, 218
marépes, of O. T. worthies, 23, 182
memrol@nats, 89, 108
meptovatos, 186
mWETpos, TETPA, 482 Sq
Wnpos, Tnpovv, THPWOLS, 213
mddTos, TAAE, 19
TAATUG HOS, 20
mdetv, compounds of, used metaphorically, 224,
mAnpopopew, 158
MT poaipetv, 130
TpoyvwoTns, 230
mpodnros, 50
mpoodotmopos, 232
mpba dexros, 36
mpocéxew, with acc., 16
mT pocépxetOar, 183
mpookNweo Oar, mpdaokNuols, 77, 143, 184
MpooTarns, 111
mpooTiLov, 127
mpoopevyew, 75
mpoowrorv, ‘ringleader,’ 8, 144
gyno, not introducing a quotation, 240
POeipew, in athletic contests, 225
POopa, 221
gtdokevia, stress laid by Clement on, 45, 109
gidorrovety, reading, 206, 258
giros Geod, the title, 43
powe, 84 sq
puyadevew, 29
puddopoety, spelling, 81
yyragav, 182 Yuutfev, 160
Quatuor Coronati, reliques of a transferred to the, 341, 459, 4
Quotations in Clement’s pedey canon- ical (see Zudex of Scriptural Passages) ; ; classical, 115, 116; apocryphal (see Apocryphal); combined and loose, 51, 52, 65; 89, 92, 95, 99, 104, 106, 129, 141, 151, 156; leading words comment- ed on in, 141 sq
Quotations in 2 [Clement]; canonical (see Index of Scriptural Passages); apo- cryphal (see Apocrypha!)
Rahab, 46 sq
Refutation of All Heresies; see Philoso- phumena
Resurrection of the body denied by the Gnostics, 229
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER
Richardson, E. C., 365
‘Rock’ in S. Matthew xvi. 18, interpre- tations of the word, 482 sq
Romanus, martyr; his story in the Lau- rentian Acts, 353, 354, 446, 448 sq, 472; in Ado of Vienne, 358, 448; associated with the Tiburtine Way and the month of August, 445, 447; com- memorated by Prudentius, 445; origin- ally a deacon, 446, 448; transformed into a soldier, 446, 448 sq; ampli- fications of his story, 446, 448 sq; day of his martyrdom at Antioch, 449; of his festival, 356, 447, 448, 449 Sq, 472; the commemoration in August a trans- lation, 449; his burial-place, 469; inscription relating to, 351, 447, 469; his connexion with Hippolytus, 462
Rome, Church of; its history in the second century obscure, 317; light thrown on it by Hippolytus, 317 sq; and by the Novatian schism, 425 sq; Sabellianism in the, 319 sq
Rothe, 132, 133
Routh, 379
Rufinus; on 2 [Clement], 192; on Hip- polytus, 331
Ruggieri, 370, 429
peWoxwdvvws, 53
Sabellianism; at Rome, 319 sq; favours the Gospel of the Egyptians, 237 Sabinianus, in the Portuensian Acts, 365,
475
Salmon; on the chronology of Hippoly- tus, 370, 389, 390, 392, 399, 440 sq; on the treatise against Artemon, 400; on the treatise de Psalmis, 390; on the Muratorian Canon, 411 sq
Salome in the Gospel of the Egyptians, 236 sq
Sardinia; Callistus banished to, 321 sq; Hippolytus and Pontianus banished to, 328, 427, 438 sq
Scaliger, 399
Scarlet thread, patristic interpretations of the, 49 sq
Schneckenburger, 237
Schwegler, 229
Scriptures, designations in 2 [Clement] of the, ypadal, 202, 215; Ta Adyia Tod Ocov, 203, 2423 Ta BiBrla Kal oi amé- OTOAOL, 202, 2453 0 Oeds Tis addnOelas, 195) 257
Severina, Hippolytus’ treatise to, 325, 397) 421
Severus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Severus, Alexander; his reign, 437; kill- ed by Maximin, 437; befriends the Christians, 437
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Severus of Antioch quotes and accepts 2 [Clement], 193, 211, 212
Shorthand writers employed by the fathers, 197 sq
Sibylline Oracles; illustrate Clement’s Epistle, 37 sq, 109, 162; designate Rome Babylon, 492; and Nero Anti- christ, 511
Simferosa, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Simplicius, bishop of Rome, arrange- ment of regiones by, 465
Siricius, bishop of Rome; honours to Hippolytus in the time of, 464 sq
Sixtus III, basilica built to S. Laurence by, 341; 450 sq hig
Slaves, their liberation a Christian duty, 160
Smyrnzans, Letter of the; imitates Clement’s Epistle, 5, 188; the Gaius mentioned in the, 383; on Irenzeus at Rome, 422
Sophocles perhaps quoted in Clement’s Epistle, 115
Soter, bishop of Rome; his letter to Corinth read publicly, 192; not 2 [Clement], 196
Stephanus Gobarus, identification of Hip- polytean treatises mentioned by, 343, 385, 397
Stephen (S.), the two churches at Rome to, 341, 459
Stoic division of human nature, 66
Suidas on Hippolytus, 349, 420
Syriac version of Clement’s Epistle, 3 sq
Syriac writer, anonymous, quotes Cle- ment’s Epistle, 158
OUKKOS, 41
cahever Oat, 70
onmeovv, 130
TKa MA, 35
Zogia (7), 7 wavdperos Lodia, as a title of Proverbs, 166, 169; of apocryphal books of Wisdom, 167
copés, auveTés, 100
oTaO mds, OTAOLS, 74
oTnpicov, oTnpitov, form, 68, 101
oTUXos, accent, 25
cuwvaywyt, 72
ouveldnots, 18, 57, 124
guvek\exTH, 7 €v BaBvAOML, 491 sq
auvédevots, 75
oppayis, of baptism, 201, 226
awfdmuevor (oi), 170
Tacteus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353
Taurinus; in the Portuensian Acts, 474; a genuine martyr of Portus, 475; his day in the Liberian chronographer, 355 475; his depositio, 355; sar- cophagus commemorating, 476
331
Temple sacrifices; classification of, 125; Clement’s Epistle on, 125
Tertullian; quotes from and _ illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 82, 128, 131; on the phcenix, 85, 86; quotes from an apocryphal Ezekiel, 40; his christology, 15; on S. Peter and S. Paul in Rome, 26, 495 Sq
Theodoret; on Hippolytus and his works, 338 Sq; 377, 389S8q, 419Sq; on Gaius,
37
Theophilus of Antioch; borrows from Clement’s Epistle, 54, 82; from 2 [Clement], 227; from Sibylline Oracles,
3
Theophilus, addressed in Hippolytus’ treatise on Antichrist, 398
Theucinda restores Hippolytus’ church at Arles, 467
Thompson, E. M., 152, 153
Tiburtine Way; see Ager Veranus
Timotheus of Alexandria quotes and accepts 2 [Clement], 193, 211, 212, 218
Tischendorf on Clement’s Epistle, 25, 27, 28, 45, 46, 48, 55, 109, 113, 114; £IQ;: 122, £375 146, )548,, F5Oomes. 153, 156
Titus, the emperor, closely associated with Vespasian and Domitian in the empire, 509 sq
Trinity, the doctrine in Clement’s Epistle, 140, 169
Triphonia, Tryphonia, in the Lauren- tian Acts, 473; references to, 353, 3543 imscriptions mentioning, 351, 352, 469; her burial-place, 469; date of her martyrdom, 471; her day, 471; explanation of ‘wife of Decius,’ 470; her connexion with Hippolytus merely local, 471
TAY], 73
Tametov, Tamecov, 76, 151 Tatrewogpovetv, 63, 69 Taxuypapo, 197
TEYOS, 49
TENELOKAPTELV, 135
Tépua THS DUTEWS, 30 Tiudobat, constr., 136 TOTOS, 27, 37, 123, 182, 183 TUTos and avtituTov, 247 Tugos, form, 50
Oarrov, form, 188
Geetv, with acc., 224
Geuédos, of Christ and His apostles, 486 Geurds, 183
Oeds THs ddnGelas (6), 195, 257, 260 GeocéBera, 260
Onuwv, Onuwrid, 165
532
Ulpius Romulus, in the Portuensian Acts, 361, 362, 364 Sq, 474 Sq
Urbanus, bishop of Rome; his episco- pate, 437; his relations with Hippo- lytus, 437
Ursicinus, antipope, and the basilica of
Hippolytus, 444, 465
bryela, form, 74 brepacmicuos, 165 birepdées (70), 69 vrépuaxos, 138 droypaupos, 31, 61, 103 Umodeckvivar, 28 vroriévat Tpaxnrov, 183
Valentinian language found in the Ig- natian Epistles, 203; in 2 [Clement], 203, 243, 247: argument of date there- from, 203
Valeria, in the story of Hippolytus the brigand, 373, 374, 376
Valerian the prefect, in the Laurentian Acts, 357 8q, 471 sq; his death, 362,
394 Valerianus, bishop of Zaragoza, 452,
497
Valerius Bito, 185, 187, 305
Vansittart, 185
Vatican Way, the traditional burial-place of S. Peter, 496, 497, 499 sq
Vero; see Bero
Vespasian; his position in the list of Czesars, 507 sq; associates Titus and Domitian with himself in the empire, 599 Sq
Victor, bishop of Rome; his episcopate, 436; probably appointed Hippolytus to Portus, 433; Hippolytus’ account of him, 321
pl
t, ¥
\ 5
INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
Vicus Patricius, sanctuary of Hippolytus in the, 464 sq
Vigilius, bishop of Rome; sieges of Rome during his episcopate, 454; de- struction and restoration of Hippoly- tus’ basilica in his time, 454, 465
Volkmar; on the date of Clement’s Epistle, 8; of the book of Judith, 161; of the Epistle of Barnabas, 505, 508 sq
Wansleb, 401
Weizsacker on the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, 505, 507, 509
Westcott, 161, 218, 219, 223, 231
William of Malmesbury, Guide to Rome by, 353, 373
Wocher, 197
Wordsworth, 331, 344, 367, 370, 396, 427, 429
Wotton on Clement’s Epistle, 27, 117, 127, 134, 149, 150, 152, 232
Xystus I, bishop of Rome, inscription relating to, 351
Young, Patrick; on Clement’s Epistle, 26, 28, 70, 81, 90, 103, 108,143, meas 157; on 2 [Clement], 212
Zahn on Clement’s Epistle, 18, 176, 195, 198
Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome; his episco- pate, 436; his relations to Hippolytus, 319 sq, 348, 431 Sq, 437; Eusebius on, 327; Jerome on, 329; attacked by Tertullian, 418
Zonaras on Hippolytus, 349
Zosimus, inscription relating to, 351
in
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
/
Date Due
oo RS tc * . ms rood
ae 4,
| j |
Library Bureau Cat. No. 1137
ELL§ BINDERY
ALTHAM, MASS. JAN, 1951
Gr Mas OTe ees! iii
Bre oul, AGe hoa 3 Lesa te?
Apostolic Fathers (Early Christian collection).
The Apostolic Fathers
BE. 664%, AG2 -L3a2i13° 1890 A¢2
Apostolic Fathers (Early Christian collection).
The Apostolic Fathers
ee
Porat
See att coment nie ak aie cat a Mate at Se oS MOAI Rs tt aw i A
peg rithasn gw 7 eA NE” Sei UIs AAD WING Te PLL oanseunasite’
I Aa aT a ai Ai A St Og eae A
‘ - ; : i" te be serene 5 # = CM al OS 8 Se Oe arte AES Nyda Nad can singe
mouse : oa : ee ee
DM SO GA te AM Oe
ee EP. et
ein gong rn adv hanpares ar - x ’ nareben on Re een etAte a teak