a
Ry
YBN
+
γεν
Sat
See,
ΠΕΣ
o
Saran ote
Pace ΕἾΝ
WN
:
SS
aren ωσο "τ ὡν οὐ em hts i
POR Fey Ca OT WE ee ee
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/appendixcontainiOOclem
ο΄ 9. CLEMENT OF ROME.
Cambridge ;
ERINTED ) BY. ΟἿ: CLAY, M.A,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
S. CLEMENT OF ROME.
{Fea BC Vay ως
a ee ae “97
reste. Fkert te
AN APPENDIX ;
~
CONTAINING THE
NEWLY RECOVERED PORTIONS.
WITH
INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND TRANSLATIONS.
BY
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.
LADY MARGARET’S PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE,
CANON OF ST PAUL'S.
Dondon:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1877
[All Rights reserved.)
ha
teil ν᾿ Ων ΑΙ
LOTR, lib x9 he | ,
Bai 8 “ptt ‘shorty .
Msi vig
yi
ny
cig bai, on
1
¥s
ihe 4 i :
tl ἢ Se 4 mn h Ἵ
La
bigs mal yop se
Ἢ
ἣν
ri δ ἢ jiu
PREFACE.
HE present volume will hardly need many words by way
of explanation. The discovery of Bryennios, who a little
more than a year ago was enabled to publish for the first
time the two Epistles of S. Clement entire, has suggested to
recent editors a revision and completion of their work. To
this end I might have followed the course pursued by Hilgenfeld
and by Gebhardt and Harnack, and have superseded my former
volume by a new edition. On the whole however it seemed
to me more advisable to issue an Appendix. I thought that
in this way I should better consult the convenience of those
who possessed my edition; while at the same time there would
be a certain advantage in summing up and discussing the
results of conjectural criticism, as seen in the light of recently
discovered facts, with greater freedom than would have been
possible, if I had undertaken an entirely new edition. The
present part of the work therefore appears as a supplement to
my edition of S. Clement’s Epistles published in 1869, and is
paged continuously with it. A general title page and a table
of contents are added, which are intended to be prefixed to the
whole volume.
This Appendix was commenced soon after the copies of
Bryennios’ edition reached England in February of last year ;
vi PREFACE.
but various causes have delayed its completion. More espe-
cially the discovery of the Syriac Version about the end of
June stayed my hand: for it was obviously important to
include, not only a discussion of those broader questions which
the appearance of these epistles in such a form suggested, but
also a complete account of the various readings exhibited in
this text. This in itself, with the necessary pressure of other
work, was a task of some months; and it involved a recasting
of certain portions which had been already completed. Lastly,
when the text and notes were already in type, though not
struck off, the new editions of Hilgenfeld and of Gebhardt and
Harnack appeared; and it was necessary to take account of
their labours. I am glad to have had the advantage of testing
my results by theirs. These causes, added to the necessary
hindrances of professional and other duties, have delayed the
publication of this Appendix several months later than I had
at first contemplated.
In a review of my edition which appeared soon after its
publication, in the Gottingen Gelehrte Anzeigen, signed with
the well-known initials H.E., disappointment was expressed
that it contained no discussion of the question who was the
writer of the First Epistle. At the time I had deliberately
excluded this subject, as I had then a. project of a history
of Early Christian Literature, where such an investigation would
have found a place. But this project has long since been
abandoned, and the question is therefore discussed in the present
volume (p. 257 sq.). Some time after these sheets were struck
off, I found with satisfaction that M. Renan, in the Yournal
des Savants, January 1877, maintained, as I have done, the
Jewish origin of the writer, and on substantially the same
grounds. Though this seems at present to be an unfashionable
view, I venture to hope that, when the phenomena of the
PREFACE. Vil
epistle are more carefully considered, it will find general
acceptance.
No apology will, I trust, be needed for attempting to add
another to the existing translations of these epistles. Such an
attempt finds its justification in the fact that considerable por-
tions will appear now for the first time in an English dress and
that elsewhere conjectural readings have been displaced by the
ascertained text.
It remains for me to fulfil the pleasant task of acknowledging
my obligations to friends who have aided me in the course
of the work. My thanks are duc, among others, to the authori-
ties of the British Museum, more particularly to Mr Bond the
Keeper, and Mr E. M. Thompson, the Assistant Keeper of
the Manuscripts, for their unfailing courtesy and assistance,
whensoever I have troubled them: to Signor Ignazio Guidi
of Rome, for his kindness in consulting and transcribing from
MSS in the Vatican Library—a kindness which I appreciate
the more because I had no claims whatever upon it; to
Dr Hort, to whom I owe several valuable suggestions even
in places where his name is not directly mentioned; to
Professor Wright, who has taken much trouble in supplying me
with information respecting some Oriental Mss; to Mr Van-
Sittart, who has extended to this work the supervision for
which I have been indebted to him on former occasions and
has corrected the proof sheets of a considerable portion of
the volume; and especially to Mr Bensly, whose name I have
had occasion to mention many times in the course of the
work, and whose aid has been invaluable to me in all that
relates to the Syriac Version.
TRINITY COLLEGE,
April 13th, 1877.
tee eae ‘ f Mid ies
λα Ae
CLEM.
Pik DOCUMENTS.
{ ΤΥ ᾿
, AL ict
lies th)
“Le
Ἢ
oh rin a war
ὁ..." ἐξ ΜΡ
rr prs
ns trad: oat Ὰ
Nee Maar ar) a
sa re ily ahs yay A ἣ
ΠΥ wrt! ¥ ret ΤΣ
vambenn arb! ot ae a
7 Jnsyryl τ» 43 “15 ἤὶ
᾿ raph δι 4 νγὰ ; i
‘ ἘῸΝ ἡ ν δα. δες
2 onan ΔῊ ἴω γὼ
THE DOCUMENTS.
PERIOD of nearly two centuries and a half has elapsed since
the Epistles of S. Clement of Rome were first published from
the Alexandrian Ms, now in the British Museum, but then belonging
to the King’s Library.. On the title page of the Zaditio princeps, which
appeared in 1633, the editor, Patrick Young, speaks of the text as taken
“ex laceris reliquiis vetustissimi exemplaris Bibliothece Regiz.’ In this
mutilated condition the two epistles remained till the other day. The
First Epistle had lost one leaf near the end, while the surviving portion
occupied nine leaves, so that about a tenth of the whole had perished
(see above pp. 23, 166). The Second Epistle ended abruptly in the
middle, the last leaves of the ms having disappeared. It is now
ascertained that the lost ending amounted to a little more than two-
fifths of the whole. Moreover the ms in different parts is very much
torn, and the writing is blurred or obliterated by time and ill usage,
so that the ingenuity of successive editors has been sorely exercised
in supplying the lacune.
After so long a lapse of time it seemed almost beyond hope, that the
epistles would ever be restored to their entirety. Yet within the last
few months they have been discovered whole in two distinct documents.
The students of early patristic literature had scarcely realized the surprise
which the publication of the complete text from a Greek Ms at Con-
stantinople had caused, when it was announced that the University
of Cambridge had procured by purchase a Ms containing the two
epistles whole in a Syriac Version. Of these two new authorities for
the text I proceed to give an account.
1S—2
224 THE DOCUMENTS.
i
At the close of the last year a volume was published at Constanti-
nople, bearing the title:
Tod ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Κλήμεντος ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης ai δύο πρὸς
Κορινθίους ἐπιστολαί. Ἔκ χειρογράφου τῆς ἐν Φαναρίῳ Κωνσταντινου-
πόλεως βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἸΤαναγίου Τάφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδόμεναι πλήρεις
μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ Φιλοθέου Βρυεννίου μητροπολίτου
Σερρῶν κιτιλ. Ἔν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, 1875.
[‘ The Two Epistles of our holy father Clement Bishop of Rome to
the Corinthians; from a manuscript in the Library of the Most Holy
Sepulchre in Fanar of Constantinople; now for the first time published
complete, with prolegomena and notes, by Philotheos Bryennios, Metro-
politan of Serre. Constantinople, 1875. |
This important MS is numbered 456 in the library to which it
belongs. It is an 8vo volume, written on parchment in cursive characters,
and consists of 120 leaves. Its contents, as given by Bryennios, are as
follows :
fol. 1—32 Tod ἐν ἁγίοις “Iwavvov τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου σύνοψις τῆς
παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης ἐν τάξει ὑπομνηστικοῦ᾽,
fol. 33—51b Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή.
fol. 5tb—70a Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους Α΄.
fol. 7oa—76a Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους Β΄.
fol. 76a—80 Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων,
fol. 81 —82a ᾿Ἐπιστολὴ Μαρίας Κασσοβόλων πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ
ἱερομάρτυρα ᾿Ἰγνάτιον ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Θεουπόλεως ᾿Αντιοχείας.
fol. 82a—120a Τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιγνατίου Θεουπόλεως ᾿Αντιοχείας
πρὸς Μαρίαν
πρὸς Τραλλιανούς
πρὸς Μαγνησίους
πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Ταρσῷ
πρὸς Φιλιππησίους περὶ βαπτίσματος
πρὸς Φιλαδελφεῖς
πρὸς Σμυρναίους
πρὸς Πολύκαρπον ἐπίσκοπον Σμύρνης
1 This is doubtless the same work tains only the Old Testament and ends
which is printed in Montfaucon’s edition with Malachi. Montfaucon stops short
of 5. Chrysostom, VI. p. 314sq. Bryen- at Nahum, apparently because his Mss
nios says that the treatise in this MS con- _ failed him there.
THE DOCUMENTS. ° 225
πρὸς ᾿Αντιοχεῖς
πρὸς Ἥρωνα διάκονον ᾿Αντιοχέα
πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους
πρὸς Ῥωμαίους.
The genuine Epistle of Clement is headed Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους
A’; the so-called Second Epistle likewise has a corresponding title,
Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους B’. At the close of the Second Epistle is
written, Srixo. x. ῥητὰ κε. At the end of the volume is the colophon;
᾿Ετελειώθη μηνὶ ᾿ἸΙουνίῳ εἰς τὰς wa’. ἡμέραν IY. Ἰνὸ θ΄. ἔτους στφξδ΄, χειρὶ
Λέοντος νοταρίου καὶ ἀλείτου. The date a.m. 6564 is here given accord-
ing to the Byzantine reckoning, and corresponds to Α.Ὁ. 1056, which is
therefore the date of the completion of the ms.
It is strange that this discovery should not have been made before.
The Library of the Most Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople is attached
to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in that city, and therefore has something
of a public character. It has moreover been examined more than once
by learned men from Western Europe. A catalogue of its Mss, com-
piled in 1845 by Bethmann, appeared in Pertz Archiv. der Gesellsch.
f. altere deutsche Geschichtkunde 1x. p. 645 sq.; but it does not mention
this volume (see Patr. Apost. Op. 1.1. p. xii, Gebh. τ. Harn., ed. 2).
Some years later, in 1856, M. Guigniant read a report of the contents of
this library before the French Academy of Inscriptions, which is pub-
lished in the fournal Général de? Instruction Publique 1856, XXV.p. 419 ;
and again this Ms is unnoticed. M. Guigniant seems to have attended
chiefly to classical literature, and to have made only the most superficial
examination of the Christian writings in this collection: for he says,
somewhat contemptuously, that these Mss ‘unfortunately comprise little
besides Homilies, Prayers, Theological and Controversial Treatises,
written at times not very remote from our own,’ with more to the same
effect (as quoted in the Academy, May 6, 1876). Again, two years later,
the Rev. H. O. Coxe, the Librarian of the Bodleian, visited this
Library and wrote a report of his visit (Report to H. M. Government on
the Greek MSS in the Libraries of the Levant, pp. 32, 75, 1858), but he
too passes over this volume in silence. A serious illness during his
stay at Constantinople prevented him from thoroughly examining the
libraries there.
This Ms is designated I (Ἱεροσολυμιτικός) by Bryennios, and by
Hilgenfeld after him. But this designation is misleading, and I shall
therefore call it C (Constantinopolitanus) with Gebhardt and Harnack.
Facsimiles of C are given by Bryennios at the end of his volume.
. The contractions are numerous and at first sight perplexing. It sy-
226 THE DOCUMENTS.
stematically ignores the ὁ subscript or adscript with a single exception,
il. § x τῆι θελήσει (p. 147); and, if Bryennios has in these particulars
reproduced it faithfully in his own text’, it also universally omits before
consonants the so-called v ἐφελκυστικόν which appears in the Alexan-
drian ms, and writes οὕτω under the same circumstances, when the
older Ms has οὕτως. It is written with a fair amount of care throughout,
so far as regards errors of transcription. In this respect it contrasts
favourably with A, which constantly betrays evidence of great negligence
on the part of the scribe. But, though far more free from mere clerical
errors, yet in all points which vitally affect the trustworthiness of a Ms,
it must certainly yield the palm to the Alexandrian. The scribe of A
may be careless, but he is guileless also. On the other hand _ the text of
C shows manifest traces of critical revision, as will appear in the sequel.
But, notwithstanding this fact, which detracts somewhat from its
weight, it still has considerable value as an authority. More especially it
is independent of A; for it "preserves the correct reading in some in-
stances, where A is ‘Manifest wrong. I pass over examples of slight
errors where one scribe might blunder and another might correct his
blunder (e.g. ὃ 1 ξένοις A, ξένης C; ὃ 2 ἐστερνισμένοι A, ἐνεστερνισμένοι C ;
ὃ 3 ἀπεγαλάκτισεν A, ἀπελάκτισεν C; ὃ 25 διανεύει A, διανύει C; ὃ 35
φιλοξενίαν A, ἀφιλοξενίαν C). These are very numerous, but they prove
nothing. Other instances however place the fact of its independence
beyond the reach of doubt: e.g. § 2 per’ ἐλέους (μετελαιουσ)ὴ A, which is
read μετὰ δέους in C, where no divination could have restored the right
reading ; ὃ 3 κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς A, where critics with one
accord have substituted τὰς πονηράς for τῆς πονηρᾶς without misgiving,
thus mending the text by the alteration of a single letter, but where the
reading of C shows that the words τῆς καρδίας have dropped out in
A after ἐπιθυμίας ; ὃ 21 διὰ τῆς φωνῆς A, where C has διὰ τῆς σιγῆς, as the
sense demands and as the passage is quoted by Clement of Alexandria;
S 34 προτρέπεται (προτρεπετε) οὖν ἡμᾶς ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μὴ
ἀργοὺς μήτε παρειμένους εἶναι ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, where some critics
have corrected ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ in various ways, while others, like myself, have
preferred to retain it and put a slightly strained meaning on it (see the
note p. 113), but where C solves the difficulty at once by inserting
πιστεύοντας after ἡμᾶς and thus furnishing a government for ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ;
S$ 37, where eveixtixws, or whatever may be the reading of A (see p. 121)
1 This however may be doubted. Hil- ἐστήρισεν as the reading of C before a
genfeld (p. xix) calls attention to the fact, | consonant.
that in § 33 Bryennios in his note gives
THE DOCUMENTS. 227
could not have suggested ἑκτικῶς which appears in C. It follows from
these facts (and they do not stand alone) that C is not a lineal de-
scendant of A, and that the text which they have in common must be
traced back to an archetype older than the sth century, to which A
itself belongs.
On the other hand, the critical revision, to which I haye already
referred, as distinguishing the text of C when compared with that of A,
and thus rendering it less trustworthy, betrays itself in many ways,
(1) C exhibits Aarmonistic readings in the quotations. Thus in § 4
it has τῷ Κυρίῳ for τῷ Θεῷ in Gen. iv. 3 in accordance with the Lxx ;
and again ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν for κριτὴν ἢ δικαστὴν in Exod, ii. 14, also
in accordance with the Lxx (comp. also Acts vii. 27). In ὃ 13 it gives
τοὺς λόγους for τὰ λόγια in Is. Ixvi..2 in conformity with the Lxx. In
§ 22 again it has τὸν ἐλπίζοντα for τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας in Ps, xxxil, 10 after
the txx. In § 33, having before spoken of justification by faith and
not by works, Clement writes τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελφοί; ἀργήσωμεν ἀπὸ
τῆς ἀγαθοποιΐας - as read in A: but this sentiment is obviously sug-
gested by Rom. vi. 1 sq., τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ K.T.X.,
and accordingly C substitutes τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν for τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, In
§ 34 Clement quotes loosely from Is. vi. 3 πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, but C sub-
stitutes πᾶσα καὶ γῆ in accordance with the Lxx and Hebrew. Later
in this chapter again Clement gives (with some variations) the same
quotation which occurs in 1 Cor. ii. 9, and C alters it to bring it into
closer conformity with S. Paul, inserting ἃ before ὀφθαλμὸς and sub-
Stituting τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν for τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν, though we see plainly from
the beginning of the next chapter that Clement quoted it with rots ὑπο-
μένουσιν. In § 35, in a quotation from Ps. 1. 16 sq., C substitutes διὰ
στόματος for ἐπὶ στόματος so as to conform to the Lxx. In ὃ 36,
where A reads ὄνομα κεκληρονόμηκεν, C has κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα with
Heb. i. 4. In § 47 for αὐτοῦ τε καὶ Κηφᾶ τε καὶ ᾿Απολλώ, C substitutes
ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ᾿Απολλὼ καὶ Κηφᾶ, which is the order in 1 Cor. i, 12,
Though A itself is not entirely free from such harmonistic changes, »
they are far less frequent than in C. .
(2) Other changes are obviously made from dogmatic motives.
Thus in ii. § 9 we read Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, dv μὲν TO πρῶτον
πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ κιτιλ. This mode of speaking, as I have pointed
out in my notes (p. 202), is not uncommon in the second and third
centuries: but to the more dogmatic precision of a later age it gave
offence, as seeming to confound the Second and Third Persons of the
Holy Trinity. Accordingly C substitutes λόγος for πνεῦμα, ‘Jesus
Christ, being first Word, became flesh,’ thus bringing the statement into
228 THE DOCUMENTS.
accordance with the language of 5. John. Again, in ὃ. 30 of the
genuine Epistle, τοῖς κατηραμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the words ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ
are omitted in C, as I suppose, because the scribe felt a repugnance to
ascribing a curse to God; though possibly they were struck out as super-
fluous, since they occur just below in the parallel clause τοῖς ηὐλογημέ:
vous ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Again in ὃ 12 ‘PaaB ἡ πόρνη, C reads Ῥαὰβ ἡ ἐπιλε-
γομένη πόρνη, the qualifying word being inserted doubtless to save the
character of one who holds a prominent place in the Scriptures. Under
this head also I am disposed to classify the various reading in § 2, rots
ἐφοδίοις τοῖς Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι, where C reads τοῦ Χριστοῦ for τοῦ Θεοῦ ; but
this is a difficult question, and I reserve the discussion of it till the
proper place. In § 14 too the substitution of αἱρέσεις for ἔριν is probably
due to an orthodox desire to give definiteness to Clement’s condemna-
tion of the factious spirit.
(3) But more numerous are the grammatical and rhetorical changes,
i.e. those which aim at greater correctness or elegance of diction. These
are of various kinds. (a) The most common perhaps is the substitution
of a more appropriate tense, or what seemed so, for a less appropriate :
e.g. § 1 βλασφημεῖσθαι for βλασφημηθῆναι ; ὃ 7 ἱκετεύοντες for ἱκετεύσαν-
τες ; § 12 AeAaAnxas for ἐλάλησας, ἐγενήθη for γέγονεν (see the note in
the addenda); ὃ 17 ἀτενίσας for ἀτενίζων: ὃ 20 προσφεύγοντας for
προσπεφευγότας ; ὃ 21 ἀναιρεῖ for ἀνελεῖ ; ὃ 25 τελευτήσαντος for τετε-
λευτηκότος, πληρουμένου for πεπληρωμένον ; ὃ 35 ὑποπίπτει for ὑπέπιπτεν ;
§ 40 προσταγεῖσι for προστεταγμένοις ; ὃ 44 ἐστὶν for ἔσται, πολιτευσα-
μένους for πολιτευομένους : § 49 δέδωκεν for ἔδωκεν ; § 51 στασιασάντων
for στασιαζόντων ; ὃ 53 ἀναβάντος for ἀναβαίνοντος] ; ii. 8 4 ὁμολογήσω-
μεν for ὁμολογῶμεν ; ii. ὃ 7 φθείρων for φθείρας ; il. ὃ ὃ ποιήσῃ for ποιῇ
and βοηθεῖ for βοηθήσει. (6) The omission, addition, or alteration of
connecting particles, for the sake of greater perspicuity or ease: e.g.
ὃ ὃ yap omitted ; § 12 ὅτι... καὶ inserted; ὃ τό δὲ omitted; § 17 ἔτι δὲ
omitted, and again δὲ inserted ; ὃ 30 τε... καὶ inserted ; § 33 δὲ substituted
for οὖν; ὃ 65 (59) καὶ omitted before δ αὐτοῦ; ἡ. ὃ 2 δὲ omitted; i.
δ 3 οὖν omitted; ii. § 7 ow omitted; ii. § 10 δὲ substituted for yap.
(c) The substitution of a more obvious preposition for a less obvious:
e.g. ὃ 4 ἀπό for ὑπό (twice), § 9 ἐν τῇ λειτουργίᾳ for διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας,
δ 11 εἰς αὐτὸν for ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, § 44 περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος for ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόμα-
tos. (7) An aiming at greater force by the use of superlatives: § 2
σεβασμιωτάτῃ for σεβασμίῳ, ὃ 33 παμμεγεθέστατον for παμμέγεθες. (ὦ)
The omission of apparently superfluous words: e.g. ὃ 1 ἀδελφοί, ὑμῶν;
δ 4 οὕτως; ὃ 7 εἰς (after διέλθωμεν); § 8 γὰρ (after ζῶ); ὃ τι τοῦτο; $15 ἀπό;
δ 19 τὰς...γενεάς (τοὺς being substituted) ; § 21 ἡμῶν; ὃ 30 ἀπό; § 438 [ἤτω]
THE DOCUMENTS. 229
καί (if this mode of supplying the lacuna in A be correct), where the
meaning of the words was not obvious (see the note in the addenda);
§ 40 ὁ before τόπος: ὃ 41 μόνῃ; ὃ 44 ἄνδρες (with the insertion of τινες in
the preceding clause); il. § 7 αὐτῶν; ii. § 8 ἐν before ταῖς χερσίν (with
other manipulations in the passage which slightly alter the sense);
ii. § 8 μετανοίας : and (though much less frequently) the insertion of a
word; e.g. ὃ 14 τὸν before ἀσεβῆ; § 33 ἀγαθοῖς (but conversely ἀγαθῆς is
absent from C but present in A in § 30); ii. § 1 rod before μὴ ὄντος: ii. § 8
ἔτι. (77) Alterations for the sake of an easier grammatical construction
or ἃ more obvious sense: e.g. § 2 τῶν πλησίον for τοῖς πλησίον; ὃ 4 τὸ
πρόσωπον for τῷ προσώπῳ; ὃ 15 ἔψεξαν αὐτὸν for ἐψεύσαντο αὐτόν ; § 20 ἐπ᾽
αὐτῆς for ἐπ’ αὐτήν; 11. § 3 τῆς ἀληθείας boldly substituted for ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν
on account of the awkwardness; il. ὃ 9 ἀπολάβητε for ἀπολάβωμεν.
(g) The substitution of orthographical or grammatical forms of words,
either more classical or more usual in the transcriber’s own age: e.g.
ὃ 6 ὀστῶν for ὀστέων, ὃ 15 εὐλόγουν for εὐλογοῦσαν, ὃ 38 εἰσήλθομεν for
εἰσήλθαμεν, ὃ 57 προείλοντο for προείλαντο, §§ 4, 6 ζῆλον for ζῆλος, § 13
τύφον for τύφος, ἐλεεῖτε for ἐλεᾶτε, ὃ 20 ὑγίειαν for ὑγείαν, § 33 ἀγάλ-
λεται for ἀγαλλιᾶται, ὃ 37 χρᾶται for χρῆται (but conversely, ii. § 6
χρῆσθαι for χρᾶσθαι), ὃ 39 ἐναντίον for ἔναντι, ὃ 40 ὑπερτάτῃ for ὑπερ-
τάτῳ, ὃ 53 Μωσῆ for Μωῦσῆ (and similarly elsewhere), § 50 ταμιεῖα
for ταμεῖα (ταμια), ὃ 65 (59) ἐπιπόθητον for ἐπιποθήτην, ii. § 2 ἐκκακῶμεν
for ἐγκακῶμεν, 11. ὃ 5. ἀποκτένοντας (sic) for ἀποκτέννοντας, ii. ὃ 7 πείσεται
for παθεῖται, ii. § 12 δύο for δυσί, δήλη for δῆλος. So too ἐξερρίζωσεν
ἐρρύσατο, φυλλορροεῖ, for ἐξερίζωσεν, ἐρύσατο, φυλλοροεῖ ; πρᾶος, πραύτης,
for πραῦς, πραύτης; etc. And again C has commonly ἑαυτοῦ etc. for
αὐτοῦ etc., where it is a reflexive pronoun. In many such cases it is
difficult to pronounce what form Clement himself would have used (see
pp- 25, 26); but the general tendency of the later Ms is obvious, and
the scribe of A; being nearer to the age of Clement than the scribe of C
by about six centuries, has in all doubtful cases a prior claim to atten-
tion. (1) One other class of variations is numerous; where there is an
exchange of simple and compound verbs, or of different compounds of
the same verb. In several cases C is obviously wrong ; e.g. § 20 παρα-
βάσεως for παρεκβάσεως, peradiddacw for μεταπαραδιδόασιν ; while other
cases do not speak for themselves, e.g. ὃ 7 ἐπήνεγκε for ὑπήνεγκεν, § 12
ἐκκρεμάσῃ for κρεμάσῃ, ὃ 16 ἀπελθόντες for ἐλθόντες, § 25 ἐγγεννᾶται for
γεννᾶται, ὃ 37 τελοῦσι for ἐπιτελοῦσιν, ὃ 43 ἠκολούθησαν for ἐπηκολούθησαν,
§ 55 ἐξέδωκαν for παρέδωκαν, ii. § 1 ἀπολαβεῖν for λαβεῖν, il. § 12 ἐρω-
τηθεὶς for ἐπερωτηθείς, but the presumption is in favour of the Ms which
is found correct in the crucial instances. (ἢ) Again there are two or
230 THE DOCUMENTS.
three instances where C substitutes the active voice for the middle; § 8
ἀφέλετε for ἀφέλεσθε, ὃ 23 ἐπιδείκνυσι for ἐπιδείκνυται, § 43 ἐπέδειξε for
ἐπεδείξατο, and in all these the middle seems to be correct: while con-
versely in § 38, ἐντρεπέσθω the reading of C must be substituted for
the solcecistic évrperérw which stands in A.
In some passages, where none of these motives can be assigned,
the variations are greater, and a deliberate change must have been
made on the one side or the other. In these cases there is frequently
little or no ground for a decision between the two readings from
internal evidence; e.g. § 1 περιστάσεις for περιπτώσεις, ὃ 5 ἔριν for φθόνον
(where however ἔριν may be suspected as an alteration made to conform
to the expression ζῆλον καὶ ἔριν just below), ὃ 6 κατέσκαψε for κατέ-
στρέψεν, ὃ 8 ψυχῆς for καρδίας, ὃ 28 βλαβερᾶς (sic) for μιαράς, ὃ 35 πονηρίαν
for ἀνομίαν, ὃ 51 ἄνθρωπον for θεράποντα, ὃ 55 ὑπομνήματα for ὑποδείγ-
ματα. But elsewhere the judgment must be given against C; e.g. § 32
τάξει for δόξῃ, ὃ 33 προετοιμάσας for προδημιουργήσας, ὃ 41 προσευχῶν
for εὐχῶν, ὃ 47 ἀγάπης for ἀγωγῆς (possibly an accidental change), § 5 3
δεσπότης for θεράπων, ὃ 56 Κύριος for δίκαιος, 11. ὃ 1 πονηροὶ for πηροΐ,
ii. ὃ 10 ἀνάπαυσιν, ἀνάπαυσις, for ἀπόλαυσιν, ἀπόλαυσις : while in no
such instance is A clearly in the wrong; for I do not regard § 41 εὐχαρισ-
τείτω A, εὐαρεστείτω C, as an exception. And generally of the variations
it may be said that (setting aside mere clerical errors, accidental trans-
positions, and the like) in nine cases out of ten, which are at all deter-
minable, the palm must be awarded to A’.
[The above account of the relation of C to A was written before
the discovery of the Syriac Version ; and it has received the strongest
confirmation from this latter authority. It will be seen in the sequel
that in nearly every case which is indeterminable from internal
evidence S throws its weight into the scale of A.]
It will be unnecessary to give examples of the usual clerical errors,
such as omission from homeeoteleuton, dropping of letters, and so forth.
Of these C has not more than its proper share. Generally it may be
said that this Ms errs in the way of omission rather than of insertion.
One class of omissions is characteristic and deliberate. The scribe
becomes impatient of copying out a long quotation, and abridges it,
sometimes giving only the beginning or the beginning and end, and
sometimes mutilating it in other ways (see δὴ 18, 22, 27, 35, 52). A
1 This estimate of the relative value το, 1876, p. 99) and of Gebhardt (ed. 2,
of A and C agrees substantially with those Ρ. xv). Hilgenfeld takes a different view,
of Harnack (Zheolog. Literaturz., Feb. assigning the superiority to C (ed. 2, p. xx).
THE DOCUMENTS. 231
characteristic feature of this Ms also is the substitution of ὑμεῖς, ὑμῶν,
etc., for ἡμεῖς, ἡμῶν, etc. I say characteristic; because, though the
confusion of the first and second persons plural of the personal pro-
noun is a very common phenomenon in most Mss owing to itacism, yet
in this particular case it is far too frequent and too one-sided to be the
result of accident. ‘The motive is obvious. When read aloud, the
appeals in the letter gain in directness by the substitution of the second
person, —
Instances will be given in the addenda which show how at some
stage in its pedigree the readings of C have been influenced by the
uncial characters of a previous Ms from which it was derived: see § 2,
21, 32, 40, 43.
From the list of contents given above (p. 224) it will have ap-
peared that the interest of this Ms does not end with Clement. What
may be the value of the Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum remains to
be seen; but a new authority for the Greek of Barnabas will be a
great gain, more especially in the earlier part where we are altogether
dependent on the very corrupt text of &. And, though from the
order of the Ignatian Epistles and the space occupied by them it is
clear that this Ms gives the Long Recension, yet here again another
authority, belonging (as we may hope) to a different family from those
already known, will be a welcome acquisition. The editor promises to
publish the Barnabas and Ignatius shortly (p. viii).
But in addition to the absolute gain of this discovery in itself, the
appearance of the volume which I have been discussing is a happy
augury for the future in two respects.
In the first place, when a Ms of this vast importance has been for
generations unnoticed in a place so public as the official library of a
great Oriental prelate, a hope of future discoveries in the domain of
early Christian literature is opened out, in which the most sanguine
would not have ventured to indulge before.
Secondly, it is a most cheering sign of the revival of intellectual
life in the Oriental Church, when in this unexpected quarter an editor
steps forward, furnished with all the appliances of Western learning,
and claims recognition from educated Christendom as a citizen in the
great commonwealth of literature.
232 THE DOCUMENTS.
IT.
A FEW months after the results of this important discovery were
given to the world, a second authority for the complete text of the two
epistles came unexpectedly to light.
The sale catalogue of the mss belonging to the late Oriental
scholar M. Jules Mohl of Paris contained the following entry.
‘1796. Manuscript syriaque sur parchemin, contenant le N. T.
(moins l’Apocalypse) d’apres la traduction revue par Thomas d’Héraclee.
...Entre l’épitre de 5. Jude et l’épitre de S. Paul aux Romains, se trouve
intercalée une traduction syriaque des deux épitres de 5. Clément de
Rome aux Corinthiens.’
It was the only Syriac Ms in M. Mohl’s. collection.
The Syndicate of the Cambridge University Library, when they gave
a commission for its purchase, were not sanguine enough to suppose
that the entry in the catalogue would prove correct. The spurious
Epistles on Virginity are found in a copy of the Syriac New Testament
immediately after the Epistle of S. Jude taken from the Philoxenian
version (see above, p. 15); and it was therefore concluded that the two
epistles in question would prove to be these. It seemed incredible
that such a treasure as a Syriac version of the Epistles to the
Corinthians, forming part of a well known collection, should have
escaped the notice of all Oriental scholars in France. It was therefore
a very pleasant surprise to Mr Bensly, into whose hands the ms first
came after its purchase, to discover that they were indeed the Epistles
to the Corinthians. He at once announced this fact in a notice sent
simultaneously to the Academy and the Atheneum (June 17, 1876),
and began without delay to prepare for the publication of this version.
To Mr Bensly’s volume, which will probably appear shortly after my
own, I must refer my readers for a fuller account of this unique Ms and
the version which it contains. It will be sufficient here to give those
facts which are important for my purpose..
The class mark is now Add. AZSS 1700 in the Cambridge Uni-
versity Library. The ms is parchment, 93 inches by 63, written in
a current hand; each page being divided into two columns of from 37
to 39 lines. It contains the Harclean recension of the Philoxenian
version of the New Testament; but, like some other mss of this
recension, without the asterisks, obeli, and marginal readings. The
books are arranged as follows :
THE DOCUMENTS. 233
1. The Four Gospels. These are followed by a history of the
Passion compiled from the four Evangelists.
2. The Acts and Catholic Epistles, followed by the Epistles of
S. Clement to the Corinthians.
3- The Epistles of S. Paul, including the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which stands last.
At the beginning of the volume are three tables of lessons, one for
each of these three divisions.
Quite independently of the Clementine Epistles, this volume has the
highest interest; for it is the only known copy which contains the whole
of the Philoxenian (Harclean) version, so that the last two chapters of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the colophon following them, appear
here for-the first time.
At the end of the fourth Gospel is the well-known subscription,
giving the date of the Philoxenian version A.p. 508, and of the
Harclean recension A.D. 616; the latter is stated to be based in this
part of the work on three mss (see White’s Sacr. Evang. Vers. Syr.
Philox. pp. 561 sq., 644 54., 647, 649 sq.; Adler δου. Zest. Vers. Syr.
p- 45 sq.; Catal. Cod. MSS Orient. Brit. Mus. τ. p. 27, no. xix, ed.
Forshall). The history of the Passion, which follows, and which was
compiled for lectionary purposes, is found also in other Mss (see White
l. c. p. 645, Adler 1. c. p. 63).
In the second division the colophon which follows the Epistle
of 5. Jude is substantially the same with that of the Oxford ms given
by White (Act. Afost. εἰ Epist. τ. p. 274). The Catholic Epistles are
followed immediately on the same page by the Epistles of Clement,
the Epistle of S. Jude with its colophon ending one column, and the
First Epistle of Clement beginning the next. This latter is headed :
measalh seisulor corladheto τόδντΝ τό
whiaon whan hails als -wothrcan
The Catholic Epistle of Clement the disciple of Peter the Apostle
to the Church of the Corinthians.
At the close is written :
hohadie’s + susulor dure HIKES dale
IAT = whuias hal miss
Here endeth the First Epistle of Clement, that was written by
him to the Corinthians from Rome.
234 THE DOCUMENTS.
Then follows :
πόδα hal wdhids KAR bs aa mls
Of the same the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
At the close of the Second Epistle is
hails ..masulos ends πόδιν τό hols
tahisjao
flere endeth the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
This subscription with its illumination ends the first column of a
page; and the second commences with the introductory matter (the
capitulations) to the Epistle to the Romans. :
At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and occupying the first
column of the last page in the volume, is the following statement :
resale swalaas Kam Soha shade’
AXasms τόσο -adhan am rie (I addin
wa ram pede an Arn am eho
horas ries Kam [omaldurs πέος
sealeams τόχποπ τόσο bus -τπέυλολοπν
> ποτ ὄν: .Δ5 wWam whan
This book of Paul the Apostle was written and collated from
that copy which was written in the city of Mabug (Hierapolis) ;
which also had been collated with (from) a copy that was in Cesarca
a city of Palestine in the library of the holy Pamphilus, and was
written in his own handwriting, etc.
After this follows another colophon, which occupies the last column
in the Ms, and begins as follows :
ric τέϑδι πέλξρας dus ar’ aw os λον
missles wcamatana :ς αὐνϑοτέσ was eis
τόδιδλθλε jas. : csalor ahih hw eo
τέξοοτεδιπ τές ἴοὸι mw o:etsle wwalaan
vsassinca Anes om τόσον τπόλοτ
THE DOCUMENTS. 235
etn πόδια τόσ awa μτέλξοδιο
ero calor τόπο dussy oa rol.
ex dade - τόδ πο Whoa amians
: τόδιλασιλδι eh τέδιταῖα Khoi Asus
τόδιδο πὰ. humisha chawam dhasmya
why πότον Sara 88 Stet Lior en
Mise hors omia’ pox Las ts
rathasa ciiwat τῶν ἴσο uta ol cams
Cte ramim et moka tana eto
b eMac s mim SEIS
Now this life-giving book of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Holy
Apostles’, and the two Epistles of Clement, together with the teach-
ing of Paul the Apostle, according to the correction of Thomas of
Fleraclea, received its end and completion in the year one thousand
four hundred and eighty one of the Greeks in the little convent of
Mar Saliba, which ts in the abode of the monks on the Holy Moun-
tain of the Blessed City of Edessa. And it was written with great
diligence and irrepressible love and laudable fervour of faith and at
the cost of Rabban Basil the chaste monk and pious presbyter, who
ἧς called Bar Michael, from the city of Edessa, so that he might
have it for study and meditation spiritual and useful both of soul
and of body. And it was written by Sahda the meanest of the monks
of the same Edessa.
The remainder of this colophon, which closes the volume, is
unimportant.
The year 1481 of the era of the Seleucidae corresponds to A.D. 1170.
On the last page of each quire, and on the first page of the following
quire, but not elsewhere, it is customary in this Ms to give in the
upper margin the title of the book for the time being. ‘This heading,
in the case of the First Epistle of Clement, is
1 Under the title ‘Acts’ the writer here as a designation for the whole division,
evidently includes the Catholic Epistles. | comprising the Clementine as well as the
At the beginning and end of the table of | Catholic Epistles.
lessons for the second division it is used
236 THE DOCUMENTS.
wehaias daly woules dus Ka
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
In the case of the Second Epistle no occasion for any such heading
arises.
The Epistles of Clement are divided into lessons continuously with
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, which constitute the former part of the
same division. They are as follows:
94. 26th Sunday after the Resurrection ; Inscr. Ἢ ἐκκλησία κ.τ.λ.
95. 27th Sunday aftet the Resurrection ; § τὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ φίλος k.7.A.
96. 34th Sunday after the Resurrection; ὃ 16 Ταπεινοφρονούντων yap
K.T.A,
97- 35th Sunday after the Resurrection; ὃ 16 Ὁρᾶτε, ἄνδρες ἀγα-
πητοί K.T.A.
98. 36th Sunday after the Resurrection ; § 19 Τῶν τοσούτων οὖν x.7.X.
‘99. 37th Sunday after the Resurrection ; ὃ 21 Tov Κύριον Ἰησοῦν «.7.X.
100. ‘The Funeral of the Dead ; § 26 Μέγα καὶ θαυμαστὸν κ.τ.λ.
Tor. 38th Sunday after the Resurrection ; § 30 ‘Ayiov [Ayia] οὖν μερὶς
K.T.A. |
102. 39th Sunday after the Resurrection ; § 33 Τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν «.T.X.
103. 28th Sunday after the Resurrection ; ὃ 50 Αἱ γενεαὶ πᾶσαι κ-τ.λ.
104. 29th Sunday after the Resurrection; ὃ 52 ᾿Απροσδεής, ἀδελφοί,
K.TA.
105. 30th Sunday after the Resurrection ; ὃ 56 Βλέπετε, ἀγαπητοί x.r.X.
106. 31st Sunday after the Resurrection ; ὃ 59 Ἐὰν δέ τινες κιτ.λ,
107. 32nd Sunday after the Resurrection ; ὃ 62 Περὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνηκόντων
κιτιλ.
108, The Mother of God ; ii. § 1 ᾿Αδελφοί, οὕτως K.7.A.
109. 33rd Sunday after the’ Resurrection ; ii. ὃ 5 Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοί, κιτ.λ.
110, 25th Sunday after the Resurrection; ii. § 19 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ
ἀδελφαί, κ-τ.λ.
These rubrics, with the exception of the numbers (94, 95, etc.), are
imbedded in the text’, and therefore cannot be a later addition. The
numbers themselves are in the margin, and written vertically.
I have been anxious to state carefully all the facts bearing on the
relation of the Clementine Epistles to the Canonical Books of the New
Testament in this Ms, because some questions of importance are affected
* With the exception of the last rubric, which is itself in the margin, having appa-
rently been omitted accidentally. ‘
THE DOCUMENTS. 237
by them. As the result of these facts, it will be evident that, so far as
regards the scribe himself, the Clementine Epistles are put on an absolute
equality with the Canonical writings. Here for the first time they appear,
not at the close of the volume, as in A, but with the Catholic Epistles—
the position which, as I pointed out (p. 12), is required on the
supposition of perfect canonicity. Moreover no distinction is made
between them and the Catholic Epistles, so far as regards the lectionary.
Lastly, the final colophon renders it highly probable that the scribe him-
self supposed these epistles to have been translated with the rest of the
New Testament under the direction of Philoxenus and revised by
Thomas of Heraclea.
But at the same time it is no less clear that he was mistaken in this
view. In the first place, while each of the three great divisions of the
New Testament, the Gospels, the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the
Pauline Epistles, has its proper colophon in this ms, describing the
circumstances of its translation and revision, the Clementine Epistles
stand outside these notices, and are wholly unaccounted for. In the
next place the translation itself betrays a different hand, as will appear
when I come to state its characteristic features; for the Harcleo-
Philoxenian version shows no tendency to that unrestrained indulgence
in periphrasis and gloss which we find frequently in these Syriac Epistles
of Clement. Thirdly, there is no indication in any other copies, that
the Epistles of Clement formed a part of the Harcleo-Philoxenian
version. The force of this consideration however is weakened by the
paucity of evidence. While we possess not a few mss of the Gospels
according to this version, only one other copy of the Acts, Catholic
Epistles, and Pauline Epistles is known to exist’. Lastly, the table of
lessons, which is framed so as to include the Clementine Epistles, and
which therefore has an intimate bearing on the question, seems to be
unique. ‘There is no lack of Syriac lectionaries and tables of lessons,
whether connected with the Peshito or with the Philoxenian (Harclean)
version, and not one, I believe, accords with the arrangement in
our MS; though on this point it is necessary to speak with reserve,
until all the Mss have been examined. ‘These facts show that the
1 This is the Ridley MS, from which e.g. Acts i. 1—10 (Catal. Cod. Syr. Bibl.
White printed his text, now in the ρα. no. 24, p. 79, Payne Smith) James,
Library of New College, Oxford. It 2 Peter, 1 John (Οζα. of Syr. Manusc.
contains the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epis- ix the Brit. Mus. no. cxxi. p. 76, Wright);
tles, and Pauline Epistles, as faras Heb. 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Jude, in an Amsterdam
xi. 27. Separate books however and MS. (see above, p. 15); besides lessons
portions of books are found elsewhere; _ scattered about in different lectionaries.
CLEM. 16
238 THE DOCUMENTS.
Clementine Epistles must have been a later addition to the Harclean
New Testament. What may have been their history I shall not venture
to speculate, but leave the question to Mr Bensly for further discussion.
I will only add that the Syriac quotations from these epistles found
elsewhere (see above, pp. 185 sq., 200 sq.) are quite independent of
this version, and sometimes even imply a different Greek text. This
fact however does not help us much; for they occur in collections of
extracts, which we should expect to be translated, wholly or in part,
directly from the Greek.
As a rendering of the Greek, this version is (with notable exceptions
which will be specified hereafter) conscientious and faithful. The trans-
lator has made it his business to reproduce every word of the original.
Even the insignificant connecting particle τε is faithfully represented by
gus. The several tenses too are carefully observed, so far as the lan-
guage admitted: e.g. an imperfect is distinguished from a strictly past
tense. ‘To this accuracy however the capabilities of the Syriac language
place a limit. ‘Thus it has no means of distinguishing an aorist from a
perfect (e.g. ὃ 25 τελευτήσαντος or τετελευτηκότος, ὃ 40 προστεταγμένοις
Or προσταγεῖσι), or a future tense from a conjunctive mood (e.g. § 16 τί
ποιήσομεν OF TL ποιήσωμεν). And again in the infinitive and conjunc-
tive moods it is powerless to express the several tenses (e.g. ὃ 1 βλασ-
φημηθῆναι and βλασφημεῖσθαι, § 13 στηρίζωμεν and στηρίξωμεν).
So far it is trustworthy. But on the other hand, it has some charac-
teristics which detract from its value as an authority for the Greek text,
and for which allowance must be made.
(i) It has a tendency to run into paraphrase in the translation of
individual words and expressions. This tendency most commonly takes
the form of double renderings for a word, more especially in the case of
compounds. Examples of this phenomenon are: ὃ 1 περιπτώσεις
lapsus et damna; §6 παθοῦσαι patientes et tolerantes; § 15 pel? ὑποκρί-
σεως cum assumptione personarum et illusione; ὃ 19 ἐπαναδράμωμεν citz-
ramus denuo (et) revertanius, ἀτενίσωμεν videamus et contemplemur; § 20
τῶν δεδογματισμένων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ gue visa sunt Deo εἰ decreta sunt ab illo,
παρεκβαίνει exit aut transgreditur, διέταξεν mandavit et ordinavit ; ὃ 25
παράδοξον gloriosum et stupendum, dvarpepopevos nitritus ef adultus, γεν-
vaios fortis et firmus; ὃ 27 ἀναζωπυρησάτω inflammetur denuo et re-
novetur ; § 30 ὁμόνοιαν consensum “1 paritatem animt; § 34 παρειμένους
solutos et laxos, κατανοήσωμεν contemplemur et videamus ; § 44 ἐλλογίμων
peritorum et sapientium (a misunderstanding of ἐλλόγιμος, which is re-
peated in ὃ 62); ὃ 50 φανερωθήσονται revelabuntur et cognoscentur ;
ὃ 58 ὑπακούσωμεν audiamus et respondeamus ; ὃ 59 ἀρχεγόνον caput ( prin-
THE DOCUMENTS. 239
cipium) et creaiorem; ii. § 2 ὁ λαὸς ἡμῶν congregatio nostra et populus,
στηρίζειν sustentaret ct stabiliret ; § 4 ἀποβαλῶ educam et projiciam foras ;
§ 11 ἀνόητοι stulli ct expertes mente; § 13 μετανοήσαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς
revertentes et ex corde panitentes (comp. § 15), θαυμάζουσιν obstupescunt
et admirantur; § 14 αὐθεντικὸν ideam et veritatem; § 18 τῶν εὐχαρισ-
τούντων corum gui confitentur et accipiunt gratiam (gratias agunt),
§ 19 ἀγανακτῶμεν cruciemur et murmuremus ; with many others. Some-
times however the love of paraphrase transgresses these limits and
runs into great excesses: e.g. ὃ 21 μὴ λιποτακτεῖν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ
θελήματος αὐτοῦ ne rebellantes et deserentes ordinem faciamus aliquid
extra voluntatem cjus; § 53 ἀνυπερβλήτου cxaltatae et super quam non est
transire; § 55 πολλοὶ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἡγούμενοι λοιμικοῦ τινὸς ἐνστάντος
καιροῦ multi reges et magnates de principibus populorum siguando tempus
affictionis aut famis alicujus instaret populo; ii. § 3 παρακούειν αὐτοῦ τῶν
ἐντολῶν negligemus et spernemus mandata cjus dum remisse agimus neque
facimus ea (comp. ὃ 6, where ἐὰν παρακούσωμεν τῶν ἐντολῶν αὐτοῦ 18
translated si avertimus auditum nostrum a mandatis ejus οἰ speinimus ea);
with many other instances besides.
(ii) The characteristic which has been mentioned arose from the
desire to do full justice to the Greek. The peculiarity, of which I have
now to speak, is a concession to the demands of the Syriac. ‘The trans-
lation not unfrequently transposes the erder of words connected toge-
ther: e.g. § 30 ταπεινοφροσύνη Kat πραὔτης ; ὃ 36 ἄμωμον Kat ὑπερτάτην,
ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη. This transposition is most commonly found
where the first word is incapable of a simple rendering in Syriac, so that
several words are required in the translation, and it is advisable therefore
to throw it to the end in order to avoid an ambiguous or confused
syntax (the Syriac having no case-endings). Thus in the instances
given ταπεινοφροσύνη is humilitas cogitationis, and ἄμωμος, ἀσύνετος, are
respectively gue sine labe, que sine intellectu. Where no such reason for
a transposition exists, it may be inferred that the variation represents a
different order in the Greek: e.g. § 12 ὁ τρόμος καὶ ὁ φόβος, ὃ 18 τὰ
χείλη...καὶ τὸ στόμα, ii. § 15 ἀγάπης καὶ πίστεως, il, § 17 προσέχειν καὶ
πιστεύειν. Sometimes this transposition occurs in conjunction with a
double or periphrastic rendering, and a very considerable departure
from the Greek is thus produced: e.g. ὃ 19 ταῖς μεγαλοπρεπέσι καὶ ὑπερ-
βαλλούσαις αὐτοῦ δωρεαῖς donis cjus abundantibus et excelsis et magnis
decore; ὃ 64 (58) τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς καὶ ἅγιον ὄνομα αὐτοῦ nomen efus sane-
tum et decens in magnitudine et gloriosum.
To the demands of the language also must be ascribed the constant
repetition of the preposition before several connected nouns in the
16—2
240 THE DOCUMENTS.
Syriac, where it occurs only before the first in the Greek. The absence
of case-endings suggested this repetition for the sake of distinctness.
In using the Syriac Version as an authority for the Greek text, these
facts must be borne in mind. In recording its readings therefore all
such variations as arise from the exigencies of translation or the pecu-
liarities of this particular version will be passed over as valueless for my
purpose. Nor again will it be necessary to mention cases where the
divergence arises simply from the pointing of the Syriac, the form of the
letters being the same: as e.g. the insertion or omission of the sign of
the plural, 7ziwz. A more remarkable example is § 39, where we have
RRA. ἔργων in place of RAN παίδων. Experience shows that
even the best Syriac mss cannot be trusted in the matter of pointing.
In all cases where there is any degree of likelihood that the divergence
in the Syriac represents a different reading, the variation will be men-
tioned, but not otherwise. Throughout the greater part of the epistles,
where we have two distinct authorities (A and C) besides, these instances
will be very rare. In the newly recovered portion on the other hand,
where A fails us, they are necessarily more frequent; and here I have
been careful to record any case which 15 at all doubtful.
Passing from the version itself to the Greek text, on which it was
founded, we observe the following facts :
(i) It most frequently coincides with A, where A differs from C.
The following are some of the more significant examples in the
genuine Epistle: § 1 ἡμῖν.. περιπτώσεις AS, καθ᾽ ἡμών...περιστάσεις
C; § 2 ὁσίας AS, θείας C3; 2b. per ἐλεοῦς (ελαιους) AS, pera δέους C ;
ib, σεβασμίῳ AS, σεβασμιωτάτῃ ( ; ὃ 4 βασιλέως ᾿Ισραὴλ AS, om.
C;$5 φθόνον AS, ἔριν C; § 6 κατέστρεψεν AS, κατέσκαψε ( ; § 7
ἐν γὰρ AS, καὶ γὰρ ἐν C; § ὃ ὑμῶν AS, τοῦ λαοῦ μου C; ὃ διὰ τῆς
λειτουργίας AS, ἐν τῇ λειτουργίᾳ C; ὃ 10 τῷ Θεῷ AS, om. C; § 13 ὡς
κρίνετε κιτιλ., where AS preserve the same order of the clauses against
C; § 14 é&w AS (so doubtless S originally, but it is made ἔρεις by the
diacritic points), αἱρέσεις C ; ὃ 15 ἐψεύσαντο AS, ἔψεξαν C; ὃ 19 τὰς πρὸ
ἡμῶν γενεὰς βελτίους AS, τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν βελτίους C; ὃ 23 πρῶτον μὲν
φυλλοροεῖ AS, om. C; ὃ 25 ἐπιπτὰς AS, om. C; 8 28 μιαρὰς AS, βλα-
βερᾶς C; 20. ἐκεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου AS, σὺ ἐκεῖ εἶ C3 § 30 ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ AS, τοῦ
Θεοῦ C; 2. ἀγαθῆς AS, om. C; 2. ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ AS, om. C; ὃ 32 δόξῃ
AS, τάξει C3 § 33 ποιήσωμεν AS, ἐροῦμεν C; ὃ 34 ἢ κτίσις AS, 9 yy C;
§ 35 ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ πατὴρ κιτιλ. AS, where C has a different order ;
ib. τὰ εὐάρεστα καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτῷ AS, ta ἀγαθὰ καὶ εὐάρεστα αὐτῷ καὶ
εὐπρόσδεκτα C ; § 39 ἄφρονες καὶ ἀσύνετοι x.t.’. AS, where C transposes
and omits words; ὃ 43 αὐτὰς AS, αὐτὸς C3; § 47 αὐτοῦ [τε] καὶ Κηφᾶ
THE DOCUMENTS. 241
κιτιλ., where the order of the names is the same in AS, but different in
C; 2b. μεμαρτυρημένοις...δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς AS, δεδοκιμασμένοις...
μεμαρτυρημένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν C; 20. ἀγωγῆς AS, ἀγάπης C; § 51 θεράποντα
τοῦ Θεοῦ AS, ἄνθρωπον τοῦ Θεοῦ C ; 29. Αἰγύπτου AS, αὐτοῦ C; ὃ 53
θεράπων AS, δεσπότης ( ; ὃ 55 ὑποδείγματα AS, ὑπομνήματα C: § 56
δίκαιος AS, Κύριος (; § 65 (59) καὶ dv αὐτοῦ AS, δ αὐτοῦ C. The so-
called Second Epistle furnishes the following examples among others:
δ 1 πηροὶ AS, πονηροὶ C; ὃ 3 καὶ ov προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς AS, om. C; 2d.
ἢ πρὸς αὐτὸν AS, for which C substitutes τῆς ἀληθείας - ὃ 9 πνεῦμα AS,
λόγος C (see p. 227) ; ὃ 10 ἀπόλαυσιν, ἀπόλαυσις AS, ἀνάπαυσιν, ἀνάπαυσις
C; § 11 μετὰ ταῦτα AS, εἶτα C.
(ii) On the other hand there are some passages, though com-
paratively few, in which S agrees with C against A. Examples
of these are: ὃ 2 rod Χριστοῦ CS, τοῦ Θεοῦ A; ὃ 3 τῆς καρ-
δίας αὐτοῦ CS, om. A; § 4 ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν CS, κριτὴν ἢ δι-
καστὴν A; ὃ 8 ψυχῆς CS, καρδίας A; ὃ 12 ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη πόρνη CS,
ἢ πόῤνη A; tb. τὴν γῆν CS, τὴν [πόΪλιν A; 22. ὅτι...καὶ CS, om. A;
§ 15 διὰ τοῦτο CS, om. A; § 21 σιγῆς CS, φωνῆς A; ib. ἀναιρεῖ CS,
ἀνελεῖ A; ὃ 22 τὸν δὲ ἐλπίζοντα CS, τοὺς δὲ ἐλπίζοντας A; ὃ 25 ἐγγεννᾶται
CS, γεννᾶται A; ὃ 33 προετοιμάσας CS, προδημιουργήσας A; ὃ 34 πιστεύ-
ὄντας, ΟΒ, om. A; 2ὁ. ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς CS, ὀφθαλμὸς A; 2). Κύριος (5, om. A ;
ib. ἀγαπῶσιν CS, ὑπομένουσιν A; ὃ 35 διὰ στόματος CS, ἐπὶ στόματος A;
ὃ 38 τημελείτω CS, where A has μητμμελειτω ; 20. the words [τω] καὶ
omitted in CS, but found in A; § 4o δέδοται CS, δέδεται A; § 41 εὐαρεσ-
teitw CS, εὐχαριστείτω A; ὃ 52 Αἰγύπτῳ CS, γῇ Αἰγύπτου A; ὃ 56 ἔλαιον
CS, ἔλεος (eAatos) A. In the Second Epistle the examples of importance
are very few: e.g. ὃ 8 ποιήσῃ (ποιῇ) σκεῦος ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ Kal δια-
στραφῇ CS, ποιῇ σκεῦος καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ διαστραφῇ A; 7b. ἀπο-
λάβητε CS, ἀπολάβωμεν A.
Of these readings, in which CS are arrayed together against A, it
will be seen that some condemn themselves by their harmonistic
tendency (§§ 4, 22, 34, 35); others are suspicious as doctrinal changes
(8 12 ἐπιλεγομένη) ; others are grammatical emendations of corrupt texts
(§ 38), or substitutions of easier for harder expressions (δ 12 ὅτι.. καὶ,
21 ἀναιρεῖ); others are clerical errors, either certainly (ὃ 40) or pro-
bably (§ 41) : while in the case of a few others it would be difficult from
internal evidence to give the preference to one reading over the other
(S$ 25, 33,52). ‘There are only three places, I think, in the above list, in
which it can be said that CS are certainly right against A. In two of
these (§§ 3, 34 πιστεύοντας) some words have been accidentally omitted
in A; while the third (δ 21 σιγῆς for φωνῆς) admits no such explanation.
242 THE DOCUMENTS.
(iii) The independence of S, as a witness, will have appeared
from the facts already stated. But it will be still more manifest
from another class of examples, where S stands alone and either cer-
tainly or probably or possibly preserves the right reading, though
in some cases at least no ingenuity of the transcriber could have
supplied it. Such instances are: § 7 τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, where C has τῷ
πατρὶ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ, and A apparently τῷ Θεῷ [καὶ warp]t αὐτοῦ; ὃ 15
where S supplies the words omitted by homceoteleuton in AC, but in a
way which no editor has anticipated; § 18 ἐλαίῳ for ἐλέει (ελαιει), but
this is perhaps a scribe’s correction ; ὃ 22 πολλαὶ ai θλίψεις x.7.A. supplied
in S, but omitted by AC because two successive sentences begin with
the same words: ὃ 35 διὰ πίστεως S, where A has πίστεως and C πιστῶς ;
§ 26 εἰς τὸ φῶς where AC insert θαυμαστὸν [αὐτοῦ] in accordance with
ι Pet. ii. 9; ὃ 43 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰς θύρας, where AC read ῥάβδους to the
injury of the sense, and some editors emend ὡσαύτως ws καὶ tas ῥάβδους,
still leaving a very awkward statement ; ὃ 46 πόλεμός (πόλεμοί) τε, where
S adds καὶ μάχαι, an addition which the connecting particles seem to
suggest, though it may have come from James iv. 1; 2). ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν
μου διαστρέψαι, where AC have ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν pov σκανδαλίσαι, though
(for reasons which I have stated in the addenda) I cannot doubt that
S preserves the original reading ; ὃ 48 tva...€fouorXoyyowpuat, where A has
ἐξομολογήσωμαι (without ἵνα) and C ἐξομολογήσομαι ; 11§ 1 of ἀκούοντες ws
περὶ μικρῶν [ἁμαρτάνουσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς] ἁμαρτάνομεν, where the words in
brackets are omitted in AC owing to the same cause which has led
to the omissions in §§ 15, 22; 11 ὃ 3, where S alone omits ἐνώπιον τῶν
ἀνθρώπων and pov, which are probably harmonistic additions in AC;
ii § 7 θέωμεν, where AC have the corrupt θῶμεν. These facts show that
we must go farther back than the common progenitor of A and C for the
archetype of our three authorities.
But beside these independent readings S exhibits other peculiarities,
which are not to its credit.
(i) The Greek text, from which the translation was made, must
have been disfigured by not a few errors; e.g. ὃ 2 ἑκόντες for ἄκοντες,
ἰδίᾳ for ida; ὃ 8 εἰπὼν for εἶπον ; ὃ 9 τελείους for τελείως ; ὃ 11 κρίσιν (?)
for κόλασιν ; ὃ 14 θεῖον (θεῖον) for ὅσιον (ocion); ὃ 1 ἀτενίσω (9) for
ἀτενίζων ; § 20 δικαιώσει for διοικήσει, διὰ for δίχα, ἄἀνεμοί τε σταθμῶν (9)
for ἀνέμων τε σταθμοὶ, συλλήψεις (Ὁ) for συνελεύσεις ; § 21 θείως (θειωο) for
ὁσίως (ociac) ; ὃ 24 κοιμᾶται νυκτὸς ἀνίσταται ἡμέρας (Ὁ) for κοιμᾶται ἡ νὺξ
ἀνίσταται ἡ ἡμέρα, ξηρὰν διαλύεται for ξηρὰ καὶ γυμνὰ διαλύεται ; ὃ 33 ἐκοι-
μήθησαν for ἐκοσμήθησαν ; § 35 ὑποπίπτοντα for ὑπέπιπτεν (ὑποπίπτει) πάντα
(some letters having dropped out); ὃ 36 διὰ τοῦτο for διὰ τούτον several
THE DOCUMENTS. 243
times, θανάτου for τῆς ἀθανάτου (the τῆς having been absorbed in the
termination of the preceding δεσπότης) ; ὃ 37 ὕπαρχοι (Ὁ) for ἔπαρχοι ;
§ 39 καθαιρέτης (Ὁ) for καθαρός, ἔπεσον αὐτοῦ for ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς : § 40 ἰδίοις
τόποις for ἴδιος[ὁ]τόπος ; ὃ 42 κενῶς for καινῶς : ὃ 45 μιαρῶν, ἀδίκων for
μιαρὸν, ἄδικον ; ὃ 50 εἰ μὴ add. ἐν ἀγάπῃ from just below; ὃ 51 δὲ ἑαυτῶν
omitted, thus blending the two sentences together; ὃ 59 ἀνθρώπων
(avwv) for ἐθνῶν, εὑρετὴν for εὐεργέτην, ἐπιστράφηθι for ἐπιφάνηθι, ἀσθε-
vets (Ὁ) for ἀσεβεῖς: § 60 χρηστὸς for πιστὸς ; 802 ἢ Sv ὧν for ἥδιον,
ἔδει μέν for ἤδειμεν ; il. § 2 τὰ πρὸς inserted before τὰς προσευχὰς
(taTpoctacttpoc-) ; ὃ 5 παροιμίαν for παροικίαν, ποιῆσαν (?) for ποιήσαντας ;
8 6 οὗτοι for [οἱ τοι]οῦτοι [δίκαιοι], the letters in brackets having been
omitted; § 9 ἔλθε (ἦλθε) for ἐλ[εύσεσ]θε, again by the dropping of some
letters ; ὃ 10 προδότην for rpoodouropov, perhaps owing to a similar muti-
lation; ὃ 11 πιστεύσωμεν διὰ τὸ δεῖν for δουλεύσωμεν διὰ τοῦ py; ὃ τό
πατέρα δεχόμενον for παραδεχόμενον (πρὰ for πὰρὰ-) ; ὃ 17 προσευχόμενοι
for προσερχόμενοι (9), εἰδότες for ἰδόντες : ὃ 19 τρυφήσουσιν for τρυγήσουσιν.
There are occasionally also omissions, owing to the recurrence of the
same sequence of letters, homceoteleuton, etc. : e.g. § 12 καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν (Ὁ),
ὃ 14 οἱ δὲ παρανομοῦντες x.7.r., § 58 καὶ προστάγματα, ὃ 59 τοὺς ταπεινοὺς
ἐλέησον, ii. 6 καὶ φθοράν ; but this is not a common form of error in S.
(ii) Again S freely introduces glosses and explanations. ‘These
may have been derived from the Greek Ms used, or they may have been
introduced by the translator himself. They are numerous, and the
following will serve as examples: ὃ 10 τοὺς ἀστέρας, add. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ;
8 19 τοῦ Θεοῦ for αὐτοῦ, God not having been mentioned before in the
same sentence; ὃ 25 τοῦ χρόνου, add. τῆς ζωῆς ; 20. οἱ ἱερεῖς explained ot
τῆς Αἰγύπτου ; ὃ 42 παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόντες, add. ot ἀπόστολοι ; ὃ 43 τῶν
φυλῶν, add. πασῶν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ ; § 44 τὴν ἀνάλυσιν, add. τὴν ἐνθένδε; § 51
φόβου, add. τοῦ Θεοῦ ; § 62 τόπον, add. τῆς γραφῆς ; ὃ 63 μώμου, add. καὶ
σκανδάλου ; ii § 6 ἀνάπαυσιν, add. τὴν ἐκεῖ; tb. τὸ βάπτισμα, add. ὃ ἐλάβο-
μεν; § 8 βαλεῖν, followed by a long explanatory gloss; 16. ἐξομολογήσασ-
θαι, add. wept τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ; § 9 ἐκάλεσεν, add. dv ἐν τῇ σαρκί; ὃ 12 ὑπό
τινος, add. τῶν ἀποστόλων ; ὃ τ5 τὸ ὄνομα, add. τοῦ Κυρίου in one place and
τοῦ Χριστοῦ in another; § 14 ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς τῆς λεγούσης, altered into ἐξ
iis de quibus scriptum est; ib. τὰ βιβλία, add. τῶν προφητῶν ; ib. ὁ Τησοῦς
ἡμῶν, an explanatory clause added; § 17 ἔσονται, add. ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ;
5 19 τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν, add, τὰ λόγια (Or τοὺς λόγους) τοῦ Θεοῦ.
(iii) Again: we see the hand of an emender where the original text
seemed unsatisfactory or had been already corrupted ; e.g.§ 14 ἐξεζήτησα
τὸν τόπον κιτιλ., altered to agree with the Lxx; § 16 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης
omitted; 1d. πάντας ἀνθρώπους substituted for τὸ εἶδος τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
244 THE DOCUMENTS.
in accordance with another reading of the Lxx; ὃ 17 κακοῦ changed
into πονηροῦ πράγματος, in accordance with the Lxx; ὃ 20 τὰ substituted
for τοὺς... μάζους, the metaphor not being understood by or not pleasing
the corrector; ὃ 21 τοῦ φόβου omitted ; ὃ 30 “Ayia substituted for “Ayiov,
the latter not being understood ; § 33 κατὰ διάνοιαν omitted for the same
reason ; §35 σε omitted, and tas ἁμαρτίας cov substituted, in accordance
with a more intelligible but false text of the Lxx; § 38 the omission of
μὴ before τημελείτω, and of [ἤτω] καὶ before μη ἀλαζονευέσθω (see above
p. 228 sq.); ὃ 40 the omission of ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ (see p. 245); § 44 ἐπὶ.
δοκιμήν, an emendation of the corrupt ἐπιδομήν ; ὃ 45 τῶν μὴ ἀνηκόντων,
the insertion of the negative (see the addenda); 26. the insertion of
ἀλλὰ before ὑπὸ παρανόμων and ὑπὸ τῶν μιαρὸν (μιαρῶν) «.7.r., for
the sake of symmetry; ὃ 59 the alteration of pronouns and the in-
sertion of words at the begmning of the prayer, so as to mend a
mutilated text (see below p. 246) ; ὃ 62 the omission of εἰς before évape-
tov βίον, and other changes, for the same reason ; ii ὃ 3 ἔπειτα δὲ ὅτι sub-
stituted for ἀλλὰ, to supply an antithesis to πρῶτον μέν ; ὃ 4 ἀγαπᾶν [τοὺς
πλησίον ὡς] ἑαυτούς, the words in brackets being inserted because the
reciprocal sense of ἑαυτούς was overlooked ; ὃ 12 αὐτοῦ for τοῦ Θεοῦ,
beeause τοῦ Θεοῦ has occurred immediately before ; § 13 the substitution
of ἡμᾶς.. λέγομεν for ὑμᾶς... βούλομαι, from not understanding that the
words are put into the mouth of God Himself; ὃ 14 the omission of ὅτι,
to mend a mutilated text; § 17 the omission of ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ owing
to its awkwardness, :
There are also from time to time other insertions, omissions, and
alterations in S, which cannot be classed under any of these heads. The
doxologies more especially are tampered with.
In such cases, it is not always easy to say whether the emenda-
tion or gloss was due to the Syrian translator himself, or to some earlier
Greek transcriber or reader. In one instance at all events the gloss
distinctly proceeds from the Syrian translator, or a Syrian scribe: § 1,
where the Greek word στάσις is adopted with the explanation oc autem
est tumultus. This one example suggests that a Syrian hand may have
been at work more largely elsewhere.
THE inferences which I draw from the above facts are the following:
(1) In A, C, 5, we have three distinct authorities for the text.
Each has its characteristic errors, and each preserves the genuine text in
some passages, where the other two are corrupt.
(2) The stream must be traced back to a very remote antiquity
THE DOCUMENTS. 245
before we arrive at the common progenitor of our three authorities,.
This follows from their mutual relations.
(3) Of our three authorities A (if we set aside merely clerical errors,
in which it abounds) is by far the most trustworthy. The instances are
very rare (probably not one in ten), where it stands alone against the
combined force of CS. Even in these instances internal considerations
frequently show that its reading must be accepted notwithstanding.
Its vast superiority is further shown by the entire absence of what
I may call ¢ev#zary readings, while both C and S furnish many examples
of these. Such are the following. In ὃ 8 (1) διελεγχθῶμεν the original
reading ; (2) [δι]ελεχθῶμεν A, its corruption; (3) διαλεχθῶμεν CS, the
corruption emended. In ὃ τς (1) ΓΑλαλα «.7.A. 5, the full text; (2)
some words omitted owing to homceoteleuton, A; (3) the grammar of
the text thus mutilated has been patched up in C by substituting γλώσσα
for γλῶσσαν, and making other changes. In ὃ 21 (1) εἰς κρίμα πᾶσιν
ἡμῖν A; (2) εἰς κρίματα -σὺν ἡμῖν C, an accidental corruption; (3) εἰς
κρίματα (or κρίμα) ἡμῖν S, the σὺν being discarded as superfluous. In
§ 30 ᾿Αγών οὖν μερὶς A; (2) “Ayia οὖν μερὶς S, a corruption or emenda-
tion; (3) Ἅγια οὖν μέρη C, a still further corruption or emendation.
In § 35 (1) the original reading διὰ πίστεως S; (2) πίστεως A, the
preposition being accidentally dropped ; (3) the emendation πιστῶς C.
In ὃ 38 (1) μὴ ἀτημελείτω, the original reading ; (2) μὴ τημελείτω (written
apparently μητμμελειτω) A, the a being accidentally dropped; (3) τημε-
λείτω CS, the μὴ being omitted to restore the balance, because the words
now gave the opposite sense to that which was required. In § 39 ἔπαισεν
αὐτοὺς C, or ἔπεσεν αὐτούς, as by a common itacism it is written in A;
(2) ἔπεσεν αὐτοῦ, the final o being lost in the initial o of the following
σητός ; (3) ἔπεσον αὐτοῦ S, a necessary emendation, since a plurality of
persons is mentioned in the context. In 8 40 (1) ἐπιμελῶς ἐπιτελεῖσθαι
καὶ οὐκ εἰκῆ... γίνεσθαι, presumably the original text; (2) ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ
οὐκ εἰκῆ...γίνεσθαι AC, the word ἐπιμελῶς being accidentally omitted
owing to the similar beginnings of successive words; (3) οὐκ εἰκῆ...
γίνεσθαι S, the words ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ being deliberately dropped, be-
cause they have now become meaningless. In § 44 (1) the original
reading, presumably ἐπιμονήν ; (2) the first corruption ἐπινομήν A; (3)
the second corruption ἐπιδομήν C ; (4) the correction ἐπὶ δοκεμήν S. In
§ 45 (1) the original reading τῶν μιαρὸν καὶ ἄδικον ζῆλον ἀνειληφότων C ;
(2) τῶν μιαρῶν καὶ ἄδικον ζῆλον ἀνειληφότων A, an accidental error ;
(3) τῶν μιαρῶν καὶ ἀδίκων ζῆλον ἀνειληφότων S, where the error is con-
sistently followed up. In § 48 (1) ἵνα εἰσελθὼν...ἐξομολογήσωμαι S with
Clem. Alex.; (2) εἰσελθὼν... ἐξομολογήσωμαι A, ἵνα being accidentally
246 THE DOCUMENTS.
dropped ; (3) εἰσελθὼν... ἐξομολογήσομαι C, an emendation suggested by
the omission. In § 59, where A is wanting, (1) the original text, pre-
sumably ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. [Ads ἡμῖν, Κύριε,] ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ τὸ... ὄνομά σου
x.t..; (2) the words in brackets are dropped out and the connexion
then becomes ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, ἐλπίζειν
ἐπὶ τὸ..-ὄνομά σου, as in C, where the sudden transition from the third’
to the second person is not accounted for; (3) this is remedied in S
by substituting αὐτοῦ for cov and making similar alterations for several
lines, till at length by inserting the words ‘we τοὶ say’ a transition to
the second person is effected. In ὃ 62 in like manner (1) the original
text had presumably εἰς ἐνάρετον βίον...διευθύνειν [τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν] ;
(2) the words in brackets were omitted, as in C; (3) a still further
omission of eis was made, in order to supply an objective case to
διευθύνειν, asin 5. In il. ὃ 1 (1) ποῖον οὖν C3; (2) ποιουν A, a corruption ;
(3) ποῖον S. [Ιῃ 11. 814 (1) the original reading, presumably ὅτι τὰ
βιβλία...τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ov νῦν εἶναι... [λέγουσιν, δῆλον] ; (2) the words in
brackets are accidentally omitted, as in C; (3) this necessitates further
omission and insertion to set the grammar straight, as in S. In some of
these examples my interpretation of the facts may be disputed; but the
general inference, if I mistake not, is unquestionable.
The scribe of A was no mean penman, but he put no mind into his
work. Hence in his case, we are spared that bane of ancient texts, the
spurious criticism of transcribers. With the exception of one or two
harmonistic changes in quotations, the single instance wearing the
appearance of a deliberate alteration, which I have noticed in A, is
τῆς φωνῆς for τῆς σιγῆς (δ 21); and even this might have been made
almost mechanically, as the words τὸ ἐπιεικὲς τῆς γλώσσης Occur im-
mediately before.
(4) Of the two inferior authorities S is much more valuable than C
for correcting A. While C alone corrects A in one passage only of any
moment (§ 2 pera δέους for wer ἐλέους), S alone corrects it in several.
In itself S is both better and worse than C. It is made up of two
elements, one very ancient and good, the other debased and probably
recent: whereas C preserves a fairly uniform standard throughout.
(5) From the fact that A shares both genuine and corrupt readings
with C, C with S, and S with A, which are not found in the third authority,
it follows that one or more of our three authorities must give a mixed
text. It cannot have been derived by simple transcription from the
archetype in a direct line, but at some point or other a scribe must
have introduced readings of collateral authorities, either from memory
or by reference to Mss. This phenomenon we find on the largest scale in
THE DOCUMENTS. 247
the Greek Testament ; but, wherever it occurs, it implies a considerable
circulation of the writing in question.
(6) We have now materials for restoring the original text of Clement
very much better than in the case of any ancient Greek author, ex-
cept the writers of the New Testament. For instance the text of a
great part of A%schylus depends practically on one ms of the roth or
11th century; ie. on a single authority dating some fifteen centuries
after the tragedies were written. The oldest extant authority for Clement
on the other hand was written probably within three centuries and
a half after the work itself; and we have besides two other independent
authorities preserving more or less of an ancient text. The youngest of
these is many centuries nearer to the authors date, than this single
authority for the text of Aischylus. Thus the security which this com-
bination gives for the correctness of the ultimate result is incomparably
greater than in the example alleged. Where authorities are multiplied,
variations will be multiplied also; but it is only so that the final result
can be guaranteed.
(7) Looking at the dates and relations of our authorities we may
be tolerably sure that, when we have reached their archetype, we have
arrived at a text which dates not later, or not much later, than the
close of the second century. On the other hand it can hardly have been
much earlier. For the phenomena of the text are the same in both
epistles ; and it follows therefore, that in this archetypal Ms the so-called
Second Epistle must have been already attached to the genuine Epistle
of Clement, though not necessarily ascribed to him.
(8) But, though thus early, it does not follow that this text was in
all points correct. Some errors may have crept in already and existed
in this archetype, though these would probably not be numerous; e.g.
it is allowed that there is something wrong in ii. ὃ ro οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν
ἄνθρωπον οἵτινες κιτιλ, Among such errors I should be disposed to place
ὃ 6 Aavaides καὶ Δίρκαι, ὃ 20 κρίματα, ὃ 40 the omission of ἐπιμελῶς before
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ὃ 44 ἐπινομήν, ὃ 51 διά τινος τῶν τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, and perhaps
also ὃ 48 the omission οἵ ἤτω γοργὸς (since the passage is twice quoted
with these words by Clement of Alexandria), together with a few other
passages.
And it would seem also that this text had already undergone slight
mutilations. At the end of the First Epistle we find at least three
passages where the grammar is defective in C, and seems to require the
insertion of some words; ὃ 59 ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. ..ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχέγονον
κιτιλ,, ὃ Go ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ.. ὑπηκόους γενομένους, § 62 δικαίως διευθύ-
γειν..ἱκαγῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν. Bryennios saw, as I think correctly, that in
248 THE DOCUMENTS.
all these places this faulty grammar was due to accidental omissions.
Subsequent editors have gone on.another tack; they have attempted
to justify the grammar, or to set it straight by emendations of individual
words. But, to say nothing of the abrupt transitions which still remain
in the text so emended, the fresh evidence of S distinctly confirms the
view of Bryennios; for it shows that these same omissions occurred
in a previous Ms from which the text of S was derived, though in S
itself the passages have undergone some manipulations. These lacunze
therefore must have existed in the common archetype of C and 5. And
I think that a highly probable explanation of them can be given. I find
that the interval between the omissions § 59, § 60, is 354 or 36 lines in
Gebhardt (37+ in Hilgenfeld), while the interval between the omissions
§ 60, § 62 is 18 lines in Gebhardt (19 in Hilgenfeld). Thus the one
interval is exactly twice the other. This points to the solution. The
archetypal Ms comprised from 17 to 18 lines of Gebhardt’s text in a
page. It was slightly frayed or mutilated at the bottom of some pages
(though not all) towards the end of the epistle, so that words had
disappeared or were illegible. Whether these same omissions occurred
also in A, it is impossible to say; but, judging from the general relations
of the three authorities and from another lacuna (ii. § 10 οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν
ἄνθρωπον οἵτινες κιτ.λ.} where the same words or letters are wanting in all
alike, we may infer that they did so occur. Other lacune (e.g. 11. § 14
ἀλλὰ ἄνωθεν κ-τ.λ.} May perhaps be explained in a similar way.
ΠΕ ΡΙΟΡΙΕ OF S. CLEMENL
TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
ol
bi wi
Tha
veh
«ἢ
[7 ἀν Teg
ey ae
Roar ee
᾿
i
(+
yy
᾿ ΐ
?
aaa
‘
At
*
᾿
; ;
. ‘
Υ̓
i
j
Ω
Hui Μ᾿ i? ὧν
ΤῊΝ
a
ahh
i,
A) 7 i
ἢ ΠΥ v f
mee ee ἃς Pe ee Or Se hENre Nee
TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
HE discovery of the documents which I have described must
necessarily have the highest interest for students of early Chris-
tian history. Independently of the absolute value of the contents of
these newly recovered portions in themselves, no such addition has been
made to our knowledge of the earliest Christian literature for the last
two centuries. The later decades of the first half of the seventeenth
century were rich in acquisitions of this kind. The two Epistles of
Clement were first published in 1633; the Ignatian Epistles in their
earlier and more authentic form in Latin by Ussher in 1644, in Greck
by Voss in 1646 ; the Epistle of Barnabas by Menard in 1645. From
that time to the present generation some accessions have been made
to the literature of the subapostolic ages, but these have been incon-
siderable compared with the treasure thus accumulated within a few
years towards the middle of the seventeenth century.
Like the period just mentioned, the last thirty years have been
rich in discoveries. During this time we have seen the publication
of the work of Hippolytus on Heresies by E. Miller in 1851, which has
thrown a flood of light on the history of the Church and the reception
of the Canon during the second century and the early years of the
third; of the Syriac Ignatius by Cureton in 1845, and more fully in
1849, which (even though it should ultimately be accepted only as an
abridgment of the original text) is yet of the highest value for the
criticism of this early writer; of the lost ending of the Clementine
Homilies by Dressel in 1853, of which the chief interest consists in
the indisputable quotations from the Gospel of S. John; of the Syriac
Fragments of Melito and other early Christian writers by Cureton
in 1855; of the Codex Lipsiensis and the accompanying transcript
252 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
by Anger in 1856, and the Codex Sinaiticus by Tischendorf in
1862, thus giving for the first time the beginning of the Epistle of
Barnabas and the greater part of the Shepherd of Hermas in the
original Greek; and now at length, in 1875, of the two Epistles of
Clement complete by Bryennios, since supplemented by the discovery
of a Syriac Version of the same.
Among all these recent acquisitions the last is unique. In point
of historical importance indeed it must yield the palm to the work of
Hippolytus. But the recovery of only a few pages of Christian litera-
ture which certainly belong to the first century, together with several
others which can hardly be placed later than about the middle of the
second, must in the paucity of documents dating from this period
invest it with the highest interest. Under these circumstances, it is
not unnatural that we should endeavour to estimate the gain winels
has accrued to us from the accession of this treasure.
The newly recovered portion of the first or genuine Epistle of
Clement consists, as I have said (p. 223), of about one-tenth of the
whole. It stands immediately before the final prayer, commendation of
the bearers, and benediction, which form the two brief chapters at
the close of the epistle. It contains an earnest entreaty to the Co-
rinthians to obey the injunctions contained in the letter and to heal
their unhappy schisms; an elaborate prayer which extends over three
long chapters, commencing with an invocation and ending with an
intercession for rulers and governors; and then another appeal of some
length to the Corinthians, justifying the language of the letter and
denouncing the sin of disobedience. The subject is not such as to
admit of much historical matter; but the gain to our knowledge not-
withstanding is not inconsiderable.
1. In the first place we are enabled to understand more fully the
secret of Papal domination. ‘This letter, it must be premised, does
not emanate from the bishop of Rome, but from the Church of Rome.
There is every reason to believe the early tradition which points to
S. Clement as its author, and yet he ts not once named. The first
person plural is maintained throughout, ‘We consider,’ ‘We have sent.’
Accordingly writers of the second century speak of it as a letter from the
community, not from the individual. Thus Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,
writing to the Romans about a D. 170, refers to it as the epistle ‘which
you wrote to us by Clement (Euseb. /7. £. iv. 23)’: and Irenzeus soon
afterwards similarly describes it; ‘In the time of this Clement, no small
dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 253
in Rome sent a very sufficient letter to the Corinthians urging them
to peace (iii. 3. 3). Even later than this, Clement of Alexandria calls
it in one passage ‘the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians’
(Strom. ν. 12, p. 693), though elsewhere he ascribes it to Clement.
Still it might have been expected that somewhere towards the close
mention would have been made (though in the third person) of the
famous man who was at once the actual writer of the letter and the
chief ruler of the Church in whose name it was written. Now how-
ever that we possess the work complete, we see that his existence is
not once hinted at from beginning to end. The name and personality
of Clement are absorbed in the Church of which he is the spokesman.
This being so, it is the more instructive to observe the urgent and
almost imperious tone which the Romans adopt in addressing their
Corinthian brethren during the closing years of the first century. They
exhort the offenders to submit ‘not to them, but to the will of God’
(§ 56). ‘Receive our counsel,’ they write again, ‘and ye shall have no
occasion of regret’ (§ 58). Then shortly afterwards: ‘ But if certain per-
sons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him (i. e. by God)
through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no
slight transgression and danger, but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (§ 59).
At a later point again they return to the subject and use still stronger
language ; ‘ 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 unto you faithful and prudent men, that have walked among us from
youth unto old age unblameably, who shall be witnesses between you
and us. And this we have done, that ye might know, that we have had
and still have every solicitude, that ye may speedily be at peace
(8 63). It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remon-
strance as the first step towards papal aggression. And yet undoubt-
edly this is the case. ‘There is all the difference in the world between
the attitude of Rome towards other Churches at the close of the first
century, when the Romans as a community remonstrate on terms of
equality with the Corinthians on their irregularities, strong only in the
righteousness of their cause, and feeling, as they had a right to feel,
that these counsels of peace were the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and
its attitude at the close of the second century, when Victor the
bishop excommunicates the Churches of Asia Minor for clinging to
a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had been handed
down to them from the Apostles, and thus foments instead of healing
CLEM, 17
254 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
dissensions (Euseb. H. £. v. 23, 24). Even this second stage has
carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance towards
the pretensions of a Hildebrand or an Innocent or a Boniface,
or even of a Leo: but it is nevertheless a decided step. The sub-
stitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome 15 an all
important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church
of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the
successor of 5. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that,
as a matter of fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon
the power of the Church of Rome. It was originally a primacy, not
of the Episcopate, but of the Church. The position of the Roman
Church, which this newly recovered ending of Clement’s Epistle throws
out in such strong relief, accords entirely with the notices in other
early documents. <A very few years later—from ten to twenty—Ignatius
writes to Rome. He is a staunch advocate of episcopacy. Of his
six remaining letters, one is addressed to a bishop as bishop; and the
other five all enforce the duty of the Churches whom he addresses to
their respective bishops. Yet in the letter to the Church of Rome
there is not the faintest allusion to the episcopal office from first to
last. He entreats the Roman Christians not to intercede and thus
by obtaining a pardon or commutation of sentence to rob him of the
crown of martyrdom. In the course of his entreaty he uses words
which doubtless refer in part to Clement’s Epistle, and which the newly
recovered ending enables us to appreciate more fully ; ‘Ye never yet,’
he writes, ‘envied any one,’ 1.6. grudged him the glory of a consistent
course of endurance and self-sacrifice, ‘ye were the teachers of others
(οὐδέποτε ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί: ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε, ὃ 3). They would therefore
be inconsistent with their former selves, he implies, if in his own case
they departed from those counsels of self-renunciation and patience
which they had urged so strongly on the Corinthians and others. But,
though Clement’s letter is apparently in his mind, there is no mention
of Clement or Clement’s successor throughout. Yet at the same
time he assigns a primacy to Rome. The Church is addressed in the
opening salutation as ‘she who hath the presidency (προκάθηται) in the
place of the region of the Romans.’ But immediately afterwards the
nature of this supremacy is defined. The presidency of this Church
is declared to be a presidency of love (προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης). This
then was the original primacy of Rome—a primacy not of the bishop
but of the whole Church, a primacy not of official authority but of
practical goodness, backed however by the prestige and the advantages
which were necessarily enjoyed by the Church of the metropolis. The
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 255
reserve of Clement in his epistle harmonizes also with the very modest
estimate of his dignity implied in the language of one who appears to
have been a younger contemporary, but who wrote (if tradition can be
trusted) ata somewhat later date. Thou shalt therefore, says the heavenly
Shepherd to Hermas, ‘write two little books,’ i.e. copies of this work
containing the revelation, ‘and thou shalt send one to Clement and
one to Grapte. So Clement shall send it to the cities abroad, for this
charge is committed unto him, and Grapte shall instruct the widows and
the orphans ; while thou shalt read it to this city together with the pres-
byters who preside over the Church (Herm. V/s. ii. 4. And so it
remains till the close of the second century. When, some seventy years
later than the date of our epistle, a second letter is written from Rome
to Corinth during the episcopate of Soter (about a.p. 165—175), it
is still written in the name of the Church, not the bishop, of Rome;
and as such is acknowledged by Dionysius of Corinth. ‘We have
read your letter’ (ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν), he writes in reply to the
Romans. At the same time he bears a noble testimony to that moral
ascendency of the early Roman Church which was the historical
foundation of its primacy; ‘This hath been your practice from the
beginning ; to do good to all the brethren in the various ways, and
to send supplies (ἐφόδια) to many Churches in divers cities, in one
place recruiting the poverty of those that are in want, in another
assisting brethren that are in the mines by the supplies that ye have
been in the habit of sending to them from the first, thus keeping up,
as becometh Romans, a hereditary practice of Romans, which your
blessed bishop Soter hath not only maintained, but also advanced,’ with
more to the same effect’.
2. Another point of special interest in the newly recovered portion
of Clement’s Epistle is the link of connexion which it supplies with
the earlier history of the Roman Church. In the close of the epistle
mention is made of the bearers of the letter, two Romans, Claudius
Ephebus and Valerius Bito, who are sent to Corinth with Fortunatus—
to Soter, confessedly proves nothing :
1 Euseb. H. Z. iv. 23. Harnack (p.
for it was used at this time and later not
xxix. ed. 2) says that this letter of Dio-
nysius ‘non Soteris tempore sed paullo
post Soteris mortem (175—180) Romam
missa esse videtur.? I see nothing in
the passage which suggests this infer-
ence. On the contrary the perfect tenses
(διατετήρηκεν, ἐπηύξηκεν), used in pre-
ference to aorists, seem to imply that he
was living. The epithet μακάριος, applied
less of the living than of the dead (e. g.
Alexander in Euseb. #. £. vi. 11). Eu-
sebius himself, who had the whole letter
before him, seems certainly to have sup-
posed that Soter was living, for he speaks
of it as ἐπιστολὴ... ἐπισκόπῳ τῷ τότε
Σωτῆρι προσφωνοῦσα,
17---2
256 THE. EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT
the last mentioned being apparently a Corinthian (though this is not
clear), and perhaps the same who is named in S. Paul’s First Epistle
(xvi. 17). In the newly discovered portion these delegates are de-
scribed in the words which I have already quoted, as ‘faithful and
prudent men who have walked among us from youth unto old age un-
blameably (ἄνδρας πιστοὺς καὶ σώφρονας ἀπὸ νεότητος ἀναστραφέντας ἕως
᾿γήρους ἀμέμπτως ἐν ἡμῖν). Now the date of this epistle, as deter-
mined by internal and external evidence alike, is somewnere about the
year 95; and, as old age could hardly be predicated of men under
sixty at least, these persons must have been born about the year 35
or earlier. Thus they would be close upon thirty years of age when
S. Paul first visited Rome (a.D. 61—63). They must therefore have
had a direct personal knowledge of the relations between the two
Apostles 5. Peter and S. Paul (supposing that S. Peter also visited
the metropolis, as I do not doubt that he did), and of the early his-
tory of the Roman Church generally; for the description obviously
implies that they had been brought up in the Christian faith from
their youth. If we couple this notice with the fact that in an earlier
passage of the epistle these two Apostles are held up together as the
two great examples for the imitation of the Christian, we see a new
difficulty in the way of the Tubingen theory, which is founded on the
hypothesis of a direct antagonism between the teaching of the two
Apostles, and supposes an entire dislocation and discontinuity in the
early history of the Christian Church, more especially of the Church
of Rome. To this theory the Epistle of Clement, the one authentic
document which has the closest bearing on the subject, gives a decided
negative.
3. But the notice of these persons also suggests some remarks on
the personnel of this epistle.
Strange as it may appear, every fresh investigation seems to point
more definitely to the conclusion that a chief stronghold of Christianity
in Rome during the earliest ages was the imperial palace itself. The
passage in S. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 22) will be remem-
bered at once. The members of ‘Czsar’s household’ are the only
Roman Christians singled out specially as sending salutations to their
Philippiap brethren. I have endeavoured to show elsewhere that these
were apparently no recent converts, but that the long list of salutations in
the Epistle to the Romans probably contains some names of slaves or
freedmen belonging to the palace of the Czesars (PAzdippians p. 169 sq.).
It has also been pointed out in an earlier part of the present work (p.
170) that the naines of these two delegates mentioned by-S. Clement,
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 257
Claudius and Valerius, suggest some connexion with the imperial house-
hold. This becomes still more probable, now that. we know them to
have been old men in the closing years of the first century. On the
supposition that they were freedmen or children of freedmen, they would
probably have obtained their names somewhere about the time when a
Claudius was seated on the imperial throne with a Valeria as his con-
sort (A.D. 41—48). Thus, when S. Paul wrote from Rome to Philippi
(about A.D. 62), they would be young men in the prime of life; their
consistent course would mark them out as the future hope of the
Church.in Rome; they could hardly be unknown to the Apostle; and
their names (among many others) would be present to his mind when
he dictated the words, ‘ They that are of Czesar’s household salute you.’
But, if we see ground for assigning the bearers of Clement’s letter
to the imperial household, there is at least equal reason for inferring
such a connexion in the case of the writer himself. The Neronian per-
secution, whatever else it had done, had not permanently checked
the progress of the Gospel either in Rome at large or within the
precincts of the imperial household. If Christianity was strong in
the palace under the Claudian dynasty, its strength had increased
manifold under the Flavian, The ‘deadly superstition,’ no longer
content with the slaves, freedmen, and retainers of the Czsars, had
laid hands on the Cezsars themselves. I have discussed elsewhere
(Philippians p. 22 sq.) the notices respecting Flavius Clemens and
Flavia Domitilla his wife. Flavius Clemens was the emperor's cousin-
german; he was colleague of Domitian in the consulship; and _ his
children had been designated by Domitian as successors to the im-
perial throne ; when he was suddenly put to death by the emperor for his
profession of Christianity. Flavia Domitilla was not only allied to the
emperor by marriage: she was also his blood-relation, the daughter of
his own sister ; and, when her husband was put to death, she herself was
banished to one of the islands’.
But the evidence of the spread of Christianity in the Flavian house-
hold does not stop here. Among the early burial places of the Roman
Christians was one called the Cwmeterium Domitille. This has been
identified beyond question by the investigations of de Rossi with the
catacombs of the Tor Marancia near the Ardeatine Way. With charac-
teristic patience and acuteness the eminent archeologist has traced the
1 I have given reasons elsewhere for _fession; see Philippians p. 22 sq. (ed.-4),
rejecting the opinion that ¢wo persons of — where the divergences in the authorities
this name, the wife and the niece of Fl, are explained,
Clemens, suffered for their Christian pro-
258 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT
early history of this cemetery ; and it throws a flood of light on the
matter in question’. Inscriptions have been discovered which show that
these catacombs are situated on an estate once belonging to the Flavia
Domitilla who was banished on account of her faith. ‘Thus one in-
scription records that the plot of ground on which the cippus stood
had been granted to P. Calvisius Philotas as the burial place of himself
and others, EX . INDVLGENTIA . FLAVIAE . DOMITILL[AE] (Orelli-Henzen
Inser. no. 5422). Another monumental tablet is put up by one Tatia
in the name of herself and her freedmen and freedwomen, This
Tatia is described as [NV]TRIX . SEPTEM . LIB[ERORVM] . DIVI . VESPA-
stan[1] . [ET] . FLAVIAE . DOMITIL[LAE]. VESPASIANI . NEPTIS, and the
sepulchre is stated to be erected EIVS. BENEFICIO, 1.6. by the conces-
sion of the said Flavia Domitilla, to whom the land belonged (Orelli-
Henzen Juscr. no. 5423). <A third inscription runs as follows...FILIA.
FLAVIAE . DOMITILLAE...... [VESPASI]ANI . NEPTIS . FECIT . GLYCERAE.L.
Bis sos [PosT]ERISQVE . EORYM . etc. (Corp. Jnscr. Lat. vi. no. 948)’.
This last indeed was not found on the same site with the others,
but was embedded in the pavement of the Basilica of San Clemente
in Rome: but there is some reason for thinking that it was transferred
thither at an early date with other remains from the Cemetery
of Domitilla. Even without the confirmation of this last monument
however the connexion of this Christian cemetery with the wife of
Flavius Clemens is established beyond any reasonable doubt. And
recent excavations have supplied further links of evidence. This
cemetery was approached by an above ground vestibule, which leads to
a hypogeum, and to which are attached chambers, supposed to have
been used by the custodian of the place and by the mourners assembled
at funerals. From the architecture and the paintings de Rossi infers
that the vestibule itself belongs to the first century. Moreover the pub-
licity of the building, so unlike the obscure doorways and dark under-
ground passages which lead to other catacombs, seems to justify the belief
that it was erected under the protection of some important personage
and during a period of quiet such as intervened between the death of
this uncertainty does not affect the main
point. It matters little for our purpose,
whether the Flavia Domitille of this in-
1 De Rossi’s investigations will be
found in the Bzlletini di Archeologia
Cristiana 1865, pp. 17 Sq.» 33 Sq.» 41
Sq, 89-Sq.; 1874, Pp. 45 51, OS) Sis
122 sq.; 1875, pp. 5 sq., 46sq.; comp.
Roma Sotteranea 1. p. 186 sq.) 266 sq.
* The lacune in the inscription may be
filled up in more ways than one; but
scription is identified with the wife of
Clemens or with her mother, the daughter
of Vespasian. The name /lavia Domi-
til/a was inherited from her grandmother,
the wife of Vespasian; Sueton. Vespas. 3.
‘ TO THE CORINTHIANS. 259
Nero and the persecution of Domitian. The underground vaults and
passages contain remains which in de Rossi’s opinion point to the first
half of the second century. Here also are sepulchral memorials, which
seem to belong to the time of the Antonines, and imply a connexion
with the Flavian household. Thus one exhibits the monogram of a
FLAVILLA ; another bears the inscription dA. caBeINOC . Kal . TITIANH.
adeAcoi; a third, dA. πτολεμάιος.. TIP. KAI OYATI. KONKopAld. As regards
the second, it will be remembered that the father of ΕἸ. Clemens
and brother of Vespasian bore this very name T. Flavius Sabinus' ;
and de Rossi therefore supposes that we have here the grave of
actual descendants (grandchildren or great grandchildren) of this Flavius
Sabinus, through his son Flavius Clemens the Christian martyr*, In
illustration of the name Titiane again, he remarks that three pre-
fects of Egypt (A.D. 126, A.D. 166, A.D. 215 or 216) bore the name
Flavius Titianus, and that the wife of the emperor Pertinax was a
Flavia Titiana. We may hesitate to accept these facts as evidence
that the persons in question were actual descendants of the imperial
house; but if not, the names will at all events point to some
freedmen or retainers of the family. Moreover, connected with this
same cemetery was the cultus of one S. Petronilla, who was reputed
to have been buried here, and in whose name a basilica was erected
on the spot at the close of the fourth century*, This virgin saint
his Christianity see PAilippians p. 22.
2 The two sons of Fl. Clemens, when
they were designated successors to the
throne, assumed the names Vespasianus
and Domitianus by order of Domitian ;
1 Borghesi (Ceuvres Ill. p. 372 54.) has
shown that this T. Flavius Sabinus was
prefect of the city during the Neronian
persecution. He is described as a man
of a gentle disposition (Tac. Ast. iii. 65
‘mitem virum abhorrere a sanguine et
ceedibus,’ and again ‘Sabinus non in-
sultans et miseranti propior,’ 23. 75 ‘in-
nocentiam justitiamque ejus non argueres
...In fine vitze alii segnem, multi mode-
ratum et civium sanguinis parcum cre-
didere’) ; and it is pleasant to think with
de Rossi (Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1865,
p- 18, 1875, p. 66) that the conduct of the
Christian martyrs at this crisis gave
the first impulse towards Christianity
in his family. Inthe epithet ‘segnis’ we
are reminded of the description which
Suetonius (Domit. 15) gives of his son
Fl. Clemens, ‘contemptissimz inertiz.’
For the bearing of this description on
they were then little children; Sueton.
Domit, 15. We hear nothing of them
afterwards, but on the fall of the Flavian
dynasty they would retire into private
life and probably drop their assumed
names. In A.D. 262 we read of one
Domitian, a successful general, ‘qui se
originem diceret a Domitiano trahere
atque a Domitilla;’ Trebell. Poll. Zyr.
Trig. 12.
3 The sarcophagus of this Petronilla
was removed from the Cemetery of
Domitilla to the Basilica of S. Peter by
Paul I (A.D. 757—767). Forthe recent
discovery of the Basilica of S. Petro-
nilla and of another memorial of her
260 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
was in legendary story designated the daughter of S. Peter. Some
modern critics have sought to explain this designation by a spiritual
fatherhood, just as this same Apostle speaks of his ‘son Marcus’ (1 Pet.
v. 13). But the legend obviously has arisen from the similarity of
names, Petros, Fetronilla; and thus it supposes a natural relationship.
‘The removal of her sarcophagus to the Vatican in the eighth century,
and the extraordinary honours there paid to her, are only explicable on
this supposition. Of this personage de Rossi has given a highly pro-
bable account’. It had been remarked by Baronio that the name
Petronilla is connected etymologically not with Petros, but with Petro-
mius (he might have added fetro); and de Rossi calls attention to the
fact that the founder of the Flavian family was one T. Flavius Petro, a
native of Reate, the grandfather of the two brothers, T. Flavius Sabinus
the prefect of the city and T. Flavius Vespasianus the emperor. This
Petronilla therefore, whom the later legend connects with S. Peter, may
have been some scion of the Flavian house, who, like her relations
Fl. Clemens and ΕἸ. Domitilla, became a convert to Christianity. Even
the simple fact of a conspicuous tomb bearing the name Petrondl/a
would have been a sufficient starting-point for the legend of her re-
lationship to S. Peter in an age when the glorification of that Apostle
was a dominant idea.
I have given an outline of the principal facts which de Rossi has
either discovered or emphasized, and of the inferences which he has
drawn from them, so far as they bear on my subject. He has also en-
deavoured to strengthen his position by other critical combinations;
but I have preferred to pass them over as shadowy and precarious.
Even of those which I have given, some perhaps will not command
general assent. But the main facts seem to be established on grounds
which can hardly be questioned; that we have here a burial place of
Christian Flavii of the second century; that it stands on ground
which once belonged to Flavia Domitilla; and that it was probably
cultus within the Cemetery of Domitilla,
together with the sepulchre of SS.
Nereus and Achilles, see Bull, di
Archeol, Crist. 1874, pp. 5 sq., 68 sq.,
122 sq., 1875, p. 5 sq. See also below
p- 262, note 1.
1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1865, p. 22.
De Rossi seems still to attach weight to
the opinion that this Petronilla was a
spiritual daughter of S. Peter: but he
himself has deprived this hypothesis of
its raison d’étre by pointing out the true
derivation of the name. The spiritual
relationship is a mere invention of
modern critics, following Baronio (Azz.
69, §xxxiii). To this writer it is offen-
sive that a daughter should have been
born to S. Peter after his call to the
Apostleship ; and he argues against the
natural relationship accordingly. The
old legend had no such scruple.
2 Sueton. Vespas. τ.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 261
granted by her to her dependents and coreligionists for a cemetery.
There is reason for believing that in the earliest ages the Christians
secured their places of sepulture from disturbance under the shelter of
great personages, whose property was protected by the law during
their life time, and whose testamentary dispositions were respected
after their death’.
But if the Flavian household was the stronghold of Christianity in
Rome at this time, what light does this fact throw on the authorship of
our letter? Who was this Clemens bishop of Rome, so famous a
name in later legend, and (as we may infer) so important a personage
in contemporary Christian history? One answer is obvious. S. Paul,
writing to the Philippians (iv. 3), mentions with commendation a certain
Clemens. Origen therefore identified this person with the bishop of
Rome, just as he identified the Hermas saluted in the Roman Epistle
with his namesake the author of the Shepherd; and in both points he is
followed by later writers. But his opinion does not appear to be based
on any tradition. Moreover the Clemens saluted by S. Paul was ap-
parently a Philippian; and, as the name is not uncommon, all ground
for the identification disappears’. Others again in recent times have
supposed that the bishop of Rome and writer of the letter was none
other than Flavius Clemens, the cousin of Domitian, who was put to
death for his (η΄. It may be confidently affirmed however that, if
the bishop of Rome had been the nearest male relative to the reigning
emperor and the father of the boys whom Domitian had already desig-
nated as his successors to the throne, the fact would have been paraded
in the earliest annals of Christianity and could not have passed into
oblivion. Others again have conjectured that he was a less conspicuous
scion of the imperial family. Thus de Rossi makes him the son of a
brother of Fl. Clemens‘, herein following the Acts of SS. Nereus and
Achilles. These acts however are confessedly a spurious production’;
1 De Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist.
1864, p. 25 sq., Rom. Sotter. 1. p. 102 sq.
20 sq.
5 Acta Sanct. Bolland. Maii 111. p. 4.
2 See Philippians p. 166 sq., for a
fuller discussion of this question.
3 Of recent editors, Hilgenfeld is very
decided in identifying Clement the consul
with Clement the bishop; p. xxxii sq.
(ed. 2), comp. Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol.
1869, p. 232 54. Harnack leans to this
opinion, but speaks with hesitation ;
p- lxii sq. (ed. 2).
4 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1865, p.
Nereus and Achilles are there represented
as the chamberlains (exnuchz) of 8. Domi-
tilla the Virgin, and as having been
martyred at the same time with her.
On the other hand the inscription which
Damasus placed in this Cemetery of
Domitilla implies that they were soldiers
of the tyrant, who refused to be the
instruments of his cruelty and resigned
their military honours: Bull. di Archeol.
262 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
there is no reason to think that they had any other basis of fact be-
sides the cultus of SS. Nereus and Achilles and of S. Petronilla’ in
connexion with the Cemetery of Domitilla; and no such nephew of
Fl. Clemens is mentioned elsewhere. Moreover this solution is open
to the same objections as the last, though not in the same degree.
Again, Ewald conjectures that he was a son of ΕἸ. Clemens, and appeals
to the Homilies and Recognitions for support’; but for this conjecture
there is even less to be said. These Clementine writings do indeed
regard Clement the bishop as a distant relative of the Roman emperor’,
not however of Domitian, but of Tiberius; while the names given in
the story to his father, mother, and brothers—Faustus, Mattidia,
Faustinus, Faustinianus—are borrowed from the imperial family of later
sovereigns, Hadrian and the Antonines. This romance therefore is
valueless as evidence; and at most it can only be taken to imply a
tradition that our Clement was somehow or other connected with the
household of the Ceesars.
Crist. 1874, Ὁ. 20 sq) Whether the
legend of these martyrs was founded on
fact or not, it is impossible to say. The
discovery of a monumental stone with
their names in the Cemetery of Domitilla
would be a sufficient starting-point for
the story in the fourth and later cen-
turies, when martyrdoms were the fa-
vourite subjects for romance. There is
reason for believing that gravestones have
been largely instrumental in such fictions.
1 The Acts of S. Petronilla are incor-
porated in those of SS. Nereus and
Achilles (see also Act. SS. Bolland. Maii
ΧΧΧΙ, VII. p. 413 sq., this being her own
day). So far as I can see, the legend of
S. Petronilla is due to the combination of
two elements: (1) The story mentioned
by S. Augustine as related in some
apocryphal writings of the Manicheans,
that S. Peter miraculously healed his
daughter (whose name is not given) of
the palsy (c. Adim. 17, Op. VIII. p. 139).
This story seems to be suggested by the
incident related in Mark i. 29 sq., Luke
iv. 38 sq. (2) The discovery of a sar-
cophagus in the cemetery of the Christian
Flavii bearing the name of Petronilla.
When this tomb was transferred to the
Nor indeed is Ewald’s theory consistent with
Vatican by Paul I, a Church adjoining
the Basilica of S. Peter was built for
its reception. It seems to have been in-
scribed AVRELIAE . PETRONILLAE . FI-
LIAE. DVLCISSIMAE (see Bull. di Archeol.
Crist. 1865, p. 46). The first word how-
ever is elsewhere given as AVREAE, and
possibly it may have been somewhat ob-
literated by time. The identification with
S. Peter’s daughter would naturally arise
out of this inscription, which was even
believed to have been engraved by the
Apostle’s own hand.
2 Gesch. des V. Israel Vi. p. 296 sq.
3 Hom. xii. 8, where Clement says,
τῷ ἐμῷ πατρὶ ws καὶ συντρόφῳ αὐτὸς
Καῖσαρ συγγενίδα προσηρμόσατο γυναῖκα,
ἀφ᾽ ἣς τρεῖς ἐγενόμεθα υἱοί... ἡ μὲν οὖν
μήτηρ μου Ματτιδία ἐλέγετο, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ
Φαῦστος, τῶν δὲ ἀδελφῶν καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν
Φαυστῖνος ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ δὲ Φαυστινιανὸς ἐλέ-
yero, (comp, iv. 7, xiy.. 6,. 10). ἐπ
parallel passage in the Recognitions (vii. 8)
is ‘patri, utpote propinquo suo et una
educato, nobilis adzeque familie Czsar
ipse junxit uxorem’ etc. Ewald sup-
poses that this Faustus and Mattidia are
intended to represent Flavius Clemens
and Flavia Domitilla.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 263
history or chronology. The sons of Flavius Clemens were yet children
destined to the imperial purple at the very time when our Clement
presided over the Church of the metropolis.
But the theory which identifies the writer of the epistle with the
cousin of Domitian seems to me to be open to still graver objections.
Is it possible to conceive this letter as written by one, who had re-
ceived the education and who occupied the position of Flavius Clemens ;
who had grown up to manhood, perhaps to middle life, as a heathen;
who was imbued with the thoughts and feelings of the Roman noble;
who about this very time held the most ancient and honourable office
in the state in conjunction with the emperor; who lived in an age of
literary dilettantism and of Greek culture; who must have mixed in
the same circles with Martial and Statius and Juvenal, with Tacitus
and the younger Pliny; and in whose house Quintilian lived as the
tutor of his sons, then designated by the emperor as the future rulers
of the world?’ Would not the style, the diction, the thoughts, the
whole complexion of the letter, have been very different? It might
not perhaps have been less Christian, but it would certainly have been
more Classical—at once more Roman and more Greek—and less
Jewish, than it is.
The question, whether the writer of this epistle was of Jewish or
Gentile origin, has been frequently discussed and answered in opposite
ways. The special points, which have been singled out on either side,
will not bear the stress which has been laid upon them. On the one
hand, critics have pleaded that the writer betrays his Jewish parentage,
when he speaks of ‘our father Jacob,’ ‘ our father Abraham’ (δὲ 4, 31);
but this language is shown to be common to early Christian writers,
whether Jewish or Gentile (see p. 44). On the other hand, it has been
inferred from the order ‘day and night’ (δὲ 2, 20, 24) that he must
have been a Gentile; but examples from the Apostolic writings show
that this argument also is quite invalid (see p. 39). Or again, this latter
conclusion has been drawn from the mention of ‘our generals’ (§ 37),
by which expression the writer is supposed to indicate his position as
‘before all things a Roman born’’.
1 Quintil. Zust. iv. Procem. ‘Quum
vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis
suze nepotum delegaverit curam,’ etc.
Sueton. Domit. 15 ‘ Flavium Clementem
..cujus filios etiam tum parvulos suc-
cessores palam destinaverat.’ The rheto-
rician seems to have been indebted to the
But this language would be equally
father of his pupils for the highest hon-
ours; Auson. Grat. Act. ad Gratian. 31
‘Quintilianus, consularia per Clementem
ornamenta sortitus, honestamenta nominis
potius videtur quam insignia potestatis
habuisse.’
2 Ewald Gesch. d. V. Israel Vi. p. 206.
264 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
appropriate on the lips of any Hellenist Jew who was a native of Rome.
Setting aside these special expressions however, and looking to the
general character of the letter, we can hardly be mistaken, I think, in
regarding it as the natural outpouring of one whose mind was saturated
with the knowledge of the Old Testament. The writer indeed, like the
author of the Book of Wisdom, is not without a certain amount of
Classical culture (88 20, 25, 33, 37, 38, 55); but this is more or less
superficial. ‘The thoughts and diction alike are moulded on ‘the Law
and the Prophets and the Psalms.’ He is a Hellenist indeed, for he
betrays no acquaintance with the Scriptures in their original tongue:
but of the Septuagint Version his knowledge is very thorough and
intimate. It is not confined to any one part, but ranges freely over
the whole. He quotes profusely, and sometimes his quotations are
obviously made from memory. He is acquainted with traditional in-
terpretations of the sacred text (§§ 7, 9, 11, 31). He teems with words
and phrases borrowed from the Greek Bible, even where he is not
directly quoting it. His style has caught a strong Hebraistic tinge
from its constant study. All this points to an author of Jewish or
proselyte parentage, who from a child had been reared in the know-
ledge of this one book’.
Jews were found in large numbers at this time among the slaves and
freedmen of the great houses, even of the imperial palace’. I observe this
very name Clemens borne by one such person, a slave of the Ceesars, on
asepulchral monument; D.M.CLEMETI.CAESARVM.N.N. SERVO. CASTEL-
LARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE. FECIT . CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS
(Orelli Zzscr. 2899): for his nationality may be inferred from the name
of his relative Sabbathis, who sets up-the monument. And elsewhere
there is abundant evidence that the name at all events was not un-
common among the dependents of the Cesars about this time. Thus we
read in a missive of Vespasian, DE. CONTROVERSIA .... VI. FINIRET .
CLAVDIVS. CLEMENS. PROCVRATOR. MEVS.SCRIPSI. EI (Murat. ΜΧΟΙ. 1).
In another inscription we have, EVTACTO. AVG. LIB. PROC. ACCENSO .
DE. LAT . (520) A. DIVO . VESPASIANO . PATRI. OPTIMO . CLEMENS. FILIVS
1 This conviction of a Judaic authorship
is strengthened in my mind every time
T read the epistle. On the other hand
Harnack says (p. lxiii, ed. 2), ‘ rectius ex
elegante sermonis genere et e cc. 37, 55;
judices eum nobili loco natum fuisse
patria Romanum’: and Ewald (I. c.) ar-
gues (I think, somewhat perversely) that
the length of the writer’s quotations from
the Old Testament shows that the book
was novel to him. But in fact the direct
quotations are only a very small part,
and the least convincing part, of the evi-
dence.
2 See Philippians p. 14.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 265
(2d. Dcccxcrx. 2); in another, CLEMENS. AVG. AD. SVPELECT . (b. CMXvII.
10); in another D. Μ΄. SEDATI. TI. CL. SECVNDINI . PROC. AVG. TABVL.
CLEMENS. ADFINIS (26. CMXV. 9); in another, PRO.SALVTE.T.CAESARIS.
AVG. F.IMP.VESPASIANI. TI. CLAVDIVS. CLEMENS. FECIT (Corp. Jnscr.
Lat. νι. no. 940); in another, T. VARIO. CLEMENTI. AB. EPISTVLIS. AV-
GVSTOR., this last however dating in the reign of M. Aurelius and 1,.
Verus A.D. 161—169 (10. 111. no. 5215); while in another, found in
the columbarium of the Freedmen of Livia and therefore perhaps
belonging to an earlier date than our Clement, we read IvLIA . CAL-
LITYCHE.STORGE. CLAVDI.EROTIS. DAT. CLEMENTI. CONIVGI.CALLITYCHES
(#6. McccLiv. 7). I venture therefore to conjecture that Clement
the bishop was a man of Jewish parentage, a freedman or the
son of a freedman belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens
the emperor’s cousin. It is easy to imagine how under these cir-
cumstances the leaven of Christianity would work upwards from be-
neath, as it has done in so many other cases; and from their
domestics and dependents the master and mistress would learn
their perilous lessons in the Gospel. Even a much greater degree
of culture than is exhibited in this epistle would be quite consistent
with such an origin; for amongst these freedmen were frequently
found the most intelligent and cultivated men of their day. Nor is
this social status inconsistent with the position of the chief ruler of the
most important Church in Christendom. A generation later Hermas,
the brother of bishop Pius, speaks of himself as having been a slave
(Vis. 1. 1); and this involves the servile origin of Pius also. At
a still later date, more than a century after Clement’s time, the papal
chair was occupied by Callistus, who had been a slave of one Car-
pophorus an officer in the imperial palace (Hippol. Her. ix. 12). The
Christianity which had thus taken root in the household of Demitian’s
cousin left a memorial behind in another distinguished person also.
The famous Alexandrian father, who flourished a century later than
the bishop of Rome, bore all the three names of this martyr prince,
Titus Flavius Clemens. He too was doubtless a descendant of some
servant in the family, who according to custom would be named after
his patron when he obtained his freedom’.
1 This conjunction of names occurs also
in an inscription found at Augsburg, T.
FL. PRIMANO. PATRI.ET. TRAIAN . CLE-
MENTINAE. MATRI.ET.T.FL. CLEMENTI.
FRATRI (Corp. Juscr. Lat. Il. no. 5812),
where the name 7yaiana is another link
of connexion with the imperial house-
hold. Compare also T.FLAVIVS. LON-
GINVS...ET. FLAVI. LONGINVS . CLEMEN-
TINA. MARCELLINA. FIL [1] (24. no. r100);
MATRI. PIENTISSIMAE. LVCRETIVS . CLE-
MENS. ET. FL. FORTVNATVS. FILI (74, no.
266 THE EPISTLE< OF 8) CLEMENT
The imperial household was henceforward a chief centre of Chris-
tianity in the metropolis. Ireneus writing during the episcopate of
Eleutherus (circ, a.D. 175—189), and therefore under Μ. Aurelius
or Commodus, speaks of ‘the faithful in the royal court’ in language
which seems to imply that they were a considerable body there
(iv. 30. 1). Marcia, the concubine of this last-mentioned emperor, was
herself a Christian, and exerted her influence over Commodus in alle-
viating the sufferings,of the confessors (Hippol. H@r.1.c.). At this same
time also another Christian, Carpophorus, already mentioned, whose name
seems to betray a servile origin, but who was evidently a man of con-
siderable wealth and influence, held some office in the imperial house-
hold. <A little later the emperor Severus is stated to have been cured
by a physician Proculus, a Christian slave, whom he kept in the palace
ever afterwards to the day of his death: while the son and successor
of this emperor, Caracalla, had a Christian woman for his foster-mother
(Tertull. ad Scap. 4). Again, the Christian sympathies of Alexander
Severus and Philip, and the still more decided leanings of the ladies of
their families, are well known. And so it continued to the last.
When in an evil hour for himself Diocletian was induced to raise his
hand against the Church, the first to suffer were his confidential servants,
the first to abjure on compulsion were his own wife and daughter’.
4. Bearing these facts in mind, we turn to the fersecutzon of the
Christians under Domitian. And here the close connexion, not only
of Christianity, but (as it would appear) of the bearers and the writer
of the letter, with the imperial household serves to explain the singular
reserve which is maintained throughout this epistle. The persecutor
and the persecuted met face to face, as it were. They mixed together
in the common affairs of life; they even lived under the same roof.
F.STEL. CLEMENTI by the DECVRIONES.
ALAE. GETVLORVM. QVIBVS. PRAEFVIT.
BELLO. IVDAICO.SVB. DIVO. VESPASIANO.
AVG. PATRE (Orelli, no. 748), found at
Turin. This Valerius Clemens there-
fore was a contemporary of our Clement.
5844). The name FLAVIVS . CLEMENS
occurs also in another inscription (Murat.
CDxcIv. 4), along with many other
names which point to the household of
the Czesars, though at a later date. So too
C.7.£. Ut. no. 5783. Comp. alsoD.M.
C. VALERIO. CLEMENTI. C. IVLIVS . FE-
LIX. ET, FLAVIA. HEREDES (Murat. MDV.
12).
This last inscription illustrates the con-
nexion of names Valerius and Clemens
which appears in our epistle. Of this
phenomenon also we have other examples:
e.g. a memorial erected C.VALERIO.C.
For other instances of the combination
Valerius Clemens see Corp. Luscr. Lat.
111. no. 633, 2572, 6162, 6179, Muratori
MCDXV. I, MDLXIV. 12. So too Valerius
Clementinus C. 7. Z, ll. no. 3524, and
Valeria Clementina, 14. 2580.
1 Mason Fersecution of Diocletian p.
121 Sq.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 267
Thus the utmost caution was needed, that collisions might not be
provoked. We can well understand therefore with what feelings one
who thus carried his life in his hand would pen the opening words
of the letter, where he excuses the tardiness of the Roman Church
in writing to their Corinthian brethren by a reference to ‘the sudden
and repeated calamities and reverses’ under which they were suffering
(§ 1). Not a word is said about the nature of these calamities; not
a word here or elsewhere about their authors. As the text has been
hitherto supplied, these sufferings are represented as past, tas [γενομ]ένας
ἡμῖν, ‘which befel us.’ But one of our newly discovered authorities
gives a present tense, ‘which are befalling us’ (γινομένας for γενομένας) ;
and this seems on the whole better suited to the general tenour of the
letter. There is no indication anywhere that the fears of the Roman
Christians had ceased. On the contrary, after referring to the victims of
the Neronian persecution, it is said significantly, ‘We are in the same
lists, and the same struggle awaits us’ (δ. 7). The letter therefore was
probably written while the Church was still at the mercy of the tyrant’s
caprice, still uncertain when and where the next blow might fall. How-
ever this may be, it could hardly have been penned before the two most
illustrious members of the Church, the patron and patroness of the
writer (if my hypothesis be correct), had paid the one by his death,
the other by her banishment, the penalty of their adherence to the
faith of Christ ; for these seem to have been among the earliest victims
of the emperor’s wrath. Flavius Clemens was consul A. Ὁ. 95, and he
appears to have suffered immediately after the close of the year®. In
September of the year following the tyrant himself was slain. The
chief conspirator and assassin was one Stephanus, a freedman, the
steward of Domitilla. He is even said to have struck the blow with
the name of Flavius Clemens on his lips, as if he were the avenger of
his master’s death*®. If this be so, the household of this earliest of
1 This interpretation however must not
be pressed. The words may refer to the
Christian course generally, and need not
have any special reference to the en-
durance of persecution.
2 Suetonius (Domit. 15) says that Domi-
tian put him to death ‘tantum non in
ipso ejus consulatu.’ On the other hand,
Dion Cassius (lxvii. 16) speaks of him
as ὑπατεύοντα at the time. Clinton sup-
poses that he was executed in the year
95, to which as consul he gave his name,
but ‘after he had abdicated the consul-
ship.’
3 All our authorities are agreed in
representing this person as the chief as-
sassin : Suet. Domit. 7 ‘Stephanus Domi-
till procurator et tunc interceptarum
pecuniarum reus consilium operamque
tulit etc’; Dion Cass. Ixvii. 15, 16, μετὰ
Στεφάνου ἀπελευθέρου...ὁ Taphénos...rdv
Στέφανον ἐρρωμενέστερον τῶν ἄλλων ὄντα
εἰσέπεμψε x. τ. λ.; Philostr. Vit. Afoll.
viii. 25 Στέφανος τοίνυν ἀπελεύθερος τῆς
268 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
Christian princes must have contained within its walls strange diversities
of character. No greater contrast can be conceived to the ferocity and
passion of these bloody scenes which accompanied the death of
Domitian, than the singular gentleness and forbearance which dis-
tinguishes this letter throughout. In no respect is this ἐπιείκεια, to
which beyond anything else it owes its lofty moral elevation, more
conspicuous than in the attitude of these Roman Christians towards
their secular rulers, whom at this time they had little cause to love.
In the prayer for princes and governors, which appears in the newly
recovered close of the epistle, this sentiment finds its noblest ex-
pression: ‘Guide our steps to walk in holiness and righteousness and
singleness of heart, and to do such things as are good and well-pleasing
in Thy sight, and in the sight of our rulers.’ ‘Give concord and peace
to us and to all that dwell on the earth...that we may be saved, while
we render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name,
and to our rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, O 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 resisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord,
health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the govern-
‘ment 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 according to that which is good and
well-pleasing in Thy sight, that, administering in peace and gentleness,
with godliness, the power which Thou hast given them, they may
obtain Thy favour’ (δ 60, 61). When we remember that this prayer
issued from the fiery furnace of persecution after experience of a
γυναικὸς K. τ. X. (he has just before men- lives. Philostratus connects the act
tioned the wife of Flavius Clemens).
The motives of his act however are dif-
ferently represented. The language of Sue-
tonius suggests that he did it to extricate
himself from a charge of embezzlement.
Dion Cassius says that he was only the
instrument of a general conspiracy in the
household, to which even the empress
Domitia herself was suspected to have
been privy, and that the conspirators
acted in self-defence, as Domitian was
believed: to entertain designs against their
directly with the death of Clemens, say-
ing of Stephanus, etre τὸν τεθνεῶτα [Κλή-
μεντα] ἐνθυμηθεὶς εἴτε πάντας, and repre-
sents him as addressing Domitian thus,
οὐ τέθνηκεν ὁ πολεμιώτατός σοι Κλήμης,
ὡς σὺ οἴει, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν οὗ ἐγὼ οἶδα, καὶ
ξυντάττει ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ σέ. These words
have a strange ring, when we remember
that this Clemens was a Christian. Ste-
phanus himself was killed in the fray
which ensued,
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 269
cruel and capricious tyrant like Domitian, it will appear truly sublime
—sublime in its utterances, and still more sublime in its silence. Who
would have grudged the Church of Rome her primacy, if she had
always spoken thus?
5. The mention of this intercession for rulers leads to the con-
sideration of another point of importance, the /turgical character of
this newly recovered portion. The whole epistle may be said to lead
up to the long prayer or litany, if we may so call it, which forms a
fit close to its lessons of forbearance and love. Attention is directed
to it at the outset in a few emphatic words: ‘We will ask with
fervency of prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe
may guard intact the number of His elect that is numbered throughout
the whole world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ’ (§ 59). The
prayer itself extends to a great length, occupying some seventy lines
of an ordinary octavo page. Moreover it bears all the marks of a
careful composition. Not only are the balance and rhythm of the
clauses carefully studied, but almost every other expression is selected
and adapted from different parts of the Old Testament,
This prayer or litany begins with an elaborate invocation of God
arranged for the most part in antithetical sentences. Then comes a
special intercession for the afflicted, the lowly, the fallen, the needy,
the wanderers, the hungry, the prisoners, and so forth. After this
follows a general confession of sins and prayer for forgiveness and
help. This last opens with an address, evincing the same deep sense
of the glories of Creation, which is one of the most striking character-
istics in the earlier part of the epistle: ‘Thou through thine operations
didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world, etc.’ (§ 60).
It closes, as the occasion suggests, with a prayer for unity: ‘Give con-
cord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth, as Thou gavest
to our fathers, etc.’ After this stands. the intercession for rulers, which
I have already quoted. The whole closes with a doxology.
It is impossible not to be struck with the resemblances in this passage
to portions of the earliest known liturgies. Not only is there a general
coincidence in the objects of the several petitions, but it has also in-
dividual phrases, and in one instance a whole cluster of petitions’,
in common with one or other of these. Moreover, this litany
in 5. Clement’s Epistle begins with the declaration, ‘We will ask
with fervency of prayer and supplication’ (éxrevg τὴν δέησιν καὶ
1 See the parallel from Ziturg. D. Marc. p. 21, in the note on § 59 τοὺς ἐν θλίψει
kK. τ᾿ ἃ,
CLEM. 18
270 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
ἱκεσίαν ποιούμενοι); and the expression reminds us that this very
word, καὶ ἐκτενής, was the designation given to a corresponding portion
in the Greek ritual, owing to its peculiar fervency'. We remember
also that the name of S. Clement is especially connected with
a liturgy incorporated in the closing books of the Apostolic
Constitutions, and the circumstance may point to some true tradition
of his handiwork in the ritual of the Church. Moreover, this liturgy
in the Constitutions, together with the occasional services which ac-
company it, has so many phrases in common with the prayer in
S. Clement’s epistle, that the resemblances cannot be accidental.
But no stress can be laid on this last fact, seeing that the writers alike
of the earlier and later books of the Apostolic Constitutions obviously
had Clement’s epistle in their hands.
What then shall we say of this litany? Has 5. Clement here in-
troduced into his epistle a portion of a fixed form of words then in
use in the Roman Church? Have the extant liturgies borrowed
directly from this epistle? Or do they owe this resemblance to some
common type of liturgy, founded (as we may suppose) on the prayers
of the Synagogue, and so anterior even to Clement’s epistle itself? The
origin of the earliest extant liturgies is a question of high importance;
and with the increased interest which the subject has aroused in England
of late years, it may be hoped that a solution of the problems connected
with it will be seriously undertaken ;*but no satisfactory result will be
attained, unless it is approached in a thoroughly critical spirit and
without the design of supporting foregone conclusions*. Leaving this
question to others for discussion, I can only state the inference which
this prayer of S. Clement, considered in the light of probabilities,
suggests to my own mind. There was at this time no authoritative
written liturgy in use in the Church of Rome: but the prayers were
modified at the discretion of the officiating minister. Under the
dictation of habit and experience however these prayers were gradually
assuming a fixed form. A more or less definite order in the petitions,
a greater or less constancy in the individual expressions, was already
1 See Afost. Const. vii. 6—10, where
the deacon invites the congregation again
and again to pray ἐκτενῶς, ἔτι ἐκτενῶς,
ἔτι ἐκτενέστερον. Comp. Liturg. S. Chrys.
p- 122 (ed. Neale) τὴν ἐκτενῆ ταύτην
ἱκεσίαν προσδέξαι.
2 Such an investigation must include
a careful study of the prayers of the
Synagogue with a view to ascertaining
their antiquity. Some of the parallels
to 5.
noticed
Clement’s prayer which will be
in the Addenda are
strongly suggestive of a connexion.
below
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 271
perceptible. As the chief pastor of the Roman Church would be the
main instrument in thus moulding the liturgy, the prayers, without
actually being written down, would assume in his mind a fixity as
time went on. When therefore at the close of his epistle he asks
his readers to fall on their knees and lay down their jealousies and
disputes at the footstool of grace, his language naturally runs into those
antithetical forms and measured cadences which his ministrations in
the Church had rendered habitual with him when dealing with such a
subject. This explanation seems to suit the facts. ‘The prayer is not
given as a quotation from an acknowledged document, but as an
immediate outpouring of the heart; and yet it has all the appearance
of a fixed form. This solution accords moreover with the notices
which we find elsewhere respecting the liturgy of the early Church,
which seem to point to forms of prayer more or less fluctuating even
at a later date than this’.
6. Again fresh light is thrown on the doctrinal teaching of S. Clement
by this discovery. The genuineness of the passage relating to the
Holy Trinity, quoted by S. Basil as from Clement (see above p. 168),
was questioned by many. The hesitation was due chiefly to the
assumption that this very definite form of words involved an ana-
chronism ; and it was partially justified by the fact that several spurious
writings bearing the name of Clement were undoubtedly in circulation
in the fourth century when Basil wrote. The passage however has
a place in the genuine epistle; and though, as S. Basil says, it is
expressed dpyaixurepov, i.e. with a more primitive simplicity than the
doctrinal statements of the third and fourth century, yet it is much
more significant in its context than the detached quotation of this
1 Justin AZol. i. 67 (p. 98 E) καὶ ὃ
προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας,
ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει. We
cannot indeed be certain from the ex-
pression ὅση δύναμις itself that Justin is
referring to unwritten forms of prayer,
for it might express merely the fervency
and strength of enunciation ; though in
the passage quoted by Bingham (Christ.
Ant. xiii. 5. 5) from Greg. Naz. Orat. iv.
§ 12 (1. p. 83) φέρε, ὅση δύναμις, ἁγνισά-
μενοι καὶ σώματα καὶ ψυχὰς καὶ μίαν
ἀναλαβόντες φωνὴν x. τ. r., the ὅση δύνα-
pus has a much wider reference than to
the actual singing of the Song of Moses,
as he takes it, But in connexion with
its context here, it certainly suggests that
the language and thoughts of the prayers
were dependent on the person himself:
as e.g. in Afol. i. 55 (p. 90) διὰ λόγου
καὶ σχήματος τοῦ φαινομένου, ὅση δύναμις,
προτρεψάμενοι ὑμᾶς x. Τ. r. (comp. 1. 13,
Ρ. 60). This is forty or fifty years
after the date of Clement’s letter. In
illustration of ὅσῃ δύναμις Otto refers to
Tertullian’s phrase (Afol. 39), quoting
it however incorrectly, ‘Ut quisque...de
proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in me-
dium Deo canere. The force of ὅση
δύναμις may be estimated from its occur-
rences in Orig. c. (εἶσ, v. 1, 51, 53, 58,
Vill. 35.
18—2
272 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT
father would have led us to infer. ‘As God liveth,’ writes Clement,
‘and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Ghost, (who are) the
faith and the hope of the elect, so surely etc.’ The points to be ob-
served here are twofold. First; for the common adjuration in the Old
Testament, ‘as the Lord (i.e. Jehovah) liveth,’ we find here substituted
a form which recognizes the Holy Trinity. Secondly; this Trinity is
declared to be the object or the foundation of the Christian’s faith
and hope. On the other hand, our recently discovered authorities
throw considerable doubt on the reading in an earlier passage of the
epistle (§ 2), where the Divinity of Christ is indirectly stated in the
almost patripassian language of which very early patristic writings
furnish not a few examples. Where Clement speaks of ‘ His sufferings’
(τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ), our new authorities agree in substituting ‘Christ’
(rod Χριστοῦ), as the person to whom the pronoun refers, in the place
of ‘God’ (τοῦ Θεοῦ) which stands in the Alexandrian Ms. This various
reading will be discussed in its proper place.
7. Lastly; the discovery of the Syriac Version throws some light
on the canonical reception of the epistle. Not without some hesitation,
I expressed an opinion in the earlier part of this work (p. 21) that a
Syrian Christian would probably understand by the two Epistles of
Clement the spurious letters in praise of Virginity. I am still disposed
to think that this was the case in the fourth and fifth centuries, to which
I was referring. But our Ms shows that at a later date the Epistles
to the Corinthians were not only known to the Syrian Church but also
treated by some persons as strictly canonical. With the evidence
which is now before us we are able to trace the following stages in
their progress towards full canonicity.
(1) The genuine Epistle of Clement was read from time to time
on Sundays in the Church of Corinth to which it was addressed (see
above pp. 3, 11). Our information on this point relates to about
A.D. 170. This reading however did not imply any canonicity ; for
Dionysius bishop of Corinth, to whom we are indebted for the infor-
mation, tells us at the same time that his Church purposes doing
the same thing with a second letter of the Roman Church which they
had only just received when he wrote (Euseb. #. £. iv. 23).
(2) This practice was extended from the Church of Corinth to
other Christian communities. Eusebius, in the first half of the fourth
century, speaks of this epistle as ‘having been publicly read in
very many Churches both formerly and in his own time’ (7. £. iii. 16
ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ δεδημοσιευμένην πάλαι τε καὶ καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς αὐτούς).
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 273
(3) For convenience of reading, it would be attached to mss of
the New Testament. But, so far as our evidence, goes, this was not
done until two things had first happened. (a) On the one hand, the
Canon of the New Testament had for the most part assumed a definite
form in the mss, beginning with the Gospels and ending with the
Apocalypse. (ὁ) On the other hand, the so-called Second Epistle of
Clement had become inseparably attached to the genuine letter, so
that the two formed one body. I shall endeavour to give an explana-
tion of this attachment, when I come to speak of the Second Epistle.
Hence, when we find our epistle included in the same volume with
the New Testament, it carries the Second Epistle with it, and the
two form a sort of affendix-to the Canon. This is the case with the
Alexandrian Ms in the middle of the fifth century, where they stand
after the Apocalypse, i.e. after the proper close of the sacred volume—
thus occupying the same position which in the earlier Sinaitic Ms is
occupied by ether apocryphal matter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas.
(4) It was an easy stage from this to include them among the
Books of the New Testament, and thus to confer upon them a patent
of canonicity. Uncritical transcribers and others would take this
step without reflexion. This is done by the scribe of A in his table
of contents (see above, p. 22 sq.).
It is interesting to observe, though the fact seems to have been
overlooked, that the treatment in the Alexandrian ms exactly accords
with the language of the 85th Apostolical Canon as read in the Coptic
Churches. The Books of the New Testament are there given as ‘ The
Four Gospels...... the Acts of us the Apostles; the two Epistles of
Peter ; the three of John; the Epistle of James, with that of Judas ; the
fourteen Epistles of Paul; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles
of Clement which ye shall read aloud'’ Here the several divisions
1 The Coptic form of the Apostolical
Canons is preserved in both the great
dialects of the Egyptian language. The
Thebaic is found in a Ms recently ac-
quired by the British Museum, Orient.
1320. I shall give an account of this
Ms (which has not been noticed hitherto)
in the Addenda to this volume, for it
throws another ray of light on the dark
question of the history of the AZostolical
Constitutions. The Memphitic is pub-
lished by Tattam in the volume entitled
“ The Apostolic Constitutions or Canons of
the Apostles in Coptic, London 1848,
This Memphitic version however was
not made directly from the Greek, but
is a very recent and somewhat barbarous
translation from the previously existing
Thebaic Version, The concluding words
of the clause quoted stand in the The-
baic TCNTEMETICTOAHNRAHMHC "
evetneoujovorhoA, which I have
translated in the text; in the Memphitic,
as given by Tattam (p. 211), ht πὲπι-
274 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT
of the New Testament occur in the same order as in A, though
the Catholic Epistles are transposed among themselves’; moreover
the Clementine Epistles are placed after the Apocalypse, as in that ms;
and, as a reason for adding them, it is stated that they were to be read
publicly’.
(5) Their canonicity being assumed, it remained to give practical
effect to this view, and to place them in a position consistent with it.
In other words, they must be transferred from the appendix to the
body of the New Testament. The only known document, which has
actually taken this step, is our Syriac Version, where they are attached
to the Catholic Epistles. The date of this Ms (A.D. 1170) throws
some light on the matter.
It has been observed above (p. 12), that the general silence about
the Epistles of S. Clement in the older discussions on the Canon
of Scripture seems to show that their claims to canonicity were not
considered serious enough to demand refutation. In the 8sth and
last of the Apostolical Canons however the case is different. If the
existing Greek text of this Canon may be trusted, this document not
only admits them to a place among the Scriptures, but ranges them
with the Catholic Epistles. The list of the New Testament writings runs
as follows ; ‘ Four Gospels,...... ; of Paul fourteen Epistles ; of Peter two
Epistles ; of John three; of James one; of Jude one; of Clement two
Epistles ; and the Constitutions (διαταγαὶ) addressed to you the bishops,
through me Clement in eight books, which ought not to be published to
στολὴ ManAHMHe ETETEMOWOT
ox ehod, which he renders ‘the two
Epistles of Clemens, which you read out
of.’
In the Arabic Version of this Canon,
Brit. Mus. Add. 7211, fol. 22 Ὁ (dated
A. D. 1682), in like manner the 14 Epis-
tles of S. Paul are followed by the Reve-
lation, and the Revelation by the ‘Two
Epistles of Clement, and they are one
book.’ After this comes the clause about
the Apostolic Constitutions, substantially
the same as in the Greek Canon. This
is an Egyptian ms. In the Carshunic
MS, Add. 7207, fol. 27b (A.D. 1730),
which is of Syrian origin, the Apocalypse
is omitted, so that the Epistles of Clement
are mentioned immediately after the 14
Epistles of St Paul. Here again follows
a clause relating to the eight books of
the Apostolic Constitutions.
1 The order of the Catholic Epistles
among themselves is the same also in the
Greek 85th Canon. It may have been
determined either by the relative impor-
tance of the Apostles themselves, or by
the fact that the Epistles of S. James and
S. Jude were accepted as canonical in the
church from which the list emanated, at
a later date than 1 Peter and 1 John.
2 The clause about reading aloud seems
to refer solely to the Epistles of Clement.
At least this restriction is suggested by
the connexion, as weil as by comparison
with a somewhat similar clause relating
to Ecclesiasticus which closes the list of
the Old Testament writings. But on this
point there must remain some uncertainty.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 225
all (ἃς οὐ χρὴ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων), owing to the mystical teaching in
them (διὰ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς μυστικά) ; and the Acts of us the Apostles’? Some
doubt however may reasonably be entertained whether the words Κλήμεν-
tos ἐπιστολαὶ δύο are not a later interpolation. In the first place, the
form is somewhat suspicious. As these Clementine letters range with
the Catholic Epistles, we should not expect a repetition of ἐπιστολαί ;
and, as Clement is the reputed author of the Canons, we should expect
ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος, so that the obvious form would be ‘Of me Clement
On this point however I should not lay any stress, if the
external evidence had been satisfactory. But the subsequent history of
this Canon tends to increase our suspicions. The Trullan Council
(A.D. 692) in its 2nd Canon adopts ‘the 85 Canons handed down to
us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles,’ adding however
this caution; ‘But seeing that in these Canons it hath been com-
manded that we should receive the Constitutions (διατάξεις) of the
same holy Apostles, (written) by the hand of Clement, in which certain
spurious matter that is alien to godliness hath been interpolated long
ago by the heterodox to the injury of the Church, thus obscuring for us
the goodly beauty of the divine ordinances, we have suitably rejected
such Constitutions, having regard to the edification and safety of the
most Christian flock, etc.*’ Here no mention is made of the Epistles
of Clement; and therefore, if the Trullan fathers found them in their
copy of the 85th Apostolical Canon, they deliberately adopted them as
part of the Canonical Scriptures. The Canons of this Trullan Council
were signed by the four great patriarchs of the East. The Council
itself was and is regarded by the Eastern Church as a General Council*.
two’,’
1 Ueltzen Const. Apost. p. 253- from the former. The Canon in question
5 Beveridge (Syzod. 11. ii. p. 40) re-
marks on the difference between the
mention of Clement in.the two cases.
He argues from it that different persons
are meant.
In the Syriac copy, Brit. Mus. Add.
14,526 fol. ga (a Ms of the vilth cent.,
and probably written soon after A.D. 6413
see Wright’s Catalogue p. 1033) it is ‘of
me Clement two Epistles.’ In another
Syriac copy, Add. 12,155, fol. 205 b
(apparently of the να cent.; 2d. pp.
921, 949) the scribe has first written ‘ of
me Clement,’ and has corrected it ‘of
him Clement’ ( altered into he
This seems to be a different translation
is the 81st in the former, the 7gth in the
latter. A third Syriac Ms Add. 14,527
(about the xIth cent.; 7. p. 1036)
follows the last as corrected and reads ‘of
him Clement.’ I owe these facts to the
kindnéss of Prof. Wright, who also in-
vestigated the readings of the Aithiopic,
Carshunic, and Arabic Mss for me, as
given elsewhere in my notes, pp. 274,
278. In the Syriac Ms from which
Lagarde has published his text (Re. Fur.
Eccl. Ant. Syr. 1856 p. 0) the form
exactly follows the Greek, ‘Of Clement
two Epistles.’
3 Bevereg. Synod. 1. p. 158.
4 The Trullan or Quinisextine Council
276 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
From this time forward therefore the Epistles of Clement would be-
come an authoritative part of the New Testament for the Christians
of the East. How comes it then, that not a single ms of the Greek
Testament among many hundreds written after this date includes them
in the sacred volume? But this is not all. About the middle of the
eighth century John of Damascus gives a list of the New Testament
Scriptures (de Fid. Orthod. iv. 17, Op. 1. p. 284, Lequien). It ends:
‘Of Paul the Apostle fourteen Epistles ; the Apocalypse of John the
Evangelist ; the Canons of the Holy Apostles by the hand of Clement’
(κανόνες τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος). Here is no mention of
Clement’s Epistles. But one ms, Reg. 2428, which exhibits inter-
polations elsewhere, inserts a mention of them, reading the last
sentence κανόνες τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ δύο διὰ Κλή-
μεντος, where the very form of the expression betrays the insertion.
This interpolation is significant; for it shows that there was a dis-
position in some quarters to introduce these epistles into the Canon,
and that ancient documents were tampered with accordingly’. Again,
in the Stichometria attached to the Chronographia of Nicephorus,
patriarch of Constantinople (ta.p. 828), though itself perhaps of an
older date, the Epistles of Clement are not placed among the un-
doubted scriptures, nor even among the disputed books of the Canon,
among which the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of the Hebrews
have a place, but are thrown into the Apocrypha’. Again, a little
later we have the testimony of another patriarch of Constantinople,
the great Photius, who died towards the close of the ninth century.
In his edition of the JVomocanon® (Tit. ill. cap. 1, Of. IV. p. 1049 $q.,
ed. Migne) he mentions the 85th Apostolical Canon as an authority
on the subject of which it treats. Yet elsewhere he not only betrays
no suspicion that these Clementine Epistles are canonical, but speaks
in a manner quite inexplicable on this hypothesis.
was commonly called the ‘Sixth’ Coun-
cil by the Greeks, being regarded as a
supplement to that Council; Hefele Con-
ciliengeschichte 111. p.299. The 7th Gene-
ral Council (the Second of Niczea, A.D. 787)
adopted both the Apostolical Canons
themselves and the Canons of the Trullan
Council as a whole (see Hefele 2. p. 443);
and thus they were doubly confirmed as
the law of the Greek Church.
1 Harnack (Pref, xli, ed. 2) seems
disposed to accept καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ δύο as
In one passage
part cf the genuine text, though he speaks
hesitatingly. But seeing that this Ms
stands alone and that it is, as Lequien
says, ‘interpolatus varie’ in other parts,
the spuriousness of these words can hardly
be considered doubtful.
2 Westcott Canon p. 552 sq. (ed. 4),
Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 97 56.
3 On the relation of the omocanon of
Photius to earlier works of the same
name, see Hergenréther Photius 111. p.
92 56.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277
of his Bibliotheca (Cod. 113) he incidentally repeats the statement of
Eusebius (without however mentioning his name), that the First
Epistle was at one time ‘considered worthy of acceptance among
many, so as even to be read in public’ (παρὰ πολλοῖς ἀποδοχῆς
ἠξιώθη ὡς καὶ δημοσίᾳ ἀναγινώσκεσθαι), whereas ‘the so-called Second
Epistle is rejected as spurious’ (ὡς νόθος ἀποδοκιμάζεται). In another
(Cod. 126) he records reading the two epistles, apparently for the
first time; he treats them exactly in the same way as the other books
of which he gives an account ; he criticizes them freely ; he censures
the First, not only for its faulty cosmography, but also for its defective
statements respecting the Person of Christ; he complains of the
Second, that the thoughts are tumbled together without any continuity;
and he blames both in different degrees for quoting apocryphal say-
ings ‘as if from the Divine Scripture.’ Moreover, his copy of these
Clementine Epistles was not attached to the New Testament, but
(as he himself tells us), was bound up in a little volume with the
Epistle of Polycarp’.
For these reasons it may be questioned whether the Clementine
Epistles were included in the Greek catalogue of the 85th Apostolic
Canon, as ratified by the Trullan Council’, though they are found in
1 Tt is true that the procedure of the
Trullan Council in this respect was very
loose. It confirmed at the same time
the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea
and Carthage, though the Canons of
Carthage contained a list of the Canonical
books not identical with the list in the
Apostolical Canons, and this may also
haye been the case with the Laodicean
Canons (see Westcott Canon ἢ. 434, ed.
4). But these Canons were confirmed
en bloc along with those of other Coun-
cils and individual Fathers; and no in-
dication is given that their catalogues of
scriptural books came under review. On
the other hand not only are the Apos-
tolical Canons placed in the forefront and
stamped with a very emphatic approval,
but their list of scriptural books is made
the subject of a special comment, so that
its contents could not have been over-
looked. The difficulty however is not so
much that the Trullan Council should
have adopted these Clementine Epistles
into their Canon carelessly, as that (if
they had done this) the fact should have
been ignored for several centuries.
2 This inference will seem the more
probable, when it is remembered that
the list of the New Testament writings in
the 85th Apostolical Canon occurs in
several other forms, in which the Clemen-
tine Epistles are differently dealt with.
(i) The Egyptian form has been given
already (p. 273). Here the Apocalypse is
inserted, and the two Clementine Epistles
are thrown to the end. No mention is
made of the Apostolic Constitutions.
(ii) Harnack (Pref. p. xlii, ed. 2) has
given another form of this Greek list
which was copied by Gebhardt from a
Moscow Ms of the rsth century, Bibl.
S. Synod. cxlix, fol. 160 b, where the New
Testament writings are enumerated as
follows ; τῆς δὲ καινῆς διαθήκης βιβλία δ΄.
ἐπιστολαὶ Πέτρου β΄. Ἰωάννου τρεῖς. Ἰακώ.
278 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT
Syriac copies of an earlier date. But in the 12th century the case is
different. At this date, and afterwards, the Greek canonists no longer
pass them over in silence. Alexius Aristenus, ceconomus of the Great
Church at Constantinople (c. A.D. 1160), repeats this list of the 85th
Canon, expressly naming ‘the two Epistles of Clement,’ and mention-
ing the rejection of the Constitutions by the Trullan Council (Bevereg.
Synod, 1. p. 53); and more than a century and a half later, Matthzus
Blastaris (c, A.D. 1335, Syzdagma B. 11) interprets the second Trullan
Canon as including the Clementine Epistles in the same condemnation
with the Constitutions’. ‘This is certainly not the case; but it shows
to what straits a writer was driven, when he felt obliged to account
for the conflict between the current text of the 85th Apostolical Canon
and the universal practice of his Church.
It will thus be seen that the only author who distinctly accepts
the two Clementine Epistles as canonical is Alexius Aristenus.
βου ᾿Ιούδα μία. Κλήμεντος α΄. Παύλου
ἐπιστολαὶ 16’. The context shows de-
cisively that this Moscow list is taken from
the 85th Apostolical Canon. The word
evayyedia seems to have been left out
after βιβλία by homeeoteleuton; and
Acts is perhaps omitted from carelessness
owing to its position at the end of the
list in the Canon itself. The omission of
the Second Clementine Epistle is the
remarkable feature here.
(iii) The three -2¢hiopic Mss, Brit.
Mus. Orient. 481 (Χν τι ἢ cent.), Orzent.
796 (about A.D. 1740), Orient. 793 (about
the same date as the last), after the
Apocalypse, name the eight books of
the Ordinances of Clement (i.e. the
Apostolic Constitutions) and do not men-
tion the Epistles of Clement at all. On
the other hand the A®thiopic text of the
Canons as printed by ὟΝ. Fell (Cazones
A postolorum A&thiopice p. 46, Lips. 1871)
repeats the list as it stands in the Coptic
(see above, p. 273), ending ‘Abukalamsis,
i.e. visio Ioannis, ἄπο Epistole Cle-
mentis’; and the Ethiopic Ms Brit. Mus.
Orient. 794 (XV th cent.) ends similarly,
though the number of Clement’s Epistles
is not mentioned. Again the independent
His
list in the MS Add. 16,205, (described
by Dillmann Catal. Cod. thiop. Brit.
Mus. p. 40), has them, but in a different
position, ending ‘...Epistola Iudz, Cle-
mentis Epistole 2, Apocalypsis, Pauli
14.’ In other independent lists, Add.
16,188 (described by Dillmann l.c. p. 4)
and Orient. 829, the Epistles of Clement
are omitted. On the A®thiopic recen-
sions of the Apostolic Canons, and on
different AEthiopic lists of the Biblical
books, see Dillmann in Ewald’s Fahr-
bticher, 1852, Ὁ. 144 56.
An account of Arabic and Carshunic
MSS is given above, p. 274.
Generally it may be said that this
Canon is altered freely so as to adapt it
to the usage of particular Churches,
Still the normal Greek form is the best
supported, as being confirmed by the
Syriac Mss, which are the most ancient
of all.
1 Bevereg. Sywod. 11. 11, p. 56 ds δὲ
προστίθησι διὰ τοῦ Ἀλήμεντος δύο ἐπιστο-
λὰς καὶ τὰς πονηθείσας τούτῳ διατάξεις
τῶν ἀποστόλων ὕστερον ὁ τῆς συνόδου δεύ-
τερος κανὼν διέγραψεν, ws πολὺ τὸ νόθον
πρὸς τὴν αἱρετικὴν καὶ παρέγγραπτον δεξα-
μένας.
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279
work was written within a few years of the date of our Ms (Α. Ὁ. 1170).
and its authority stood very high. It would perhaps be over bold to
assume that the influence of Aristenus was felt in a Syrian monastery
at Edessa; but at all events the coincidence of date is striking, and
seems to show a tendency to the undue exaltation of these Clementine
Epistles in the latter half of the twelfth century. There is no reason
however for thinking that our Ms represents more than the practice
of a very restricted locality, or perhaps of a single monastery. Several
other Syriac Mss, either of the Gospels or of Evangelistaries, are in
existence, dating not many years before or after this, and written
(in some instances) on this same Mountain of Edessa’; and if on
examination of these it should be found, as seems not unlikely, that
the table of lessons in our MS is unique, the fact will not be unim-
portant in its bearing on the canonicity here ascribed to the Clementine
Epistles.
1 At least in one instance, the Paris 1212 and the place ‘ Ccenobium Deipare,
Ms described by Adler (Vou. Zest. Vers. cui cognomen est Hospitium, in monte
Syr. Ὁ. 58), of which the date is A.D. sancto Edessze,’
= + « Po al 7 tes “a fifi” aia ay os yz a,
τι θεν τεῖν ἐγ ἘΠῊΝ ἐδ να Ses: μοῖρ θα πῶ ἡ 6
shpat wy oh ve Kt ae te ἡ
ak) έν af rites ratiny: tha ἂν πάντα ἃ eee νὴ
ἣν off yet 3 ih it ai. te εἰ ine Μὲ a
wie! SP 88.) 8st Weseyney ae io ἢ ult ne Tey “sot 38
τ
ὲ uv 9 =
orsite: ΟΣ ah arth tt Foy
hs 4 CHG
rai ὟΣ os rhs at a y ay ΟΣ 5 Us = ‘
“anit. 4 diet (ree ina! tees set te ἀγὼν δὲ a
ane Xe 2 § Asa Ι
ee ee eee re Sets attuned ἐμάν οὶ
So 155 "AO aLvel i ΕΣ =
ΠΤ {1 Ὁ. Vs ἔκ ;
Meta. etal tad
THE NEWLY RECOVERED PORTION
OF
Prt Pisin OF 3. CLEREN δὰ
TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
ALL deviations from the text of C are recorded in the notes, except a
few differences of accent and punctuation which are unimportant. The
ν ἐφελκυστικὸν however is uniformly inserted, though wanting in C; see
above, p. 226.
For the rule which has been observed in recording or omitting to
record the deviations of S, see above, p. 240.
σι
Ji. ΤΠ ΡΤ
OF CLEMENT.
ἀνθ ὧν γὰρ ἠδίκουν νηπίογο, PONEYOHCONTAI, KAI
᾽ ‘ > -“ > ΄-“" c ᾿ 9 a > , ,
ezetacmoc ἀσεβεις OAEI Ὁ AE EMOY ἀκοῶν KATACKHNOCE!
> > > , , \ c ‘ > / > ‘ \ n
ἐπ᾿ EATIAI TETIOIOWC, KAI HCYYACE! APOBWC ἀπὸ TIANTOC KAKOY.
LVIILI.
᾽ ΄ 3 “ /
Ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, φύγοντες
Ὑ. / ᾽ a / Pe ,
πακούσωμεν οὖν τῷ παναγίῳ Kal ἐνδόξῳ
\ ~
τας προειρημένας διὰ τῆς
/ ~~ > ~ 5 - c/ /
σοφίας τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσιν areas, ἵνα κατασκηνωσωμεν
2 ἐξετασμὸς ἀσεβεῖς ὀλεῖ] inguisitio impiorum perdit ipsos 5.
3 πεποιθώς]
confidens 8, using the same expression which occurs just below (δ 58) as the render-
ing of πεποιθότες : om. C. See the lower note.
In ὃ 35 πανάγιος is fully rendered.
ἁγίῳ.
I. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κιτιλ.] ΤΟ continuation
of the quotation Prov. i. 32, 33, from
the Lxx. See above, p. 167.
2. ἐξετασμός] ‘enguiry’, ‘investi-
gation’, i.e. ‘trial and judgment’,
as in Wisd. iv. 6. The Hebrew
however is muy, ‘security’, i.e.
‘false confidence’; which the Lxx
translators seem either to have mis-
read or to have connected with Nv,
‘to ask, enquire’. In the earlier
part of the verse the Lxx departs
widely from the Hebrew.
3. πεποιθώς] This word does not
occur in the great MSS of the Lxx
(SAB) ; nor indeed, so far as I know,
is the reading κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ (v. 1.
ἐν) ἐλπίδι πεποιθώς found in any MS
of this version, though ἀναπαύσεται
ἐν εἰρήνῃ πεποιθώς appears in. place of
it in no. 248 (Holmes and Parsons),
this last being a Hexaplaric reading
(see Field’s Hexapla, ad loc.). Clem.
Alex. however clearly so quotes it,
Strom. ii. 22 (p. 501 sq.) ἡ mavaperos
Σοφία λέγει᾽ Ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων κατα-
σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι πεποιθώς" ἡ γὰρ τῆς
ἐλπίδος ἀποκατάστασις ὁμωνύμως ἐλπὶς
εἴρηται" διὰ [1]. διὸ] τοῦ Κατασκηνώσει
τῇ λέξει παγκάλως προσέθηκε τὸ Πε-
ποιθώς ; though elsewhere, S7vomz. ii. ὃ
(p. 449), iv. 23 (p. 632), he has
> , ᾽ν » , “
ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ᾽ εἰρήνης (-νῃ) πεποιθώς.
4 παναγίῳ] S translates as if
5 φυγόντες] φεύγοντες (?) 5.
It is clear that πεποιθώς is genuine
in the text of our Clement; since he
dwells upon it in the beginning of
the next chapter, κατασκηνώσωμεν
πεποιθότες κιτιλ. For other examples
of this manner of emphasizing the
key-word of a quotation see the
Addenda on p. 144, 1- 3. From the
manner in which Clem. Alex. begins
his quotation 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
a place among them that are saved
through Jesus Christ, through whom
is the glory unto Him for ever’.
4. παναγίῳ)] So also above, § 35.
See the note in the Addenda to
p. 116, Lg.
5. τῆς σοφίας] Wisdom is re-
presented as the speaker in the pas-
sage of Proverbs just quoted. More-
over this name Σοφία was given to
the whole book; see above, p. 165.
6. κατασκηνώσωμεν] ‘dwell in peace’.
As the common LXxX rendering of
{2’, for which purpose it was chosen
284 THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT [LvIII
’ \ \ i lo m4 Γ “-
πεποιθότες ἐπὶ τὸ ὁσιώτατον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ
af ΄ \ \ é “- \ af
ὄνομα. δέξασθε τὴν συμβουλὴν ἡμῶν, καὶ ἔσται
> , ea \ ε \ \ “" ε 7
a ἷ
μεταμέλητα πλὴν ζῇ yap ὁ pos Kal ζ) ὁ —
9 a a ε
ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἣ τε πίστις
\ \ - σ «“ /
Kat ἡ ἐλπὶς τών ἐκλεκτῶν, OTL ὁ ποιήσας ἐν ταπει-
’ > 3 ~ 3 / > / Δ
7 soba μετ igi seth celia ἀμεταμελήτως TA
ς a“ A A { 4 7
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα δικαιώματα καὶ προστάγματα,
© ῇ \ / af \
οὗτος ἐντεταγμένος καὶ ἐλλόγιμος ἐσται εἰς TOV ἀριθμὸν
I ὁσιώτατον] S renders as if ὅσιον, but the translator's practice elsewhere. in
rendering superlatives is so uncertain, that no inference can be drawn as to the
reading. 2 ἡμῶν] add. ἀδελφοί[μου] 8. 3 καὶ ζῇ] So too 5; Basil omits
the preceding words. For ἐλπίς,
doubtless in part owing to the simi-
larity of sound (see the note on μωμο-
σκοπηθέν, ὃ 41), it implies the idea of
“rest, peace’.
3. ἀμεταμέλητα]Ὠ A somewhat
favourite word of Clement, δὲ 2, 54.
So ἀμεταμελήτως, below. For the
plural see Kiihner Gramm. 11. Ὁ. 5956.
ᾧῇ yap κιτιλ. ] This passage is quoted
by S. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. 29 (111.
p. 61): see above, p. 168, where the
quotation is given. For-the form of
adjuration ζῇ ὁ Θεὸς...ὅτι, ‘As surely
as God liveth...so surely’, comp.
ᾧῇ Κύριος ott... which occurs frequently
in thie LXX, esg..1)/Sam.xx: 2 XXVi.
16, xxix. 6, 1 Kings xxii. 14, 2 Kings
¥. 020; ἴσον So: too . Rom:, αν, 14
ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ x.T.X.
(where 5. Paul is quoting loosely
from Is, xlv. 23, combining it how-
ever with the (6 ἐγὼ κιτιλ. 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 (ie. the object of faith and
hope) of the elect’; for ἥ τε πίστις
«.T.A. are obviously in apposition to
meaning ‘ the object of hope’, see the
note on Ign. Magn. 11 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν ; comp. I Tim. 1. I.
On the other hand the sense of πίστις
is different in Ign. Smyrn 10 ἡ
τελεία πίστις, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (see
the note there).
5. τῶν ἐκλεκτῶνὔἾ͵ Α favourite
word with Clement, §§ 1, 2, 6, 46, 49,
52, 59.
6. per ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας] The
phrase occurs again below, § 62. It
is a sort of oxymoron, or verbal para-
dox, like ‘strenua inertia’, ‘lene tor-
mentum’; for ἐπιείκεια involves the
idea of ‘concession’: comp. I Thess.
iv. 11 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν. So
Greg. Naz. Οζαξζ. iv. 79 (I. p. 116),
speaking of Julian’s persecution, says
ἐπιεικῶς ἐβιάζετο. The substantive ἐπι-
εἰκεια occurs also 88 13, 30, 56: the
adjective ἐπιεικής, 1, 21,29. The fre-
quency of these words aptly indicates
the general spirit of the letter: see
the note on ὃ 1.
8. ἐλλόγιμος] used here, as in
§ 57, for those who have a place
among the elect of God: see also
§ 44,62. Comp. Plato Phileb, 17 πὶ
LVI]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
285
τῶν σωζομένων διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐστιν αὐτῷ
[2 ὃ / > \ 5 “σ- ΄- Cem 4
107] οξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
᾽ \ δέ > , “- φ , ΄-
Eav δέ τινες ἀπειθησωσιν τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
i]
τῆν ὦ
ἀμήν.
cl > / / e/ / \
Ot ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις, γινωσκέτωσαν OTL TAPATTWOEL και
κινδύ οὐ 5 ἑ XS ἐνδὴ ἱμεῖς δὲ ἀθώ
ὕνῳ οὐ μικρῷ ἑαντοὺς ἐνδήσουσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀθῷοι
> / \ ᾿ς qn - 3 ΓΝ
ἐσόμεθα ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ἁμαρτίας" καὶ αἰτησόμεθα,
» ΄σ΄ \ / \ ε εῇ / / \
ISEKTEVH τὴν δέησιν Kal ἱκεσίαν ποιούμενοι, ὅπως TOV
᾽ \ \ / ~ = qn
ἀριθμὸν τὸν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν
this second ζῇ.
the next.
οὐκ ἐλλόγιμον οὐδ᾽ ἐνάριθμον.
τὸν ἀριθμόν]! As above 88 2, 35,
and below § 59, with the note.
9. τῶν σωζομένων] ‘of those that
are in the way of salvation’, as
Luke xiii. 23, Acts ii. 47, 1 Cor. i. 18,
2 Cor. ii. 15. The opposite is oi
ἀπολλύμενοι, 1 Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. li. 15,
iv. 3, 2 Thess. 11. 10. Comp. also
Clem. Hom. xv. 10, Apost. Const.
Vili. 5, 7, 8. In the Afost. Const.
viii. 5 the words are τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν
σωζομένων as here.
LIX. ‘Ifany 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
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
CLEM.
Κύριος] twice in 8, at the end of one line and the beginning of
7 καὶ προστάγματα] om. S.
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’.
Il. vm αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ Θεοῦ. In
the same way they again claim to
be speaking with the voice of God
below, § 63 τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγραμμέ-
νοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ; Comp.
§ 56 μὴ ἡμῖν ἀλλὰ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ
Θεοῦ. See also Ign. Philad. 7 τὸ
πνεῦμα οὐ πλανᾶται, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ov...
ἐλάλουν.......«Θεοῦ φωνῇ, where a simi-
lar claim is made.
12. παραπτώσει)] ‘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 παράπτωμα is com-
mon. Polybius uses it several times:
comp. also Sext. Empir. adv. Math,
i. 210.
13. ἀθῷοι] As above, ὃ 46. For
the whole expression, ἀθῷος εἶναι ἀπὸ
ἁμαρτίας, comp. Num. v. 31.
15. τὸν ἀριθμὸν κ-ιτ.λ.}] See Rev,
vii. 4 sq. The same phrase τὸν ἀριθ-
pov τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ has occurred
already § 2. In one of the prayers
in the last book of the Afostolic
Constitutions (viii. 22) we have ὁ τὴν
τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν διὰ τῶν ἐνεργου-
μένων φανεροποιήσας καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν
19
286
THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT
[LIX
e/ > fA 7 2
ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διαφυλάξη ἀθραυστον ὁ δημιουργὸς
΄σ Id A “- / ’ 9 σ΄ ΄σ
τῶν ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ϊησοῦ
nw ᾽ - 3 lA ΄ 3 Ἁ hn ΕῚ a
Χριστοῦ, δ ov ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκότους. εἰς φῶς,
> \ / 2 > / 7 9 7 »
ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.
1 d@pavorov] add. Deus 5.
τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν σου διαφυλάττων, where
the expression here is combined with
another which occurs below (§ 60);
thus clearly showing that the writer
borrows directly or indirectly from
Clement.
I. ἄθραυστον] The word does not
Ὅσο “in, the. rex or INST... ft 3s
however not uncommon in classical
writers: e.g. Dion Cass. lili. 24
ἄθραυστον καὶ ὁλόκληρον τῷ διαδόχῳ
τὴν πόλιν παρέδωκεν, Which passage
illustrates its sense here. Comp.
Apost. Const. viii. 12 διαφυλάξῃς
ἄσειστον.
ὁ δημιουργὸς κιτ.λ.] The same phrase
occurs above ὃ 26; comp. § 33. For
δημιουργὸς see the note on § 20.
2. τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς K.7.A.] So
again lower down in this chapter,
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου
παιδός σου, and Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς
gov. It is worth observing in con-
nexion with the other coincidences, °
«ε >
that these expressions ὁ ἠγαπημένος
(ἀγαπητὸς) mais σου, ὁ mats σου; Occur
several times in the prayers in the
A post. Const. viil. 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. xlii. 1,
quoted in Matt. xii. 18 ἰδού, ὁ παῖς
pov ὃν ἡρέτισα, ὁ ἀγαπητός pov [εἰς]
ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου; Where παῖς
is ‘servant, minister’ (72Y). Comp.
Acts ili. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30. But the
higher sense of υἱὸς was soon im-
3 Χριστοῦ] add. Domini nostri S.
me S3 but this is doubtless a clerical error in transcribing the Syriac suffix.
ἡμᾶς]
5 Δὸς
ported into the ambiguous word mais:
e.g. Apost. Const. viii. 40 Tod povoye-
vous σου παιδὸς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ΚΕ 2757.
ad. Diogn.8; trenziis 12. 5:0; etc
and probably Mart. Polyc. 14 ὁ τοῦ
ἀγαπητοῦ παιδός σου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
πατήρ. And so Clement seems to
have used the word here.
3. ἐκάλεσεν x.7.X.] From 1 Pet.
ii. 9 τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς
τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. The epithet
θαυμαστὸν which is wanting here is
supplied by § 36 (as read in the
Greek MSS) ἀναθάλλει eis τὸ θαυ-
μαστὸν [αὐτοῦ] φῶς, where however
the epithet is omitted in the Syriac
and in Clem. Alex.
4. ἀγνωσίας ‘ stubborn ignorance’,
a stronger word than ἀγνοίας : comp.
1, Ῥεῖ 1 15. Τ1 σεῖς “aise 95
xxxv. 16, Wisd. xiii. I, 1 Cor. xv. 34.
See also Clem. Hom. ii. 6, 111. 47,
iv. 8, xvili. 13, 18.
eis ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης] Comp. Afost.
Const. vill. 11 ὃ διὰ Χριστοῦ κήρυγμα
γνώσεως δοὺς ἡμῖν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς
σῆς δόξης καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματός σου.
The language of Clement here seems
to be inspired by Ephes. i. 5 sq.
5. ἐλπίζειν] Some words have been
omitted in the Greek Ms, as the first
editor has correctly seen. The words
supplied in the text, Ads ἡμῖν, Κύριε,
will suffice. The same omission
existed also in the text from which
the Syriac Version was made. In
consequence of this, cov, σε; σε; σου,
ἐπαίδευσας, ἡγιάσας, ἐτιμήσας; are there
altered to avoid the abrupt transition
from the third person to the second ;
LIx] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 287
\ ean / > / ? \ \ > ,ὔ ,
[Δὸς ἡμῖν, Κυριε], ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχεγόνον πάσης
/ xf / 3 / \ > \ ~ 7,
κτίσεως OVOUA σου, ἀνοίξας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας
~ > \ / \ / ° > e -
ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ γινώσκειν σε, τὸν μονον ὕψιετον ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
“-“ ς ͵ > , \ a a
OTION EN APIOIC ANATTAYOMENON, TOV TATTEINOYNTA YBPIN
ἡμῖν, Κύριε] om. CS; see below.
καρδίας] cordium Ὁ. σε] cum Ὁ.
and at length words are inserted
before ᾿Αξιοῦμεν to introduce the
second person. On the recurrence
of lacunz in our authorities see
above, p. 248. Hilgenfeld gets over
the difficulty in part by substituting
ἄνοιξον for ἀνοίξας: 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, xxiii. 22,
etc. (see Winer ὃ Ixiii. p. 725). But
the phenomena of our two authorities
show that Bryennios was right.
dpxeyovoy| i.e. ‘Thy Name which
was the first ovzgzx of all crea-
tion’, πάσης κτίσεως being governed
by dpxeyovov. As an active sense
is obviously wanted, it must be
accented dpxeyovoy, not ἀρχέγονον,
as by Bryennios: comp. [Aristot.]
de Mund. 6 (p. 399 Bekker) διὰ
τὴν πρώτην Kal ἀρχαιύγονον αἰτίαν,
where again we should accentuate
dpxatoyovoy, for the expression is
synonymous with ὁ πάντων ἡγεμών
τε καὶ γενετώρ which follows imme-
diately after. So too perhaps even
in Clem, Alex. Strom, vi. 16 (p. 810)
τὴν ἀρχεγόνον ἡμέραν, for just below
it is defined as πρώτην τῷ ὄντε φωτὸς
γένεσιν: but in Clem. Alex. Proér.
5 (p. 56) τὸ πῦρ ὡς ἀρχέγονον σέβοντες
it may be doubtful whether the fire
is regarded as a Principium prin-
cipiaus (apyeyovov), or a Principium
principiatum (ἀρχέγονον). In Greg.
Naz. Of. I. p. 694 we have τὸ
ἀρχέγονον σκότος. The word occurs
also Iren. i. 1. 1 (twice), I. 5. 2, I.
6 ὄνομά cov] nomen cjus sanctum S3 see below.
ὑψηλοῖς} ὑψίστοις C3 see the lower note.
9. 3, in the exposition of the Va-
lentinian system, where likewise the
accentuation may be doubtful. It
is not found in the Lxx or N. T.
Editors seem universally to accen-
tuate it dpxéyovos (see Chandler’s
Greek Accentuation § 467); but, I
think, on insufficient grounds.
6. τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς x.7.A.] suggested
by Ephes. 1. 17 sq. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει av-
Tov, πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ἀφθαλμοὺς
τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς
κιτιλ. See also above ὃ 36 ἠνεώχθη-
σαν ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας.
Comp. Mart. Polyc. 2.
7. γινώσκειν κιτ.λ.}] Comp. John
XVli. 3 ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν μόνον
ἀληθινὸν Θεόν.
ὕψιστον κιτ.λ.] From the ΤΙΧΧ Is.
Ivil. 15 ὁ ὕψιστος ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατ-
οἰκῶν τὸν αἰῶνα, ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις
ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ὕψιστος ἐν ἁγίοις ἀνα-
παυόμενος. So in the prayer “209,
Const. Vill. 11 ὕψιστε ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, ἅγιε
ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενε, doubtless taken
from Clement. Similarly the ex-
pression ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος in
other liturgies, D. AZarc. pp. 13, 27,
D. Facob. Ὁ. 70 (comp. p. 44), S.
Chrysost. p. 118 (ed. Neale).
I have substituted ὑψηλοῖς, as the
reading both of the LXx and of the
A post. Const. Moreover the Syriac
here translates by the same words,
δ )Υ 23 NI, which render ὕψιστος,
ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, in the Hexaplaric Version
of Is. Ilvil. 15: thus using two differ-
ent words. This however is not de-
cisive in itself.
’
8. τὸν ταπεινοῦντα «.7.A.| From
19--2
288
THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT δὲς
ὑπερηφάνων, TOV διάλλήύοντὰ λογιομοὶς ἐθνῶν, τὸν ποι-
οἵντὰ TATTEINOYC εἰς ὕψος καὶ τοὶς ὑψηλοὶς τὰἀπεινοῦντὰ,
TOV πλογτίζοντὰ KAl πτωχίζΖοντὰ, TOV ἀποκτείνοντὰ Kal
ZAIN ποιοῖντὰ, μόνον εὐεργέτην πνευμάτων καὶ Θεὸν
“πάσης σαρκός; TOV ἐπιβλέποντὰ ἐν Taic dBYccolc, TOVS
ἐπόπτην ἀνθρωπίνων ἔργων, TOV τῶν κινδυνευόντων
βοηθόν, τὸν τών ἀπηλπιομένων οωτῆρὰ, τὸν παντὸς
πνεύματος κτίστην καὶ ἐπίσκοπον, τὸν πληθύνοντα
1 ἐθνῶν] ἀνθρώπων: ανων) 5.
εὐεργέτην] εὑρετήν 5.
probably a loose paraphrase.
4 ζῆν ποιοῦντα] redimit a vivificat 5.
6 τῶν κινδυνευόντων] illorum qui affliguntur S, but it is
10 σε] cum S.
11 gov] ejus 5. ἡμᾶς ἐπαίδευ-
σας, ἡγίασας, ériunoas] wnstruxit nos et sanctificavit nos et honoravitnosS. ᾿Αξιοῦμεν
Is. xiii, 11 ὕβριν ὑπερηφάνων ταπει-
νώσω.
1. τὸν διαλύοντα] Probably from
Ps. xxxii. 10 διασκεδάζει βουλὰς ἐθνῶν,
ἀθετεῖ δὲ λογισμοὺς λαῶν.
2. τὸν ποιοῦντα κιτ.λ.} Job v. II
τὸν ποιοῦντα ταπεινοὺς εἰς ὕψος καὶ
ἀπολωλότας ἐξεγείροντα, Is. x. 33 τα-
πεινωθήσονται οἱ ὑψηλοί, Ezek. xxi. 26
ἐταπείνωσας τὸ ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὕψωσας
τὸ ταπεινόν, 2b. xvii. 24 ἐγὼ Κύριος ὁ
ταπεινῶν ξύλον ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὑψῶν ξύλον
ταπεινόν. See also Matt. xxill. 12,
Luke xiv. 11) xviii. 14.
3. τὸν πλουτίζοντα κιτ.λ.] From
1 Sam. ii. 7 Κύριος πτωχίζει καὶ πλου-
rites, ταπεινοῖ καὶ ἀνυψοῖ. Comp. also
Luke i. 53.
τὸν ἀποκτείνοντα κιτ.λ.] Deut. xxxil.
39 ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω;
1 Sam. 11.6 Κύριος θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ:
comp. 2 Kings v. 7 ὁ Θεὸς ἐγὼ τοῦ
θανατῶσαι καὶ ζωοποιῆσαι ;
4. εὐεργέτην] Comp. Ps. cxv. 7 ἐ-
πίστρεψον, ψυχή μου... ὅτι Κύριος evyp-
γέτησέ σε. 80 ἴοο Liturg. D. Mare.
Ῥ. 25 Ψυχῆς εὐεργέτα.
πνευμάτων κιτιλ] Modified from
Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16. See also
§ 62 (58) δεσπότης τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ
κύριος πάσης σαρκός, With the parallels
in the note (p. 169). Comp. Ζ 277. 0.
D. Facob. p.65 μνήσθητι, Κύριε, 6 Θεὸς
τῶν πνευμάτων Kal πάσης σαρκός.
5. τὸν ἐπιβλέποντα k.7.A.| Ecclus.
xvi. 18, 19, ἄβυσσος καὶ γῆ σαλευθή-
σονται ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ αὐτοῦ, ἅμα τὰ
ὅρη καὶ τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς ἐν τῷ
ἐπίβλεψαι εἰς αὐτὰ τρόμῳ συσσείονται.
Comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 156 ὁ
καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης καὶ ἐπι-
βλέπων ἀβύσσους. For the unusual
ἐπιβλέπειν ev, ‘to look into’, or
‘at’, comp: Eccles. 11: 11; 27Curem
XVI. 9.
τὸν ἐπόπτην «.T.A.] See Ps. xxxil
(xxxlli). 13, which passage Clement
may perhaps have had in mind, as
he has already adopted an earlier
verse of the same Psalm in this con-
text. For ἐπόπτης comp. 2 Macc.
Vii. 35 τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπόπτου
Θεοῦ, Esther v. 1 τὸν πάντων ἐπόπτην
Θεόν.
6. τὸν τῶν κινδυνευόντων κ.τιλ.]
Judith ix. 11 ἐλαττόνων εἶ βοηθός,
ἀντιλήπτωρ ἀσθενούντων, ἀπεγνωσμένων
σκεπαστής, ἀπηλπισμένων σωτήρ. For
ἀπηλπισμένοι comp. Is. xxix. 19,
Esth. iv. ad fin. See also Liturg.
LIx]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
289
» ’ \ ~ Α ’ , ᾽ , Ἢ 9
ἔθνη ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ ἐκ πάντων ἐκλεξάμενον τοὺς ἀγα-
~ 7 A 7 ~ ,
omwvTas σε διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδός
4 «Ὁ ΄σ / ς / s.. ἢ
σου, δι’ ov ἡμάς ἐπαίδευσας, ἡγίασας, ETLUNT AS.
AE
ae , , oe, :
οὔμέν σε, δέσποτα, βοηθὸν γενέσθαι καὶ ἀντιλήπτορὰ
ἡμῶν.
᾽ / \
ελεησον᾽ Tous
,
TETTTWKOTAS
\ > 7 ε ΄σ ΄σ \ \
τοὺς ἐν θλίψει ἡμῶν σῶσον" τοὺς ταπεινοὺς
Sf ~
ἔγειρον: τοῖς δεομένοις
> , \ > ~ of \ ἢ ἕν
; ἐπιφανηθι: τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ἴασαι: τοὺς πλανωμένους τοῦ
~ / / \ ~
λαοῦ σου ἐπίστρεψον: χόρτασον τοὺς πεινῶντας" λύ-
κιτ.λ.] S prefixes δύ dicemus illi cum supplicatione.
It seems to be required, as Hilg. and Gebh. have seen.
13 τοὺς ταπεινοὺς ἐλέησον] om. S, owing to the homeeoteleuton.
ἀσεβεῖς] egrotos (ἀσθενεῖς or νοσοῦντας ἢ) S; see the lower note.
ἐπιστράφηθι S.
7. Mare. p. 17 ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἀπηλ-
πισμένων (comp. Liturg. S. Basil.
p. 166), Act. S. Theodot. § 21 (in Rui-
nart) ‘Domine Jesu Christe, spes
desperatorum’.
8. πνεύματος κτίστην] Zech. xii. I
Κύριος... πλάσσων πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου ἐν
αὐτῷ, Is. lvii. 16 πνεῦμα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ
ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ
ἐποίησα. In Amos iv. 13 we have ἐγὼ
οὐ κτίζων πνεῦμα, Where it apparently
means ‘the wind,’ but might easily
be understood otherwise.
ἐπίσκοτον)] Job x. 12 ἡ δὲ ἐπισκοπή
σου ἐφύλαξέ μου τὸ πνεῦμα, τ Pet. il.
25 τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν
ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, Wisd. i. 6 6 Θεὸς.. τῆς
καρδίας αὐτοῦ ἐπίσκοπος ἀληθής. Comp.
Liturg. D. Mare. p. 17 ἐπίσκοπε
πάσης σαρκός.
11. ᾿Αξιοῦμεν κιτ.λ. See the prayer
in the Afost. Const. viii. 12. ἔτι
ἀξιοῦμέν σε...ὅπως πάντων ἐπίκουρος
γένῃ, πάντων βοηθὸς καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ
(with the context), which is evidently
indebted to this Passage of Clement.
Comp. Ps. cxviil (cxix). 114 βοηθός
μου καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ μου εἶ σύ.
13. τοὺς ἐν θλίψει x,7.A.] Compare
12 σε) so apparently S; om. C.
δέσποτα] Domine bone 8.
15 ἐπιφάνηθι]
the prayer in Liturg. D. Marc. p. 21
λύτρωσαι δεσμίους, ἐξέλου τοὺς
ἐν ἀνάγκαις, πεινῶντας χόρτασον,
ὀλεγοψυχοῦντας παρακάλεσον,
πεπλανημένους ἐπίστρεψον, ἐσκο-
τισμένους φωταγώγησον, πεπτωκότας
ἔγειρον, σαλευομένους στήριξον, νε-
νοσηκότας ἴασαι! ...... φρουρὸς ἡμῶν
καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ κατὰ πάντα γενό-
μενος, where the coincidences are
far too numerous and close to be
accidental.
15. ἀσεβεῖς] Comp. ὃ 3 ὥλον ἄδικον
καὶ ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφότας. The reference
in ἀσεβεῖς is not to unbelievers, but
to factious and unworthy members of
the Church. For this word Geb-
hardt (Zettschr. f. Kirchengesch. p.
307, and ad loc.) conjectures ἀσθενεῖς ;
and this may have been the reading
of S. But the occurrence of rovs
ἀσθενοῦντας just below is a serious
difficulty, and on this account I have
hesitated about accepting it. It is
not sufficient to answer with Harnack,
“ἀσθενοῦντες animo, ἀσθενεῖς Corpore
imbecilles sunt’; for both words are
used indifferently either of physical
or of moral weakness. Supposing
290 THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT [LIx
τρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους ἡμῶν: ἐξανάστησον τοὺς ἀσθε-
vouyTas* παρακάλεσον τοὺς ὀλιγοψυχοῦντας" τγνώτω-
CaN ἅπαντα τὰ ἔθνη, OTL εὐ εἶ ὁ Θεὸς μόνος, Kal
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς σου, καὶ ἡμεῖς \adc coy καὶ
πρόβὰτὰ Τῆς NOMAC Coy. 5
LX. Cv τὴν ἀέναον τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν διὰ
τῶν ἐνεργουμένων ἐφανεροποίησας: σύ, Κύριε, τὴν
᾽ / sf ς \ / == =
οἰκουμένην ἔκτισας, ὁ πιστὸς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς,
4 ὁ παῖς σου] add. dilectus (6 ἡγαπημένος) S.
ἀένναον C; comp. § 20, where C writes the word in the same way.
Aujus S, as in other passages.
that ἀσεβεῖς were the original read-
ing, the rendering of S may re-
present either ἀσθενεῖς (a corruption
of ἀσεβεῖς) or νενοσηκότας (a substitu-
tion of a familiar liturgical form, as
appears from Lz¢. D. Mare. p. 21,
quoted above). The Syriac word
here, N73, is the same as in the
Peshito Luke ix. 2 ἰᾶσαι τοὺς ἀσθε-
veis (v. 1. ἀσθενοῦντας). Comp. Polyc.
Phil. 6 ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανη-
μένα, ἐπισκεπτόμενοι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς,
which, so far as it goes, is in favour
of Gebhardt’s emendation.
τοὺς πλανωμένους K.T.A.] Ezek. xxxiv.
16 τὸ πεπλανημένον ἐπιστρέψω (where
Β has τὸ πλανώμενον ἀποστρέψω).
I. λύτρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους), The
reference in this and the neighbour-
ing clauses is doubtless to the vic-
tims of the persecution under Domi-
tian; see the note on §1. The care
of the ‘prisoners ’ naturally occupied
a large space in the attention of
the early Church in the ages of
persecution : comp. Heb. x. 34, xii. 3,
and see the note on Ign. Smyra. 6.
A prayer for those working ‘in the
mines’ is found generally in the
early liturgies; comp. “2057. Cozs?.
Vill. 10 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν μετάλλοις καὶ
ἐξορίαις καὶ φυλακαῖς καὶ δεσμοῖς ὄντων
6 Σὺ] add. γὰρ 5. ἀέναον
τοῦ κόσμου] add
10 ὁ σοφὸς] σοφὸς (om. 6) 5. καὶ] om. 5.
διὰ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν,
Liturg. D. Marc. p. 17 τοὺς ἐν φυλα-
καῖς ἢ ἐν μετάλλοις.. κατεχομένους πάν-
τας ἐλέησον, πάντας ἐλευθέρωσον, Liz.
7. Fac. p. 63 μνήσθητι, Kupre......
Χριστιανῶν τῶν ev δεσμοῖς, τῶν ἐν
φυλακαῖς, τῶν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίαις καὶ
> ~ > , \ ’
ἐξορίαις, τῶν ἐν μετάλλοις καὶ βασάνοις
καὶ πικραῖς δουλείαις ὄντων πατέρων
ΡῈ. “ ς -
καὶ ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν.
ἐξανάστησον κ-τ.λ.] Comp. 1 Thess.
V. 14 παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους,
ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν, quoted by
Harnack.
2. γνώτωσαν «.t.r.| 1 Kings viii.
60 ὅπως γνῶσι πάντες οἱ λαοὶ τῆς γῆς
oa , ς A »" 8 Ν \ >
ὅτι Κύριος ὁ Geos avros Θεὸς καὶ οὐκ
ἔστιν ἔτι, 2 Kings xix. 19 γνώσονται
πᾶσαι αἱ βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς ὅτι σὺ
Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς μόνος (comp. Is. ΧΧΧΥΊΙ.
20), Ezek. xxxvi. 23 γνώσονται τὰ ἔθνη
a > , > ,
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος x.7.A. Comp. John
xVil. | ;
4. ἡμεῖς κιτιλ.}] From Ps. xcix (c).
~ “ , > , > ε /
2 γνῶτε ott Kuptos αὐτὸς ἐστιν o Geos...
c ΄“ \ A ) ~ \ , νι:
ἡμεῖς [δὲ] λαὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρόβατα τῆς
νομῆς αὐτοῦ: comp. Ζ6. Ixxviii (ἸΧΧΙΧ).
13, XCiv (xcv). 7.
LX. ‘ Thou didst create all things
in the beginning. Thou that art
faithful and righteous and marvellous
in Thy strength, wise and prudent
Lx|
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
201
a7 ’ onl / \ 3 ? fee
δίκαιος ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν, θαυμαστος ἐν ἰσχύϊ Kal μεγα-
/ ς \ 3 lo / \ \ 3 -
10 λοπρεπείᾳ, ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῷ κτίζειν καὶ συνετὸς ἐν τῷ
\ Ve / ς \ a ε 7 \
Ta γενόμενα ἑδράσαι, ὁ ayabos ἐν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις Kal
\ ΄- Ul > \ / > a \ > '
πιστος ἐν τοῖς πεποιθόσιν ἐπὶ O€, EAEHMON KAI OIKTIP-
» eA \ 3 ᾿ ς ΄σ \ \ ὃ ’ \
MON, ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν καὶ τας αδικίας Kal
\ / \ /
Ta παραπτώματα Kat πλημμελείας.
A ’ ~
pn λογισὴ πᾶσαν
/ / \ ~ 3 > /
15 ἁμαρτίαν δούλων σον καὶ παιδισκῶν, ἀλλα καθαρισον
12 πιστὸς] mitis (benignus), probably χρηστός, S.
purifica S. See below.
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’.
6. Sv τὴν ἀέναον «.t.r.| The main
part of this sentence is borrowed in
A post. Const. viii. 22 (quoted above
on ὃ 59 τὸν ἀριθμόν x.7.A.). Comp.
Wisd. vii. 17 εἰδέναι σύστασιν κόσμου
καὶ ἐνέργειαν στοιχείων.
διὰ τῶν ἐνεργουμένων κ.τ.λ.] 1. 6.
‘didstreveal the inherent constitution
of the world by the succession of
external events’; comp. Rom. i. 20,
The word φανεροποιεῖν is late and
somewhat rare.
8. ὁ πιστὸς κιτιλ.}] Deut. vii. 9
Θεὸς πιστὸς ὁ φυλάσσων διαθήκην... εἰς
χιλίας γενεάς.
11. ἑδράσαι] Comp. Prov. viii. 25
πρὸ Tov Opn ἑδρασθῆναι.
ὁ ἀγαθὸς κ-τ.λ.} i.e. ‘He is benefi-
cent where His operations can be
15 καθάρισον] καθαρεῖς C;
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 ἔστιν. δὲ πίστις...
πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.
For ὁρωμένοις Hilgenfeld has épo-
μένοις; Harnack and Gebhardt read
σωζομένοις, the latter having previous-
ly conjectured ὡρισμένοις (Zettschr. f.
Kirchengesch. τ. p. 307); Zahn pro-
poses oavovpevors (GOtt. Gel. Anz.1876,
p. 1417). There is no sufficient rea-
son however for questioning the
text. The idea, and in part the lan-
guage, is taken from Wisd. xiii. 1,
ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἴσχυσαν
εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα οὔτε τοῖς ἔργοις προ-
σχόντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν τεχνίτην. The
language in the latter part of the
sentence is suggested by Ecclus. ii.
10 sq. τίς ἐνεπίστευσε Κυρίῳ καὶ
κατῃσχύνθη ;...διότι οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεή-
μων ὁ Κύριος, καὶ ἀφίησιν ἁμαρτίας.
12. ἐλεῆμον κιτ.λ.] A very frequent
combination of epithets in the 1ΧΧ.
15. καθάρισον)] This is perhaps the
simplest emendation of καθαρεῖς, the
reading of the MS, which cannot
stand; καθάρισον having been written
καθάρεισον, and the two last letters
having dropped out. Otherwise we
might read καθάρῃς. Bryennios, Hil-
292 THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT [Lx
ἡμᾶς TOV καθαρισμὸν τῆς σῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ κἀτεύθγνον
τὰ AMaBHMaTaA ἡμῶν ἐν δοιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ
ἁπλότητι κἀρλίδο πορεΥύεοθδι καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ κἀλὰ Kal
εὐάρεοτὰ ἐνώπιόν σον καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν
ἡμῶν.
ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀγαθὰ ἐν εἰρήνη; εἰς τὸ σκεπασθῆναι ἡμᾶς TH
ἀρχόντων
7 , > ' \ ' ’ 3. 42
Val, δέσποτα, ἐπίφάνον τὸ πρόσωπόν COY ἐφ 5
’ a a \ ~ \ /
χειρί coy TH Kpataid καὶ ῥυσθῆναι ἀπὸ πάσης apap-
τίας τῷ Bpayioni coy τῷ ὑψηλῷ: καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμάς
2 καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἁπλότητι] om. C; restored by Bensly from S, which has e¢
in justitia et in simplicitate. The omission is due to homeeoteleuton. 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 p. 230. 6 ἐν εἰρήνῃ]
pacis S; but this is probably due to an error of Syriac transcription, since a single
letter (7 for 3) would make the difference. 12 ὁσίως] S; om. C. This use
of the adverb is characteristic of Clement; otherwise I should have hesitated
to introduce it on such authority. ὥστε σώζεσθαι ἡμᾶς] om. C S; see below.
genfeld, and Gebhardt tacitly retain
καθαρεῖς. For the expression comp.
Num. xiv. 18 καθαρισμῷ οὐ καθαριεῖ
τὸν ἔνοχον, quoted by Bryennios.
I. τῆς ons ἀληθείας) See John
xvii. 17 ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ
KT Nas, LOUD, παν 2.
κατεύθυνον «-r.A.| Ps. xxxix (xl). 3
κατεύθυνε τὰ διαβήματά pov, CXViil
(cxix). 133 τὰ διαβήματά μου κατεύθυ-
νον κατὰ τὸ λόγιόν gov. The phrase
κατευθύνειν τὰ διαβήματα occurs also
5: πα e210 Μα). 2.52. τον eo 4:
The word διαβήματα, ‘steps’, is rare,
except in the LXX and writers influ-
enced by it.
2. ἐν ὁσιότητι κιτ.λ.] 1 Kingsix. 4
σὺ ἐὰν πορευθῇς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, καθὼς
ἐπορεύθη Δαυεὶδ, ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας.
3. ποιεῖν, κα λ Deut. xiil. 18
ποιεῖν TO καλὸν Kal TO ἀρεστὸν ἐναντίον
Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ σου: comp. 22, vi. 18,
xi. 25, 25, Xx1.'0;
5. ἐπίφανον] Ps. Ixvi (Ixvii.) 1
ἐπιφάναι TO πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς:
comp. 20. xxx (xxxi). 18, Ixxix (Ixxx).
3, 7) 19, Cxvili (cxix). 135. See also
Liturg. D, Marc. p. 15.
6. εἰς ἀγαθά] See Jer. xxi. 10
ἐστήρικα TO πρόσωπόν pov ἐπὶ τὴν
πόλιν..«.οὐκ εἰς ἀγαθά ; comp. Amos
ix. 4, Jer. xxiv. 6. For εἰς ἀγαθὰ see
also Gen..1. 20, Deut. xxx. τον εἰς
Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. p. 63
μνήσθητι... «πάντων eis ἀγαθόν.
σκεπασθῆναι) For this connexion of
σκεπάζειν comp. Is. li. 16 ὑπὸ τὴν
σκιὰν τῆς χειρός pov σκεπάσω σε
(comp. Wisd. v. 17, xix. 8), Deut.
XXXxllil, 27 σκεπάσει σε .. ὑπὸ ἰσχὺν
βραχιόνων ἀενάων : and for the anti-
thetical χειρὶ κραταιᾷ, βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ,
Exod. vi. 1, Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, Vil.
10;\ix (26, ci.-2,-xxvi...8,, Jetagomae
(χε κι). 23; Eizele; ax, .53;,32:
9. τῶν μισούντων x.t.A.] Comp.
Justin. Afol. i. 14 (p. 61) τοὺς ἀδίκως
μισοῦντας πείθειν πειρώμενοι, quoted
by Harnack.
II. ἐπικαλουμένων κ-τ.λ.] Ps. cxliv
(cxlv). 8 πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις αὐτὸν
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. For ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
Lx] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
293
Ἁ ,
δὸς ὁμόνοιαν καὶ
> , = \ ~ ~ ΄ ~
το εἰρήνην ἡμῖν TE καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν THY γῆν,
\ - , ~ /
ἀπο τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς ἀδίκως.
\ ᾽ - / 4: > '
καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς πατράαιν ἡμῶν, ἐπικαλογμένων σε
> ~ e / > ͵ ᾿ > ͵ ε΄ / e ~~
αὐτῶν ὁσίως EN πίοτει κἀὶ ἀληθείᾳ, [ὥστε σωζεσθαι ἡμάς]
ε , / ~ / \ ,
ὑπηκόους γινομένους TW παντοκράτορι καὶ παναρέτῳ
’ / ~ sf \ ’ ΄
OVOMATL σου, τοῖς TE ἀρχουσιν καὶ ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν
Σ \ ~ =
I5émt τῆς “γῆς.
S renders εὐ in veritate obedientes fuerunt nomini tuo etc., thus connecting καὶ
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ with the following clause. 13 παντοκράτορε καὶ mavapérw] The
words are transposed in S, but this does not imply any different Greek text:
see above, p. 239. Also mavapéry is translated as if ἐντίμῳ, NPD (see § 3).
But a single letter would make the difference, sup excellenti, Elsewhere
23 IN" is the translation of ravdperos (see §§ 1, 2, 45, 57); and the translator
might here consider himself excused from the repetition of παν- which occurs in
both words. See also on παναγίῳ above, § 58.
comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7.
13. ὑπηκόους «7.X.] This might
be a loose accusative, referring to
the datives ἡμῖν τε καὶ πᾶσιν «.t.d.;
comp. Ephes. i. 17, 18 δώῃ vpiv
πνεῦμα σοφίας....... πεφωτισμένους
τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς x.7.A., ActS xxvi. 3
ἐπὶ σοῦ μέλλων σήμερον ἀπολογεῖσθαι,
μάλιστα γνώστην ὄντα σε κιτ.λ.,) and
see Winer ὃ xxxiii. p. 290, § Ikxiii.
ῬΡ- 709 sq., 716, Kiihner 11. p. 667 sq.
But a double transition, πατράσιν,
ἐπικαλουμένων, γενομένους, would be
very harsh; and for reasons which
are stated in the introduction (p.
247 sq.), I cannot doubt that some
words have dropped out, such as I
have inserted. Bryennios supphes
καὶ σῶσον ἡμᾶς ; Gebhardt reads
ὑπηκόοις γενομένοις; and Hilgenfeld
alters the whole sentence.
παντοκράτορι) So Hermas V2s. iii. 3
τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ παντοκράτορος καὶ év-
δόξου ὀνόματος. At first it had occurred
to me to read παντοκρατορικῷ, as it
occurred to Gebhardt, and as Hilgen-
feld actually reads; comp. ὃ 8 τῷ
παντοκρατορικῷ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ. The
omission οὗ -κῷ before καὶ would be
easily explained, especially as the
archetypal MS is shown to have been
mutilated in this neighbourhood. But
the parallel passage from Hermas
quite justifies the reading of the
MS. In the LXX παντοκράτωρ seems
to be always applied directly to God
either as an epithet of Θεὸς or
Κύριος, or independently ; and so in
Clement himself, inscr., 2, 32. ‘But
the sense of τὸ ὄνομα, as almost
an equivalent to ὁ Θεὸς (see [Clem,
Rom.] ii. § 13, and the note on
Ign. Ephes. 3), explains the excep-
tional usage here and in Hermas.
παναρέτῳ x,t-A.] For this expression
comp. ὃ 45, and for the word πανάρε-
τος the note on § I.
14. τοῖς τε ἄρχουσιν κιτ.λ] The
punctuation, which I have adopted,
was suggested to me by Dr Hort.
It accords with the preceding words
εὐάρεστα ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν
ἀρχόντων ἡμῶν : it disposes of the
superfluous αὐτοῖς (see however ὃ 21,
note): and it throws Σύ into its
proper position of prominence; e. g.
294. THE. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT
LXI. (Ci, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βα-
/ » ~ \ ~ ~ \ 5 ,
σιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ μεγαλοπρεποῦς Kat ἀνεκδιηγή-
, > \ γ > \
TOU κράτους σου, εἰς TO γινωσκοντας ἡμᾶς THY ὑπὸ
n 2 =~ i lf \ \ € /
σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι
3 ~ \ 9 ’ ΄σ / 7 - /
αὐτοῖς, μηδὲν ἐναντιουμένους τῷ θελήματί σον" ois δὸς,
7 7 Ss) a7. ’ , 3 \
Κύριε, ὑγιείαν, εἰρήνην, ὁμόνοιαν, εὐστάθειαν, εἰς TO
/ \ a! \ “- , ~ 7
διέπειν αὐτοὺς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ δεδομένην αὐτοῖς ἡγεμονίαν
Ε] / A "4 , Ε] , vant
ἀπροσκόπως. σὺ γάρ, δέσποτα ἐπουράνιε, βασιλεῦ
Lon ay, 7 ~ “- GN 3 / / \
τῶν αἰώνων, δίδως τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξαν Kat
\ \ 3 , ~ \ a ~ ,
τιμὴν Kat ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὑπαρχοντων" σύ,
5 50s] precamur ut des S.
lexi:
§ 60 Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον x.t.A. and § 61
just below, Σὺ γάρ, δέσποτα k.t.X.
See Athenag. Suffl. 1 εὐσεβέστατα
διακειμένους καὶ δικαιότατα πρός τε TO
θεῖον καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν βασιλείαν ;
comp. Theoph. ad AufZol. 1. 11, who
quotes Prov. xxiv. 21 Τίμα, υἱὲ, Θεὸν
καὶ βασιλέα x.t.A. The previous edi-
tors have all connected the words
τοῖς Te ἄρχουσιν κατ.λ. with the follow-
ing sentence, as apparently does C.
LXI. ‘To our earthly rulers, Ὁ
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 honourand authority
to the sons of men upon earth. So
guide their counsels, that they may
administer well the power thus
entrusted to them, and may obtain
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’.
I. τῆς βασιλείας] ‘of the sove-
vecgnty’, i.e. ‘of the secular power’.
For the genitive comp. Dan. xi. 20
πράσσων δόξαν βασιλείας, 26. 21 ἔδω-
κεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν δόξαν βασιλείας. The
βασιλεία is the secular as contrasted
with the spiritual power; and, as
such, it is frequently opposed to iepo-
atm, 6.5. Afost. Const. li. 34 ὅσῳ
Ψυχὴ σώματος κρείττων, τοσούτῳ
ἱερωσύνη βασελείας (comp. vi. 2), Zest.
Duod. Patr. Jud. 21.
4. ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς k.T.X.]
See I Pet. i. 13, 15 vJmordynre
πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον...
ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ;
comp. Rom. xiii. 2 ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος
τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ Statayn ἀν-
θέστηκεν.
5. δὸς κιτιλ.] In accordance with
the Apostolic injunctions, Rom.
ΧΙ. α 5: ie came a et. τὸ 5
sq.: comp. Wisd. vi. 1 sq. See also
Polyc. PAz. 12. For other passages
in early Christian writers relating to
prayers for temporal rulers, see
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.
Lxi]
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 295
7 ’ \ A ΄- \ \
Κύριε, διεύθυνον τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν κατὰ TO καλὸν καὶ
49 ἢ > , « , 3
εὐάρεστον ἐνωπιὸν σου, ὅπως διέποντες ἐν εἰρήνη καὶ
‘
oh > ΄σ \ ς \ ~ 5 ΄ AN / 9
πραὔτητι εὐσεβῶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην ἐξου-
/ e/ / 4
σιαν ἵλεω σου τυγχανωσιν.
ς / a ~
O μόνος δυνατὸς ποιῆσαι
4. \ > \ ΄σ >
τι ταῦτα καὶ περισσότερα ἀγαθὰ pe ἡμῶν, col ἐξομο-
7 \ ~ 3 / \ ἕν
λογούμεθα διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ προστάτου τῶν
ψυχῶν ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ σοι ἡ δόξα καὶ
ς 7 \ ~~ \ \ ΄-
ἢ μεγαλωσύνη καὶ νῦν Kal εἰς γενεὰν γενεῶν Kal εἰς
\ 7A ~ ’
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
Χ11.
> Pd
ἀμήν.
\ ~ > / ΄σ ΄
Flept μὲν τῶν ἀνηκόντων τῆ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν,
14 ἵλεώ σου τυγχάνωσιν] tranquille compotes fiant auxilit quod (est) a te 8,
obviously a paraphrase.
6. εὐστάθειαν] ‘stability’, “ tran-
guiliity’, comp. ὃ 65 (59). The word
may mean either ‘firmness, steadi-
ness’ asamoral quality, or ‘ stability’
as a material result. The latter seems
to be intended here: comp. 2 Macc.
xiv. 6 οὐκ ἐῶντες τὴν βασιλείαν εὐστα-
θείας τυχεῖν, Wisd. vi. 26 βασιλεὺς
φρόνιμος εὐστάθεια δήμου.
8. ἀπροσκόπως)] ‘without stum-
bling’, " without any gar or collision’ ;
as ὃ 20 τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν ἀπροσ-
κόπως ἐπιτελοῦσιν.
βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων] The phrase
occurs only τ Tim. i. 17 in the N.T.,
and as ἃ v.l. in Rev. xv. 3; but it is
found in the Lxx, Tobit xiii. 6, 10;
see also Liturg. D. Fac. Pp. 59%
Comp. ὃ 35 πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων, § 55
Θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων. Here the Eternal
King is tacitly contrasted with the
temporary kings, the βασιλεὺς τῶν
αἰώνων with the βασιλεῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου (comp. Ign. Row. 6).
11. διεύθυνον) As above ὃ 20. Other-
wise it is not a common word, and
does not apparently occur at all in
the LXxX or N.T.
15. ped ἡμῶν] As Luke i. 72
ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν,
2b. χ. 37, and so probably Acts xiv. 27,
xv. 4; comp. Ps, cxviii (cxix). 65
χρηστότητα ἐποίησας μετὰ Tov δούλου
σου. Itis the Hebraism BY Ny.
16. ἀρχιερέως k.t.A.] See the note
on ὃ 36.
17. ἡ δόξα κιτ.λ.] See the note on
§ 20. It is a favourite form of dox-
ology in Clement.
18. εἰς γενεὰν γενεῶν] i.e. ‘the
generation which comprises all the
generations’; as Ps. ci (cii). 24 ἐν
γενεᾷ γενεῶν Ta ἔτη σου : comp. Ephes.
111. 21 τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων. This is
a rare mode of expression, the com-
moner forms being εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν
or εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεὰν, 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.
THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT [LXII
296
A ~ > , > ’ , 's ~ ,
καὶ τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων εἰς ἐνάρετον βίον τοῖς θέλουσιν
> ”~ \ / , \ , > ΄“
εὐσεβῶς καὶ δικαίως διευθύνειν [τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν],
\ \
περί ‘yap
, \ ,ὔ \ > ’
πίστεως καὶ μετανοίας καὶ γνησίας dyamns καὶ ἐγ-
ε lon , =~ af > 7
ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν ὑμῖν, ἀνδρες ἀδελφοί.
, 3 ’ \ ε ~~ , Ie
κρατείας Kal σωφροσύνης Kat ὑπομονῆς πάντα τόπον 5
3 , € / ~ δι es >
ἐψηλαφήσαμεν, ὑπομιμνήσκοντες δεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐν δικαιο-
I \ 3 / \ / “-“ ΙΑ
σύνη καὶ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ μακροθυμίᾳ τῷ παντοκράτορι
~ PN A 3 ~ ~ 3 ,ὔ »
Θεῷ ὁσίως εὐαρεστεῖν, ὁμονοοῦντας ἀμνήσικάκως ἐν
1 καὶ] 5; om. C. The clause is translated in S ‘et de iis (rebus) scilicet (13)
que in ea (religione), que maxime utiles sunt illis qui volunt dirigere vitam (con-
versationem) excellentie et pietatis et juste, as if the translator had read τῶν ὠφελι-
μωτάτων δὴ (2) ἐν αὐτῇ ἐνάρετον...διευθύνειν. At all events he must have had a text
which a corrector had emended by striking out or altering eis, so as to govern
βίον by διευθύνειν : see above pp. 246, 247. In the Syriac we should probably
read NIVDWA for NVVDW, ie. zz pietate (=evoeBuws) for et pretatis.
2 τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν] om. C S: see below. 4 ἐγκρατείας] NM Y by super
continentia (as if ὑπὲρ ἐγκρατείας) S, for another preposition (20> dz) has been
used before for περί. Perhaps however the insertion of a different preposition is a
mere rhetorical device of the translator ; or 2) may bean accidental repetition of the
first syllable of the following word, as the Syriac forms of the letters would suggest.
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’.
20. τῶν ἀνηκόντων] With a dative
as in § 35; see the note on Ign.
Philad. 1. It has a different con-
struction, ἀνήκειν eis, in ὃ 45. See the
note there.
τῇ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν] Comp. ὃ 45 τῶν
θρησκευόντων τὴν μεγαλοπρεπῆ καὶ
ἔνδοξον θρησκείαν τοῦ ὑψίστου. This
passage explains the force of the
words here: ‘that befit men who
serve the one true God’.
I. evaperov] See the note on
Ign. Philad. 1.
2. διευθύνενΙ]) The MS is ob-
viously defective here; and we must
supply some such words as τὴν
πορείαν αὐτῶν (see § 48), or τὰ διαβή-
ματα (§ 60), or perhaps with Bryen-
nios τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν (§ 61). See
the introduction, p. 247 sq.
3. ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν] Bryennios
has called attention to the similarity
of language used by Irenzeus, when
describing this epistle, iii. 3. 3 ἐπὶ
τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος, στάσεως
οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ γενομένης
ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ. ἐκ-
κλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κο-
ρινθίοις.
5. πάντα τόπον κιτ.λ.)] Swe have
handled every topic’; Bryennios adds.
by way of explanation, μάλιστα δὲ τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν, thus taking πάντα ro-
mov to mean ‘every passage’; and
so it is rendered in the Syriac Ver-
sion, ‘place of Scripture’. In this
sense tomes occurs above in the ex-
Lx11] TO THE CORINTHIANS.
297
, 4 , \ - 5 , \
ἀγάπη καὶ εἰρήνη μετὰ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας, καθὼς Kal
/ , ΄σ ,
το οἱ προδεδηλωμένοι πατέρες ἡμῶν εὐηρέστησαν ταπει-
΄σ \ \ \ 4 \ \ \ /
νοφρονοῦντες Ta πρὸς Tov πατέρα καὶ Θεὸν καὶ κτίσ-
΄σ ,
καὶ ταῦτα τοσούτω
« ε , > \ sf /
ἥδιον ὑπεμνήσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ σαφώς ἤδειμεν γράφειν
΄σ΄ , ~ \ ’
ἡμᾶς ἀνδράσιν πιστοῖς καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτοις καὶ ἐγκε-
\ \ , ,
Τὴν Kal στρος WAVTAS ἀνθρωπους.
’ \ / ΄σ 7 ΄ ~
15 kupoow εἰς Ta λόγια τῆς παιδείας TOU Θεοῦ.
- We cannot safely infer a different Greek text. 5 τόπον] add. scripture 8.
8 εὐαρεστεῖν] S; εὐχαριστεῖν C. See the same confusion above, § 41. The reading
of S was anticipated by Hilg. and Gebh. 9 καθὼς καὶ] καθὼς (om. καὶ) 5.
τι Θεὸν καὶ κτίστην] universi creatorem Deum (Θεὸν παγκτίστην τ) S; comp. § 19.
12 πρὸς] S; om, C. The authority of S in such acase is valueless in itself (see p. 239),
but the preposition seems to be required here. 13 ἥδιον] ἢ Oe? ὧν S, which
translates the clause, δ hec tanto sint (crunt) per ea gue monuimus. The translator
has had a corrupt text and has translated it word for word, regardless of sense.
ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς ἤδειμεν γράφειν] guia scilicet manifeste est tis; oportuit enim certe (μὲν)
ut scriberemus S, 1.6. ἐπεὶ δὴ σαφῶς ἢ" δεῖ (or ἔδει) μὲν γὰρ γράφειν κιτιλ. Again
a corrupt reading, or rather a false division of the words, has been translated al-
most verdatim. For the facility with which ydp might be omitted or inserted before
γράφω, see Ign. Rom. 7.
pression ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ, 88 8, 29, 46.
But this meaning does not seem at
all natural here, where the word is
used absolutely. For τόπος ‘a topic,
argument’, comp. e.g. Epict. Déss.
i. 7. 4 ἐπίσκεψίν τινα ποιητέον τῶν
τόπων τούτων, il. 17. 31 ὅταν τοῦτον
ἐκπονήσῃ.--.τὸν τόπον, and see other
references in Schweighzeuser’s index
to Epictetus, s.v. For ψηλαφᾶν
comp. e.g. Polyb. viii. 18. 4 πᾶσαν
ἐπίνοιαν ἐψηλάφα.
8. εὐαρεστεῖν] Doubtless the cor-
rect reading, as it explains the sub-
sequent εὐηρέστησαν. For another
example of the confusion of evapec-
rev, εὐχαριστεῖν, in the authorities,
see § 41.
ἀμνησικάκως} See ὃ 2 ἀμνησίκακοι
(with the note). This word involves
an appeal to the sufferers from the
14 €AXNoytwraros] doctis 8.
schisms, who are bidden to harbour
no grudge.
9. pera ἐκτενοῦς κιτιλ.] See the
note on § 58, where the same ex-
pression occurs.
10. of προδεδηλωμένοι κ-τ.λ.] See
§§ 17, 18, 19; comp. also ὃ 30 ἐδόθη
[ἡ μαρτυρία] rots πάτρασιν ἡμῶν τοῖς
δικαίοις, and ὃ 31 ἀνατυλίξωμεν τὰ
ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς γενόμενα" τίνος χάριν ηὐ-
λογήθη ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν "ABpadp; x.T.A.
For this use οὗ πατέρες in speaking
of Jewish worthies, see the note on
δ 4.
14. ἐλλογιμωτάτοις)] See the note
on ὃ 58 ἐλλόγιμος.
ἐγκεκύφοσιν] Comp. § 53 καλῶς
ἐπίστασθε τὰς ἱερὰς γραφάς, ἀγαπητοί,
καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ,
with the note. For the word ἐγκύτ-
rew see the note on § 4o.
298
ΠΧ111. Θεμιτὸν οὖν
THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT
[LXIII
~ ,
ἐστιν τοῖς τοιούτοις καὶ
, ε / f e a \
τοσούτοις ὑποδείγμασιν προσελθόντας ὑποθεῖναι Tov
7 \ \ ~ e ΄σ , r
τραχήλον καὶ TOY τῆς ὑπακοῆς τόπον ἀναπληρώσαντας
a ~ e 7 3 = a ~
προσκλιθῆναι TOLS υπαρχουσίιν αρχήγοις τῶν ψυχῶν
΄- « / πὸ 72 7 \ A
ἡμῶν, ὅπως HOVYATAVTES τῆς ματαίας στάσεως ETL τον 5
2 ὑποθεῖναι τὸν τράχηλον] txclinemus collum nostrum et obediamus 3.
3 ava-
πληρώσανταξ.. -ἡμῶν] tmplentes tnclinemus illis qui sunt duces animarum nostrarum
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
peace. Andwe 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’.
I. Θεμιτόν] The use of this word
seems to be extremely rare, except
with a negative, ov θεμιτόν (e. g. Tobit
ii. 13) or ἀθέμιτον (see below).
τοῖς τοιούτοις K.T.A.] § 46 Τοιούτοις
οὖν ὑποδείγμασιν κολληθῆναι Kal ἡμᾶς
δεῖ κιτιλ. For τοιούτοις καὶ τοσούτοις
comp. § 19.
2. προσελθόντας] ‘having acceded
to, attended to, assented to, studied’,
as in § 33; comp. 1 Tim, vi. 3 εἴ
τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ Kal μὴ προσέρχεται
ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις. So we find προσ-
έρχεσθαι ἀρετῇ ‘to apply oneself to
virtue’, Philo de Migr. Abr. 56
(I. p. 449); προσέρχεσθαι τοῖς νόμοις
‘to study the laws’, Diod. i. 95;
προσέρχεσθαι τῇ σοφίᾳ, τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ,
‘to become a follower of wisdom, of
philosophy’, Philostr. Vz#z 42. i. 2
(p. 2), i, 18 (p. 50), comp. ΠΩΣ
Ecclus. vi. 26 6 προσελθὼν αὐτῇ (i.e.
τῇ σοφίᾳ) ; προσέρχεσθαι φόβῳ Κυρίου
‘to give heed to the fear of the Lord’,
LxxX Ecclus. i. 30; προσέρχεσθαι py-
devi τῶν εἰρημένων Philo de Gig. 9 (1.
p. 267); προσέρχεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ, Orig.
c. Cels. iii. 48. These senses are
derived ultimately from the idea of
‘approaching’ a person as a disci-
ple’; eg. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 47 ὧνπερ
ἕνεκεν καὶ Σωκράτει προσῆλθον.
ὑποθεῖναι τὸν τράχηλον] ‘ submit
your neck’, 1.e ‘to the yoke’;
comp. Ecclus. li. 26 τὸν τράχηλον
ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν (comp. 20. vi.
2.4. 95). Epictets | Daan avin 077
παρέδωκας σαυτὸν δοῦλον, ὑπέθηκας
τὸν τράχηλον. So too Acts xv. 10
ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον. The
expression is used in a different
sense in Rom. xvi. 4 ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς
μου Tov ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθη καν,
where it means ‘laid their neck on
the block’, not ‘ pledged their lives’,
as Wetstein and others take it.
3. ἀναπληρώσαντας τόπον] “10 oc-
cupy the place’,‘ fulfil the function’ ;
comp. I Cor. xiv. 16 ὁ ἀναπληρῶν
τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, where the
choice of this elaborate expression
is probably a studied paradox. to
bring out the honourable character
of a private station; τόπος denoting
official position or dignity (see above,
§ 40, and the note on Ign. Polyc. 1),
while ἰδιώτης implies the opposite of.
this. So too here the object may
be to enhance the important /vzction
of obedience. See Clem. Hom. iii.
Lx]
TO THE CORINTHIANS.
299
£ / - τὰς > 3 ABA \ , λ ,
προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σκοπὸν δίχα παντὸς μώμου
καταντήσωμεν.
\ \ 3 CAs
χαρὰν yap καὶ ἀγαλλίασιν ἡμῖν παρέ-
\ / / a - ~
ἕξετε, ἐὰν ὑπήκοοι γενόμενοι τοῖς UP ἡμῶν γεγραμμένοις
\ “- ay / 2 r \ 2. 7 ΄σ
διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκκόψητε τὴν ἀθέμιτον τοῦ
5; ἀναπληρώσαι C, omitting all the other words.
χάσαντες] guiescentes et tranguilli ὃ.
Nacw] add. magnam ὃ.
60 τὸν ἐμὸν ἀναπληροῦντα τόπον, and
comp. Joseph. .5. F. ν. 2. 5 στρατιώ-
του τάξιν ἀποπληροῦντα.
4. προσκλιθῆναι x.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 Jartisan-
ship is here tacitly contrasted with
the false; the rightful Zeaders with
the wrongful. The language is ex-
plained by what has gone before;
§ 14 μυσεροῦ ζήλους ἀρχηγοῖς ἐξα-
κολουθεῖν, ὃ 51 ἐκεῖνοι οἵτινες ἀρχηγοὶ
τῆς στάσεως καὶ διχοστασίας ἐγενήθη-
σαν, ὃ 47 διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις
ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι .... προσεκλίθητε γὰρ
κιτιλ., § 50 ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ εὑρεθῶμεν δίχα
προσκλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἄμωμοι (Comp.
§ 21 μὴ κατὰ προσκλίσεις). The com-
mand to choose the right partisan-
ships here has a parallel in § 45
φιλόνεικοι ἔστε...περὶ τῶν ἀνηκόντων
εἰς σωτηρίαν (see the note). The
Syriac is pmmt pond jon
}NWHIT δ) 2 12. For 9 ἼΠ2 I cannot
think of any word so probable as
προσκλιθῆναι, since J27 is a common
translation of κλίνειν, and in ὃ 21
προσκλίσεις is rendered SENT NN13°39;
though προσκλίνεσθαι, πρόσκλισις, are
rendered otherwise, but variously, in
δὲ 47, 50, Acts v. 36, 1 Tim. v.21. On
the other hand S273 ‘ductores’
might be variously rendered. It most
commonly represents 6 ἡγούμενος (§§ 1,
32, 37 in a double rendering, 55, Heb.
xiii. 7, 17, 24); but elsewhere ἡγεμών,
6 μώμου] add. δ᾽ scandalo 8.
See the lower note. 5 ἡσυ-
7 ἀγαλ-
καθηγητής, ὁδηγός, etc., even βουλευτής.
I have given ἀρχηγός, because it
brings out the contrast which Cle-
ment seems to have had in his mind.
In §§ 14, 51, however, ἀρχηγός is ren-
dered otherwise, SW’, SIU", and so
commonly.
5. στάσεως] Comp. Οὔ. Hon.
1. 4 τῶν τοιούτων λογισμῶν ἡσυχάζειν.
This construction follows the analogy
of verbs denoting cessation, etc.
(see Kihner II. p. 341 sq.). Itis un-
necessary therefore to read ἡσυχασά-
ons, as Gebhardt suggests.
6. σκοπόν] Comp. ὃ 6 ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς
πίστεως βέβαιον δρόμον καταντήσωμεν,
and § 19 ἐπαναδράμωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης σκοπόν,
which explains the idea in the wri-
ter’s mind here. The expression
itself is perhaps suggested by Heb.
ΧΙ. I τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν
ἀγῶνα. For σκοπόν comp. Phil. iii. 14.
popov] ‘fault, defect’: see the
note on μωμοσκοπηθέν ὃ 41. In the
Old Testament it is always a trans-
lation of D1 ‘a blemish’.
7. χαρὰν κιτ.λ.)] As in Luke i. 14
(comp. Matt. v. 12, Rev. xix. 7); see
also Mart. Polyc. 18. This combi-
nation of words χαρὰ καὶ ἀγαλλίασις
does not occur in the LXx,
9. διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος] See
the note on ὃ 59 τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δι
ἡ μῶν εἰρημένοις. Harnack takes these
words with ἐκκόψητε, but this does
not seem so natural,
ἀθέμιτον] Acts x. 28, 1 Pet. iv. 3;
300
THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT.
[LXIII
, e A 9 \ \ 4 »7 eA 9 ,
ζήλους ὑμῶν ὀργὴν κατὰ THY ἔντευξιν ἣν ἐποιησάμεθα
\ 3 / Qe ve ik 9 10 ~ 3 ἊΣ
πέρι εἰιρηνῆς Kal OMOVOLas EV Τῇ E TH ETLOTO n-
Erréu-
\ Nic τὴν \ \ / 3 \ ,
ψαμεν δὲ καὶ ἄνδρας πιστοὺς καὶ σωῴρονας, ἀπὸ νεό-
, e/ , , x
TNTOS ἀναστραφεντας ἕως γήρους ἀμέμπτως ἐν ἡμῖν,
.« \ , δέ \ - ΄
οἵτινες καὶ μάρτυρες ἔσονται μεταξὺ ὑμῶν καὶ ἡμῶν.
~ \ / ε
τοῦτο δὲ ἐποιήσαμεν ἵνα
93 σαὶ e/ ~ ~
εἰδῆτε OTL πᾶσα ἡμῖν
τ / A af 3 Jak Li i ΄
φροντὶς καὶ γέγονεν καὶ ἔστιν εἰς TO ἐν τάχει ὑμᾶς
εἰρηνεῦσαι.
1 ἔντευξιν] supplicationém et exhortationem 5.
3 δὲ καὶ] S; δὲ (om. καὶ C.
5. οἵτινες καὶ] S; οἵτινες (om. καὶ) C.
and so too 2 Macc. vi. 5, vii. I, x. 54.
I. ζήλους] See the note on § 4.
ἔντευξιν] This should probably be
explained of the ‘appeal’ to the Cor-
inthians themselves ; see the note on
[Clem. Rom.]ii. § 19. It might how-
ever refer to the foregoing ‘ prayer’
to God for concord; comp.e. g.1 Tim.
ΠΤ ἵν: κ' Peer, Wang. Σ. 2.
2. ἄνδρας] Claudits Ephebus and
Valerius Bito, whose names are given
below, § 65 (59). For the bearing of
the notice here on the early history
of the Roman Church, see the in-
troduction p. 256 sq.
4. γήρους] So Luke i. 36 γήρει
(the correct reading), and in several
passages in the LXX, e.g. Ps. xci (xcil).
14 γήρει, 1 Kings xiv. 4 γήρους,
Ecclus. viii. 6, etc., with more or less
agreement in the principal MSS; so
also Clem. Hom. 111. 43. On this
form see Winer Gramm. ὃ ix. Ὁ. 73 54.»
Steph. Thes. s.v., ed. Hase. Our MS
has also γήρει above in ὃ 10, where A
reads ynpa.
αι
AN ANCIENT HOMILY
COMMONLY CALLED THE
SECOND EPISTEE OF δὲ CLEMENT.
CLEM. 20
Poe fe NIG OD Eel ΗΟ ν
BY AN
UNKNOWN AUTHOR.
F 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 homily.
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
by the presbyters; but likewise when we have departed home, let us
remember the commandments of the Lord, ete.’ (§ 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 (ὁ προεστώς) in a discourse (διὰ
λόγου) 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’
(Afo/. i. 67, quoted in the notes on $19). Here then is one of these
2z0— 2
304 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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, ὁ προεστώς, 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 ὃ 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 Origen*. Asa rule, this function belonged to
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
1 Exception has been taken to this
expression μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας.
Zahn (Gott.*Gel. Anz. p. 1418) and
Donaldson (Zz%eol. Rev. January, 1877,
p- 46) propose λόγον for Θεὸν, while
Gebhardt suggests τόνων or τόνου (TONQN
or ΤΌΝΟΥ for TON@N). But it is difficult
to see why our preacher should not have
used this phrase, when he elsewhere in-
troduces an evangelical quotation with
λέγει ὁ Θεός, § 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).
8 The objections raised in his case
show that the practice was rare. Alex-
ander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of
Ceesarea (Euseb. 77. Z. vi. 19), writing to
Demetrius of Alexandria, defend them-
selves for according this privilege to
Origen, as follows; προσέθηκε δὲ τοῖς
γράμμασιν, ὅτι τοῦτο οὐδέ ποτε ἠκούσθη
οὐδὲ νῦν γεγένηται, τὸ παρόντων ἐπισκόπων
λαϊκοὺς ὁμιλεῖν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως προφανῶς οὐκ
ἀληθῆ λέγων. ὅπου γοῦν εὑρίσκονται οἱ
ἐπιτήδειοι πρὸς τὸ ὠφελεῖν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς,
καὶ παρακαλοῦνται τῷ λαῷ προσομιλεῖν
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ἐπισκόπων, ὥσπερ ἐν Λαράν-
δοις Ἐὔελπις ὑπὸ Νέωνος καὶ ἐν ᾿Ικονίῳ
ἸΤαυλῖνος ὑπὸ Κέλσου καὶ ἐν Συννάδοις
Θεόδωρος ὑπὸ Αττικοῦ τῶν μακαρίων aded-
por
γίνεσθαι, ἡμᾶς δὲ μὴ εἰδέναι.
4866 Bingham. Antig. XIV. 4. 2, 4;
Augusti Christl. Archdol. Vi. Pp. 315 54:»
Probst Lehre τε. Gebet pp. 18 sq., 222.
* , nw
εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις τοῦτο
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 305
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 (see pp. 3, 174, 180), 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 Apostolici 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, xcii, ed. 1). This
view was highly 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 (p. 180 sq.).
But while the newly recovered ending decides the character of the
document beyond the reach of dispute, it leaves the questions of
place, date, and authorship still undetermined. On all these points we
are obliged to fall back on such slight indications as the homily from
time to time affords.
(i) As regards the //ace, Corinth seems to me still to have the
highest claims to be considered. If the 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
1 See esp. pp. 177, 178. I call at-
tention to this, because my view has been
misrepresented. Thus Lipsius (Academy,
July 9, 1870) says of me, ‘He holds
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).
I think also that the reader would
gather from the manner in which I am
mentioned by Harnack (p. lxvi, note 2,
p. Ixxy) as ‘refuting’ Grabe, that I had
maintained the document to be an epistle
and not a homily; though probably this
was not intended. See the Addenda on
Ρ- 179, 1. 32 54:
306 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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
(εἰς τοὺς φθαρτοὺς ἀγῶνας καταπλέουσιν, ὃ 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 εἰς τὸν ᾿Ισθμόν, or eis Κόρινθον, 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 (see p. 247) and came ultimately
to be attributed 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 exfempore address, but was delivered from
a manuscript ?; it was considered of sufficient value to be carefully pre-
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
1 Thus in Plat. Luthyd.297C νεωστί, ἐκώλυον; comp. Photius B7b/. 121. At
μοι δοκεῖν, καταπεπλεὺυκότι, Where the word
is used absolutely, we naturally under-
stand the place in which the speaker is
at the time.
2 § 19 μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας dva-
γινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν εἰς τὸ προσέχειν
τοῖς “γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε
καὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. It is
possible however, that the homily was
originally delivered extemfpore and taken
down by short-hand writers (ταχυγράφοι,
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.
LT EL. ils 28)
occasion (Coe. in Loann. vi. Preef., Iv.
p- ror) excuses himself for not having
gone on with his work by the fact that
the ‘customary short-hand writers’ were
and Origen himself on one
not there, καὶ οἱ συνήθεις δὲ ταχυγράφοι
μὴ παρόντες τοῦ ἔχεσθαι τῶν ὑπαγορεύσεων
a later date this became a common mode
of preserving pulpit oratory: see Bing-
ham Azz. xiv. 4. 11. It was not un-
common for sermons and lectures to be
taken down surreptitiously: see Gaudent.
Pref. p. 220. Patrol. Lat. EX. Ρ. 83h
Migne) ‘notariis, ut comperi, latenter ap-
positis’ (with the note). On stenography
among the ancients see Ducange G/os-
sarium IV. Ὁ. 642 sq. (ed. Henschel) 5. v.
Nota, together with the references col-
lected in Mayor’s Bibl. Clue to Lat. Lit.
p- 175sq. See also Contemporary ke-
view October 1875, p. 841 note. This
alternative is suggested by MHarnack
Zettschr. f. Kirchengesch. τ. 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.
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 307
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:
a
KAHMENTOC TIPOC KOPINOIOYC
with or without the addition emictoAH ; while the homily which stood
next in the volume might have had the heading
B
προς ~KOPINOIOYC
with or without the addition Aoroc or ΟΜΙλιὰ, just as Orations of Dion
Chrysostom bear the titles πρὸς adeZanApeic, Tpoc atameic; the
author of the sermon however not being named. In the course of
transcription the enumeration a, B, would easily be displaced, so
that the two works would seem to be of the same kind and
by the same author’. As a matter of fact, indications are not
wanting in our existing authorities, that after this homily had
been attached to S. Clement’s epistle it remained 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 pp.
22, 174). This fact however cannot be pressed, for it seems not
unlikely that the title has been cut off*. But in the case of the Syriac
of the British Museum to look at it and to
1 This opinion was arrived at indepen-
His report is to
dently of the remarks of Zahn (Gétt. Gel.
Anz. Novy. 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.
2 This possibility was overlooked by
me in my edition pp. 22, 174. My at-
give me his opinion.
this effect :
The title to the First Epistle has
small ornamental flourishes beneath. Be-
tween the bottom of these and the text
there is a space of ζ of an inch. Over
the first column of the Second Epistle
tention was directed to it by a remark of
Hammack (Z. f. XK. I. 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
(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 { 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
308 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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 p. 233). In both cases however the scribes them-
selves 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 significant.
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, ἰστέον δ᾽ ws καὶ
δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή" οὐ μὴν ἔθ᾽ ὁμοίως τῇ
προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα, ὅτι μηδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ
κεχρημένους ἴσμεν (7. EL. iii. 38). The hearsay implied in λέγεται
may refer equally well to the authorship as to the contents of the
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 Quest. e Resp. ad Orthodoxos ὃ 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
ornamental flourish under the title, though zeétung Feb. 19, 1876.
this is doubtful. 2 Z. f. K. 1. p. 269 sqs3 Prolep.ay,
The photograph for the most part note 2.
represents these facts fairly well. 3 The passage is quoted above, p. 167
1 In two careful and valuable articles sq. For the reasons which make it
in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte\.p. highly probable now that the Pseudo-
264 54., Ρ- 329 54.; as well asinthe prole- Justin refers to the so-called Second
gomena to the 2nd ed. of the Patres Epistle, and not (as there maintained)
Apostolici Pt. i, p. lxivsq. He stated to the First Epistle, see the Addenda
this view first in a review of the edition on p. 167, 1. 9 and the notes on ii. § τό.
of Bryennios in the 7Aeologische Literatur- 4 See the article by Gass in Illgen’s
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 309
the fifth century. From that time forward the testimonies are neither
few nor indistinct (see above, p. 174 sq.)’.
This evidence is somewhat slight; but it cannot be alleged against
the Eastern origin of the work. Such as it is, it αὐ 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 there-
fore, though it may not be worth much, is directly opposed to
Harnack’s theory. 5
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 (see
below, p. 327) shows that this distinction of the celestial and the
terrestrial Church, so far from being peculiar, was a common character-
istic 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 (pp. 325, 328). 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 earlier part of the third constantly use
it without misgiving (see above, p. 202). 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 above, p. 198 sq.). 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 be-
tween the rigid, almost Encratite, view of the relations between the sexes
which our Clementine author enunciates*, and the reasonable position
Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1842, IV. p. 1423 writer, the author of Afost. Const. i—vi.
sq., quoted by Harnack Z. Δ Αἰ. 1. p. 274. 2 Prol. p. ἶχχ sq.: comp. Z. f. «Α. 1,
1 The references in my notes seem to pp. 340, 344.54.» 363.
show that it was known to a very early 3.8 12 τοῦτο λέγει ἵνα ἀδελφὸς κ.τ.λ.
216 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
of Hermas, which led the fierce Terfullian to denounce him as ‘pastor
meoechorum’.’ 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.
(ii) The second question, relating to the daze of this work, 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 edition (p. 177),
that it belongs to the first half of the second century, nor do they contain
anything that is adverse to this view. Harnack, as the result of a
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. Ὁ. 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
On the other hand Hermas (AZand. iv. 1)
writes ᾿Εντέλλομαί σοι, φησί, φυλάσσειν
τὴν ἁγνείαν. καὶ μὴ ἀναβαινέτω σου ἐπὶ
Ν ΄, \ \ 3 , 3,
τὴν καρδίαν περὶ γυναικὸς ἀλλοτρίας ἢ
περὶ πορνείας τινὸς ἢ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν
τοῦτο γὰρ ποῖων
τῆς δὲ σῆς
ὁμοιωμάτων πονηρῶν"
ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην ἐργάζῃ"
μνημονεύων πάντοτε γυναικὸς οὐδέ-
ποτε ἁμαρτήσεις. 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 Hamack (Z. 5. &X. I.
p. 348) quotes Vis. 11. 2 τῇ συμβίῳ σου
TH μελλούσῃ σου ἀδελφῇ; as showing
that Hermas looked upon the single life
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 7s. 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.
1 Tertull. de Pudic. 10 ‘scriptura Pas-
toris que sola mcechos amat...adultera et
ipsa et inde patrona sociorum,’ 2d. 20 ‘illo
apocrypho Pastore mcechorum.’
“Ls fo ΑΒΕ 5053: comp. Prot.
p- ΙΧΧΙ sq. (ed. 2), where, supposing τὲς
to be of Roman origin, he places it not
later than A.D. 135—140 (145).
BY AN UNKNOWN A.UTHOR. ate
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 οὐ the New Testament. He
distinguishes between the Old and New ‘’estament: the former he
styles ‘the Books,’ ‘the Bible’ (τὰ βιβλία), while the latter (or a part
of it) is designated ‘the Apostles’ (δ 14). This distinction separates
him by a broad line from the age of the Muratorian writer (c. A.D. 170
—180), of Irenzeus, 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 above, pp. 192, 193, 207 Sq.),
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 on the whole it seems the more probable supposition. The gene-
ral 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 (see above, p. 182), but its Encratite
tendencies (not to mention other phenomena) might suggest the
opposite conclusion. Ὁ:
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.p. 120 at the very latest, and may
have been written much earlier; and even Polycarp (ὃ 12), if the Latin
text may be trusted, cites Ephes. iv. 26 as ‘scripture.’ Stronger in the same
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
212 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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)’. As the
practical consequence of this denial, the false teachers (§ 10 κακοδιδασκα-
λοῦντες) were led to antinoimian inferences. They inculcated an indif-
ference (ἀδιαφορία) with regard to fleshly lusts, and they permitted their
disciples to deny their faith in times of persecution. This antinomian
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 below,
p- 328), 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.D. 140:
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
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 possibly even of 8. Paul®. As regards 5. John, I have called attention
1 See above, p. 201.
* See above, pp. 177, 201, and comp.
8 τό,
3. This argument drawn from the rela-
tion of the writer to Gnosticism is justly
insisted upon by Harnack Prol. p. Ixxii,
7:7. ἅττ pps 250» 300:
4 See Contemporary Review, February
1875, Ρ- 357 564:
5 Harnack yok sp thesmr Ze 7. i. Be
p. 361 sq. He regards it as uncertain,
theugh probable, that our author had
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 313
to an indication that our author was not unacquainted with the Fourth
Gospel (see p. 336), 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 ἢ
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.
(iii) 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.
(1) In the first place Bryennios (p. pv6’) 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-
mend it, and has found no favour with others. Indeed all the arguments
which were urged .gainst it, when the work was still a fragment, are
considerably strengthened, now that we have it complete. Thus for
instance the gulf which separates our preacher from the genuine Clement
in their respective relations to the New Testament Scriptures (see above,
Ρ. 176 sq.) has been widened by the additional evidence furnished on
this point. And again the divergence of style between the two writings
has been still further emphasized by the recent discovery. Indeed to
those who had studied the two works carefully in their fragmentary state,
no proof of the genuineness of the recent discovery could have been more
read S. Paul’s Epistles. At the same nymous, this fact can hardly surprise us.
time he considers it strange that S. 1 See the notes pp. 187, 189, 198.
Paul’s name is not mentioned. As most 3 Harnack Σοῦ, p. lxxii, Z. fi K. 1. pe
of our author’s quotations (even when 359.
taken from the Old Testament) are ano-
314 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
satisfactory than the finding that each document, as distinguished from
the other, retained in the new portions the most subtle peculiarities
of thought and diction which had been observed in the old.
(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
(see above, p. 180), 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. 304); 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 φιλοπονεῖν is the true reading, and that φιλοσοφεῖν,
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.
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
1 See pp. xlix, 106. He explains μεταλήψεται § 14 (Ρ. 328, 1. 5). In both
§ 17 εἰ γὰρ ἐντολὰς ἔχομεν... ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώς cases the scribe has corrected the word
λων ἀποσπᾶν καὶ κατηχεῖν as referring which he first wrote down, and in both
to the official position of the preacher; the correction is supported by the Syriac
but compare e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 19, Gal. Version. Hilgenfeld has consistently
vi. 6. adopted the scribe’s first writing in both
2 See pp. xlix, 84, 106. cases. On p. 84 he has incorrectly given
3 Compare the note on this word φιλοποιεῖν as the correction in C. It
φιλοπονεῖν ὃ τὸ (p. 338, 1. 8) with that on — should be φιλοπονεῖν.
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR.
315
it so happens) the same passage from this Gospel. But this very fact
enibles 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 ques-
tion 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 (V/s. 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’ (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς tas ἔξω πόλεις"
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 illustrious bishop of Rome*. 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
> , ἣν 3 ’
εκείνῳ γαρ ἐπιτέτραπται).
1 Strom. iii. 13 Ὁ. 553 (quoted above,
p- 209 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
passage was still mutilated, the opinion
was expressed in my notes (p. 210) 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 in-
clined to the latter supposition. The dis-
covery 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
to Cassianus, ἐν τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν
τέτταρσιν εὐαγγελίοις οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητόν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους. Thus he is
diametrically opposed to our preacher on
the one point where we are able to com-
pare their opinions.
2 Prol. p. Ixxiv, Z. 7. K.-I. p. 363 sq.
See also his remarks in the TZyeolog.
Literaturz, Feb. 3, 1877, p. 55 sq.
The distinction of this Clement men-
tioned by Hermas from the famous
Roman bishop is maintained also by
G. Heyne (Quo tempore Herme Pastor
scriptus sit, 1872, p. 15 54.) quoted in
Harnack, and by Skworzow (/atrol.
Uniers. p. 54 sq.): see also Donaldson
Apostolic Fathers p. 330, ed. 2.
316 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
bearing the name of Clement was carried to the East, it would not
unnaturally be attributed to the famous bishop, and thus, being
attached to his genuine epistle, might easily before the close of the
fourth century be furnished with the incorrect title Κλήμεντος πρὸς
Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ β΄. ᾿
This view has much more to recommend it, than the two which
have been considered already. But the foundation on which it rests
is insecure. Notwithstanding the chronological difficulty, it is not
easy to resist the conviction that the famous bishop of Rome himself
was intended by the author of the Shepherd. The function assigned
to him of communicating with foreign cities is especially appropriate
to one who was known as the author and transmitter of the epistle
written in the name of the Roman Church to the Corinthians. Nor,
if we remember the obscurity which shrouds the authorship and date
of the Shepherd, is the chronological difficulty serious. ‘The Shepherd
indeed is stated by our earliest authority, the Muratorian Fragmentist,
to have been written during the episcopate of Pius’. But, considering
that we only possess this testimony in a very blundering Latin transla-
tion, it may reasonably be questioned whether the Greek original
stated as much definitely. Again, it is quite possible that, though the
book may have been published as late as a.D. 140, yet the epoch
of the supposed revelation was placed at a much earlier period
in the writer’s life, while the Roman bishop was still living. For,
though the latest date mentioned by any authority for the death of
the Roman bishop is A.D. 100 or 101”, yet no weight can be attached
to any testimony which we possess on this point, and we may without
hesitation suppose Clement to have lived several years after the close
of the century, if independent facts seem to require it. Even if this
explanation of the chronological difficulty should fail, the possibility
still remains that Hermas is a zom de plume assumed by the brother
of Pius for the purposes of dramatic fiction, and that the epoch of
1 The words in the AZuratorian Canon
are ‘ Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus
nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit
sedente cathedram urbis Rome ecclesiz
Pio episcopo fratre ejus’ (see Westcott
Canon pp. 519, 530, ed. 4), when some
obvious errors of orthography and tran-
scription are corrected. Considering the
blunders of which this translation else-
where is guilty, the probability is that the
translator would not carefully distinguish
between the absence and presence of the
article, e.g. between ἐπικαθημένου and
Tov ἐπικαθημένου: see Philippians p.
166 sq. There is no reason to suppose
that the notice in the Lzdertan Chronicle
‘Sub huius [Pii] episcopatu frater eius
Ermes librum scripsit etc.’ is independent
of this notice in the AZuratortan Canon.
2 Euseb. Z. Z. iil. 34.
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 317
this fiction is placed by him half a century or so before he wrote,
and while Clement the bishop was still living. In this case he may have
had in his mind the Hermas mentioned by S. Paul among the Roman
Christians. On the whole however it seems probable that, like Dante’s
relation to Beatrice in the Commedia, the fiction of the Shepherd is
founded on the actual circumstances of the writer’s own life.
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 worthless. 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 prostrate at the foot of the Cross.
CLEM. 21
@
. »
9 49 Te
᾿
pe τ id
᾿ μῶν
᾿ » y ᾿ ὡ » " Ἀν
oa “ey? wT Φ Ὁ 1 Tvs ee "9.
αὐ Arai ih, OW i
aa
PaaS & ὦ a Tels ες
-. irae
᾿ * é
. 4
᾿
ΕΣ
i ¥
; -᾿»
9 A
Ἂ a
᾿ 0 “5 -
a τ.
THE CONCLVSION OF
AN ANCIENT HOMILY
COMMONLY CALLED THE
ΞΕ ΟΕ EPISTLE OF Ὁ CLEMENT.
21--2
Metis 1
t
ἈῪΝ yee } vA Ἷ ᾿ 4 ;
Laas ἢν ΔΉ ΨΥ Ea ΛΑ ΕΝ td
ΤᾺ: ἯΙ 4 fi ) ie Ay Hy, » Wy Υ sf PRU εἴς
Py Ln ek Naeem ay rate, Nt i ae
a. é ana ΝΥ
ΠῚ
δ τ
f e γ
ΣΝ
Ὁ. A Ve γ 5: ΛΜΝ
rh DY.
. ᾿ ᾿ Ἶ . ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ a) ay
iwi δύ aT hin. oc a ONAL ime 7
i
a8
aan | ore ὁ να ae
' , ή ᾿ ὶ i} .- Υ̓ ῃ iar ἜΝ vith Sti 7”
. : rte ' Αἱ ibd "καὶ εἶ ὧν τ
τ
ἐν : ie . ᾿ Crt det Le ie ae eet woke ἂν
ΩΝ δ δ μὰ ὃ me toe fy ΣΑΣ
ΜΝ AS”. Ee Rf ᾿ ΠΥ fi ee i iv ΓΝ wt i wink Git 7
ih . ' ᾿ς wy ᾿ δ ᾿ : 4 neti ΝΖ, νἀ ἢ
4) ; 7 | a jie: rs, Selene
| εἴ " λων .. 110) ΟΝ
᾿ ᾿ νι ὃν
Υ ͵ ‘i ἢ ae νὰ ἦν ἐν
] ᾿ ἿΣ νἢ ere ee oa | £ A i ἡ ᾿ ἰὼ, > εὐ ὦ; ἱ x Lh ᾿
ἢ δὶ | ' » Y ἕν VL ᾿
i Wei ἢ fe 444] ον
ἢ ;
ΜΝ aru nie He
aT ny. Ι ᾿ ᾿ τ Ae Wee τὸ Wet ὼ
i ; 4 : ὴ
as bale evi Ae eet) eke AT ὟΝ.
LU al : ΘΓ Ὁ a” ae
—— ᾿
‘ :
. ; )
οὶ ) ἢ
J ἣ |
i re Py
ἃ ΒΞ
λυ 4
ΐ [ΣΤ]
' ‘ aa
at ἡ. ᾿ >} ae 18
i]
» pt aed |
» age γ' ‘i fi [τ f
eT, ὶ 1 iy ἢ a ‘J my "ὁ F
bgt) US gy a ty ‘\
1 i it Ἢ Ὶ nay wr aa
αὐ 1. ‘ ee ἡ μάν,
j
Nye" ΕΝ va
: ep gine
' ᾿ i νυ ᾿ a Ct a ὸ op,’ ‘hae gh i i ; pi
Pt em br Pong
Pri bY ἡ a ; a)
ἡ Aiea μὰ
4 i
cu hi er i ae
ΣΝ ΤῊ ἢ. ἌΡΑ ὑπ νὴ
AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
\ A ’ 2] » 3:
καὶ τὸ ApceN μετὰ τῆς θηλείδο οὔτε ἄροεν οὔτε
θῆλγ, τοῦτο λέγει, ἵνα ἀδελφὸς ἰδων ἀδελφὴν {οὐδὲν
φρονῆ περὶ αὐτῆς θηλυκόν, μηδὲ φρονῇ τι περὲ αὐτοῦ
ἀρσενικὸν.
΄ ΄σ / / > /
ταῦτα ὑμών ποιούντων, φησίν, ἐλεύσεται
ε / ~ /
«ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ πατρός pov.
XITT.
2 οὐδὲν φρονῇ] οὐδὲν φρονεῖ C.
᾿λδελφοὲ toivt ἤδη ποτὲ μετανοήσωμεν'
3 μηδὲ] add. guum soror videbit fratrem S.
6 ᾿Αδελφοὶ οὖν] ᾿Αδελφοί [μου] S, omitting οὖν. As S commonly renders ἀδελφοί
alone by ‘MN /ratres mez, it is uncertain whether the translator had μου in his text.
I. καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν κιτ.λ.] The lacuna
in the Alexandrian MS commences.
after τοῦτο: see p. 209. But the
previous words in the sentence are
here printed again for the sake of
convenience.
2. οὐδέν] The previous editors,
while substituting φρονῇ for φρονεῖ,
have passed over ovde in silence.
But with φρονῇ we should certainly
expect μηδέν. The reading οὐδέν
can only be explained by treating
οὐδὲν θηλυκόν as a separate idea,
‘should entertain thoughts which
have no regard to her sex’, so as
to isolate οὐδέν from the influence of
ἵνα; but the order makes this ex-
planation very difficult. The gram-
mars do not give any example of
the use of ov (οὐδέν) which is ana-
logous; see Kiihner II p. 747 sq.,
Winer 8 lv. p. 599 sq. The sentence
is elliptical, and words must be
understood in the second clause,
μηδὲ [ἀδελφὴ ἰδοῦσα ἀδελφὸν] φρονῇ
κιτλ. 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 μηδ᾽ ἥδε; but ἥδε.. αὐτοῦ
does not seem a natural combination
of pronouns here.
4. φησίν] It does not follow that
the preacher is quoting the exact
words of the Gospel according to
the Egyptians; for φησίν may mean
nothing more than ‘he says in effect’,
‘he signifies’, See e.g. Barnab. 7
οὕτω, φησίν, οἱ θέλοντές pe ἰδεῖν k.7.X.,
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 φησίν
occurs many times elsewhere in
Barnab. δὲ 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.
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’.
6. οὖν] This particle cannot stand
after the vocative, and indeed is
omitted in the Syriac. Perhaps οὖν
is a corruption of pov, as ἀδελφοί
222 AN ANCIENT HOMILY [ XIII
d 5 \ \ 3 id A \ 7 . qn
νήψωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν: μεστοὶ yap ἐσμεν πολλῆς
3 Ψ \ / 3 / 9 3 ε ~ \ /
ἀνοίας καὶ πονηρίας. ἐξαλείψωμεν ad’ ἡμῶν τὰ mpo-
ς / \ / 9 ~ ΄-
τερα ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ μετανοήσαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς σωθώ-
μεν.
, € - els 3 \ \ - af » /
μόνον ἑαντοῖς ἀρέσκειν, ἄλλα καὶ τοῖς ἐξω ἀνθρώποις 5
καὶ μὴ γινώμεθα ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι' μηδὲ θέλωμεν
yi AN qn / c/ ἌΣ Ὁ Be ares \
ἐπὶ τῆ δικαιοσύνῃ; τς τ ας δι ἡμᾶς μὴ βλασφη-
Bs 4 ς ι \ wy se ,
μῆται. Λέγει γὰρ καὶ ὁ Κύριος Διὰ πὰντὸς τὸ ὄνομά Moy
- 3 = a > \ , 41. δ > Mech
BAACDHMEITAI EN TIACIN TOIC EONECIN' Και σαλιν Oyai Ar ὃν
a ᾿ - ͵ 5 , ~
BAACDHMEITAL TO ONOMA MOY EV TLUL βλασφημεῖται: 5
6 τὸ ὄνομα] add. Domini S. ἡμᾶς] 5; ὑμᾶς C. 7 Kat] Ssom., ΟΣ
| 8 βλασφημεῖται] add. δι’ ὑμᾶς 5. πᾶσιν] οἵα. 5. πάλιν Οὐαὶ 6¢ ὃν] S; Διὸ (,
See the lower note. ο ἐν rim] add. δὲ 5: comp. ii. § 3. 10 ὑμᾶς ἃ βούλομαι]
ἡμᾶς ἃ λέγομεν 5. τι ἡμῶν] S; ὑμῶν C. 12 ἔπειτα] add. δὲ 5. 15 μῦθόν
μου occurs several times, §$ 9, 10, 11;
or the scribe has here tampered with
the connecting particles, as he has
done elsewhere (§ 7 ὥστε οὖν, ἀδελφοί
pov), and in this case has blundered.
I. νήψωμεν ἐπὶ κιτ.λ.] τ Tim. 11. 26
ἀνανήψωσιν ... εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα,
t Pet. iv. 7 νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς,
Polyc. Phzl. 7 νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς.
2. ἐξαλείψωμεν] Harnack quotes
Acts ili, 19 μετανοήσατε οὖν καὶ
ἐπιστρέψατε εἰς τὸ ἐξαλειφθῆναι
ὑμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.
4. ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι]ἠ Enphes. vi. 6,
Col ni, '22,.tSee also the* note ‘on
ἀνθρωπαρεσκεῖν Ign. Rom. 2.
5. €avtois| ‘one another’, 1.€.
‘our fellow-Christians’, as rightly
explained here by Harnack; comp.
§ 4 ἐν τῷ ἀγαπᾶν ἑαυτούς, ὃ 12 λαλῶμεν
ἑαυτοῖς ἀλήθειαν, but not ὃ 15.
τοῖς ἔξω ἀνθρώποις] “ the heathen’.
For the expression οἱ ἔξω see the
note Colossians iv. 5.
6. τὸ ὄνομα] ‘the Name’; so
Tertull. Zdo/. 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.
7. Ata παντὸς κιτ.λ.)] From the
-LXX Is. lil. 5 rade λέγει ὁ Κύριος, AV
ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς TO ὄνομά pov βλα-
σφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. The Syriac.
translator inserts δ ὑμᾶς, and omits
πᾶσιν ; but these are obvious altera-
tions to conform to the familiar Lxx
of Isaiah.
8. καὶ πάλιν Οὐαὶ «7.A.] 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 homceoteleuton), 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
difficulty. If the first quotation Διὰ
παντὸς κιτιλ. is taken from Is. lil.
5, whence comes the second Οὐαὶ
κτλ The explanation seems to
be, that Is. lii. 5 itself was very
frequently quoted in the early ages
Ovai δι ὃν (or & ov) KT.A. (See
instances collected in the note to
Ign. Zyrall. 8), though there is no
authority for it either in the LXX or
> “ \ ΄- ἂν ox ἃ /
ιοέν Tw μὴ ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς a βούλομαι.
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 323
XIII]
\ of a
ta €Ovn yap,
> 7 “A 7 rod \ ’ ΄- ~
ἀκούοντα ἐκ TOU στόματος ἡμών Ta λογια τοῦ Θεοῦ,
ες \ A / / sf /
ὡς Kaha καὶ μεγαλα θαυμαζει: ἔπειτα, καταμαθόντα
δ. ἂν σ΄ « 7 » a a
Ta €pya ἡμῶν OTL οὐκ ἔστιν ἀξια τῶν ῥημάτων ὧν
/ af > / / /
λέγομεν, ἐνθεν εἰς βλασφημίαν τρέπονται, λέγοντες
Ss - z \ / « \ /
εἰναι μῦθον Twa καὶ πλάνην. ὅταν γὰρ ἀκούσωσιν
> ε ΄σ e/ / ec \ > ͵ es > > a
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὅτι λέγει ὁ Θεὸς ΟΥ̓ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγὰάπᾶτε
TOYC ArAT@NTAC ὑμᾶς, ἀλλὰ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγὰπᾶτε τοὺς
> ‘ ‘ ‘ fal c n “~ e/ /
€x@poyc Kal ToYc micofnTac ὑμᾶς: ταῦτα ὅταν ἀκού-
twa] add. delirii S, the word being doubtless added to bring out the force of
μῦθον. 17 ἀλλὰ] add. τότε 8. 18 ἐχθρούς] add. ὑμῶν S. The addition of
pronouns is very common in S; and I have not thought it necessary to record
several instances which occur below.
inthe 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.
9. ἐν τίνι κιτ.λ.] This is no longer
any part of the quotation, but belongs
to the preacher’s explanation. Hehas
however put the words into the mouth
of God Himself, after his wont: e.g.
§ 12 ταῦτα ὑμῶν ποιούντων K.T.r., § 14
τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα κιτιλ. The read-
ing of the Syriac, μὴ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς ἃ
λέγομεν, is obviously a correction
to overcome this difficulty. For other
examples where this preacher begins
his explanations with ἐν rim” see
δὲ 3, 9.
11. τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ] A synonyme
for the Scriptures; comp. Rom. 11].
2, Heb. v. 12; Clem. Rom. 19, 53,
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. H. £. iii. 39 Mar@aios...cuve-
γράψατο τὰ λόγια, Which must have
been nearly contemporaneous. See
Contemporary Review, August 1875,
p- 400 sq. Similarly our author
above ὃ 2 quotes a Gospel as γραφή
(see pp. 177, 190).
12. ἔπειτα k.t.A.| Apost. Const. ii. 8
ὁ τοιοῦτος... βλασφημίαν προσέτριψε τῷ
κοινῷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ,
ὡς μὴ ποιούντων ἐκεῖνα ἃ λέγομεν εἶναι
καλὰ x.7.X.
16. λέγει ὁ Θεός] ‘God saith’. The
passage quoted therefore is regarded
as one of ra λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. As the
words of our Lord follow, it might
perhaps be thought that the expres-
sion λέγει ὁ Θεός refers not to the
Divine inspiration of the Gospel,
but to the Divine personality of
Christ, of whom the writer says § 1
οὕτως Set ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὡς περὶ Θεοῦ. But, not to
mention that such a mode of speak-
ing would be without a parallel in
the early ages of Christianity, the
preceding τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ deter-
mines the sense here.
Ov χάρις x.7.A.] A loose quotation
from Luke vi. 32, 35 εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν ;
οὐ πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν...
καὶ ἔσται ὁμισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς. For the
use of χάρις comp. 1 Pet. 11. 19, 20.
. 324 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
(xr
2 / \ A “ f
cwow, θαυμάζουσιν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητος"
« Ne. of « / \ = =
ὅταν δὲ ἴδωσιν OTL OV MOVOY TOUS μισοῦντας οὐκ aya-
΄σ 3 5. eh δὲ \ ᾽ ΄σ -
πώμεν, ἀλλ᾽ OTL οὐδὲ TOUS ἀγαπῶντας, KaTayehwow
ἡμῶν, καὶ βλασφημεῖται τὸ ὄνομα.
« - > ~ an
XIV. “Wore, ἀδελφοί, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
\ e ~ Θ ΄σ > / A > ΄σ > J - /
πατρος ἡμων ὕὍεου ἐσόμενα EK τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρω-
3 ὅτι] om. S, perhaps owing to the exigencies of translation.
τὸ ὄνομα] add. τοῦ Χριστοῦ 8.
βλασφημεῖται] add. οὖν 8.
1. ἀγαθότητος) ‘goodness’ in the
sense of ‘kindness’ ‘beneficence’,
as ἀγαθοποιεῖν 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 ἀγαθωσύνη.
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
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.’
6. τῆς πρώτης «.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.
4 kal] om. S.
9 ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς
i. 3 54. ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ
εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπου-
ρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, καθὼς ἐξελέξατο
ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου
...Tpooploas ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν k.T.X.,
a passage aptly quoted by Bryennios.
The language of our preacher stands
midway in point of development,
and perhaps also in point of chron-
ology, between this teaching of S.
Paul and the doctrine of the Valen-
tinians, who believed in an eternal
zon ‘ Ecclesia’, thus carrying the
Platonism of our pseudo-Clement a
step in advance.
7. πρὸ ἡλίου κ-τ.λ.] This expres-
sion is probably taken from Ps.
Ixxi (Ixxil). 5 συμπαραμενεῖ τῷ ἡλίῳ
kal πρὸ τῆς σελήνης γενεὰς γενεῶν
and 2d. νεῖ. 17 πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμενεῖ
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ; for though in these
passages, as the Hebrew shows, πρὸ
has*or ought to have a different
meaning (Aquila eis πρόσωπον τῆς
σελήνης, Symmachus ἔμπροσθεν τῆς
σελήνης), yet it was commonly so
interpreted, as appears from Justin
Dial. 64 (p. 288) ἀποδείκνυται... «ὅτι
οὗτος (i.€. ὁ Χριστός) Kai πρὸ τοῦ
ἡλίου ἢν, in proof of which statement
he cites the passages just quoted ;
comp. 20. 45 (p- 264) ὃς καὶ πρὸ
ἑωσφόρου καὶ σελήνης ἦν, 34 (p. 252),
76 (p. 302); and so Athanasius 6.
Arian. i. 41 (1. p. 351) εἰ δὲ καί, ws
IO CTHAAION AHCTQN.
xIv]
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR.
325
lon ~ ΄ \
TNS, τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς προ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισ-
/ »\ \ \ /
μένης" ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιήσωμεν
> ΄σ- ΄σ lan /
εκ τῆς γραφῆς THs λεγουσης
᾽ / ~ ~ ἣν
ἐκκλησίας τῆς ζωῆς εἶναι,
\ «ς — ~ /
δὲ ὑμάς ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι
τῆς λεγούσης) ex tis de quibus scriptum
S, omitting οὖν. See p. 321.
ψάλλει Aavid ἐν τῷ ἑβδομηκοστῷ πρώτῳ
ψαλμῷ, “Πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμένει τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ “πρὸ τῆς σελήνης. εἰς
γενεὰς γενεῶν, πῶς ἐλάμβανεν ὃ εἶχεν
ἀεὶ κιτιλ. Similarly too in his Z2fos.
in Psalm. \xxi (1. p. 897) he explains
the two expressions, vv. 5, 17, πρὸ
αἰώνων and πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου
respectively. Meanwhile Eusebius
Comm. in Psalm. ad loc. (Of. V. p.
800 ed. Migne) had mentioned and
rejected this meaning; οὐ γὰρ πρὸ
τῆς σελήνης, τούτεστι πρὶν γενέσθαι
τὴν σελήνην, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνώπιον ὥσπερ καὶ
ἔμπροσθεν ἡγούμενος τῆς σελήνης.
For the idea see esp. Hermas [725.
ii. 4 Tis οὖν ἐστίν ; φημί. Ἢ ᾿Εκκλησία,
φησίν. εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, Διὰ τί οὖν
πρεσβυτέρα; Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη
ἐκτίσθη" διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα, καὶ διὰ
ταύτην ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη, quoted by
Bryennios. Comp. also Orig. c. Ceds.
vi. 35, where speaking of the phrase
droppoias ἐκκλησίας ἐπιγείου which
Celsus had attributed among other
absurdities to the Christians, he
writes, τάχα ἐλήφθη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπό τινων
λέγεσθαι ἐκκλησίας τινὸς ἐπουρανίου
καὶ κρείττονος αἰῶνος ἀπόρροιαν εἶναι
τὴν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐκκλησίαν. And see the
passages quoted in the notes on
τὰ βιβλία κιτιλ. and ἀντίτυπον. Hil-
genfeld quotes Clem. Alex. Strom.
iv. 8 (p. 593) εἰκὼν δὲ τῆς οὐρανίου
ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος (this father has
᾽ / wr
ἐκκλησιὰ Cwoa ce
τὸ θέλημα Κυρίου, ἐσόμεθα
c 9 Π
ἜΓενηθη ὁ οἰκός MOY
« oy ς 4 > \ ΄-
ὥστε οὖν αἱρετισώμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς
« “ ᾽ sf
iva σωθῶμεν. οὐκ οἴομαι
σὰ U
MA €CTIN
est S. 10 ὥστε οὖν] ὥστε, ἀδελφοί [μου]
just before cited Ephes. v. 21 564.
Col. iii. 18 sq.), 2b. vi. 13 (Pp. 793)
ai ἐνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν προκοπαὶ
μιμήματα, οἶμαι, ἀγγελικῆς δόξης
κἀκείνης τῆς οἰκονομίας τυγχάνουσιν
ἣν ἀναμένειν φασὶν αἱ γραφαὶ τοὺς κατ᾽
ἔχνος k.T.A.
9. ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς κιτιλ.] A loose
expression, meaning ‘of those persons
described in the Scripture’. The
Syriac translator has paraphrased
accordingly. The passage is Jer. vii.
II μὴ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ὁ οἶκός μου, οὗ
ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου er αὐτῷ
κιτιλ., to which also our Lord alludes
(Matt. xxi. 13, Mark xi. 17, Luke
xix. 46). For the application here
comp. A fost. Const. 11. 17.
10. ὥστε οὖν] A pleonasm which
our author repeats elsewhere; §§ 4,7.
αἱρετισώμεθα] ‘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.
11. τῆς ζωῆς] Harnack writes ‘Tu-
dzeorum synagoga est ecclesia mor-
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.
12. σῶμά ἐστιν Χριστοῦ} Riches: i.
326 ‘ AN
Χριοτοῦ" λέγει γὰρ
ἀνθρῶπον APCEN Kal
τὸ θῆλν ἡ ἐκκλησία"
ANCIENT HOMILY
[xiv
\ > ͵ ε ‘ ‘
ἡ ypadyn “Enoincen ὁ Θεὸς TON
z \ sf > \ e if
θΗ͂λγ' TO ἀρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός,
Ny τεῦ \ / \ - Ue
καὶ OTL τὰ βιβλία Kal οἱ ἀποστο-
\ 3 ’ 3 “νι a \ af 4
λοι THY ἐκκλησίαν οὐ νῦν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ ἄνωθεν [λέγουσιν,
3 τὸ θῆλυ] καὶ τὸ θῆλυ 5.
prophetarum 5.
23 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ; comp. 26. iv. 4, 12 sq., 16,
νυν 23 30, Rom. xi. §, 1 Cor. x 17,
ἘΠῚ 12 7, COL ἢ: 16, 24, 1; .πὸ,
111 τ:
1. Ἐποίησεν κ-τ.λ.}] Gen. i. 27
ἐποίησεν 6 Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ᾽
εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν" ἄρσεν καὶ
θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. The applica-
tion seems to be suggested by 5.
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
μυστῆἤριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν᾽ ἐγὼ δὲ
λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ [εἰς] τὴν ἐκκλη-
σίαν.
3. καὶ ὅτι] Some words have
evidently dropped out in the MSs
here: see the introduction, pp. 246 sq.
The lacuna is conveniently supplied
by λέγουσιν δῆλον after ἄνωθεν, as I
have done. This seems to me better
than the more obvious solution of
Bryennios, who would attach this
ὅτι to the preceding ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, and
understand merely φασί or διδάσκουσι
or the like. The Syriac translator
omits the ὅτι and inserts a λέγουσι
or some similar word. This is
clearly an arbitrary correction.
τὰ βιβλία καὶ of ἀπόστολοι] This is
a rough synonyme for the Old and
NewTestaments respectively. Though
the Apostolic and Evangelical writ-
ings are elsewhere in this epistle -
treated as γραφαί (§ 2) and even as
λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (§ 13), being thus co-
kal Ort] atgue etiam 8.
4 οὐ νῦν] add. adicunt 8.
τὰ βιβλία] add.
λέγουσιν δῆλον] om. C S; see the
ordinated in point of authority with
the Old Testament, yet the term
τὰ βιβλία, ‘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. Phlad. 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. Inthe 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 Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 15;
comp. Anastas. ΟΖ. p. 860, Migne)
says, Παπίου τοῦ πάνυ τοῦ Ἱεραπολίτου
τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσαντος, καὶ
Κλήμεντος Πανταίνου τῆς ᾿Αλεξαν-
δρέων ἱερέως, καὶ ᾿Αμμωνίου σοφωτά-
του, τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ πρώτων συνῴδων
ἐξηγητῶν, εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν πᾶσαν τὴν ἑξαήμερον νοη-
σάντων. We might almost suppose
that Anastasius was here alluding
to our pseudo-Clement, if he had
not in a parallel passage (p. 962
Migne), where he is again enume-
rating ancient interpreters who ex-
plained the statements respecting
paradise in Genesis as εἰς τὴν Χριστοῦ
ἐκκλησίαν ἀναφερόμενα, specified KAy-
XIV |
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR.
427
~ > \ 7 - ΄σ >
5 δῆλον]: ἦν yap πνευματική, ὡς καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἡμῶν, ἐφα-
, \ 9 , - ai a
νερώθη δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἵνα ἡμᾶς σώση:
eS / δὲ \ ot > / > ΄σ 5 \
ἡ ἐκκλησία δὲ πνευματικὴ οὖσα ἐφανερώθη ἐν TH σαρκὶ
έ
lower note.
5 ὡς καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἡμών, ἐφανερώθη δὲ κ.τ.λ.7 ef vir etus autem
(δὲ) “2ιγ αἰ» est, ts qui est Fesus Christus Dominus noster, manifestatus est autem,
etc. S.
μῆς 6 Stpwparevs. He writes again
(p. 964), ‘admirabiles quos diximus
interpretes...decreverunt...duos quos-
dam esse paradisos...terrestrem et
calestem, qui cernitur et qui in-
telligitur, sicut etiam est Christus
celestis simul et terrestris, congru-
enter typo duarum ecclestarum, ter-
ren@, inquam, e¢ celestis 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
a confirmation of his view in πόλει
Θεοῦ ζῶντος Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ....
πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπο-
γεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς (xil. 22, 23).
Again such words as Apoc. xxi. 9, 10,
τὴν νύμφην τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ dpviov...
6 ἡμερῶν] temporum 8.
τὴν ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνουσαν
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, would
suit his purpose admirably.
4. οὐ νῦν κιτιλ.] “ποΐ now for the
first time, but from the beginning’.
For this sense of ἄνωθεν see Luke
i. 3, Acts xxvi. 5; comp. Justin Dza/.
24 (p. 242) ὥσπερ ἄνωθεν ἐκηρύσσετο,
2b. 63 (p. 286) ὅτι ἄνωθεν ὁ Θεὸς...
γεννᾶσθαι αὐτὸν ἔμελλε, where it is an
explanation of πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά
σε. Harnack compares Gal. iv. 26,
etc., but the opposition to νῦν here
suggests the temporal rather than
the local meaning of ἄνωθεν.
5. ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἡμῶν] Sc. πνευματικὸς
ἦν, so that ὁ Ἰησοῦς, not ἡ ἐκκλησία,
is the nominative of ἐφανερώθη : comp.
§ 9 Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς,
ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο
σὰρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. For
ἐφανερώθη δὲ κιτ.λ. comp. I Pet. 1.
20 Χριστοῦ προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωϑθέντος δὲ
ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου (ν.]. ἐσχάτων) τῶν χρό-
νων δι’ ὑμᾶς κιτλ.
6. ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν] ‘when
the days were drawing to a close’,
‘at the end of all things’; a not
uncommon LXxX expression, Gen.
xlix. 1, Deut. iv. 30 (v. 1), Dan. ii.
28, x. 14, Hos. iii. 5, Mic. iv. 1; and
so 2 Pet. iii, 3, but in Heb. i. 2 the
correct reading is ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν
ἡμερῶν.
7. ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ Χριστοῦ] When Christ
took a bodily external form, the
Church did the same. Moreover this
external form might be said to be
328 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
[x1v
na =: σ- e/ φ' e ΄σ / 3 A
Χριστοῦ, δηλοῦσα ἡμῖν ὅτι, ἐαν τις ἡμῶν τηρήση αὐτὴν
ν TH kat μὴ φθεί ἀπολήψεται αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ
ἐν TH σάρκιὶ καὶ MY φ en, ῇῃ 1 ᾿
~ 7 ε \ \ e/ ’ / Υ͂ >
πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ: ἡ yap σὰρξ αὕτη ἀντίτυπος ἐστιν
~ / 3 \ Ss \ ΕῚ ψ' ’ὔ A
τοῦ πνεύματος: οὐδεὶς οὖν TO ἀντίτυπον φθείρας το
\ 7 sf Ss an / 3
αὐθεντικὸν μεταλήψεται. ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λέγει, ἀδελ-
7 \ / εὖ a /
coi, Τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἵνα τοῦ πνεύματος μετα-
/
λαβητε.
\ \ ΄σ / of x SOG LA \ 4
kal TO πνεῦμα Χριστὸν, aoa οὖν ὁ ὑβρίσας τὴν σάρκα
? \ / "> \ (4 \ 9 ,
εἰ δε λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν σαρκα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
3 ἀντίτυποΞς] typus S,and so τὸ ἀντίτυπον just below; but this is probably owing to
the poverty of the language. 5 μεταλήψεται] CS. In C however it was first
written ἀπολήψεται, and μετὰ is written above by the same hand. See the note on
φιλοπονεῖν below, ὃ 19. 8 ὁ ὑβρίσας...τὴν ἐκκλησίαν] ἐξ gui contumelia affecit car-
ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, since the Church
exists by union with Him.
I. τηρήσῃ αὐτήν] ‘keep her pure
and undefiled’, 1.6. 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 παραστῆσαι
ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν
σπῖλον ἢ ῥυτίδα κιτ.λ.
2. ἀπολήψεται αὐτήν] i.e. by being
incorporated in the celestial, spiritual
Church.
4. τὸ ἀντίτυπον] ‘the counterpart,
or copy’. The Platonic doctrine of
ideas underlies these expressions.
The αὐθεντικόν is the eternal, spiritual
archetype, the original document, as
it were, in God’s own handwriting:
comp. Tertull. de Monog. 11 ‘in
Greeco 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.
XXxVill. 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) προεκόμισε χεῖρα
ὁλόγραφον αὐθεντικήν, i.e. ‘written
from first to last by his own hand’.
The ἀντίτυπον is the material, tem-
porary, manifestation, the imperfect
and blurred ¢razscrzpi of the original:
comp. Synes. “Φ 2252. 68 (p. 217) τοῖς
ταχυγράφοις τὰ ἀντίτυπα δοῦναι τῶν
τότε γραφέντων ἐπέταξα, Epist. in
Athan. Afol. c. Arian. 85 (I. p. 158)
τῷ ἀντιτύπῳ τοῦ θείου γράμματος. For
ἀντίτυπον, thus contrasted with the
heavenly and true, comp. Heb. ix. 24
ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, where the
ἀντίτυπα are defined in the context
aS Ta ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
and the ἀληθινά as αὐτὰ τὰ ἐπουράνια.
See also the anonymous Valentinian
in Epiph. er. xxxi. 5 (pp. 168, 169)
ἀντίτυπος τοῦ προόντος ᾿Αγεννήτου, av-
τίτυπον τῆς προούσης τετράδος. Απά
more especially for the pseudo-Cle-
ment’s teaching here compare the
Valentinian language, Iren. I. 5. 6
ὃ δὴ Kal αὐτὸ ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι λέγουσιν,
ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω Ἐκκλησίας.
In such senses ἀντίτυπον depreciates
relatively ; and with this meaning
the material elements in the eucha-
rist were commonly called by the
xiv]
« A > ’
ὕβρισεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.
~~ , ae. c xX ,
Io ψεται του TVEUMATOS, O €OTLY O βιστος.
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 329
5 ~ Ss 7
ὁ τοιοῦτος οὖν οὐ μεταλη-
/
TOO AUTNV
δύναται ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη μεταλαβεῖν ζωὴν Kat ἀφθαρσίαν,
De , > ΄ ~ ͵ ΄. € /
κολληθέντος αὐτῇ τοῦ πνεύματος TOU ἁγίου.
᾽,
OUTE
> ~ ὦ oJ ~ a « ’ c
ἐξειπεῖν τις δύναται οὔτε λαλῆσαι ἃ titoimacen ὁ
Κύριος τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς αὐτοῦ.
XV. οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὅτι μικρὰν συμβουλίαν ἐποιη-
> , «ἃ / ,
σάμην περὶ ἐγκρατείας, ἣν ποιήσας τις οὐ μετανοήσει,
nem suam contumelia affecit carnem Christi ecclesiam S. This might possibly repre-
sent ὁ ὑβρίσας τὴν σάρκα [τὴν ἰδίαν, τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα] ὕβρισεν, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, the
words in brackets having been omitted in C by homceoteleuton; but I am disposed
to regard it as merely a paraphrastic rendering of 85,
fathers ἀντίτυπα of the body and
blood of Christ, e.g. Afost.Const. v.14,
Vi. 30, vii. 25: see Suicer 7hes. s.v.
On the other hand ἀντίτυπον is some-
times opposed to τύπος, as the fin-
ished work to the rough model,
the realization to the foreshadowing,
in which case it extols relatively ;
comp. I Pet. iii. 21.
5. ἄρα οὖν κιτιλ.] 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
ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λέγει Τηρήσατε THY σάρκα
ἁγνὴν κιτίλ. It is almost impossible
however to trace the connexion of
thought in so loose a writer.
7. τὴν σάρκα] as being the Jody
of Christ. This language does not
occur in S. Paul, for in Ephes. v. 30
ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ is an interpolation.
The relation of Christ to the Church
is represented by S. Paul as that of
the Aead to the body, whereas here it
is that of the 5227γ22 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-
15 ἐποιησάμην] add. ὑμῖν 8,
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
$ 1, p. 187.
11. μεταλαβεῖν] 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 11. p. 294 sq.
The propriety of the change here
will be obvious. Similarly ro avéev-
τικὸν μεταλήψεται above.
12. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου] See
above pp. 202,227. The languagehere
is still more unguarded than in § 9.
13. ἐξειπεῖν] ‘express’: Clem. Rom.
48.
ἃ nroipacev| A reference to the
same passage of which part has been
already quoted by our preacher at
the end of § 11. See the note on
Clem. Rom. 34, p. 114.
XV. ‘He, that obeys this exhorta-
tion to chastity, will save both him-
self and the preacher. It is no small
AN ANCIENT HOMILY [xv
330
> A \ ἐ A / 9 A A 7
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑαυτὸν σώσει κἀμὲ τὸν. συμβουλεύσαντα.
\ A 9 af \ 7 \ \
μισθὸς yap οὐκ ἔστιν μικρὸς πλανωμένην ψυχὴν Kal
- , ἢ , 3 \ 17 , \
ἀπολλυμενὴν ἀποστρέψαι εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι. ταύτην γαρ
of a 3 td ny ao ~ ~
ἔχομεν THY ἀντιμισθίαν ἀποδοῦναι τῷ Θεῷ τῷ κτίσαντι
ε on “Ὁ 4 \ / A ,
ἡμᾶς, ἐὰν ὁ λέγων Kal ἀκούων μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης 5
ἡ λέγη καὶ ἀκούη. ἐμμείνωμεν οὖν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐ j
Ka yn a μμείνωμ φ ἐπιστευ-
i J \ ε « A 7 n~
σαμεν δίκαιοι καὶ ὅσιοι, ἵνα μετὰ παρρησίας αἰτῶμεν
A \ \ / 31 A , 2 ὅδ Ὁ 1 ’
τὸν Θεὸν tov λέγοντα Ἔτι \AAOYNTOC coy ἐρῶ ἰδοὺ πᾶρ-
~ A A tn / \
εἰμι: τοῦτο γὰρ TO ῥῆμα μεγάλης ἐστὶν ἐπαγγελίας
a e 7 \ \ / / 3
σημεῖον: ἑτοιμότερον Yap ἕαυτον λέγει ὁ Κύριος εἰς
\ ff nm 3 ΄- i 5
TO διδόναι τοῦ αἰτοῦντος. τοσαύτης οὖν χρηστότητος
/ A ‘f ε ~ ~ Ψ
μεταλαμβάνοντες μὴ φθονήσωμεν ἑαντοῖς τυχεῖν τοσού-
5 ὁ λέγων καὶ ἀκούων] S translates as if it had read 6 τε λέγων καὶ ὁ ἀκούων.
μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης] cum caritate e cum fide S, transposing the words.
repetition of the preposition see above, p. 239.
On the
10 εἰς τὸ διδόναι τοῦ αἰτοῦντος] 771
illud ut det petitionem eius qui petit ab tpso 5, thus supplying a substantive to govern
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’.
15. οἴομαι] The word has oc-
curred twice already in this writer
§§ 6, 14.
I. καὶ ἑαυτὸν κιτ.λ.} 1 Tim. iv. 16
καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις Kal τοὺς ἀκούοντάς
gov. See also below, ὃ 19. Harnack
quotes Barnab. I μᾶλλον συγχαίρω
ἐμαυτῷ ἐλπίζων σωθῆναι, ὅτι ἀληθῶς
βλέπω ἐν ὑμῖν ἐκκεχυμένον..-πνεῦμα.
2. μισθὸς κιτ.λ.] James ν. 20 ὁ ἐπι-
στρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ
αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου κιτιλ.
4. ἀντιμισθίαν]! A favourite word
with our author, especially in this
connexion ; see the note on § I.
7. δίκαιοι καὶ ὅσιοι] See on §§ 1, 5.
8. Ἔτι λαλοῦντός κιτιλ.] Is. lviii.
9 ὁ Θεὸς εἰσακούσεταί σου, ἔτι λαλοῦν-
ros σου ἐρεῖ ᾿Ιδοὺ πάρειμι. Comp.
A post. Const. 111. 7, where, as here, it
is quoted ἐρῶ (though with a v.1),
probably (as Lagarde points out)
from a confusion with Is. lxv. 24 ἔτι
λαλούντων αὐτῶν ἐρῶ, Ti ἐστιν; So too
it is given ‘dzcam’ in Iren. iv. 17. 3,
but ἐρεῖ in Justin Dza/. 15 (p. 233).
II. τοῦ αἰτοῦντος] sc. eis τὸ αἰτεῖν
‘more prompt to give than the asker
is to ask’; as in the Collect ‘more
ready to hear than we to pray’. The
Syriac translator has misunderstood
the sense.
XVI. ‘Therefore let us repent
and return to God betimes. If we
conquer our appetites and desires,
15
20
xv] BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 331
των ἀγαθῶν. ὅσην yap ἡδονὴν ἔχει Ta ῥήματα ταῦτα
τοῖς ποιήσασιν αὐτά, τοσαύτην κατάκρισιν ἔχει τοῖς
παρακούσασιν.
XVI. “ὥστε, ἀδελφοί, ἀφορμὴν λαβόντες οὐ
μικρὰν εἰς τὸ μετανοῆσαι, καιρὸν ἔχοντες ἐπιστρέψωμεν
ἐπὶ τὸν καλέσαντα ἡμᾶς Θεόν, ἕως ἔτι ἔχομεν τὸν
παραδεχόμενον ἡμᾶς. ἐὰν γὰρ ταῖς ἡδυπαθείαις ταύ-
ταις ἀποταξωώμεθα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν νικήσωμεν ἐν
τῷ μὴ ποιεῖν τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῆς τὰς πονηράς, μετα-
ληψόμεθα τοῦ ἐλέους ᾿Ιησοῦ. Γινώσκετε δὲ ὅτι ἔρχεται
ἤδη ἡ Hmépa τῆς κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος KAIOMENOC, Kal
, ’ -“ ΕῚ tal \ ie ~~
TAKHCONTAI Trivest TON OYPANON, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὡς
τοῦ αἰτοῦντος and mistaking the sense.
igitur hac jucunditate et bonitate Dei jucundamur S.
18 τὸν παραδεχόμενον] patrem qui accifit 8, i.e.
16 ἀδελφοί] add. ἀγαπητοί S.
IIPA for ITAPA-
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’.
16. ἀφορμὴν λαβόντες] So Rom.
vii. 8, 11. Conversely ἀφορμὴν &-
δόναι 2 Cor. v. 12, 1 Tim. v. 14, Ign.
Tradl. 8.
17. καιρὸν ἔχοντες] So ὃ 8 ἕως
ἔχομεν καιρὸν μετανοίας, ὃ 9 ὡς ἔχομεν
καιρὸν τοῦ ἰαθῆναι.
19. τὸν παραδεχόμενον] It is yet
the καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος (2 Cor. vi. 2).
ἡδυπαθείαις] See again ὃ 17. Not
11 τοσαύτης ... μεταλαμβάνοντες] guoniam
12 τοσούτων τοιούτων (?) 8.
22 Ἰησοῦ] Domini nostri Fesu Christi 8.
a Biblical word. On this word, which
was highly distasteful to the Stoics,
see Wyttenbach on Plut. Mor. 132
c. It occurs at least as early as
Xenophon, Cyv. vii. 5. 74.
20. ἀποταξώμεθα] See on § 6.
22. ἔρχεται x.t.A.] Mal. iv. 1 ἰδοὺ
ἡμέρα ἔρχεται καιομένη ὡς κλίβανος.
24. τινες] This is obviously cor-
rupt, though both our authorities
are agreed. I think that for τινες we
should probably read [ai] δυνάμεις,
the expression being taken from Is.
XXXiV. 4 καὶ τακήσονται πᾶσαι ai δυνά-
pets τῶν οὐρανῶν; comp Afoc. Petr.
in Macar. Magn. iv. 7 (p. 165, Blondel)
καὶ τακήσεται πᾶσα δύναμις οὐρανοῦ.
Where the MS was torn 4nd letters
had dropped out, it might easily be
read Tinec. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10,
Orac. Sib. iii. 689 sq., Melito AZol. 12,
p. 432 (Otto). Though the existing text
might be explained with Harnack and
Hilgenfeld by the common belief in
50
AN ANCIENT HOMILY
[xvI
Δ. > \ \ ’ \ / f A
μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ THKOMEVOS, καὶ τότε φανήσεται Ta
ἢ \ Aah “- 3 θ /
κρύφια Kat avepa epya τῶν ανθρωπων.
καλὸν οὖν
> / e , e /
ἐλεημοσύνη ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας" κρείσσων νηστεία
~ 9 / \ 3 / > ’ \
προσευχῆς, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων" ἀγάπη δὲ Ka-
3 κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς] bonum jejunium, oratio, S; but probably 2 has
dropped out. This insertion would bring the Syriac into conformity with the Greek,
several heavens (comp. e.g. Orig. ὦ
Cels. vi. 23), I 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
Quest. ad Orthod. 74 probably refers
to this passage: see the Addenda on
p. 167, 19:
I. μόλιβος] This seems to be the
correct form in the LxXxX generally,
Exod, xv. 10, Num. xxx. 22, “fob
xix. 24, etc. Both μόλιβος and μόλιβ-
δος are certified by their occurrence
in metre.
2. κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ] An exhaus-
tive expression: comp. Wisd. vii. 21
ὕσα τέ ἐστι κρυπτὰ καὶ ἐμφανῆ ἔγνων.
καλὸν οὖν κιτ.λ.} 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, £767. 126, quoted above,
p. 187. This however may be doubt-
ful. The preacher seems to be
thinking of Tobit xii. 8, 9 ἀγαθὸν
προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ ἐλεημοσύ-
ms καὶ δικαιοσύνης ... καλὸν ποιῆσαι
ἐλεημοσύνην ἢ θησαυρίσαι χρυσίον "
ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται καὶ
αὕτη ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν, where
the first sentence as read in δὲ is
ἀγαθὸν προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ
ἐλεημοσύνη μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ὑπὲρ ἀμ-
φότερα. Here the very same function
ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεσθαι, 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-
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 beentrans-
posed and others perhaps omitted.
3. ws μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας] ‘ as repent-
ance from 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
ἐλεημοσύνη here has its restricted
sense of ‘almsgiving’, as in every
passage where it occurs in the N.T.
4. ἀμφοτέρων] See Ecclus. xl.
24 ὑπὲρ ἀμφότερα ἐλεημοσύνη ῥύσε-
ται, where however the ἀμφότερα
are ἀδελφοὶ καὶ βοήθεια εἰς καιρὸν
θλίψεως.
ἀγάπη δὲ κιτ.λ.] 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 καλύψει πλῆθος
ἁμαρτιῶν seems still to be used of the
sins of others, but in the sense of
‘burying them from the sight of
God, wiping them out by the con-
version and repentance of the sinner’.
On the other hand our preacher
xvi] BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 333
5 AYTTE! πλῆθος AMAPTION’ προσευχὴ δὲ ἐκ καλῆς συνει-
δήσεως ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται. μακάριος πᾶς ὁ εὑρεθεὶς
> / / 3 / \ / ε
ἐν τούτοις πλήρης ἐλεημοσύνη Yap κουφισμα ἀμαρ-
/ /
Tlas γινεται.
XVII.
Ky ? ε ’ .«“ἶ
Μετανοήσωμεν οὖν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας, ἵνα
4 ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ] add. melior (kpeloowr) S.
seems certainly to take it as mean-
ing ‘atones for a multitude of ove’s
own sins’, as it is taken by some
modern commentators: and so too
Tertull. Scorp. 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 Quis div. salv. 38 (p.
956) 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 Sz¢romz. i. 27 (p.
423). Origen Jz Lev. Hom. ii. § 5 (Ul.
Ῥ. 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 ἀφέωνται
αὐτῆς ai ἁμαρτίαι ai πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπη-
σεν 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.
5. καλῆς συνειδήσεως] Heb. xiii.
18. A commoner expression is ἀγαθὴ
συνείδησις ; see the note Clem. Rom.
41. For καθαρὰ συνείδησις see Clem.
Rom. 45 with the note.
6. ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται] This is said
of ἐλεημοσύνη in Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9
(already quoted); and of δικαιοσύνη,
which also signifies ‘almsgiving’, in
Prov. x. 2, xi. 4; but not of προσευχή.
See the note on καλὸν οὖν k.t.X. above.
7. ἐν] Comp. Ecclus. l. 6 σελήνη
πλήρης ἐν ἡμέραις.
CLEM.
ἐλεημοσύνη yap κιτ.λ.] Prov. xvi. 6
(xv. 27) ἐλεημοσύναις καὶ πίστεσιν
ἀποκαθαίρονται ἁμαρτίαι, Ecclus. iii. 30
ἐλεημοσύνη ἐξιλάσεται ἁμαρτίας : COMp.
Dan. iv. 24 τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεη-
μοσύναις λύτρωσαι (Theod.).
κούφισμα ἁμαρτίας] i.e. ‘removes
the load of sin’, as with Bunyan’s
pilgrims. So 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ov, Κύ-
pie, ὁ κουφίσας Τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν;
comp. Ezr. ix. 13 ἐκούφισας ἡμῶν τὰς
ἀνομίας.
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
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’.
9. Μετανοήσωμεν x.t.A.] The ex-
22
334 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
[XVII
μή τις ἡμῶν παραπόληται. εἰ γὰρ ἐντολὰς ἔχομεν,
ἵνα καὶ τοῦτο πράσσωμεν, ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων ἀποσπᾶν
\ = r - \ of ἢ
καὶ κατηχεῖν, πόσῳ μάλλον ψυχὴν ἤδη γινωσκουσαν
τὸν Θεὸν οὐ δεῖ ἀπόλλυσθαι; συλλάβωμεν οὖν ἑαυτοῖς
καὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἀνάγειν περὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ὅπως
σωθῶμεν ἅπαντες" καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἀλλήλους καὶ
νουθετήσωμεν. καὶ μὴ μόνον ἄρτι δοκῶμεν προσέχειν
καὶ πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ νουθετεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσ-
/ 5) \ Ni caer 5 Ss 3 ΄σ
βυτέρων, ἀλλα καὶ ὅταν εἰς οἶκον ἀπαλλαγῶμεν, μνη-
2 ἵνα καὶ τοῦτο πράσσωμεν] 5; καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν (om. ἵνα) C.
Similar omis-
sions of ἵνα appear in AC in § 48 ἐξομολογησώμαι (where S is correct), and in S
itself in ii § 11 κομισώμεθα (where AC are correct).
S, as if rpds: but it perhaps does not represent a different reading.
καὶ πιστεύειν] S; πιστεύειν καὶ προσέχειν C,.
5 περὶ] C3 ad (adversus)
" προσέχειν
9 εἰς οἶκον ἀπαλλαγῶμεν] C;
domum dimissi fuerimus et cessaverimus ab his omnibus S. The variation might
pression μετανοεῖν ἐξ ὅλης [τῆς] καρδίας
has occurred already § 8, and will
occur again § 19; comp. also § 9
μετανοῆσαι ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας.
I. παραπόληται] ‘perish by the
way, i.e.‘ unexpectedly, through care-
lessness, without sufficient cause’; as
e.g. Lucian Gymn.13 ὁρῶ οὐδενὸς
μεγάλου ἕνεκα παραπολλυμένας, Vig7.
13 δέδοικα μὴ παραπόληται μεταξὺ
λουόμενος, Hermiot. 21 περιόψει με
παραπολόμενον.
ἐντολὰς ἔχομεν] It was our Lord’s
command, Matt. xxvill. 19 sq. ; comp.
Mark xvi. 15. If we adopt the reading
of the Greek MS, καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν
must be taken as parenthetical so
far as regards the structure, ‘and we
obey this command’; so that ἀπο-
σπᾶν will then be governed by ἐν-
τολὰς ἔχομεν.
4. συλλάβωμεν 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 ἑαυτοῖς
see the note on 813; and for ἀνάγειν
comp. Clem. Rom. 49.
6. καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν] to be con-
nected with συλλάβωμεν, and not
made dependent on ὅπως, as it is
punctuated by Bryennios.
7. μὴ povov apte «r.A.]| This
clearly shows that the work before
us is a sermon delivered in church
(see p. 304 54.) ; comp. ὃ 19 pera τὸν
Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναγινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔν-
τευξιν κιτ.ὰλ,
ὃ. τῶν πρεσβυτέρων] ‘the pres-
byters’ who delivered their exhorta-
tions after the reading of the Scrip-
tures; see the note on ὃ I9 pera
τὸν Θεὸν «tA. 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
third person, by a common form of ᾿
speech, to avoid egotism: comp. 6. g.
Clem. Rom. 63 ἡσυχάσαντες τῆς pa-
Tatas στάσεως ee «καταντήσωμεν.
10. ἀντιπαρελκώμεθα] ‘be dragged
xvi] BY AN
UNKNOWN AUTHOR.
395
/ ~ o 7 ᾽ ͵ \ \ >
το μονεύωμεν τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐνταλμάτων, Kat μὴ αντι-
παρελκώμεθα ἀπὸ
τῶν κοσμικῶν
΄- > \
ἐπιθυμιῶν, ἀλλα
/ / , >
πυκνοτέρον σπροσέρχομεένοι πειρώμεθα TT POKOTTELV EV
a 5) ει ΄σ / / / \ > \
ταῖς ἐντολαῖς τοῦ Kupiov, ἵνα πάντες TO αὐτὸ φρο-
~ / a > \ \ /
VOUVTES συνηγμένοι ὦμεν ἐπὶ THY Cony.
> \ e
εἰπὲν yap oO
/ 3: a ἢ ἢ 3: \ \
15 Kupios Epyomal CYNAPATEIN TTANTA 9 TO ΕΘΝΗ, φυλὰςο KAI
’ ~ \ / \ ε / ΄σ > 7
rA@ccac’ τοῦτο δὲ λέγει τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐπιφανείας
>] ~ [2 9 \ / ¢ ΄- </ \ \
αὐτοῦ, ὅτε ἐλθὼν λυτρώσεται ἡμᾶς ἕκαστον κατὰ τα
»" > i \
εργα αὐτου. καὶ
OYONTAI
‘ ’ oe \ ‘
THN AOZAN αὐτοῦ καὶ ‘TO
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 ἀπαλλάττεσθαι:
see above p. 239.
super (de) die S.
12 προσερχόμενοι] προσευχόμενοι 8.
16 τὴν ἡμέραν
εἶ r ΄ - ΄
18 τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ κράτος] gloriam ejus in robore et
potestate 8. This again might be explained by an omission in C owing to the repe-
tition of similar beginnings of words, τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ [κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν (or τὴν
off in the opposite direction’ ; comp.
Pers. Saz. v. 154 ‘ duplici in diversum
scinderis hamo’. The lexicons do
not give this word.
II. κοσμικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν]! The ex-
pression occurs Tit. ii. 12. The word
κοσμικὸς iS apparently not found in
the LXx, and only once besides (in
a somewhat different sense) in the
Wort) Heb: ἘΣ.
12. πυκνότερον προσερχόμενοι] ‘com-
ing more frequently’, i.e. ‘to this
place of méeting’, or perhaps ‘to
the presence of God’ (comp. Heb.
x. I, 22, Clem. Rom. 23, 29). On
these injunctions to more frequent
services, see the note on Ign. EPA.
13 σπουδάζετε πυκνότερον συνέρχεσ-
θαι; comp. ib. Polyc. 4 πυκνότερον
συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν. The Syriac
reading however may be correct.
14. ὁ Κύριος] 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.
15. Ἔρχομαι κιτ.λ.} From Is. lxvi, 18
ἔρχομαι συναγαγεῖν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ
τὰς γλώσσας, καὶ ἥξουσι καὶ ὄψονται
τὴν δόξαν pov. There is nothing cor-
responding to φυλὰς 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. iii. 7 παντὰ τὰ ἔθνη
φυλαὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι in the LXX.
16. τοῦτο δὲ λέγει] ‘but by this he
means’: see the note on § 8.
τὴν ἡμέραν κιτ.λ.}] The same ex-
pression has occurred ὃ 12, where
see the note on ἐπιφανείας.
17. λυτρώσεται] It is called ἡμέρα
ἀπολυτρώσεως in Ephes. iv. 30. For
other passages, where ἀπολύτρωσις
refers to the final redemption, see
Luke xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23.
ἕκαστον k.t.A.| As only those who
shall be released are contemplated,
this must imply different grades of
happiness. I do not see sufficient
reason for doubting the genuineness
of λυτρώσεται.
18. καὶ ὄψονται] A continuation
of the quotation from Isaiah, the
22—Z2
336 AN ANCIENT HOMILY [xvi
Ψ ε af \ 7 » 7 Ἁ
κράτος οἱ ἀπιστοι, καὶ ξενισθήσονται ἰδόντες τὸ βα-
7 a / > ENS io , Site AP Cees
σίλειον τοῦ κόσμου ἐν TW ᾿Ϊησοῦ λέγοντες, Oval ἡμῖν,
e/ \ = \ 9 af \ , \
OTL σὺ ἧς Kal οὐκ ἠδειμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύομεν, καὶ
> 3 / ~ : / ~ 5) ’
οὐκ ἐπειθόμεθα τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τοῖς ἀναγγέλλουσιν
΄σ \ = / a Noe ’ > a >
ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν" Kal ‘O CKMAHZ δὐτῶν OY
τελευτήσει KAl τὸ TYP δὐτῶν οὐ cCBEecOHceTal Kal ECONTAI
> “ ͵ ' \ y I / ~
εἶς Opacin ACH οἀρκί. THY ἡμέραν ἐκείνην λέγει τῆς
, « af \ 9 ~ ΄ \
κρίσεως, ὅταν ὄψονται Tous ἐν ἡμῖν ἀσεβήσαντας Kal
’ \ \ ~ ΄σ ε
παραλογισαμένους Tas ἐντολᾶς ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ. οἱ
\ ᾽ὔ / e 7 \ /
δὲ δίκαιοι εὐπραγήσαντες Kal ὑπομείναντες Tas Baca-
\ 7 A ε 7 ΄ ΄σ «
yous καὶ μισήσαντες Tas ἡδυπαθείας τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅταν
ἰσχὺν)] καὶ τὸ κράτος ; but such an expression in Greek would be very awkward. It
is more probable therefore that vodur εἰ potestas is a double rendering of τὸ κράτος.
The preposition (in place of the conjunction) may then be accounted for in two
ways; (1) The translator read κατὰ κράτος for καὶ τὸ κράτος; or (2) A Syriac
transcriber inadvertently wrote Ἢ for}. The latter explanation seems to be more
probable: see above p. 296.
intervening words being a paren-
thetical explanation. See also Matt.
xxiv, 30, πεν 1 7.
I. ξενισθήσονται]ῦ͵: ‘shall be a-
Mmazea’, as 1 Pet. ἵν A, 12. The
active ξενίζοντα, ‘ perplexing ’, ‘amaz-
ing’, occurs in Acts xvii. 20. This
sense is found in Polybius and from
his time onward. See also the note
on ξενισμόν, Ign. Ephes. το.
τὸ βασίλειον] ‘the kingdom’ or
‘ sovereignty’; see the note on ὃ 6.
We must understand ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ
‘in the hands, in the power, of Jesus’,
as inthe common idiom εἶναι ἔν τινι:
see Rost τι. Palm Griech. Worterd.
S..V. er 1.2, 5.
3. σὺ ἧς] ‘Thou wast He’; see
esp. John vill. 24 ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε
ὅτι ἐγώ εἶμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς
ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2b. ver. 28 τότε γνώ-
σεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἶμι, xiii. 19 ἵνα
πιστεύσητε...ὅτε ἐγώ εἶμι. The
I ἰδόντες] εἰδότες (from ἐδο|τες) S.
2 τοῦ κόσμου]
preacher seems to be alluding to
this language of our Lord, as re-
corded by St John.
5. ὁ σκώληξ κιτιλ.] From Is. Ixvi.
24, the last verse of the prophet.
Our preacher has already quoted
this passage § 7; see the note there.
8. ὅταν owovra] ‘when men
Shall see’, the nominative being sug-
gested by the preceding eis ὅρασιν
πάσῃ σαρκί. For the future indicative
with ὅταν see Winer xlii. p. 388; but
no dependence can be placed on the
MS in such a case.
9. παραλογισαμένους] ‘ Played false
with’, ‘attempted to cheat’; see
Ign. Magn. 3 τὸν ἀόρατον mapadoyi-
¢erac (with the note)
10. εὐπραγήσαντες] If the reading
be correct, it must mean ‘having
been virtuous’ and not (as: else-
where) ‘having been prosperous’ ;
comp. δικαιοπραγεῖν.
xvi] BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 2337
͵ \ > ,
θεάσωνται τοὺς ἀστοχήσαντας καὶ ἀρνησαμένους διὰ
΄σ΄ , ΕΠ) ὃ 4 - sf \ > ~ .« Α͂
τῶν λόγων ἡ διὰ TwY ἔργων τὸν ᾿Ϊησοῦν, ὅπως κολά-
~ / / af
ζονται δειναῖς βασάνοις πυρὲ ἀσβέστωῳ, ἔσονται δόξαν
| 4 ~ ~ > ~ 7] ε /
15 διδόντες τῷ Θεῴ αὐτῶν, λέγοντες ὅτι ἴΕσται ἐλπὶς
~ / ~ > ς
τῷ δεδουλευκότι Θεῴ ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας.
ΧΎΠΙ.
7 ~ iF. ΄σ ΄σ \ \ > lo
στούντων, τῶν δεδουλευκότων TO Θεῷ, Kal μὴ ἐκ τῶν
\ € ~ = / > ~ >
Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν γενώμεθα ἐκ τῶν εὐχαρι-
Υ > ~ \ 4 ᾽ \ \
κρινομένων ἀσεβῶν. καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς πανθαμαρτωλὸς
\ \ , A \ / 9 a. a, Ὁ >
20wWy καὶ μήπω φυγὼν τὸν πειρασμόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι wv ἐν
᾽ς “-- ’ ΄σ΄ / /
μέσοις τοῖς ὀργάνοις τοῦ διαβόλου, σπουδάζω τὴν
7 / .« > / \ 5 \ n
δικαιοσύνην διωκειν, ὅπως ἰσχύσω Kay ἐγγὺς αὐτῆς
/ / \ 7 \ /
γενέσθαι, φοβούμενος THY κρισιν THY μελλουσαν.
mundi huius S. See the note on ὃ 19 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.
8 ἡμῖν] 5: ὑμῖν C.
ἔσονται] add. ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει 8.
20 φυγὼν] φεύγων C; S has Sp which perhaps
λέγοντες] et tunc dicent S.
14 πυρὶ] et zene S.
17 οὖν] add. ἀδελφοί [μου] S.
represents φυγών.
11. ἡδυπαθείας] See the note on ὃ 16.
I2. ἀστοχήσαντας] ‘missed the
mark’, ‘gone astray’; see 1 Tim.
i. 6, vi. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 18. The word
is not uncommon in Polybius and
later classical authors.
14. πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ] Matt. iii. 12,
Mark ix. 43, Luke iii. 17. For the re-
ference of pseudo-Justin to this state-
ment see the Addenda on p. 167, 1.9.
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’.
19. πανθαμαρτωλός] The word is
not given in the lexicons. Compare
πανθαμαρτητός Apost. Const. vii. 18,
Barnab. 20 (where the MSs agree in
writing it without an aspirate), παντά-
ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ] om. 8.
12 διὰ] ἢ διὰ 9.
15 διδόντες] 5; δόντες C.
δικος Philo de Creat. Pr. 3 (ll p. 362).
21. ὀργάνοις] ‘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
or military engines, or the like.
The metaphor here is_ probably
military; comp. 2 Macc. xii. 27
ἐνθάδε ὀργάνων καὶ βελῶν πολλαὶ
παραθέσεις, and see Ephes. vi. 16
᾿ τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ [τὰ] πεπυρωμένα.
The preacher finds himself ἐν ἀμφι-
βόλῳ, the enemy having environed
him with his engines of war.
22. δικαιοσύνην διώκειν] A phrase
occurring in the Pastoral Epistles,
1 Tim. vi. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 22 (comp.
Rom. ix. 30).
κἂν ἐγγύς] ‘at all events near,
if I cannot actually reach it’. For
this use of κἄν comp. Ign. Ephes. 10
κἂν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, with the note.
338 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
XIX.
Θεὸν τῆς
[xIx
.« Ε \ \ 3 , \
Ware, ἀδελφοὶ και ἀδελφαί, μετὰ τὸν
9 , 5) / ε af > A
ἀληθείας ἀναγινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν εἰς TO
, x / “ Ἂν e \ /
προσέχειν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σωσητε
Υ' 3 e ~ \ A ΄':- ~~
καὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν" μισθὸν γαρ αἰτώ ὑμᾶς
= e/ / ~~ \
TO μετανοῆσαι ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σωτηρίαν ἑαυτοῖς Kal
\ / ~ \ / A ΄-
Cony διδόντας. τοῦτο Yap ποιήσαντες σκοπὸν πᾶσιν
= / [¢ ~ / \ 4 5 7
τοῖς νέοις θήσομεν τοῖς βουλομένοις περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν
4 \
καὶ μή
9 ΄σ sf \ 3 ΄σ ε s/f e/
ἀηδῶς ἔχωμεν καὶ ἀγανακτῶμεν οἱ ἀσοφοι, ὅταν TIS
\ , ~ ~ —_
Kal THY χρηστοτητα τοὺ Θεοῦ φιλοπονεῖν.
2 ἔντευξιν] Ὁ; supplicationem, id est, admonitionem S3 clearly a gloss. See
above p. 244. S governs τῆς ἀληθείας by ἔντευξιν, 4 τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν
ὑμῖν] me gui lego vobis verba (or oracula) Dei 5. 6 σκοπὸν] 5; κόπον C. This
reading of S was anticipated by Bensly, Gebhardt, and Hilgenfeid. 8 φιλο-
πονεῖν] manifestent amorent laboris S: see Michaelis in Castell. Lex. Syv. p. 656.
The scribe of C has first written φιλοσοφεῖν, but has afterwards corrected it so as
to be read φιλοπονεῖν. See p. 314.
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-
belief obscure our sense of right and
wrong; and our understandings are
darkened by our lusts. Let us prac-
tise righteousness. Blessed are they
who obey these precepts. They may
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’.
I. ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί] Comp.
§ 20. So δαγηπαῦ. τ υἱοὶ καὶ θυγα-
Q οἱ ἄσοφοι] tanguam ih insipientes Ὁ.
tepes, Rel. Fur. Eccl. p.74 (Lagarde).
μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν κιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘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 Aol.
i. 67 συνέλευσις γίνεται καὶ τὰ ἀπομνη-
μονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγ-
γράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται,
μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ" εἶτα, παυσαμένου τοῦ
ἀναγινώσκοντος, 6 προεστὼς διὰ λόγου
τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν
καλῶν τούτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται; Orig.
c. Cels. iii. 50 καὶ SV ἀναγνωσμάτων
καὶ διὰ τῶν εἰς αὐτὰ διηγήσεων προτρέ-
ποντες μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν Θεὺν τῶν
ὅλων εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὰς συνθρόνους ταύ-
TN ἀρετάς, ἀποτρέποντες δὲ K.T.A.; “2051.
Const. il. 54 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν καὶ
τὴν ψαλμῳδίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς γρα-
φαῖς διδασκαλίαν. See also the notes
on ὃ 17 μὴ μόνον ἄρτι κιτιλ. and the
introduction, p. 303sq. For the ex-
5
Io
15
ΧΙΧ] BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 339
“ la \ 3 , > \ la) 3 7 > \
ἡμᾶς νουθετῆ καὶ ἐπιστρεφη ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας εἰς τὴν
{
/ ἂν 2 \ \ / > ’
δικαιοσύνην. EVLOTE γὰρ ΖοΟνῆρα σιρασσοντές ον γινω-
\ \ / \ 3 / \ ? ~ ᾽
σκομεν διὰ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ ἀπιστίαν τὴν ἐνοῦσαν ἐν
~ / ε = \ > ͵ \ ͵ ςε \
TOLS στηθεσιν μων, Καὶ εὐοκοτιομεθὰ THN AIANOIAN UITTO
~ > ΄- ΄- 7 / iy \
τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν ματαίων. πραξωμεν οὖν τὴν δι-
7 e/ 3 / ΄σ / /
καιοσύνην iva εἰς τέλος σωθώμεν. μακάριοι οἱ τούτοις
7 ~ / \ > / Λ
ὑπακούοντες τοῖς προσταγμασιν: Kay ὀλίγον χρόνον
/ ΄σ / \ > / ~ >
κακοπαθήσωσιν ἐν TW KOO Ma, TOV ἀθάνατον THS Ava-
/ \ / \ Ss / ε >
στάσεως καρπὸν τρυγήσουσιν. μὴ οὖν λνπείσθω ὁ εὐ-
11 ἐνίοτε] S; ἔνια C. 17 τῷ κόσμῳ] 5; add. τούτῳ C. I have the less hesita-
tion in striking out τούτῳ 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. ἀθάνα-
Tov] 5; δὲ θάνατον C. The correction was obvious, even before the reading of 5
was known; and the only question was whether to read τὸν δ᾽ ἀθάνατον or τὸν
ἀθάνατον.
ἀθανάτου γνώσεως in S itself.
pression 6 Geos τῆς ἀληθείας Comp.
§ 3 τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας (comp.
§ 20). Its use here as a synonyme
for the Scripture is explained by the
preacher’s language above § 13, ra
λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγει ὁ Θεός.
2. ἔντευξιν] ‘appeal’ ‘entreaty’ ;
as e.g. Justin Afol. i. I (p. 53),
Joseph. Azf, xvi, 2. 5, Phil. V2z.
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.
3. tvaxaix.r.A.] Comp. Ezek.iii.21.
5. μετανοῆσαι κιτ.λ.} See the
note § 17.
8. φιλοπονεῖν] Ecclus. Prol. τῶν
κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πεφιλοπονημένων.
The word occurs in classical wri-
ters of the best age.
9. μὴ ἀγανακτῶμεν] Clem. Rom.
56 παιδείαν ἐφ᾽ 7 οὐδεὶς ὀφείλει
ἀγανακτεῖν.
οἱ ἄσοφοι] ‘fools that we are’, for
this is the force of the article ; comp.
For another instance of the same error comp. § 36 θανάτου γνώσεως for
18 τρυγήσουσιν] delectabuntur...in S, i.e. Tpv-
§ I of ἀκούοντες (with the note). For
ἄσοφος 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.
12. διψυχίαν] As above ὃ 11 μὴ
διψυχῶμεν. See the notes on Clem.
Rom. 11, 23. To the references there
given add Barnab. 19 ov μὴ διψυχήσης
πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ.
13. ἐσκοτίσμεθα k.r.A. | From Ephes.
iv. 17, 18, ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς av-
τῶν, ἐσκοτωμένοι (ν.]. ἐσκοτισμένοι)
τῇ διανοίᾳ; comp. Clem. Rom. 36 7
ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν.
16. ὀλίγον χρόνον x.t.r.] Comp.
1 Pet. i. 6 ὀλίγον ἄρτι, εἰ δεὸν, λυπη-
θέντες, V. 10 ὀλίγον παθόντας. For
κακοπαθεῖν sce 2 Tim. ii. 9, iv. 5,
James v. 13; comp. συγκακοπαθεῖν
2 Tim i oie >
18. καρπὸν τρυγήσουσιν] Hos. x. 12
σπείρατε ἑαυτοῖς εἰς δικαιοσύνην, τρυ-
γήσατε εἰς καρπὸν ζωῆς.
340
AN ANCIENT HOMILY
[xIx
/ 3. ἃ > \ ~ ~ / ~ ,
σεβης, €ayY ἘΠῚ Τοῖς VUV χρόνοις ταλαιπώρῃη μακάαρίος
\ 4 Uf ΄- of \ ~ /
αὐτὸν ἀναμένει χρόνος" ἐκεῖνος ἄνω META τῶν πατέρων
Stet 4 3 / > \ 3 7 IA
ἀναβιώσας εὐφρανθήσεται εἰς TOV ἀλύπητον αἰῶνα.
REX
\ Nha ΄ A 7 ε ΄σ
᾿λλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο τὴν διάνοιαν ὑμῶν ταρασ-
/ e/ / \ 57 σ΄. \
σέτω, ὅτι βλέπομεν TOUS ἀδίκους πλουτοῦντας, Kal
ῇ \ ΄σ σι 7
στενοχωρουμένους τοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ δούλους.
/
TLE TEVW MEV
οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί: Θεοῦ ζῶντος πεῖραν ἀθλοῦμεν,
\ y ΄σ΄ ΄σ 7 ε͵ lan 7
καὶ γυμναζόμεθα τῷ νῦν βίῳ ἵνα TH μέλλοντι στεφανω-
θώμεν.
3 ΄ \\ af 3
οὐδεὶς τῶν δικαίων ταχὺν καρπὸν ἔλαβεν, ἀλλ᾽
φήσουσιν ; for the same word (DDO) and its derivatives are used to translate τρυφή,
ii $10, and τρυφή, ἐντρυφάν 2 Pet. ii. 13.
(but S has ἡμῶν) μὴ ταρασσέτω τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν Rup. 783.
7 Θεοῦ] ὅτι Θεοῦ S,
using the same adverb which renders συντόμως just below.
S; πιστεύομεν C,
3. ἀναβιώσας] 2 Mace. vii. 9 ἀπο-
θανόντας ἡμᾶς ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτοῦ νέμων
εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἡμᾶς ἀνα-
στήσει.
ἀλύπητον] ‘inaccessible to sorrow’,
stronger than ἄλυπον; comp. Clem,
Hom, xi. 17 σὺν ἡμῖν τὸν ἄλυπον
αἰῶνα κληρονομῆσαι.
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,
be the glory for ever’.
4. ᾿Αλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο κιτ.λ.] This
passage is quoted loosely and with
some omissions in the Sacr. Parall.
(MS Rupef.), which bear the name
of Joannes Damascenus, Of. 11. p.
4 μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο..-.ταρασσέτω] CS
6 πιστεύωμεν
9 ταχὺν] C Rup.; celeriter (ταχὺ) S,
II συντόμως ἀπεδί-
783 (Le Quien). See above p. 210 sq.
It will be seen that in the quotation
the original words are altered, so as
to conform to well-known scriptural
passages; ει. μὴ ταρασσέτω τὴν
καρδίαν ὑμών is substituted for μηδὲ
ἐκεῖνο τὴν διάνοιαν ὑμῶν ταρασσέτω,
after John xiv. 1, 27; and εὐσέβειαν
is substituted for θεοσέβειαν, after
1 ΠῚ ΜΠ ς,
γ. πεῖρανἍΠ For the accusative
after ἀθλεῖν comp. e.g. Plato Leg.
Vill. Ῥ 8539. A, Plut. Vit. Demern δ᾿:
and for such accusatives generally
see Kiihner 11. p. 264. For an elabo-
rate application of the same meta-
phor see § 7.
12. θεοσέβειαν] See 1 Tim. ii. Io.
It occurs occasionally in the Lxx.
13. διὰ τηῦτο κιὶλ.} i.e. Son 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 βλάπτειν is used especially of Di-
vine vengeance surprising its victim,
xx]
> ’ > /
10 ἐκδέχεται αὐτΤον.-
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR,
341
? \ \ \ ~ 4 ε
εἰ γὰρ τὸν μισθὸν τῶν δικαίων ὁ
\ / > , / > / 3 ~
Θεὸς συντόμως ἀπεδίδου, εὐθέως ἐμπορίαν ἠσκοῦμεν Kal
3 , > “ \ os / > \
ov θεοσέβειαν: ἐδοκοῦμεν γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιοι, οὐ TO
> \ > \ ΄σ
εὐσεβὲς ἀλλὰ TO κερδαλέον διώκοντες: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
θεία κρίσις ἔβλαψεν πνεῦμα μὴ ὃν δίκαιον, καὶ ἐβά-
15 ρυνεν δεσμοῖς.
΄σ / ΄ > ὔ \ “ 3 | ΄σ΄
Τῷ Move Oew ἀοράτῳ; σατρι THS ἀληθείας, TW
2 / «ες ~ \ ~ \ ' ~
ἐξαποστείλαντι ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχηγον τῆς
ἀφθαρσίας, δ οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀληθειαν
δου, εὐθέως] CS; εὐθέως ἀπεδίδου Rup.
Rup.
15 δεσμοῖς] S 3 δεσμὸς C.
apposition) S.
principem vite et salutis nostre S.
checking and maiming him in his
mid career; e.g. Hom. Od. i. 195
ἀλλά νυ τόν ye θεοὶ βλάπτουσι κελεύθου,
26. xiii. 178 τοῦ δέ τις ἀθανάτων βλάψε
φρένας, Xen. Symp. viii. 43 ἣν μὴ
Θεὸς βλάπτῃ, Plut. Vt. Ces. 45 ὑπὸ
Θεοῦ μάλιστα βλαπτομένῳ THY γνώμην
€oino@s x«.7.A., Trag. in Lycurg. ὦ
Leocr. p. 159 ὅταν yap ὀργὴ δαιμόνων
βλάπτῃ τινά, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πρῶτον, ἐξαφ-
αἱρεῖται φρενῶν τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν
κιτιλ., and so frequently. Sordid
motives bring their own punishment
in a judicial blindness (βλάπτει πνεῦ-
pa). The aorist here has its common
gnomic sense, and is the most ap-
propriate tense: see Kiihner II. p.
136 sq. Previous editors seem to
have mistaken the sense. Bryennios
says μὴ ὃν δίκαιον, τούτεστιν, ἀδίκως,
but it is not clear what he means.
Hilgenfeld reads δεσμούς, and ex-
plains ‘ Christiani non omni ex parte
justi persecutionem gentilium patie-
bantur’. Harnack, misled by the
aorist, says ‘auctor dzabolum respi-
οὐ τὸ] ΟΝ ; ov διὰ τὸ Rup.
16 τῆς ἀληθείας] add. Domini nostri Fesu Christi (in
17 ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα Kal ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας] salvatorem et
12 οὐ θεοσέβειαν) CS; οὐκ εὐσέβειαν
13 εὐσεβὲς] C Rup.; θεοσεβές 5.
cere videtur, quem tamquam avaritiz
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’.
16. τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ] Comp.
1 Tim. i. 17 ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ Θεῷ.
πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας], As in § 3.
So also ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ 19. The
Syriac translator takes ‘the Truth’
here to denote Christ Himself (John
xiv. 6); comp. Orig. ¢. Cels. viii. 63
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Kal τῆς μονογενοῦς αὐτῷ
ἀληθείας. So Papias (Euseb. 1. £.
iii. 39) speaks of Christ’s personal
disciples as receiving commandments
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας.
17. Τὸν σωτῆρα κ.τ.λ.] Acts v. 31
ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα compared with
iil. 15 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς : see also
Heb. ii. 10 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτη-
pias. Comp. “fest. Vienn. 17 (in
Euseb. H.£. v. 1) ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς
τοῦ Θεοῦ.
342 AN ANCIENT HOMILY. [xx
\ \ 9 / / 3 ~ τ ῇ » \ 7A
Kat τὴν ETTOUNAYLOV ζωήν, αὕτῳ ἢ δόξα εις TOUS Alwvas
land δι ἢ “ id
τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμῆν.
τ ζωήν] delectationem (ΝΥ. 2) 5. ; which word elsewhere is a rendering” οἵ τρυφὴ
(see above ii § 19) or of ἀπόλαυσις (see i § 20). αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα] atgue ctiam Fesu
Christo Domino nostro cum Spiritu Sancto gloria et honor et imperium (i.e. ἡ δόξα
καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ TO κράτος) 5.
TRANSLATIONS.
Pad b
th 4 aoe
ν᾿ 5 ᾿ J "
‘ ᾿ ᾿ ἕ ἂν
Se ΝΙΝ, Fly. iy eel
iy τ!
ies Ot atti
ih: @ peda’
yi be 0k
eo ΕἸ
τ ΠῚ"
) ΤΥ] j a
: . hh
ι} ΠῚ ears Tee | 7
7
ἈΝ Taal is wre ie
Ἐν
ii » Vise? 4 ἂν
+) ' st
bet ae |
> γὴν
᾿Ἱ τ SVC The ΗΝ
Wisin δὴν ᾿ ;
Ter Ἵ -
LS mus
1 5 bidet
Aso vite
ἡ] Γ ΠΗ
ie εἰ,
ib at [4 d ivi a | Ε
ὟΣ ne ! μεν ὧν a ] (
or ἢ)
λιν
Ὁ i ἬΝ,
1 choles) aie na
‘rae Mies |
ete Sis ti OTS. Cie Τ
TO
‘BH: CORINT HIANS,
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 Al-
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
346 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, more glad to give than
fo 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; Jy beloved ate and drank
and was enlarged and waxed fat and kicked. Hence come
jealousy and envy, 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 righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 347
man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord 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, Avd zt 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 hts 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? Fold 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 nearest 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
348 5, 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 right-
eousness 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 matrons and maidens and
slave-girls being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel
and unholy insults, 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 is bone of my bones
and flesh of my fiesh. 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 foresake 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. 349
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, saith 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 from your iniquities ; learn to do good ; seek out judgment ;
acfend 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, I wll
make them white as wool. And if ye be willing and will hearken
unto Me, ye shall eat 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.
g. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and
glorious 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
CLEM. 23
350 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 father’s house unto the
land which I shall show thee, and [ 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
it unto thee ard 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; Aud
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. 355
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
in unto thee: bring them forth, for the king so ordereth: then
she answered, The men truly, whom ye seck, 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 tt, save me and the house of my father,
And they said unto her, 72 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
> 7
~
Ye oe
352 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
him boast in the Lord, that he may seck 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 receive
mercy: forgive that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so
shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shallit 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, it
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, Ufon whom shall I look, save upon him
that is 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 tnnocent shall be
left on it; but they that transgress shall be destroyed utterly fron
zt. And again He saith; J 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
vemnant 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 He saithin a certain place; Zhzs 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, They loved Him with their mouth, and
with their tongue they hed unto Him, and their heart was not
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 352
upright with Him, neither were they stedfastin His covenant. For
this cause Let the deceitful lips be made dumb which speak iniquity
against the righteous, And again; Way 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;
whois Lord over us? For the misery of the needy and for the
groaning of the poor I will now arise, saith the Lord, I 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 Lovd revealed? We
announced Him in His presence. As achild was He, as a root in
a thirsty ground. There is 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 toil, and knowing how ἐφ bear infirmity: for His
Jace is turned away. He was dishonoured and held of no account.
fle beareth our sins aud suffereth pain for our sakes: and we
accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes and in affliction. And
He was wounded for our sins and hath been affiicted for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him, With
Hlis bruises we were healed. We all went astray like sheep,
cach 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 afflicted. As a sheep He was led to slaughter ; and as a
lamb before his shearer ts dumb, so openeth He not His mouth.
In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. Hits genera-
tion who shall declare? For His life is taken away from the
earth. For the iniquities of my people He is 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
in His mouth. And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from
354 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
His stripes. If ye offer for sin, your soul shall sce a long-lived
sced. And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of Hrs
soul, to show Him light and to mould Him with understanda-
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 ΠῚ soul was
delivered unto death, and He was reckoned unto the transgres-—
sors; and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He
delivered up. And again He Himself saith; But Tam 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
flim 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 7 am dust and ashes.
Moreover concerning Job also it is thus written; And Fob
was righteous and unblameable, one that was true and honoured
God and abstained from all evil. Yet he himself .accuseth
himself saying, Vo man is clean from filth; no, not though his
life he but for a day. Moses was called farthful 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, I am feeble of speech and slow of
tongue. And again he saith, But 7 am smoke from the pot.
18. But what must we say of David that obtained a good
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 355
report? of whom God said, 7 have found a man after my
heart, David the son of Jesse: 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 compasstons, blot out mine iniquity. Wash
me yet more from mine iniquity, aud cleanse me from my
sin. Lor 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 inigquities was
7 conceived, and in sins did my mother bear me. For behold
Lhou 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. Turn away Thy face from my sins, and blot out all
mine iniquities. 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, I 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
356 5, 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. Day and 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 into its reservoirs,
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. 357
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, Zhe
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
therefore that we should not be deserters from His will. Let us
rather give offence to foolish and senseless men who exalt them-
selves and boast in the arrogance of their words, than to God. Let
us fear the Lord Jesus, whose blood was given for us. Let us
feverence 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
Sear of the Lord. What man ts he that desireth 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, Seck peace and ensue it. The eyes of the Lord
are over the righteous, and His ears are turned to their prayers.
But the face of the Lord ts upon them that do evil, to destroy
their memorial from the carth. The righteous cried out, and
the Lord heard him, and delivered him from all his troubles.
358 S. CLEMENT OF ROME
Many are the troubles of the righteous, and the Lord shall de-
liver them from them all. And 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; Wretched 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 it sheddeth tts 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 His
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. 359
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
crown 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; And thou shalt raise me up, and I will praise Thee; and
I went to rest and slept, I was awaked, for Thou art with me.
And again Job saith; And Thou shalt ratse 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 Hts strength ?
When He listeth, and as He listeth, He will do all things; and
360 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 Zhe heavens declare the glory of God, and the fir-
mament proclaimeth lis 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
Jace? If I ascend into the heaven, Thou art there; if I depart
into the farthest paris of the earth, there ts Thy right hand; tf
17 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
fligh 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; Behold, the Lord taketh for
Flimself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man taketh
the firstfruits of his threshing floor; 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; For God, He saith, resisteth the proud, but giveth grace
to the lowly. Let us therefore cleave unto those to whom
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 361
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 is the offspring of a woman that liveth but a short time.
Be not thou abundant in werds. 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. Let us 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 secd
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
362 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 tmage and after our like-
ness. And God made man; male and female made Fle 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 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, Behold, the Lord, and Hts reward is before His
Jace, to recompense cach man according to lis 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, 363
stand by and minister unto His will. For the scripture saith
Ten thousands of 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 Hrs 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
glorious promises. For He saith, Eye hath not seen and car 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 Le 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 back-bitings, 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 lips? Yet thou didst hate instruction and didst
cast away my words behind thee. If thou sawest a thtef, thou
didst keep company with him, and with the adulterers thou didst
set thy portion. Thy mouth multiplicd 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.
364 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 is the way wherein 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 the 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 His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of
jive; but of His Son the Master said thus; Zhou art My Son,
7 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; Sz¢ thou on
My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy
Jeet. 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. 365
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 good 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 it is written; 7/ere
was no form before mine, eyes; only I heard a breath and a
voice. What then? Shall a mortal be clean in the sight of the
Lord; or shall a man be unblameable for his works? seeing
that He is distrustful against His servants and noteth some
perversity against His 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
CLEM. 24
366 5, 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, if perchance one shall obey thee, or if thou shalt see one of
the holy angels. For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy
slayeth him that is gone astray. And I 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
inferiors, 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 min-
istrations 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, cr 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. 367
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 from 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 will appoint
their bishops in righteousness and their deacons tn faith.
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@ faithful servant
an 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 concern-
ing the priesthood, and there was dissension among the tribes
which of them was adorned with the glorious name, commanded
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
ey
368 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 ef 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 ‘forever 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 foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they pro-
vided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other ap-
proved men should succeed to their ministration. Those there-
fore 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, peace-
fully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good
report with all—these men we consider to be unjustly 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 honourably, from the
ministration which they had kept blamelessly.
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. 369
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 feared 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,
Sor they that cleave unto them shall be sanctified. And again
He saith in another place; With the guiltless man thou shalt
be guiltless, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the
crooked thou shalt deal crookedly. Wet us therefore cleave to the
guiltless 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 hint
if 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
B70 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 intreat 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. 371
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; love 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. Allthe 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: Enter into the closet for a very little while, until Mine
anger and My wrath shall pass away, and I 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 tmigutties
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is 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 which we have committed
372 5, CLEMENT OF ROME
through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we
may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set themselves |
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; J wll confess unto the Lord,
and it shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth
horns and hoofs. Let the poor see itt, and rejoice. 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 affiic-
tion, and [ 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, come 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. 373
images. 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; Nay, 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 is the Lord’s 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
374 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.
kor whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every
son whom fe receiveth. For the righteous, it is said, shall chasten
me in mercy and shall reprove me, but let not the mercy of sin-
ners anoint my head. And again He saith; Blessed ἐς the man
whom the Lord hath reproved, and refuse not thou the admonition
of the Alinighty. For He causeth pain, and He restoreth again:
Fle hath smitten, and His hands have healed. Six times shall
fle 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 is 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. 3.5
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 I held out words and ye heeded not, but made My coun-
sels of none effect, and were disobedient unto My reproofs ; therefore
1 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 ts at hand like a whirlwind, or
when anguish and beleaguerment come upon you. Lor it shall
be, when ye call upon Me, yet will [ not hear you. Evil men shall
seck 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
Srom 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
376 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 hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone adides¢
Highest in the highest, Holy in the holy; who layest low the inso-
lence of the proud, who scatterest the imaginings 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. 377
Christ is Thy Son, and we ave 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 in 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,
378 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. 379
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.
AN ANCIEN F HOWL Y.
Caan 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,
AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 381
having beheld in us much error and perdition, even when we
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. In that He said
Rejoice, 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 childven 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, This people honoureth Me
with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
CLEM. 25
382 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
4. Let us therefore not only call Him Lord, for this will not
save us: for He saith, ot 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 ano-
ther 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 com-
mandments, 1 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, if the wolves should tear the lambs?
Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after
they ave dcad; 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
gchenna 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, Wo servant can serve two masters.
If we desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable
for us: For what advantage 15 wt, if a man gain the whole world
and forfeit his soul? Now this age and the future are two ene-
mies. The one speaketh of adultery and defilement and avarice
and deceit, but the other biddeth farewell to these. We cannot
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 383
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 all 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, 7her
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 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
25—2
384 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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, /f
ye kept not that which is little, who shall give unto you that
which is great? For I say unto you that he which ts faithful
an 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 angodliness, lest evils overtake us.
For if we be diligent in doing good, peace will pursue us.
For for this cause is a man unable te attain happiness, seeing
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 385
that they call in the fears of men, preferring rather the enjoy-
ment 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 be-
lieve not the promise of God, we shall be wretched. For the
word of prophecy also saith: Wretched are the double-minded,
that doubt in thetr heart and say, These things we heard of old
2,1 the days of our fathers also, yet we have waited day after day
and have seen none of them. Ye fools! compare yourselves unto a
tree; take a vine. First it sheddeth its leaves, then a shoot cometh,
after this a sour berry, then a full ripe grape. So lkewise
My people had tumults and afftictions: 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 1s 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 tt 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 ¢he outside as the
inside He meaneth this: by the inside He meaneth the soul
386 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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 a male. These
things if ye do, saith He, the kingdom of my Father shall come.
r3.: Therefore, brethren, let us, tepent forthwith, Let us
be’ sober unto ‘that’ which 1s° good: for’ we “are “full- or
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 ts blasphemed, Wherein is it blasphem-
ed? In that ye do not the things which I desire. For the Gen-
tiles, 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, forth-
with they betake themselves to blasphemy, saying that it is an
idle story and a delusion. For when they hear from us that God
saith, 72 ἐς no thank unto you, tf ye love them that love you, but
this ts thank unio you, tf ye love your enemies 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, JZy house
was made a den of robbers. So therefore let us choose rather
to be of the Church of life, that we may be saved. And I do
not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 387
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 wantonly with the Church. Such an one
therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. So
excellent is the life and immortality 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 counsellor.
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,
Whiles thou art still speaking I will say, Behold, I am here.
For 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 great
kindness, let us not grudge ourselves the obtaining of so many
good things. For in proportion as the pleasure is great which
388 AN ANCIENT HOMILY
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 op-
portunity for repentance, seeing that we have time, let us turn
again unto God that called us, while we have still One that re-
ceiveth 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! ‘Therefore
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
the Lord said, [ come to gather together all the nations, tribes, and
languages. Herein 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 sce His glory and His might:
BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 389
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 pres-
byters when they told us of our salvation. And Their worm
shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be
Sor a spectacle unto all flesh. He speaketh of that day of judg-
ment, 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 sou}, 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 Ged 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 righteous-
ness, 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 unrighteousness unto
righteousness. For sometimes while we do evil things, we perceive
it not by reason of the double-mindedness and unbelief which is
in our breasts, and we are darkened in our understanding by our
vain lusts. Let us therefore practise righteousness that we may
be saved unto the end. Blessed are they that obey these ordi-
390 AN ANCIENT HOMILY.
nances. Though they may endure affliction for a short time in
the world, they will gather the immortal fruit of the resur-
rection. 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 |
overtaketh 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.
ADDENDA.
ay 6
‘ ¢ at ἂν
ry w+,
ie
ie
Εν | rile Ch ae
Γ i γν
ἡ : ΛΑ
» bet ὰ ἵ ca ἐπρ τὴνν wae
. ray ae
>
ro ;
μ Ἷ i ΓΙ “ΠῚ ' ‘- es) Υ 1 he ΜΟΥ
- Ὶ Π
Palen an 7 ‘7 j αὐ τ δ ἊΨ ᾿
(ὌΝ ΝΣ
ADDENDA.
ὃ Wee following editions succeeded in the interval between the
appearance of my own in 1869 and the publication of the
discovery of Bryennios at the end of 1875.
1. Clementis Romani ad Corinthios Epistula. Insunt et altera
guam ferunt Clementis Epistula et Fragmenta, Ed. J. C. M. LAURENT,
Svo. Lipsiz 1870.
The editor had already distinguished himself in this field by one
or two admirable conjectures, ὃ 38 ἔστω, ὃ 45 ἔγγραφοι. This edition
is furnished with prolegomena and netes, but the text is perhaps the
most important part. The editor has made use of Tischendorf’s
earlier text and of the photograph (see above, p. 24); but he was
not acquainted with my edition which had then but recently ap-
peared.
2. Clementis Romani LEpistule. Ad ipsius Codicis Alexandrini
jfidem ac modum repetitis curis, edidit CONST. DE ‘TISCHENDORF, 4to.
Lipsiz 1873.
In his Prolegomena and Commentarius the editor discusses the
points of difference between himself and me with regard to the
reading of the Alexandrian ms. At his request our common friend
Dr W. Wnght, the distinguished Oriental Scholar, consulted the Ms
in the more important and doubtful passages; and in some points
decided in favour of Tischendorf, while in others he confirmed my
reading (see p. viii sq.). Over and above these passages there still
remained a few differences. In some of these cases I was undoubtedly
wrong; in others the newly discovered ms has proved me to be
unquestionably right. These points will be mentioned in the following
Addenda. I congratulate myself in having criticisms on my work
from a writer so eminently competent in this department as Tischendorf;
and probably the Alexandrian Ms has now by successive labours been
almost as fully and correctly deciphered, as it ever will be. It is a
happy incident that this result was mainly achieved before the dis-
394 ADDENDA.
covery of the second Greek ms and the Syriac Version, which have
furnished new data for the construction of the text. While preparing
for this present volume, I have again consulted the Alexandrian Ms,
where doubtful points still remained, and the result of this inspection
will be given in the following pages.
3. Barnabe Epistula Grece et Latine, Clementis Romani Epistule.
Recensuerunt atgue tlustraverunt, etc. OSCAR DE GEBHARDT £sfonus,
ApotFus Harnack Livonus. Lipsiz 1875. This forms the first
fasciculus of the new Patrum <Apostolicorum Opera, which is called
Lditio post Dresselianam alteram tertia, but is in fact a new work from
beginning to end.
The joint editors of this valuable edition have divided their work
so that the text and apparatus criticus with those portions of the
prolegomena which refer to this department are assigned to Gebhardt,
while Harnack takes the exegetical notes and the parts of the pro-
legomena which refer to date, authorship, reception, etc. The text
is constructed with sobriety and judgment; and in other respects
the work is a useful and important contribution to early patristic
literature.
Besides these editions, the following reviews (among others which
appeared) of my own volume may be mentioned.
Gottingen Gelehrte Anzeigen, March 23, 1870. H. E. [Ewa.p].
Academy, July 9, 1870, R. A. Lipstus.
Lettschrift fiir Wrissenschaftliche Theologie, 1870, p. 394 sq. (contain-
ing a review of Laurent’s edition also). A. HILGENFELD.
A full catalogue of the literature of the subject which appeared
during this interval is given by Harnack in his second edition.
The discovery of BryENnntos, and his edition founded upon it,
have been already described (p. 224 sq). This was the beginning of
a new epoch in the criticism of the Epistles of the Clement.
It will be remembered that the learned editor had not seen any
of the editions published in Western Europe, later than Hilgenfeld’s
(1866). He was therefore unacquainted with the most recent and accu-
rate collations of the Alexandrian ms, and not unfrequently misstates
its readings accordingly; but he seems to have given the readings
of the new Ms with accuracy. His edition is furnished with elaborate
and learned prolegomena and with a continuous commentary. In
the newly recovered portion of the genuine epistle more especially
ADDENDA. 395
he has collected the Biblical references, which are very numerous
here, with great care; and in this respect his diligence has left only
gleanings for subsequent editors. Altogether the execution of this
work is highly creditable to the editor, allowance being made for
the difficulties which attend an editio princeps.
This work has been followed by two other editions, the one by
HILGENFELD, the other by GEBHARDT AND HARNACK, which appeared
almost simultaneously in the autumn of last year (1876). These
editors have largely altered their respective first editions, making such
changes as the new discovery suggested. They may thus be regarded
as (to no inconsiderable extent) new works.
Besides these editions, the discovery and publication of Bryennios
has occasioned a flood of periodical literature. Among the reviews
and articles which have appeared sincé the edition of Bryennios, the
following may be mentioned.
Theologische Literaturzeitung, February 19, 1876. A. HARNACK
(A review of Bryennios).
Fahrbiicher f. Deutsche Theologte, τ. Ὁ. 161 sq., 1876. WaAGENMANN
(A review of Bryennios).
Academy, May 6 and 13, 1876. C. W. RussEeLu (Zhe New MS of
Clement of Rome).
Church Quarterly Review, April 1876 (p. 255 sq.), October 1876
(p. 239 sq.). Anonymous (Notices of the edition of Bryennios).
Academy, July 29, 1876. J. B. Licutroor (A review of Gebhardt
and Harnack, ed. 1).
Leitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 1876, p. 264 sq., p. 329 sq. A. Har-
NACK (Ueber den sogenannten Zweiten Brief des Clemens an die
Korinther, two papers).
Leitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 1876, p. 305 sq. O VON GEBHARDT
(Zur Texthkritik der Neuen Clemensstiicke).
Studien u. Kritiken, 1876, iv. p. 707 sq., Jaconi (Die beiden Briefe
des Clemens v. Rom).
Theologische Literaturzeitung, June 24, 1876. F. OvERBECK (A
review of Gebhardt and Harnack, ed. 1).
Gottingen Gelehrte Anscigen, November 8, 1876, p. 1409 sq. TH.
Zaun (A review of Gebhardt and Harnack, ed. 2).
Theologische Quartalschrift, 1876, p. 252 sq. BRULL (Ursprung tt.
Verfasser des Briefes Clemens von Rom an die Korinther).
Theologiscthe Quartalschrift, 1876, p. 286 sq. FuNK (Zin Latriste-
cher Fund).
396 ADDENDA.
Leitschrift f. Protestantismus u. Kirche, 1876, p. 194 sq. TH. ZAHN
(Das dlteste Kirchengebet τι. die dlteste Christliche Predigt).
Theologisthe Quartalschrift, 1876, Ὁ. 434 56: BRULL ( Ursprung
des Episkopats nach dem Briefe des Clemens, etc.).
Theologische Quartalschrift, 1876, p. 717 sq. Funk (A review of
recent editions).
Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1877, p. 138 sq. A. HiL-
GENFELD (A notice of recent editions).
Theological Review, January 1877, p. 35 sq. J. DonaLpson (776
new MS of Clement of Rome).
Fenaer Literaturzettung, January 13, 1877. R. A. Lipstus (A
review of recent editions).
The First Epistle.
Ὁ. 91.9. The parallels in Polycarp’s epistle are carefully col-
lected by Harnack, Prol. p. xxiv sq. (ed. 2).
p. 111.1. On the objection which Harnack has made to this
statement that the epistle is quoted by Leontius and John see below,
Addenda on p. 109 note.
Ὁ, irl 15. The question of the ecclesiastical use and canonical
authority of this epistle is discussed again in the light of the newly
discovered Syriac Version, p. 272 sq.
p. 121.36. On this catalogue in the Apostolical Canons see
again p. 274 sq.
Ρ. 171.23. The wrong Timotheus of Alexandria is named here
and elsewhere (pp. 21, 175, 185). The person who wrote against the
Council of Chalcedon and whose work contains these extracts was
Timotheus Zlurus, who became bishop of Alexandria A.D. 457
(Cave Script. Eccl. 1. p. 444 sq.); see Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum no. DCCXXIX. pp. 639 sq., 644.
The Syriac ms itself which contains these extracts (Add. 12, 156) was
written before A.D. 562.
p-19 note 1. For all that relates to this forgery see Decretales
Pseudo-Lsidoriane, ed. Hinschius, Lips. 1863. The Clementine Epistles
will be found on p. 30sq. For the treatment of the First and Second,
Epistles in this forged collection see Preef. p. Ixxxi.
p. 191. 32. In his review of my edition (Academy, July 9, 1870)
R. A. Lipsius writes on this passage :
ADDENDA. 307
‘The conjecture...that the Zzber Pontificalis, which mentions (in the
Vita Clementis) two epistles written by Clement, meant the two epistles to
James, and not those to the Corinthians, will scarcely bear examination.
The earliest text, written 530 A.D., reads only ‘et fecit duas epistolas’ ;
the words ‘que catholice nominantur’, ‘like the mention of the
(earlier) ‘Epistola ad Iacobum’, do not occur earlier than the
recension of 687. The statement, ‘hic scripsit duas epistolas Iacobo
Hierosolymorum episcopo que catholic nominantur’, is not found
in any ddcument older than Vite Romanorum Pontificum ascribed to
Liutprand. ‘The statement in the original edition of the Lider Ponti-
Jialis was probably borrowed from a more ancient source, which I have
succeeded in discovering in the Catalogus Leoninus of the year 440. At
that time it would seem that the second epistle to James was not yet
extant. The only question for us is therefore whether those two
epistles of Clement spoken of are the two to the Corinthians, or the
first to the Corinthians and the earlier epistle to James.’
The reference in this criticism of Lipsius is to his valuable book,
Chronologie der romischen Bischofe, Kiel 1869.
He has repeated this objection again recently (Fenaer Literaturs.
Jan. 13, 1877, p. 19).
In answer to it, I prefer quoting a review of Lipsius written without
any reference to the question at issue between us by one who has
paid much more attention to these catalogues of Roman _ bishops
than I can pretend to have done. Dr Hort writes in the Academy
(Sept. 15, 1871):
‘ By a brilliant combination Lipsius succeeds in reaching an earlier
date [than the Felician list a.p. 530]. He supposes a lost catalogue
written under Leo, say about 440...So far well. When Lipsius goes
on to maintain that his Leonine catalogue contained biographies...
he passes into conjecture beyond the reach of verification,’ with more to
the same effect.
Thus, though Lipsius has shown reasons for postulating a Leonine
list giving names and dates, he has no ground for assuming that it
would contain such notices as ‘et fecit duas epistolas’, Even if such
a notice had existed in the Leonine Catalogue, it would still be just
possible that the two Epistles to James might be meant. But we
should hardly expect the second of these epistles to have been written,
or at least generally received, at so early a date (see p. 19); and in
this case the notice would probably be a parrot-like repetition of the
statement in Jerome (Vir. 72. 15) by a Latin writer who himself had
no acquaintance with the epistles in question. When however we
CLEM. 26
398 ADDENDA.
descend as low as the date of the Felician list a.p. 530, all proba-
bility leads to the belief that the compiler of this list, even if he copied
an earlier statement (of which there is no evidence), would himself
understand by ‘duas epistolas’ the two Epistles to James; and this
identification becomes more precise with the addition ‘ que canonicz
(or catholicze) nominantur’, whichever reading be adopted.
p- 221.1. The newly recovered ending of the Second Epistle does
not contain the passage; and, as there is no reason for supposing with
Hilgenfeld (p. 77, ed. 2) that a great lacuna still exists in {15 epistle,
the account of this quotation which I have suggested must be aban-
doned : see these Addenda below on pp. 210, 211.
In the following account of the readings in our new documents
it may be assumed that the conjectural modes of filling up the lacunz
in the Alexandrian ms (A), and the readings generally which are
adopted in my text, have been confirmed by the Constantinopolitan
ms (C) and by the Syriac Version (S), unless it is otherwise stated.
I have not thought it necessary to mention variations of punctu-
ation or of accent in C, except in cases where they have some real
interest or importance. Nor again have I recorded the omission of
the so-called v ἐφελκυστικόν before consonants (see above, p. 226).
Its omission seems to be habitual in C, as its insertion is habitual
in A.
The extent to which it has appeared advisable to record the
renderings of S has been indicated above, p. 240. No variation 15
omitted (except by inadvertence), where any reasonable probability
existed that the translation might represent a different reading in the
original. ,
προς KopinOloyc Δ] For the titles of the epistle in CS see pp. 225,
255.
p- 21]. 1 παροικοῦσα] A good illustration of this sense of παροικεῖν
is Orig. ¢. (είς. iii. 29 at δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόμεναι ταῖς
ὧν παροικοῦσι δήμων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρές εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ, 70. 30
ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ παροικούσας ἐκκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν
δήμων.
Ῥ. 32 1. 2 παντοκράτορος] τοῦ παντοκράτορος C. Clement’s form of
salutation is copied in Afost. Const. i. τ.
Ι.
Ρ. 32 1. 4 ἐπαλλήλους] Comp. Philo zz Macc. 14 (II. p. 534 M) τὰς
ADDENDA. 399
συνεχεῖς καὶ ἐπαλλήλους κακώσεις. tb. γενομένας] C; but S has a
present tense and seems to have read γινομένας. On the historical
bearing of this fact see above, p. 267.
Ρ. 33.1.5 ἡμῖν] 5; καθ᾽ ἡμών C. 2b. περιπτώσεις] περιστάσεις C.
S evidently had περιπτώσεις, but translates, as frequently (see above,
Ρ- 238'sq.), by two words /apsus οἱ dana. 2b. ἀδελφοί] ἀγαπητοί 5;
om. C.
Ρ. 33 1. 6 πεποιηκέναιῇρ πεποιῆσθαι C, as the common Greek idiom
requires. This ought not to have been overlooked by all the editors,
myself included.
Ρ. 33 1. 7 wap ὑμῖν πραγμάτων]ρ πραγμάτων wap ὑμῖν C. 5. is
uncertain. The reader must be cautioned against the rendering adopted
in some English translations; ‘those things which you enquired of us’
(Wake); ‘the points respecting which you consulted us’ (Antenicene
Fathers). This rendering involves a historical mis-statement. The
expression contains no allusion to any letter or other application from
the Corinthians to the Romans. Clement does not write παρ᾽ ὑμῶν,
but παρ᾽ ὑμῖν: and τὰ ἐπιζητούμενα means simply ‘the matters of dis-
pute’. ib. ἀγαπητοί] C; om. S. See the note on ἀδελφοί just above,
ae ib. τῆς τε ἀλλοτρίας «.t.A.] The passage which follows is para-
phrastically and badly rendered in S, but the rendering does not
seem to imply any different reading.
Ρ. 341. 4 βλασφημηθῆναι] βλασφημεῖσθαι C.
p. 34 1. 8 οὐκ] C3; om.S.
Ῥ. 36 ΕἸ ἀπροσωπολήμπτως] ἀπροσωπολήπτως C.
Ρ. 35 1. 11 νομίμοις] νόμοις C with A; zz dege (NpwoI2) S. But this
last 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 rzbui; and (3) νόμιμον is commonly translated by Np)
(νόμος) in this version (comp. δὲ 3, 40). The word νόμος, it should be
added, does not occur elsewhere in Clement.
Ρ. 351. 12 ὑμῶν] S; om. C.
p- 35 l. 13 παρ᾽ ὑμῖν] S; παρ᾽ ἡμῖν C. It may be questioned whether
πρεσβυτέροις here indicates age or office. The former view is taken
by Laurent, the latter by Harnack. The former sense is suggested by
C. 3 οἱ veot ἐπὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. The ‘ presbyters’, properly so called,
would be intended by of ἡγούμενοι. But these were not the only
‘elders’ or ‘seniors’ to whom reverence was due; and Clement
may have desired in the words καὶ τοῖς παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πρεσβυτέροις to extend
the statement to all, thus preparing the way for the mention of ‘the
young’ as a class. The ideas of age and office are sometimes so
20-2
400 ADDENDA.
closely connected in this word, that it is difficult to separate the two.
Compare 1 Pet. v. 1 sq., Polyc. Prz7. 5, 6, in both which passages the
use of πρεσβύτεροι, in connexion with νεώτεροι, presents the same diffi-
culty as here.
p. 35 1. 14 ἀμώμῳ καὶ σεμνῇ καὶ ayvn|] C; ἁγνῇ καὶ ἀμώμῳ S
(certainly omitting καὶ σεμνῇ, but the transposition of ἀγνῇ and ἀμώ-
pw may be due merely to the convenience of translation: see above,
Ρ. 239):
p- 35 1. 18 οἰκουρεῖν]!Πς Here C reads οἰκουργεῖν; and so too appa-
rently S. There can be no doubt that the correct Greek forms were
oixoupds, οἰκουρεῖν (comp. 4... Philo de Spec. Leg. 31, U p. 327, θηλείαις
δὲ οἰκουρία καὶ ἔνδον povn); but the coincidence of the best authorities
here, and Tit. ii. 5, in favour of οἰκουργός, οἰκουργεῖν, suggests that
these latter forms may have taken their place in the common language
(at least in some countries), and have acquired something of their
meaning.
if.
Ρ. 36 1. 2 ὑποτασσόμενοι κ.τ.λ.] Apost. Const. ti. 6 βλαπτόμενος pad-
λον ἢ βλάπτων.
Ρ. 36 1. 3 τοῦ Θεοῦ] τοῦ Χριστοῦ CS. On this important variation
see above, pp. 22}, 272.
The reading tod Χριστοῦ is accepted by Bryennios and Hilgenfeld
(ed. 2) on the authority of C. On the other hand Harnack retains
τοῦ Θεοῦ with A; while Donaldson hesitates between the two readings,
but would still read μαθήματα for παθήματα. This last had also been
advocated, though with some hesitation, by Dr Ezra Abbot in a
learned paper on Acts xx. 28 (Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1876, p. 313 sq.),
before the reading of C was known to him. Notwithstanding the
reasons to my mind are still as strong as ever against it, and the
authority of A for παθήματα is now reinforced by CS. On the other
hand the alternative of τοῦ Χριστοῦ for tod Θεοῦ deserves serious
consideration.
As regards external evidence, I think that the balance is fairly
even. If the view maintained above (p. 227 sq., 241, 245) of the
relative value of our authorities be correct, A is entitled to as much
weight as CS together. Moreover the obvious doctrinal motive which
in C has led to the deliberate substitution of λόγος for πνεῦμα in
another place (11. § 9) must deprive it of much weight in the present
case. On the other hand it seems probable that Photius (B02 126
quoted above, p. 37), when he wrote that Clement speaking of our
ADDENDA. 401
Lord does not use τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας φωνάς of Him, had
τοῦ Χριστοῦ in his text. But this would not go far, even if the infer-
ence were more certain, for Photius is a late writer. If therefore a
decision on the reading here is possible, it must be founded upon
internal evidence.
And here the considerations which present themselves are nume-
rous.
(1) As a question of accidental error in transcription, the pro-
bability is evenly balanced; for yy instead of θγ, and 6y instead of yy,
are equally common with scribes.
(2) On the other hand, if we have here a deliberate alteration,
the chances that yy would be substituted for @y are, I think, greater
than the chances of the converse change. Such language as αἷμα Θεοῦ,
παθήματα Θεοῦ, 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 protests against such phrases,
¢. Apollin. 11. 13, 14 (1. Ρ. 758) πῶς οὖν yeypadare ὅτι Θεὸς ὁ διὰ σαρκὸς
παθὼν καὶ ἀναστάς :... οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα Θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν
ai γραφαὶ ἢ Θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντας 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 (Zpfes. 1 ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ,
where Χριστοῦ is substituted for Θεοῦ; Rom. 6 τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ pov,
where this interpolator softens down the language by inserting Χριστοῦ
before τοῦ Θεοῦ μου, while others substitute τοῦ Κυρίου μου οττοῦ Χριστοῦ).
At this time the heresy to which such expressions seemed to give
countenance was Apollinarianism. At a later date, when the Mono-
physite controversy arose, there would be a still greater temptation
on the part of an orthodox scribe to substitute τοῦ Χριστοῦ for τοῦ
Θεοῦ. The language of Anastasius of Sinai (/odeg. 12, 13, p. 97 sq.)
shows that these passages of earlier writers (he mentions among others
Ign. Rom. 6) were constantly alleged in favour of Monophysite
doctrine, and he himself has some trouble in explaining them away.
Writing against these same heretics Isidore of Pelusium (222. i. 124)
says Θεοῦ πάθος ov λέγεται, Χριστοῦ yap τὸ πάθος γέγονε «.7.A. On
the other hand, it might be said that the Monophysites themselves
would be under a temptation to alter yy into 6y; and accordingly
Bryennios supposes that in this passage the reading of A is due to the
Monophysites (or, as he adds, perhaps to the Alexandrian divines),
402 ADDENDA.
This does not seem very likely. (a) In the first place, it would be a
roundabout and precarious way of getting a testimony in favour of
their doctrine. If tov Χριστοῦ (thus assumed to be the origina! reading)
had been in direct connexion with ta παθήματα, a change in this
direction would not be improbable: but it would never have occurred
to any one to alter τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Χριστοῦ into τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ,
because there happened to be an expression τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ in the
next sentence so that avrod would naturally be referred to the genitive
after τοῖς ἐφοδίοις, It would have been much simpler to change αὐτοῦ
into τοῦ Θεοῦ at once. (4) Secondly, the dates are not favourable to this
supposition. ‘The ms which has Θεοῦ is assigned by the most competent
authorities to the fifth century, and by some of them to the‘earlier half
of the century (‘not later than a.p. 450’, Scrivener Jntroduction Ὁ. 93
(ed. 2) ; ‘the middle of the fifth century or a little later’, Tregelles
Hlorne’s Introduction Pp. 155; ‘saeculi v ejusque fere exeuntis’, Tischen-
dorf, p. ix, ed. 8); 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 our earliest authority for
tov Χριστοῦ, Photius (supposing that his evidence be accepted), wrote
four centuries later, when there had been ample time for such manipu-
lation of the text. But, besides the doctrinal motive which might have
suggested the change from Θεοῦ to Χριστοῦ, there may also have
been an exegetical reason.. The word ἐφόδιον, viatecum, was used espe-
cially of the eucharistic elements (e.g. Zit. D. Mare. p. 29, Lit. D.
Lacob. p. 75, Neale), and there would be a natural desire to fix this
sense on 5, Clement here.
(3) The probability that such language as ta παθήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ
should have been used by an early Christian writer can hardly be
questioned. In addition to the passages quoted in my note (p. 37)
see Zest. Duod. Fatr. Levi 4 ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τοῦ ὑψίστου (a very ancient
writing; see Gadatians p. 307 sq.), Tatian ad Grec. 13 τοῦ πεπονθότος
Qeouy, Lertulk we Carn. Chr. 5‘ passiones Dei’, «ad δ S13
‘sanguine Dei’ (and so elsewhere Tertullian speaks of ‘God cruci-
fied’, ‘God dead’, ‘the flesh of God’, ‘the murderers of God’; see
dé. Carn, Chis 5. ailv. Mare. (ἃς. 16,27, ¥. 5), Ana ΟΡ Dae pos
(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. 1x.
Ρ. 445.
(4) It is more to the purpose to urge that, though such language
-
ADDENDA. 403
is not uncommon in other writers, it has no parallel in Clement;
that he elsewhere speaks of the blood ‘of Christ’ (§§ 7, 21, 49) and
describes it as ‘precious to God His Father’ (§ 7); and that throughout
this epistle he applies the term Θεὸς to the Father as distinguished
from Christ. This argument has considerable weight: but must not
be overstrained. The Catholic doctrine of the Person of Christ
admits both ways of speaking. Writers like Tertullian, who use the
most extravagant and unguarded language on the other side, are
commonly and even in the same context found speaking 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 ending
(ὃ 58 ζῇ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς κιτ.λ.) 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 Θεῷ (see below, p. 411). And after all the
alternative remains, which Dr Abbot is disposed to favour (p. 343),
that Clement wrote αὐτοῦ negligently, not remembering that τοῦ
Θεοῦ had immediately preceded and referring it in his own mind to
Christ.
(5) It remains to enquire whether the connexion is more favour-
able to τοῦ Θεοῦ or τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This will depend much on the con-
mexion of the sentences. The punctuation given in my text is adopted
also by Gebhardt and Harnack and acquiesced in by Dr Abbot.
The reasons which influenced me are stated in my note, and seem
to me as strong as ever. If this punctuation be retained, τοῦ Θεοῦ
is almost necessary ; for τὰ ἐφόδια then refers to the ordinary means
of subsistence. Hilgenfeld reads and punctuates τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ
Χριστοῦ ἀρκούμενοι Kat προσέχοντες (SO too S), understanding by the term
‘spiritual sustenance’. ‘This seems to me to give an awkward sense
(for the mention of ‘contentment’ is then somewhat out of place) and
an unnatural punctuation (for καὶ προσέχοντες then becomes a clumsy
addition).
Ῥ. 37 1. 5 éveorepvicpevor] So it is read in C. S attaches καὶ
προσέχοντες to the preceding sentence, and then translates as if it
had read τούς τε λόγους...ἐνεστερνισμένοι (OM. ἦτε).
p. 37 1. 6] Comp. 4 Mace. ili. 20 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βαθεῖαν εἰρήνην διὰ τὴν
εὐνομίαν ἡμῶν εἶχον, Heges. in Euseb. 1... £. iil. 32 γενομένης εἰρήνης
βαθείας ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Liturg. S. Basil. p. 165 (Neale) βαθεῖαν καὶ
ἀναφαίρετον εἰρήνην.
p. 381. 3 πλήρης ἔκχυσις... ἐγίνετο] ( ; plen@e effusiones...erant S, as if
404 ADDENDA.
᾿ πλήρεις ἐκχύσεις...ἐγίνοντο, for the plural cannot be accounted for here
by rzbuz.
ib. ὁσίας] S; θείας C: see above, p. 231. And for instances of the
same confusion ὃ 14 (p. 414), ὃ 21 (p. 420). For ὁσίας see ὃ 45 ἐν
᾿ὁσίᾳ Kal ἀμώμῳ προθέσει, ὃ 56 διὰ τῆς ὁσίας παιδείας αὐτοῦ; for θείας,
§ 40 τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως. There might possibly be a question
which of the two words should be read here: but (1) We have a com-
bination of two authorities (including the best) against one; and
(2) The other instances show that the tendency is to change ὅσιος
into θεῖος, and not conversely.
Ῥ. 38 1. 4 ἐξετείνατε] ἐξετείνετε CS.
Ρ. 381. 6 ἵλεως] ἵλεων C. ib. ἄκοντες] C3; ἑκόντες 5. 7b. ἡμάρ-
rete] C3 peccabatis (ἡμαρτάνετε) S.
p. 39 1. 8 per’ ἐλέους καὶ συνειδήσεως] So too S, translating συνειδη-
σεως bona conscientia. The difficulty of referring συνειδήσεως to God
has led to several emendations, of which some are mentioned in
my note. Others have been added since my edition appeared; συνεί-
gews by Laurent (ad loc.), συνδεήσεως by Lipsius (Academy, July 9,
1870). Harnack (ed. 1) suggested overcoming the difficulty by a
different exegesis, ‘vobis miserantibus piamque recolentibus fratrum
memoriam’. The Constantinople ms however comes to the rescue
with a reading which could not have been foreseen, but which com-
mends itself, pera δέους καὶ συνειδήσεως (meTadcoyc for meteAeoyc)..
Thus the whole clause is transferred from God to the believer,
and συνειδήσεως becomes ‘intelligible. © With the whole expression
comp. Liturg. D. Jacob. p. 55 (Neale) δὸς ἡμῖν, Κύριε, μετὰ παντὸς
φόβου καὶ συνειδήσεως καθαρᾶς προσκομίσαι «7.4. For the idea of
fear as an agent in the work of salvation see Phil. 11. 12; and for the
expression μετὰ δέους Heb. xii. 28 λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ Θεῷ pera
εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους (the correct reading), an epistle which has largely
influenced Clement’s language elsewhere. For the use of συνείδησις
here comp. ὃ 34 συναχθέντες τῇ συνειδήσει. It denotes inward con-
centration and assent. Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. Nov. ὃ, 1876) still
retains the reading per ἐλέους, explaining it of brotherly kindness
shown towards offenders, and proposes συναθλήσεως for συνειδήσεως.
He might have quoted AZost. Const. 11. 13 ἔπειτα peta ἐλέους καὶ
οἰκτιρμοῦ Kal προσλήψεως οἰκειοῦ ὑπισχνούμενος αὐτῷ σωτηρίαν for this
sense. Lipsius (¥enaer Literaturz. Jan. 13, 1877) accepts μετὰ δέους, but
holds by his conjecture συνδεήσεως, though it 1s now rendered unne-
cessary. Donaldson (Zzeol. Rev. Jan. 1877) suggests μετὰ τελείας συνε-
λεύσεως.
ADDENDA. 405
p- 39 1. 11 βδελυκτὸν] add. ἦν C ; and so probably 5.
p. 39]. 12 τοῖς πλησίον] τῶν πλησίον C; vicinorum S.
p. 39 1. 13 ta] C; δία 5.
p- 401]. 1 σεβασμίῳ] and so apparently S; σεβασμιωτάτῃ C. See
above, p. 228.
III.
p- 40 1. 7 καὶ ἔρις] ἔρις (om. Kai) CS.
Ρ- 40 1. 8 ἀκαταστασία] Comp. Agost. Const. li. 43 ἀκαταστασίας καὶ
ἔριδος καὶ διχοστασίας.
Ῥ. 411.11 ἄπεστιν S; ἀπέστη C. This brings it nearer to the
Lxx of Is. lix. 14 which has ἀφέστηκεν : see above, p. 227.
Ρ. 41 1. 12 ἀπολείπειν] ἀπολιπεῖν C, and so probably 5.
p. 41 1. 16 ἀλλὰ] ἀλλ᾽ Ὁ.
ib. tas ἐπιθυμίας αὐτοῦ τὰς πονηράς] tas πονηρὰς being substituted
for tna πονηρασ of A. The reading of CS is tas ἐπιθυμίας τῆς καρδίας
αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς, thus showing that τῆς καρδίας has accidentally
dropped out of A and that all the editors have been on the wrong
tack in substituting tas for τῆς.
p42 ioaent} ΟΣ omi'S.
IV.
p. 421. 3 οὕτως] S; om. C.
p. 42 1.4 τῷ Θεῷ] 5; τῷ Κυρίῳ C, as in the Lxx: see p. 227.
Ρ. 43 1. 9 τῷ προσώπῳ] τὸ πρόσωπον CS, in conformity with the
words which follow.
Ρ. 431. 11 ἐὰν] ἂν Ὁ.
p- 431. 13 ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ] αὐτοῦ ἄρξεις C. S has the same order as
A, but this would be more natural in the Syriac.
p- 43 1. 14 διέλθωμεν]!Π C3; add. zgttur (=8y) S. This reading is
found in some mss of the Lxx.
Ρ. 43 1. 16 ἀδελφοί] C; ἀγαπητοί S.
Ρ. 44]. 1 κατειργάσατο] S; κατειργάσαντο C.
ib. ζῆλος] ζῆλον C.
Ρ. 44]. 4 εἰσελθεῖν] ἐλθεῖν C, and so probably 5.
Ρ. 441. 7 κριτὴν ἢ δικαστήν] ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστήν CS, in accordance
with the Lxx; see pp. 227, 241. Comp. Afost. Const. vi. 2.
Ρ. 44 1. 8 ἐχθὲς] χθές C.
Ρ. 441. ο διὰ ζῆλος] διὰ ζῆλον C. ib. Μαριὰμ. κιτ.λ.}] See
Apost. Const. vi. τ.
Ρ. 441. το ζῆλος] S; διὰ ζῆλον C, falling into the same error as A
406 ADDENDA.
(in inserting the preposition from the previous sentence), but substituting
the masculine for the neuter form.
p. 451. 12 διὰ ζῆλος] διὰ ζῆλον Ὁ.
ib. Δαυεὶδ] If Bryennios gives the reading of C correctly, this Ms
has here and elsewhere Δαβὶδ; but probably he has written out in full
in the later spelling the contraction 646.
Ρ. 451. 13 ὑπὸ] ἀπό C.
p. 45 1. 14 ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ] ἀπὸ τοῦ Ξαοὺλ C.
ib. βασιλέως Ἰσραήλ] 5; om. C.
δ
p- 451. 18 φθόνον] S; ἔριν C.
ib. κάλλιστοι] Tisch. writes, ‘Spatii ratione κράτιστοι et καλλιστοι
magis quam apioro et μέγιστοι commendantur. Equidem haud scio
an καὶ ot pro ot proponam’; and Gebh. (ed. 1) read κράτιστοι. ‘This
however is one among several instances where the calculation of space
(at the end of a line) has failed. The word is μέγιστοι in CS.
p- 451. 19 ἦλθον] ἔπαθον Laur. Here again the calculation of space
has misled. CS have ἠθλησαν.
p- 451. 20 ἀγαθοὺς] This is also the reading of CS. Harnack ap-
positely quotes Clem. Hom. i. τό ὁ 8 ἀγαθὸς ἹΤέτρος προσπηδήσας K.T.A.
p. 46 1. 1 ὁ Πέτρος] Petrus S; Πέτρον os C. This reading could not
have been foreseen, but it is consistent with the space in A, more
especially as Ilerpov coming at the end of the line might have been
written metpo. The reading of C moreover obviates a difficulty in the
common mode of filling in the lacuna of A, which is stated by Tisch.,
who accepts ὁ Πέτρος on the ground that ‘Vix aliud nomen substitui
posse videtur’, but adds ‘Tamen non ita scribi solet ut wetp exeunte
versu, oo ineunte ponatur’. Nor is the awkwardness of construction
difficult to explain. Clement seems to have commenced this sentence
intending to follow it up with καὶ Παῦλον ὃς διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν, or
words to this effect. But his account of S. Peter occupies so much
space, that for the sake of clearness he is obliged to start with an inde-
pendent sentence when he comes to 5. Paul. The rendering of S 15 a
translator’s simplification.
Ρ. 47 1. 1 μαρτυρήσας] To the references in the note add Tertull.
Prax. 1 ‘de jactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve
carceris tedium’. The passage, Ign. Zphes. 1, should be omitted, as
μαρτυρίου probably has no place in the correct text. On this passage
generally see Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f- Wassensch. Theol. XV. P. 353 56:
(1872), XIX p. 59 sq. (1876).
ADDENDA. 407
Ρ. 47 1. 2 ὑπήνεγκεν] So it is read in C; and so doubtless 5, Sap ἐμ,
portavit (see § 14).
Ρ. 48 1. 2 καὶ o] καὶ ἔριν CS. Though this is much longer than
the lacuna in A had led previous editors to supply, still, as the lines
are uneven at the end and as this immediate neighbourhood fur-
nishes several instances where the final letters of a line are crowded
and small, there is no reason for questioning it as the reading of A
also.
ib. ὑπέδειξεν͵] This same conjecture which I offered (in place of
the ὕπεσχεν of previous editors) occurred independently to Laurent,
who had not seen my edition, and it was accepted by Gebhardt (ed. 1);
C however has the simple verb ἔδειξεν. But if Mill and Jacobson
are right, this cannot have been the reading of A, as the initial Y was
once visible. I gave reasons however for doubting whether this was
possible, at least in the later condition of the Ms (p. 48); and, if
so, ἔδειξεν might perhaps be accepted. On the other hand ὑπέδειξεν
is supported by a passage in the newly discovered work of Macarius
Magnes Afocr. iv. 14 (p. 181, Blondel), where speaking of S. Peter and
S. Paul he says, ἔγνωσαν ὑποδεῖξαι τούτοις [i.e. τοῖς πιστεύουσιν], ποίοις
ἀγῶσιν ὁ τῆς πίστεως συγκεκρότηται στέφανος. In the context, which
describes the labours and martyrdom of these same two Apostles,
the language of Macarius appears to give many echoes of this passage
in Clement; ὑπέμειναν εὐσεβῶς διδάσκοντες, τῶν ἀδικουμένων ὑπέρμαχοι,
πολλὰ...τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαντες, τοῦ βίου τὸ τέλος ἀπήντησεν, μέχρι θανάτου
«οπροκινδυνεύσωσι, τῆς εὐκλείας τὸν ἔπαινον, οἱ γεννάδαι, ἀνὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην,
βραβεῖον... κτώμενοι, τύποι ἀνδρείας... γενόμενοι, πολλὰ τῶν καλῶν ἀγωνισμά-
των, τῆς διδαχῆς καὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος, μαρτυρίου δόξαν, πικραῖς... βασάνοις,
ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ, γενναίως φέρειν. It seems highly probable therefore that
the use of ὑποδεικνύναι in this somewhat strange connexion was derived
by him from the same source. Comp. also /f. Vienn. § 23 in Euseb.
HT. E. ν. τ εἰς τὴν τῶν λοιπῶν ὑποτύπωσιν ὑποδεικνύων ὅτι μηδὲν φοβερὸν
ὕπου πατρὸς ἀγάπη, μηδὲ ἀλγεινὸν ὅπου Χριστοῦ δόξα. 5. Paul himself
says (Acts xx. 35) ὑπέδειξα ὑμῖν ὅτι κιτ.λ.. (Ο 15 found in other cases
to substitute the simple verb, where A has the compound (see p. 229),
and would naturally do so here, where the meaning of the compound
was not obvious. S has ¢ulit (fortavit) Δ Ὁ (translating βραβεῖον by
certamen), which corresponds fairly with ὕπεσχεν suggested by some
editors; but this was certainly not the reading of A. I have in-
spected the Ms again, and see no traces of a deliberate erasure of ἔ,
though the letter is worn. So far as it goes, S favours ὑπέδειξεν as
against ἔδειξεν.
408 ADDENDA.
p. 48 1. 3 φυγαδευθείς] So it stands in CS.
me aot ire] C5 om. 8:
p- 49 1. 5 δικαιοσύνην] connected with ἔλαβε by punctuation in C and
apparently also by S. The Syriac translator seems also to have read
δικαιοσύνης.
Ρ. 50]. 2 τοῦ κόσμου] C; αὖ hoc mundo 5. See above, p. 339.
ib. ἐπορεύθη] C; susceptus est S.
VL
p. 51 1. 5, 6 πολλαῖς κιτ.λ.] The dative is read in CS,
Ρ. 51]. 6 ζῆλος] ζῆλον C; and so again in 1. 7.
νεάνιδες, παιδίσκαι] It was stated in my note that the first word is
written in A δαηαιδεσ not δαναιδεσ, as commonly read. Dr Wright
however inspected the Ms afterwards at the request of Tisch., and
pronounced the letter to be ν, not H. It is often impossible to
distinguish these two letters, where the Ms is blurred or crumpled ;
our new authorities however must be taken to rule the reading.
Tisch. also pointed out an error into which (by an _ accident
which I need not explain) I had fallen in stating that the second
ἃ begins a new line. The actual division of the lines is Aa |
νδιδεοκδικδιδιρκὰι as the photograph shows. On the other hand Tisch.
is himself mistaken in making Bp Wordsworth also responsible for
my reading or misreading of the ms. I said nothing which could
imply this. The reading of A is confirmed in the main by C, which has
Aavatdes καὶ Δεὶρ xai,and by S which has Danaides et Dircae et,
where the e¢ may be a duplication of the last syllable of Διρκαὶ or
may be due to the exigencies of translation. If therefore Aavaides καὶ
Διρκαὶ be incorrect, as I still believe, the error must have existed
already in that archetypal Ms from which all our three extant authorities
were ultimately derived. This supposition however presents no diffi-
culty, as this common ancestor of ACS was certainly at fault in
other places (see above, p. 247).
Since my edition appeared, the reading Aavaides καὶ Atpxat has been
emphasized and illustrated by M. Renan (L’Antechrist, p. 167, 169 sq.,
173, 182, 187 sq.), whose frequent reiteration of the words has given
them a prominence not unlikely to mislead the reader on the merits of
the question. Of his speculations on this passage I need say nothing,
for they are merely speculations : and it would have been well if in his
imaginary reconstruction of Nero’s history he had remembered the
sound maxim which directs ‘ flagitia abscondi’.
ADDENDA. 409
The common reading, if correct, must refer to those refinements of
cruelty, patronized by Nero and Domitian but not confined to them,
which combined theatrical representations with judicial punishments, so
that the offender suffered in the character of some hero of ancient
legend or history. On reading over my former note, I see that I have
not assigned sufficient weight to the frequency of such exhibitions. For
illustrations see Friedlander Stttengeschichte Roms τι. p. 234 sq. Thus
one offender would represent Hercules burnt in the flames on (Eta
(Tertull. “42οὐ, 15 ‘qui vivus ardebat Herculem induerat’); another,
Ixion tortured on the wheel (de Pudic. 22 ‘puta in axe jam incendio
adstructo’). We read also of criminals who, having been exhibited in
the character of Orpheus (Martial de Spect. 21) or of Deedalus (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 M. Renan’s attempts
to make anything of the legend of the Danaids entirely fail. And the
difficulty still remains, that the mode of expression in Clement is alto-
gether awkward and unnatural on this hypothesis. Harnack, who how-
ever expresses himself doubtfully on the reading, quotes Heb. x. 32
πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων, τοῦτο μὲν ὀνειδισμοῖς TE Kal
θλίψεσιν θεατριζόμενοι; but here θεατριζόμενοι is best explained by
τ Cor. iv. 9 θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ k.t.r., Where no literal scenic re-
presentation is intended. Laurent explains the words by saying that the
punishment of the Danaids and of Dirce ‘in proverbium abiisse videtur’.
But he can only quote for the former és tov τῶν Δαναΐδων πίθον ὑδρο-
φορεῖν Lucian 77m. 18, which is hardly to the point, as it merely denotes
labour spent in vain.
I am therefore obliged still to abide by Bp Wordsworth’s conjectural
emendation γυναῖκες, νεάνιδες, παιδίσκαι. Tischendorf calls it ‘liber-
rima conjectura’. So it is, but there is a freedom 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 am informed by Mr Basil
H. Cooper, through a common friend, that he proposed this very same
emendation in the Afonthly Christian Spectator, January 1853, p. 16
note *. He assures me that it had occurred to him independently ;
and that, till quite recently, 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 Bp Wordsworth’s
emendation was published in 1844. The fact of its having occurred
independently to two minds is a strong testimony in its favour. Bunsen
(Hippolytus τ. p. xvi, ed. 2, 1854) enthusiastically welcomes this emen-
410 ADDENDA.
dation 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 (Zheol. Rev. January 1877, Ὁ. 45) he himself offers
another conjecture, yevvata/ re καὶ δοῦλαι. To the illustrations given in
my note add Minuc. Fel. 37 ‘viros cum Mucio vel cum Aquilio aut
Regulo comparo? pueri et muliercule nostre cruces et tormenta,
feras et omnes suppliciorum terriculas, inspirata patientia doloris in-
ludunt’.
p- 52]. 5 ὀστέων] ὀστῶν C.
Ρ. 52 1. 6 κατέστρεψεν] S; κατέσκαψε C. Jacobson refers to Jortin,
who supposes that Clement had in his mind Horace Carm. i. 16. 17 sq.
‘Ire Thyesten exitio gravi stravere, et altis urbibus ultimee stetere causze
cur perirent funditus’.
Ρ- 521. 7 ἐξερίζωσεν] ἐξερρίζωσε C.
Wit
Ρ. 53 1. 9 ὑπομνήσκοντες] ὑπομιμνήσκοντες C. There is the same
divergence of form in the ss of the Pseudo-Ignat. Zars. 9.
p. 53 1. 10 ἐν, yap] S; καὶ yap ἐν Ὁ, 2b. σκάμματι] For
πηδᾶν ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα see Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 13 (p. 696).
Ρ. 53 1. το, 11 ἡμῖν ἀγὼν] ἀγὼν ἡμῖν C. Sis doubtful. For ὁ αὐτὸς
ἀγὼν comp. Phil. i. 30.
Ρ. 53 1 11 ἀπολείπωμεν] ἀπολίπωμεν C.
Ρ. 541 1 τῆς τελειώσεως] τῆς παραδόσεως CS. This reading of the
lacuna could hardly have been anticipated ; but it adds to the closeness
of the parallel in Polycarp Phil. 7 διὸ ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν
πολλῶν Kal τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον
ἐπιστρέψωμεν, a passage already quoted by the editors. By τὸν τῆς παρα-
δόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα Clement apparently means ‘the rule (i.e. measure of
the leap or race), which we have received by tradition’, referring to the
examples of former athletes quoted in the context: comp. ὃ 19 ἐπὶ τὸν
ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης σκοπόν (to which passage again
Polycarp is indebted), § 51 τῆς παραδεδομένης ἡμῖν καλῶς καὶ δικαίως
ὁμοφωνίας. Clement’s phrase’is borrowed by his younger namesake,
Strom. 1. 1 (p. 324) προβήσεται ἡμῖν κατὰ τὸν εὐκλεῇ Kal σεμνὸν τῆς παρα-
δόσεως κανόνα. For examples of the use of κανὼν see Lagarde Rel. Fur.
Hil. Ant. Evel pani:
1b. γινώσκωμεν] καὶ ἴδωμεν CS.
ADDENDA. 411
Ρ. 541. 2 καὶ εὐπροσδεκτὸν] καὶ τί προσδεκτὸν CS, as proposed by
Tisch.
p- 54 1]. 4 ἴδωμεν] γνῶμεν CS. 20. τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ]
This reading of the lacuna, which I suggested, is approved by Tisch.
and was adopted by Gebhardt (ed. 1). C has τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ:
but this was not the reading of A, as the remaining letters show. S has
simply τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, which, as being the briefest, is probably the
original reading. ‘The varying positions of τῷ Θεῷ in A and C also
show that it was a later addition. |
Ρ. 551. 4 μετανοίας τόπον] Afost. Const. 11. 38 τόπον μετανοίας ὥρισεν,
ν. 19 λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τόπον μετανοίας.
Ρ. 55 1. 5 or] S translates as if ὅ τι 2d quod.
Ῥ. 55 1. 6 μετανοίας χάριν] C; μετανοίαν S. Mr Bensly points out to
me that the omission in S is easily explained by the homceoteleuton in
the Syriac Nmja'n7 ἐς 12 Ὁ. ib. ὑπήνεγκεν] sustulit "19D S ; ἐπή-
νεγκε C. tb. ἀνέλθωμεν εἰς] διέλθωμεν (om. εἰς) C; transeamus
super S, apparently reading διέλθωμεν εἰς, which probably stood in A
also. Comp. Rom. vy. 12 εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, where
however both Peshito and Harclean have "Δ 72» and not 5y ny, as the
Syriac has here. In § 4 διελθεῖν εἰς is rendered by “Ὁ any. Strictly
by say should represent διελθεῖν ἐπὶ, but this is no sufficient reason for
supposing a various reading in the preposition here. δΔιελθεῖν is a very
favourite word in the Lxx.
Ρ. 55 1. 7 καὶ] C; om. S: see below on p. 167 1. 9.
Ρ. 55 1. 8 ὁ δεσπότης] C; om. S. This passage is copied in Afost.
Const. ti. 55 ὁ yap Θεὸς, Θεὸς ὧν ἐλέους, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἑκάστην γενέαν ἐπὶ μετά-
νοιαν καλεῖ διὰ τῶν δικαίων...τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῷ κατακλύσμῳ διὰ τοῦ Nae, τοὺς ἐν
Σοδόμοις διὰ τοῦ φιλοξένου Λώτ (see below ὃ 11) κιτιλ.
p. 56 1. 2 οἱ δὲ] C; οἷδε 5.
Ρ. 56 1. 3 ἱκετεύσαντες] ἱκετεύοντες C, and so apparently S.
VIII.
p- 571.9 yap] S; om. C.
Ῥ. 57 1 11 ὑμῶν] 5; τοῦ λαοῦ pov C.
Ρ. 57 1. 12 εἶπον] C; dum dicis tu (εἰπών) S. ib. ἐὰν] C;
κἂν (Ὁ) S.
Ρ. 581. 3 καρδίας] ψυχῆς CS.
Ρ. 58 1. 5 λέγει οὕτως] οὕτω λέγει CS. ib. καὶ] om. CS,
ib. ἀφέλεσθε) ἀφέλετε C.
p- 58 1. 9 καὶ δικαιώσατε] C; δικαιώσατε (om. καὶ) 5. 7b. χήρᾳ]
412 ADDENDA.
χήραν C, with the Lxx. S is doubtful. ib. καὶ διελεγχθῶώμεν] καὶ
διαλεχθῶμεν C, loguamur cum alterutro (om. καὶ) 5.
Ρ. 58 1. το λέγει] add. κύριος CS.
δ 59 1. 14 yep] C; om. 8:
IX.
p- 59 1. 19 γενόμενοι] C; but S seems to have read γινόμενοι.
Ῥ. 59 l. 21 ἀπολιπόντες] C; but S apparently ἀπολείποντες.
tb. ματαιοπονίαν] So too CS.
Ρ. 60 1. 1 τελείως] C3; τελείους 5.
p- 60 1. 2 sq. “Evwx x«.7.X.] With this enumeration of the ancient |
worthies which follows comp. Clem. Hom. xvill. 13 οὐδὲ "Evax ὁ εὖαρε-
στήσας...οὔτε Νῶε ὁ δίκαιος... οὔτε ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ φίλος. This designation
of Abraham, ‘the friend of God’, is the subject of a paper by Roénsch
ZLeitschr. f. Wassensch. Theol. Xv. p. 583 sq. (1873).
p- 60 1, 3 θάνατος] ὁ θάνατος C.
p- 60 1. 4 διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας] 5; ἐν τῇ λειτουργίᾳ C.
a
ΠΡ. 62]. 3 καταράσομαι] καταράσσομαι C.
peed. Sir) Ss οἴ Ὁ;
p. 62 1. 9 αἰῶνος] τοῦ αἰῶνος C.
Ὁ. 62 1. 12 Ἔξηγαγεν͵] “Eéjyaye δὲ CS.
p. 62 1. 14 τοὺς ἀστέρας] C; add. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ S. ;
ἢ. 63 1. 17 γήρᾳ} γήρει C. On this form see the note on § 63,
Ῥ. 300; and to the examples there given add. Afost. Const. iv. 3.
Ρ. 63 1. 18 τῷ Θεῷ] S; om. C. See a similar omission in some texts
of Ign. fom. 4. ib. mpos| eis C; super S.
Beli:
p- 63 1. 21 κριθείσης] Dr Wright agrees with Tisch. in taking κριθησησ
as the reading of A; and Tisch. appeals also to the photograph. ‘The
word in the photograph still seems to me to be more like κριθεισησ,
and another inspection of the Ms itself confirms me in this reading. I
see no traces of the left-hand stroke of an u.
Ρ. 63 1. 22 ποιήσας] C. S translates as if ἐποίησεν.
p. 63 1. 23 ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν] So too apparently S; εἰς αὐτὸν C.
p. 63 1. 24 κόλασιν) C; but S translates as if κρίσιν.
p. 63 1. 25 ἑτερογνώμονος] So C. Of the reading of A Tisch. writes
“ετερογνωμοσ' (pro -γνωμονοσ) est, ut jam Iacobsonus legerat. VanSittart
legit evepoyvwpov, falsus aversa pagina, unde teste Wright v in ευρεθη
ADDENDA. 413
translucet’. A fresh examination of the ms leads me to acquiesce in
Wright’s explanation. ©
p. 63 1. 26 τοῦτο] S; om. C.
p. 64 1. 1 κρίμα] κρῖμα Ὁ.
ALE
p. 64 1. 3 φιλοξενίαν] C ; but S repeats the preposition διὰ φιλοξένίαν.
It is not however to be entirely depended upon in such cases; see
p. 239 Sq.
tb. ἡ πόρνη] ἢ ἐπιλεγομένη πόρνη CS; see above, pp. 228, 241.
The object of the interpolation is to suggest a figurative sense of
the word: comp. Orig. zz Jes. Nave Hom. iii. § 3 (ul. p. 403) ‘Raab
interpretatur latitudo. Que est ergo latitudo nisi ecclesia hzec Christi,
que ex peccatoribus velut ex meretricatione collecta est ?... Talis ergo et
heec meretrix esse dicitur, que exploratores suscepit Iesu’; comp. 70. vi.
§ 3 (Ρ. 411). From a like motive the Targum interprets the word in
Josh. i. τ by ΝΥ ΡΒ Ξ- πανδοκευτρία ‘an innkeeper’, and so Joseph.
Ant. ν. τ. 2 ὑποχωροῦσιν εἴς τι καταγώγιον... ὄντες ἐν τῷ τῆς Ῥαχάβης
καταγωγίῳ, etc. This explanation has been adopted by several Jewish
and some Christian interpreters; see Gesenius Zes. 5. v. M311, 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 anticipation of the announcement in Matt. xxi. 31;
e.g. Justin Déa/. 111, Iren. iv. 20. 12.
Ρ. 64 1. 4 τοῦ τοῦ] τοῦ C (omitting the second τοῦ).
p- 64]. 5 τὴν] om. C.
Ρ. 64 1. 7, 8 συλλημψομένους.. .συλλημφθέντες] συλληψομένους.. .συλ-
ληφθέντες C. They are translated by two different words in 5.
Ρ. 64 1. 11 λεγόντων] C; add. 727 5.
ib. ἰδού, εἰσῆλθον] πρὸς σὲ εἰσῆλθον CS, as proposed by Tisch.
Ρ. 65 1]. 12 γῆς: σὺ οὖν] γῆς ἡμῶν CS, thus confirming the reading of
the editors generally.
Ρ. 65 1. 13 of δύο ἄνδρες] μὲν οἱ ἄνδρες CS, confirming the conjecture
of Gebhardt.
p. 65 1. 14 ἀλλὰ ταχέως ἀπῆλθον] ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως ἐξῆλθον CS.
Ρ. 65 1. 15 ὁδὸν] τῇ ὁδῷ C; én via tpsorum S.
ib. ἐναντίαν] ἐναλλάξ CS. This use of the word, which com-
monly means ‘interchangeably’, is somewhat strange, though the
meaning is clear, ‘ crosswise’, i.e. ‘in an opposite direction’.
Ρ. 65 1. 16 ἐγὼ] S; om. Ὁ.
p- 65 ]. 17 ὑμῶν] om. CS. ib. πόλιν] γῆν CS.
CLEM. | 27
414 ADDENDA.
Ρ. 65 1. 18 φόβος...τρόμος] C. The two words are transposed in S.
p. 65 1. 19 ἐὰν] ἂν C. ib. αὐτὴν] C3 τὴν γῆν 5.
Ρ. 65 1. 21 ἐλάλησας] λελάληκας C. ib. ὡς] C ; not trans-
lated in S. ib. eav] av C. ib. παραγινομένους] S (by
the pointing) ; παραγενομένους C.
p. 65 1. 22 sq. τέγος σου] στέγος (om. σου) C ; zectum domus tue 5.
p- 661. 1 éav] av C. ib. ὅσοι γὰρ] C3 et omnes whi qui
(καὶ ὅσοι) 5.
Ρ. 661. 3 κρεμάσῃ] ἐκκρεμάσῃ CS.
p- 66 1: 5 καὶ ἐλπίζουσ Ψ] C; om. 5.
Ῥ. 66 1, 6 ov] ὅτι οὐ CS. See above, pp. 228, 241. ib. ἀλλα]
add. καὶ CS.
p. 66 1. 7 γέγονεν] ἐγενήθη C3; see above, p. 228. In such a
case the reading of S is indeterminable. Here γέγονεν, ‘ zs found’, must
unquestionably be the right reading; comp. 1 Tim. il. 14 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ
ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, where, as here, the perfect denotes
the permanence of the record and the example. See also Gal. i. 18
τῷ δὲ ᾽Α βραὰμ δι ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός, iv. 23.6 ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης
κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, where the explanation of the perfect is the same.
So too frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, e.g. vii. 6 δεδεκάτωκεν,
ΧΙ. 28 πεποίηκεν.
ΧΗ.
p- 66 1. 9 τύφος] τύφον C.
Ρ. 67 1. 13 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ 0] ἀλλ᾽ ὁ C, and so perhaps 5.
p. 67 1. 16 οὕτως yap εἶπεν κιτ.λ.}] See Afost. Const. 11. 21, where the
words of Christ are quoted, "Adere καὶ ἀφεθήσεται ὑμῖν: δίδοτε καὶ δοθή-
σεται ὑμῖν.
p. 67 1. τῇ ἐλεᾶτε] ἐλεεῖτε C. ib. ἀφίετε] ἄφετε (.
Ῥ. 67 1. 18 οὕτως] οὕτω C, and similarly p. 68 1. 1, 2.
p- 68 1. τ κριθήσεται ὑμῖν] κριθήσεσθε CS.
p. 681. 2 ᾧ pérpo...uerpnOyoerar ὑμῖν] here, S; before ws κρίνετε
K7.A., C. ib. ἐν αὐτῷ] 5; οὕτω C.
Ρ. 68 1. 4 στηρίξωμεν] στηρίζωμεν C. ib. πορεύεσθαι] πορεύεσθε C.
p- 681. 5 ἡμᾶς] ὄντας CS, thus confirming the conjecture of Laur.
p. 68 1. 7 πραὺν] πρᾷον C.
p- 68 1. 8 τὰ λόγια] τοὺς λόγους C. The reading of 5. is uncertain.
9
ΧΙΝ:
p- 68 1. 9 ὅσιον] C; θεῖον 5. See for other instances of the same
confusion § 2 (p. 404), ὃ 21 (p. 420).
ADDENDA. AIS
p. 68 1. τὸ nuds] S; ὑμᾶς C. ib. γενέσθαι τῷ Θεῷ] τῷ Θεῷ
γενέσθαι CS.
Ρ. 69}. 11 ζήλους] ζήλου C. For the form μυσεροῦ comp. μιερὰν in
Boeckh Corp. Juser. no. 3588. See also the play on ἱερεύς, μιερεύς,
A post. Const. ii. 28. C apparently writes μυσαράν (for μυσεράν) in ὃ 30,
but not so here.
p- 69 1. 15 ἔριν] αἱρέσεις C, with Nicon; ἔρεις 5, but the plural
merely depends on the presence of 7zbuz. See above, p. 228.
p- 69 1. 16 αὐτοῖς] ἑαυτοῖς CS.
Ρ. 69 1. 19 sq. οἱ δὲ παρανομοῦντες... ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς] C; om. S (by homceo-
teleuton).
p- 69 1. 19 ἐξολεθρευθήσονται] ἐξολοθρευθήσονται C. The form varies
in the most ancient mss of the Lxx.
Ρ. 69 1. 20 ἀσεβῆ] τὸν ἀσεβῆ C, with the Lxx.
Ρ. 701. 2 sq. τὸν τόπον...εὗρον] C3; αὐτὸν καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη ὁ τόπος
αὐτοῦ S, as in the Lxx.
Ρ. 70 1. 4 ἐνκατάλειμμα] ἐγκατἄλλειμμα C.
XV.
p- 70 1. 7 οὗτος ὁ λαός] S (apparently) ; 6 λαὸς οὗτος C.
2b. τοῖς χείλεσιν] S; τῷ στόματι C.
Ρ. 70 1. 8 ἄπεστιν] ἀπέχει C; dub. 5.
Ρ- 70 1]. 9 εὐλογοῦσαν] εὐλόγουν C ; see above, p. 229.
2b. τῇ δὲ] C3 καὶ τῇ S, with the Lxx. ib. κατηρῶντο] So
also Dr Wright reads A, against Tisch.’s κατηρουντο. I myself have
looked at the MSs again and cannot feel certain.
p. 71 1. 11 ἐψεύσαντο] S ; ἔψεξαν C.
Ρ. 711. 13 “AAada] διὰ totro”AXada CS. ib. γενηθήτω] γενη-
θείη C.
p. 71]. 13 sq. τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια...τὰ δόλια, γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα,
τοὺς εἰπόντας κιτ.λ.)} The words omitted by homeceoteleuton are supplied
otherwise by S, which reads, τὰ χείλη ta δόλια τὰ λαλοῦντα κατὰ τοῦ
δικαίου ἀνομίαν" καὶ πάλιν: ᾿Ἐξολεθρεύσαι Κύριος πάντα τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια,
γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα, τοὺς εἰπόντας κιτιλ. This is doubtless the correct
text. On the other hand C reads quite differently ; τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια,
γλῶσσα μεγαλορήμων' καὶ πάλιν" Τοὺς εἰπόντας «.t.A. The transcriber
clearly had a text before him in which the words were omitted, as
they are in A: and he patched it up by insertion and alteration, so as
to run grammatically and to make sense. See above, p. 245.
p- 71 1. 15 μεγαλύνωμεν] μεγαλυνοῦμεν C. The reading of S is
indeterminable.
272
416 ADDENDA.
Ρ- 71 1. τό παρ᾽ ἡμῖν] παρ᾽ ἡμῶν CS.
p- 71 1. 17 amo] om. CS.
Ρ. 71 1. 18 ἐν σωτηρίᾳ] S (or ἐν σωτηρίῳ) ; om. C, at least if we
interpret the note of Bryennios strictly, in which case he must have
supplied ἐν σωτηρίῳ in his text from the Lxx after Hilgenfeld. Gebhardt
however supposes that he has accidentally omitted ἐν σωτηρίῳ in his
note, when giving the reading of C.
AW.
Ῥ- 72 1. 2 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης] C ; om. S with Jerome.
p- 72 1. 3 ἡμῶν] om. C, Hieron. The reading of S is doubtful, for
it uses 12 equally for ὁ Κύριος and ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν.
ib. Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς] Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς CS, Hieron.
Ῥ. 72 1. 5 ταπεινοφρονῶν] C; add. ἦλθεν 5.
p. 72 1. ὃ παιδίον] S; πεδίον C.
Ρ. 721]. 9 εἶδος αὐτῷ] αὐτῷ εἶδος C. The order of S agrees with (;
but the fact cannot be pressed.
p- 73 1. 10 KaAXos] C; doa S.
p- 73}. 11 τὸ εἶδος τῶν ἀνθρώπων] C; πάντας ἀνθρώπους S, in accord-
ance with one reading of the Lxx.
Ρ. 73 1. 16 ἐτραυματίσθη] C ; occisus est S.
p- 73 1. 17 ἁμαρτίας, ἀνομίας] transposed in CS.
p. 741.7 τὴν γενεὰν] C3 καὶ τὴν γενεὰν S.
Ῥ. 741. ὃ ἥκει] Ο ; ἤχθη S, as it is commonly read in the Lxx.
p- 75 1. 14 τῆς ψυχῆς] C ; ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς S. The yp which represents
amo before tod πόνου is pointed as if = μέν.
Ρ. 75 1. 18 τοῖς] ἐν rots C, and so probably S, which has 3, not ὃ.
p. 76153 δὲ} 5 ; om. Ὁ:
p. 0. oer] Ce S.
p- 76 1. 9 ποιήσωμεν] ποιήσομεν C.
p. 761. το ἐλθόντες] S3 ἀπελθόντες C.
XVII.
p- 77 1. 14 Ἐλισαιὲ] Ἔλισσαιὲ C. 2b. ert δὲ] S; om. C.
ib. καὶ] C; om. S. 77. πρὸς τούτοις] C; add. δὲ S.
Ῥ. 77 1. 15 ἐμαρτυρήθη] S; add. δὲ C.
p. 77 1. 17 ἀτενίζων] ἀτενίσας C. S apparently read *Arevicw, for it
translates ‘et dicit cogitans humititer, videbo gloriam Dei’.
p. 77 1. 19 ‘IwB] add. 8 CS, with Clem. Alex. 2b. cai] C;
om. S with Lxx.
p. 77 1. 20 κακοῦ] C; πονηροῦ πράγματος S, with the Lxx.
ADDENDA. 417
Ρ. 77 1. 21 κατηγορεῖ λέγων] My reading of the lacuna was followed
by Gebhardt, and is now confirmed by C. S however translates as if it
had read κατηγορῶν λέγει
ib. οὐδ᾽ εἰ] οὐδ᾽ ἂν C. S may have read either one or the other,
but not ἐὰν καί The same text is quoted with οὐδ᾽ ἂν in Afost. Const.
τις 18.
Ρ. 781. 2 αὐτοῦ] S; om. C.
Ρ. 78 1. 3 ἔκρινεν] C3; κρίνει (apparently) 5.
Ρ. 78 1. 5 ἐκ τῆς βάτου] ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς βάτου C; but A cannot have so
read, unless this line was very much longer than the preceding or fol-
lowing one. Moreover ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς βάτου χρηματισμοῦ αὐτῷ διδομένου is
in itself a very awkward and unlikely expression. Probably A read ἐπὶ
τῆς βάτου or ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου, this being a common mode of referring to
the incident; Luke xx. 37 (comp. Mark xi. 26), Justin Dza/ 128
(p. 357), Clem. Hom. xvi. 14, Apost. Const. v. 20. The reading of C
must be attributed to the indecision of a scribe hesitating between the
masculine and feminine genders ; the word being sometimes masculine,
ὁ βάτος (e.g. Exod. ili. 2, 3, 4, Apost. Const. vil. 33), sometimes feminine
(Deut. xxxill. 16, Acts vii. 35, Justin Dva/. 127, 128, Clem. Hom.
xvi. 14, Apost. Const. y. 20). So we have ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου Mark xi. 26
(though with an illsupported ν. 1.), but ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου Luke xx. 37. In
Justin Dial. 60 (p. 283) we meet with ἀπὸ τῆς βάτου, ὁ βάτος, ὁ βάτος,
ὁ βάτος, ἐκ τῆς βάτου, in the same chapter. See on this double gender
of the word Fritzsche on Mark I.c. [The above note was written
before S was discovered. S reads either ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου or ἐπὶ τῆς Barov. |
XVIII.
p- 79 1. 9 εἴπωμεν] εἴποιμεν C.
p. 791. το ὁ Θεός] S; om. C.
Ρ. 79 1. τι ἐν ἐλέει)]͵. This is also the reading of C; but S has
ev ἐλαίῳ.
p. 801. 2 ἐπὶ πλεῖον κιτ.λ.] The rest of the quotation to ἐξουθενώσει
at the end of the chapter is omitted in C. See above p. 230.
Ρ. 80]. το σου] om. 5.
p. 81 1. 23 sq. τὸ στόμα...τὰ χείλη] C ; transposed in S in accordance
with the Lxx and Hebrew.
XIX.
p. 81 1. 28 τοσούτων, τοιούτων] transposed in CS. ib. οὕτως]
om. C ; καὶ οὕτως S.
Ρ. 811. 29 ταπεινοφρονοῦν] ταπεινόφρον C. Though A has ταπεινο-
418 ADDENDA.
φρόνον, there can be little doubt about the reading, since Clement uses
ταπεινοφρονεῖν ten times elsewhere, but ταπεινόφρων never. See the
note p. 17. Moreover, C elsewhere (§ 38) alters ταπεινοφρονῶν into
ταπεινοφρών.
ib. τὸ ὑποδεὲς} “ submissiveness’, ‘ subordination’. ‘This seems to be
the meaning of the word, which is very rare in the positive, though
common in the comparative ὑποδεέστερος ; see Epiphan. Her. xxvii. 14
τὸ ὑποδεὲς καὶ ἠλαττωμένον, ἃ Passage pointed out to me by Bensly.
Accordingly in the Syriac it is rendered diminutio et demissio. Laurent
says ‘Colomesius male substantivo swdyectio vertit. Collaudatur enim
h. 1. voluntaria sanctorum hominum egestas. Vid. Luk. 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 ὑποδεής could have this meaning, which belongs rather
to ἐνδεής. It might possibly mean ‘fearfulness’, a sense assigned to it by
Photius, Suidas, and Hesychius, who explain it ὑπόφοβος. But usage
suggests its connexion with δέομαι ‘zzdigeo’, like ἀποδεής, ἐνδεής, κατα-
Seys, rather than with δέος Zémor, like adeys, περιδεής.
p. 81 1. 39 54. τὰς πρὸ ἡμῶν γενεὰς] S; τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν C, omitting
γενεάς.
p82 Pre] ΟἿΣ om: 8.
p- 82 1. 2 αὐτοῦ] C; τοῦ Θεοῦ S.
Ῥ. 82 1. 3 πράξεων] C; add. τούτων, ἀδελφοὶ ἀγαπητοί S.
p- 82 1. 6 κόσμου] C; hujus mundi 8. See above p. 339.
p- 82 1. 8 κολληθῶμεν] C ; consideremus (= νοήσωμεν) et adhereamus S,
but this is probably only one of the periphrases in which the translator
abounds.
XX.
Ῥ. 821. 12 διοικήσει] C3 δικαιώσει 5.
p. 83 1. 15 ἥλιός τε καὶ] S; ἥλιος καὶ (.
ib. ἀστέρων τε χόροι] C; but S translates as if aorepés τε καὶ χόροι.
p. 83 1. 16 παρεκβάσεως] παραβάσεως C, which destroys the sense.
S translates 2 omni egressu cursus ipsorum, which probably represents
παρεκβάσεως, and where it seems to have read διὰ for δίχα. For the
whole passage comp. Afost. Const. vii. 34 φωστῆρες.. ἀπαράβατον
σώζοντες tov δολιχὸν καὶ κατ᾽ οὐδὲν παραλλάσσοντες τῆς ONS προσταγῆς.
In the immediate neighbourhood is the same quotation from Job xxxviil.
11 as here in Clement.
p- 83 1. 19 πανπλήθη] παμπλήθη C.
p. 83 1. 20 ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν] ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς C; cz dla 5.
ADDENDA. 419
p. 831. 23 κρίματα] This is also the reading of CS. It must have
been read moreover by the writer of the later books of the AZostolic
Constitutions, vil. 35 ἀνεξιχνίαστος κρίμασιν. Dr Hort calls my attention
to the connexion of words in Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 5 τὰ κρίματά cov [ὡσεὶ]
ἄβυσσος πολλή.
Ῥ. 841. 1 τὸ κύτος κιτ.λ.] See Apost. Const. vill. 12 ὁ συστησάμενος
ἄβυσσον καὶ μέγα κύτος αὐτῇ περιθείς... πηγαῖς ἀενάοις μεθύσας...
ἐνιαυτῶν κύκλοις...νεφῶν ὀμβροτόκων διαδρομαῖς εἰς καρπῶν γονὰς καὶ
ζῴων σύστασιν, στάθμον ἀνέμων διαπνεόντων x.t.A., where again the
resemblances cannot be accidental.
p. 84 1. 4 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
p- 84 1. 5 συντριβήσεται] συντριβήσονται C.
Ρ. 85 1. 6 ἀνθρώποις ἀπέρατος] ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις C. S translates
intransmeabilis (=amépatos). The proper meaning of ἀπέραντος,
‘boundless’, appears from Clem. Hom. xvi. 17, Xvil. 9, 10, where it is
found in close alliance with ἄπειρος. See also Clem. Alex. /ragm.
p- 1020. On the other hand for ἀπέρατος comp. e.g. Macar. Magn.
Apocr. iv. 13 (p. 179) pet τῷ θέρει καὶ τῷ χειμῶνι πολὺς Kal ἀπέρατος.
The lines in A are divided amepan|toc; and this division would assist
the insertion of the nN. An earlier scribe would write amepa|toc for
atepa'toc. See Didymus Zxfos. Psal. 138 (p. 1596 ed. Migne) εἰ yap
Kal ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος, GAN οὖν Kal of μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς TOD δεσπότου
διαταγαῖς διϊθύνονται: πάντα yap τὰ πρὸς αὐτοῦ γεγενημένα ὅποι [ὅποια Ὁ]
ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν ταγαῖς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ προνοίας διοικούμενα ἰθύνεται, quoted in the
Church Quarterly 11. p. 240. This language may have been derived
from Origen, and not directly from Clement. Anyhow the recognition
of both the various readings, tayats, διαταγαῖς, is worthy of notice.
Ρ. ὃς 1. 8 μεταπαραδιδόασιν! So apparently S; but μεταδιδόασιν C,
an apparent simplification, but a real injury to the sense.
ib. ἀνέμων] add. re CS. S translates ventigue locorum, as if it had
read avepol τε σταθμῶν.
p- 861. 1 τὴν] 8; καὶ τὴν Ὁ.
Ρ. 861. 2 ἀέναοι] ἀένναοι (. ib. ἀπόλαυσιν] C; add. τε 5.
ib. ὑγείαν] ὑγίειαν C.
Ρ. 86 1. 3 πρὸς ζωῆς] πρὸς ζωὴν (. S translates ea gue ad vitam,
omitting μαζούς altogether.
Ρ. 86 1. 5 συνελεύσεις] C; but S translates auxi/ia, as if it had read
συλλήψεις.
Ρ. 861. ὃ προσπεφευγότας] S; προσφεύγοντας (.
Ρ. 87 1. 10 καὶ 7 μεγαλωσύνη] C; om. 8,
420 ADDENDA,
XXI.
Ρ. 87 1. 13 εἰς κρίμᾳ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν] εἰς κρίματα σὺν ἡμῖν C; while
S translates z2 judicium nobis. The reading of C is explained by a
confusion of KpimaTracin and KpiMaTacyN ; and S is a correction of the
reading so corrupted. The singular might be accounted for here by
the absence of 7vébui, but in ὃ 28 (see below on p. tor 1. 22) the
translator deliberately substitutes the singular for the plural in this same
word. The σὺν seems to have been dropped purposely; see above
Ρ. 245.
p. 571. 14 αὐτοῦ C; om. 5.
p. 87 1. 17 ἐστιν] C; add. nobis S. 70. τι} C; Om. (7) a:
G05, 1.2 λιποτακτεῖν] λειποτακτεῖν C. ‘There is poetical authority
for the simple vowel in λιποτάξιον : see Meineke Fragm. Com. τι. p.
1214, Ill. p. 71, with the notes. So too in analogous words, wherever
they occur in verse, the form in c is found: e.g. λιπαυγής, λιπόναυς, λιπο-
ναύτης, λιπόπνοος, λιποσαρκής, λιποψυχεῖν. The grammarians differed on
this point: see Chzroboscus in Cramer’s Anecd. τι. p. 239 λέγει ὁ Ὧρος
ὅτι πάντα τὰ παρὰ TO λείπω διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφεται, οἷον λειπόνεως,
λειποταξία, λειποτάξιον, λειποστράτιον" ὁ δὲ ᾿Ωριγένης διὰ τοῦ ι λέγει γρά-
φεσθαι. There seems to be no poetical and therefore indisputable
authority for the εἰ.
Ρ. 88 1. 2 μᾶλλον] C; add. dS.
p. 88 1. 5 Χριστον] om. CS.
pe oo L 7 κῶν] om. Cs.
p. 88 1. 8 rod φόβου] C; om. 5.
Ρ. 88 1. 10 ἐνδειξάσθωσαν] Bryennios is wrong in giving ἐνδειξάτωσαν
as the reading of A and Clem. Alex. ; for both have ἐνδειξάσθωσαν. Yet
he quotes the passage of Clem. Alex. again in his preface (p. pxd’) with
ἐνδειξάτωσαν.
Ρ. 88 1. 11 βούλημα] C. 55 translates as if καὶ βούλημα.
p. 88 1. 12 σιγῆς] This reading, which the sense requires and which
with Hilgenfeld I had inserted in the text from Clem. Alex., is now
confirmed by CS.
Ρ. 88 1. 13 προσκλίσεις] S; προσκλήσεις C. This same itacism occurs
several times in C, § 47, 50.
p. 89 1. 15 ἡμῶν] S; ὑμῶν C.
Ῥ. 89 1. 17 τῷ Θεῷ] Θεῷ (om. τῷ) (Ὁ.
Ῥ. 89 1. 18 ὁσίως] C; θείως 5. For other instances of this same
confusion see above (p. 404) the note on p. 38 1. 3.
p: 89 1. 21 ἀνελεῖ] ἀναιρεῖ CS.
ADDENDA. 421
XXII.
p- 89 l. 22 δὲ] C; om. S.
Ρ. 89 1. 23 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
p. 89 L 25 τίς éorw...p. 90 1. 7 ἐρύσατο αὐτόν] om. C, the words
running on διδάξω ὑμᾶς" εἶτα πολλαὶ αἱ μάστιγες x.7.X., where εἶτα is
introduced to link the parts together. See above p. 230.
Ρ. 90]. τ καὶ] om. S. 7b. χείλη] add. σου S with the 1ΧΧ.
Ρ. 90 1. 3 ὀφθαλμοὶ] C ; ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ S.
Ρ. 90 1. 7 αὐτὸν] S here adds Πολλαὶ αἱ θλίψεις τοῦ δικαίου καὶ ἐκ
πασῶν αὐτῶν ῥύσεται αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος" καὶ πάλιν. This is from Ps. xxxiv
(xxxill). 20, the verse but one following the preceding quotation. The
Lxx however has the plural τῶν δικαίων, αὐτούς. The words have
obviously been omitted in AC owing to the recurrence of Πολλαὶ ai,
and should be restored accordingly.
p- 91 1. 8 τοὺς δὲ ἐλπίζοντας] τὸν δὲ ἐλπίζοντα CS, with the Lxx.
XXITI.
Ῥ. 91 1. 11 φοβουμένους] τοὺς φοβουμένους C. |
p- 91 1. 15 πόρρω γενέσθω] S; πόρρω ye γενέσθω C. See below on
στο τὶ
Ρ. 91 1. 16 αὕτη] S; αὐτοῦ C. By an inadvertence air is printed
for αὕτη in my edition.
Ρ. 92]. τ τὴν ψυχήν] τῇ ψυχῇ (. S is doubtful.
Ρ. 92]. 3 συνβέβηκεν] συμβέβηκεν C.
Ῥ. 92]. 4 πρῶτον μὲν φυλλοροεῖ] S; om. C.
p- 92 1. 5 sq. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα] C; translated in S as if εἶτα, the καὶ
being omitted.
XXIV.
Ρ. 93 1. 13 ἐπιδείκνυται διηνεκῶς ἡμῖν] διηνεκῶς ἡμῖν ἐπιδείκνυσι C ;
monstrat nobis perpetuo S.
Ρ. 93 1. 14 τὴν ἀπαρχὴν] C; add. ἤδη 8.
Ρ. 93 1. 15 Χριστὸν] S; om. C.
p- 93 1. τό καιροὺς] This reading, which I ventured for reasons given
in the note to substitute for the καιρὸν of previous editors, was adopted
by Gebhardt (ed. 1). C however has καιρόν. S translates iz omni
tempore. 2b. γινομένην] C; add. ἡμῖν 8.
p- 93 1. 17 κοιμᾶται.. ἡμέρα] C; S translates as if it had read κοι-
parat [τις] νυκτός, ἀνίσταται ἡμέρας, ‘a man sleeps in the night, he arises
in the day’.
Ρ. 93 1. 18 ἡμέρα] So too Gebh. ; but C has ἡ ἡμέρα. 1 still think
422 ADDENDA.
that ἡμέρα is correct on account of the parallelism. The omission or
reduplication of a letter in such cases in the MSs is very common.
Having inspected A again, I abide by the statement in my note.
2b. βλέπωμεν] λάβωμεν CS.
p- 93 1. 19 ὁ σπόρος τῆς γῆς] This mode of filling the lacuna is
approved by Tisch. and was adopted by Gebh. (ed. 1). The gram-
matical objection which I urged against 6 σπόρος κόκκου of previous
editors is sustained by CS, which however read ὁ σπόρος πῶς καὶ.
Ρ. 93 1. 20 sq. ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γῆν᾽ καὶ βληθέντων σπερμάτων, ἅτινα
πέπτωκεν k.t.A.| None of the editors have here supplied the lacuna
aright. ‘The words in C stand thus; ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἕκαστον τῶν
σπερμάτων, ἅτινα πεσόντα κιτ.λ. ; and the text of S was the same so far,
but the remainder of the sentence is translated as if for ξηρὰ καὶ γυμνά it
had read énpav.
XXYV.
p- 95 note. The passage of Job xxix. 18, in relation to the phoenix,
is the subject of a paper by Merx in his Archiv Κὶ Wiss. Forsch. ὦ, Alt.
Test. απ. p. 104 sq. (1871). On the Talmudical references see also
Lewysohn Zoologie des Talmuds Ὁ. 352 sq. ‘The passage in the Assump-
tion of Moses is discussed by Ronsch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. XVII. p. 553 Sq., 1874. Ronsch takes the reading profectio
Phenices, and explains it of the ‘migration from Pheenicia’, i.e. Canaan,
into Egypt under Jacob. And others also take fyzzcis to mean Phcenicia,
explaining it however in different ways. See Hilgenfeld’s note to JdZos.
Assumpi. p. 130. In this way the phoenix entirely disappears from the
passage. The phcenix is the subject of an elaborate paper by Larcher
in the MWém. def Acad. des Inscriptions etc. τ. p. 166 sq. (1815).
p. 96 1. 1 μονογενές] See also Paradise Lost v. 272 ‘A phoenix gaz’d
by all, as that σοί 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 Heliopolis? The statement about the
phoenix in Afost. Const. v. 7 φασὶ yap ὄρνεόν τι povoyeves ὑπάρχειν K.T.A.
is evidently founded on this passage of Clement; comp. e.g. εἰ τοίνυν...
ou ἀλόγου ὀρνέου δείκνυται ἡ ἀνάστασις κιτιλ. with Clement’s language
in § 26.
Ῥ. 97 1. 2 γενόμενόν te] γενόμενον δὲ CS.
p- 98 1. 2 τοῦ χρόνου] C; add. vite sue S.
Ῥ. 981. 3 τελευτᾷ] ( ; add. 2» alo 5.
ib. σηπομένης δὲ] 5.; σηπομένης τε C.
ADDENDA. A23
Ρ. 98 1. 4 γεννᾶται] ἐγγεννᾶται CS. The latter translates nascitur in
ea illic. ib. ὃς] C 3 ὅστις apparently S. ib. τετελευτηκότος]
τελευτήσαντος C.
p. 98 1. 6 σηκὸν ἐκεῖνον] C; S adds An 05 (-Ξ κυκλόθεν αὐτοῦ).
Ρ. 98 1, ὃ διανύει] So C, in place of the corrupt form διανεύει of A.
S translates mzgrat volans.
p- 98 L το πάντων] ἁπάντων C. ib. ἐπιπτὰς]} S; om. C,
obviously owing to the following ἐπί
p- 98 L 11 ἱερεῖς] C; add. οἱ τῆς Αἰγύπτου 5.
Ρ. 99 l. 13 πεπληρωμένου] S; πληρουμένου C.
XXVI.
Ρ. 99 1. 21 ἐξηγέρθην] καὶ ἐξηγέρθην CS.
Ρ. 991. 23 ἀναντλήσασαν] ἀντλήσασαν C. S has cuit ( portavit).
XXVII.
p. 100 1. 1 προσδεδέσθωσαν] S; προσδεχέσθωσαν C.
Ρ. 100 1. 2 ἐν] om. Ὁ. 2b. τῷ δικαίῳ] dixatw (om. τῷ) C,
and so apparently S.
Ρ. 100 l. 5 τῷ] om. Ὁ. ἐζ. τὸ] So apparently S; om. C.
Ρ. 100 1. 8 τὰ πάντα] So probably S; πάντα C.
p. 100 1. 11 ποιήσει] S; ποιῆσαι C.
p. τοῦ 1. 13 of] om. C.
Ρ. ror ]. 14 χειρῶν] 5; om. C.
Ῥ. ror 1. 15 sq. ἡ ἡμέρα...γνῶσιν] S; om. Ὁ.
p. ror 1. 16 ἀναγγέλλει] C ; ἀναγγελεῖ 5.
p- ror ]. 16 sq. οὐκ εἰσὶν... οὐχὶ] om. C. S transposes λόγοι and
Aadvai, as in the LXx.
p- 101 l. 17 αὐτῶν] S; om. C. The text of S is perhaps corrupted ;
but, as it stands, it appears as if it had translated ταῖς φωναῖς, xdpa
instead of wbp..
XXVIII.
Ρ. ror ]. 18 οὖν] re (Π"2) S; om. C.
p- ror |. 19 ἀπολείπωμεν] ἀπολίπτωμεν C.
p. 101 ]. 20 puapds] S; BAaBepds C. It is accented in this way by
Bryennios.
Ρ. 101 1. 22 τῶν μελλόντων κριμάτων] C3; τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίματος
Cpnyt 89%) S. As γέφιὲ will not make the difference here, the singular
must have been deliberately substituted. See also ὃ 21 (on p. 87 1]. 13).
p. ror 1. 24 ποῦ ἀφήξω] C; ποῖ ἀφήξω (apparently) S.
424 ADDENDA.
p. 102]. 2 εἶ ἐκεῖ] ἐκεῖ εἶ CS. ib. ἐκεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου] S; σὺ
ἐκεῖ εἶ (.
p. 102 1. 4 ποῖ οὖν] ποῦ οὖν C; ποῖ (om. οὖν) 5. ib. ποῦ
ἀποδράσῃ] ποῖ ἀποδράσῃ (or -σει) S apparently ; ποῦ τις ἀποδράσει C.
p- 102.. 5 χὰ} om. C; and so S apparently.
XXIX.
p. 103 1.6. ony); om. S,
p- 103 1. g μέρος] add. ἡμᾶς CS.
p. 103 l. ro On this passage, Deut. xxxii. 8, see also Bleek ebraer-
brief Ul. p. 229 sq.
p- 104 1. 1 ἐγενήθη] C3 καὶ ἐγενήθη S.
p. 104 1. 5 aya] C; S has a singular (wytp), but it may not represent
a different reading. |
*
XXX.
Ρ. 104 1. 6 ᾿Αγίου οὖν pepis] “Ayia οὖν μέρη C, but this destroys
the point of the passage. S reads ‘Ayia ovv pepis, an intermediate
reading: see the introduction p. 245.
p-no5-L48 re] Ss™oms.C. ib. λάγνους] avayvouvs CS.
2b. συμπλοκάς] C ; καὶ συμπλοκάς S, which renders συμπλοκάς by conten-°
tiones ( jurgia).
p. 105 1. 9 μυσερὰν μοιχείαν, βδελυκτὴν κιτ.λ.] μυσεράν (μυσαράν C)
τε μοιχείαν καὶ βδελυκτὴν κιτ.λ. CS.
p- 105 ]. 10 Θεὸς] ὁ Θεὸς C.
patos, Lanecmolss)om.uc:
p- 105 1]. 14 καταλαλιάς.. ἑαυτούς] C; S translates as if xatadaduas...
ἑαυτῶν, Connecting ἀπὸ παντὸς ψιθυρισμοῦ with ἐγκρατευόμενοι.
Pp. 505.1.31Ὲ καὶ Ss%om iC.
Ρ. 106 1. τ ἢ] εἰ C; ἣ (apparently) S, which translates the whole sen-
tence, (We gui multum dicit et audit in hac (hoc) quod qui bene loquitur etc.
p- 106 |. 2 εὐλογημένος] om. C; while S substitutes γεννητός, thus
repeating the word twice, 415» ἐφ τῶν,
p- 106 lL. 3 ἡμῶν] S; ὑμῶν C.
p. 106 1. 4 Θεῷ] τῷ Θεῷ C. ib. yap| C; om. δὲ
p- 106 1. 5 ἀγαθῆς} 5: om. C. 2b. ἡμῶν] ὑμῶν CS.
p- 106 1. ὃ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ] S; om. C; see above p. 228.
Ρ. 106 1. 9 πραὔτης] πραότης C. S transposes ταπεινοφροσύνη and
mpavtys, but this is probably only for the convenience of translation ;
see above p. 239.
ADDENDA. 425
XXXI.
Ρ- 107 1. 14 διὰ πίστεως] S; om. C.
Ρ. 107 1. τό ἡδέως] C3 καὶ ἡδέως S, if indeed it be not an accidental
error of some Syriac transcriber. ib. ἐγένετο] προσήγετο CS.
XXXII.
p. 107 1. 20 “Eav] This was accepted by Tisch. and Gebh. (ed. 1)
in place of εἰ read by previous editors, and is confirmed by C, which
reads “O av. This appears to be a corruption, though accepted by
Bryennios and subsequent editors. S has φῆ sé as if ἃ ἐάν.
In my lower note ‘conjunctive’ should be read for ‘ conjunction’.
p. 107 1. 21 ra] om. Ὁ.
p. 107 1. 22 αὐτοῦ] S; αὐτῶν C, with A. 2b. ἱερεῖς] ot ἱερεῖς C.
ib. τε] om. CS.
p. 108 1. 3 xara] C; οἱ κατὰ 5, a repetition of the last syllable of
ἡγούμενοι. In Iren. Fragm. 17 (Stieren, p. 836) a double descent is
ascribed to our Lord, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα τὸ κατὰ odpKe, ws βασι-
λεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς, ἐγεννήθη.
p. 108 1. 4 δὲ] τε CS. ib, αὐτοῦ] S; om. C.
p. 108 1. 5 δόξῃ] S; τάξει C. 2b. τοῦ] om. C.
p- 108 l. g αὐτοῦ] C; τοῦ Θεοῦ 5. 2b. καὶ npeis...0edArparos
_avtov| S; om. C, obviously owing to the homeeoteleuton.
Ρ. 109 l. 14 πάντας] ἅπαντας C.
p- 109 lL. 15 τῶν αἰώνων] S; om. C. See also below on p. 1411]. 20,
XXXII.
Ῥ. 109 lL. 16 Τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελφοί] S; Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, ἀγαπητοί C.
This variation is obviously suggested by 5. Paul’s language in Rom.
vi. 1, where the argument is the same: see above p. 227.
ib. apynowpev| ἀργήσομεν Ὁ.
p- 109 1. 17 καὶ] S; om. C. ib. ἐγκαταλείπωμεν] κατα-
λίπομεν C. The reading of S is doubtful.
p- τος note. For ‘S. Paul and S. John’ read ‘S. Paul and 5. James’.
Mai (Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vit. p. 84) in his extracts from Leontii
et Johannis Rer. Sacr. Lib. ii, after giving an extract ascribed to
Clement of Rome (printed p. 213 of my edition), says in a note ‘Et
quidem in codice exstat locus ex 1 ad Cor. cap. 33, quem exscribere
supersedeo’ etc. This language led me (pp. 10, 109) without hesitation
to ascribe the quotation from § 33 also to this work of Leontius and
John, as Hilgenfeld had done before me. To this Harnack takes
exception (p. Ixxiii), stating that the extract in question occurs ‘in libro
426 ADDENDA.
quodam zucerti auctoris (sine jure conjecerunt Hilgf. et Lightf. in Leondzz
et Ioannis Sacr. Rer. lib.)’.. He seems to have interpreted Mai’s ‘in
codice’ not, as it naturally would be interpreted, ‘in ¢#e manuscript’, but
‘in @ manuscript’. Accordingly elsewhere (p. 117) he quotes Dressel’s
words ‘ Melius profecto fuisset, si ipsum locum exscripsisset [ Maius] aut
Msti numerum indicasset. Codicem adhuc quaero’, and adds ‘ Virum
summe reverendum Vercellone(t), qui rogatu Dresselii schedulas Angeli
Maii summa cum diligentia perquisivit, nihil de hoc capite invenisse,
Dresselius mecum Romae mens. April. ann. 1874 communicavit’.
Not satisfied with this, I wrote to my very kind friend Signor
Ignazio Guidi in Rome, asking him to look at the ms of Leontius and
John and see if the extract were not there. There was some difficulty
in finding the Ms, as it was brought to the Vatican from Grotta Ferrata
after the alphabetical catalogue was far advanced, and is not included
therein ; but through the intervention of Prof. Cozza it was at length
found. As I expected, the extract is there. Signor Guidi, whom I
sincerely thank for all the trouble which he has taken on my behalf in
this as in other matters, sends me the following transcript.
Cod. Grae. Vat. 1553. f. 22
A es, VF , eae 3 A ‘ θί 9 λῆ
τοῦ ἁγίου κλήμεντος ῥώμης ἐκ τῆς πρὸς κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῶν ἁπάντων ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
ἀγάλλεται τῷ γὰρ παμμεγεστάτῳ (sic) αὐτοῦ κράτει οὐρανοὺς ἐστήριξεν καὶ
τῇ ἀκαταλήπτῳ αὐτοῦ συνέσει διεκόσμησεν αὐτούς: γῆν δὲ διεχώρισεν ἀπὸ
τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐτὴν ὕδατος καὶ ἕδρασεν (sic) ἐπὶ τὸν ἀσφαλῆ τοῦ ἰδιου
θελήματος θεμέλιον" ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν ἐξοτατον (sic) καὶ παμμεγέθη ἄνθρωπον
ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα"
“ , e Ν / + > 3) oe \ oe ,
οὕτως yap φησιν ὁ θεὸς ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν
ἡμετέραν" καὶ ἐποίησεν 6 θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς"
μετέρ ἢ ρ ρ ῆ n
ταῦτα οὖν πάντα τελειώσας ἐπαίνεσεν (Sic) αὐτὰ καὶ εὐλόγησεν Kal εἶπεν
αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε.
“ cd aA ΕῚ a wn 9 A
τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς O ἐπιστολῆς
ἵνα καὶ γενώμεθα «.7.A. (as printed above p. 213).
It will be seen by a comparison of this quotation in Leontius
and John from § 33 with the same passage as quoted by John of
Damascus, that the latter:cannot have taken it directly from Clement
but must have derived it from these earlier collectors of extracts.
Ρ. 110 ]. 1 ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ye γενηθῆναι] ep ἡμῖν γενηθῆναι CS. In a
former passage (see above on p. g1 1. 15) we have seen the same
phenomenon, though the relations of A and C are there reversed,
A omitting and C inserting ye. The ye is required here.
ADDENDA. 427
Ρ. 110 1. 4 δημιουργὸς «.7.A.] So Clem. Hom. xvii. 8 πάντων δημιουρ-
yov καὶ δεσπότην ὄντα. This is not the only passage where the author
of the Clementine Homilies betrays the influence of the genuine
Clement: see pp. Io, 61.
p- 110 1. 5 ἀγαλλιᾶται] ἀγάλλεται C, and so Leont., Damasc.
p. 110 1. 6 τῇ] Leont., Damasc.; ἐν τῇ C. S is doubtful.
p- t10 l. to ἑαυτοῦ] S; ἑαυτών C. 20. διατάξει} I ventured to
substitute this for the προστάξει of previous editors. It was accepted
by Gebhardt, and is found in C. S has mandato, which doubtless
represents διατάξει.
p. 111 l. 11 θάλασσάν τε καὶ] θάλασσαν καὶ CS. ib. προδη-
μιουργήσας] προετοιμάσας CS.
p. 111 1. 12 70 ἐξοχώτατον.... ἄνθρωπον] So also C, except that it has
παμμεγεθέστατον for παμμέγεθες (see above p. 228). On the other
hand Leont., Damasc., S read tov ἐξοχώτατον (ἐξοτατον Leont. Ms) καὶ
παμμεγέθη ἄνθρωπον, omitting κατὰ διάνοιαν. Evidently these two
words were a stumbling-block.
p- 111]. 15 οὕτως] Leont., Damasc. ; οὕτω C.
p. 111 1. το εἴδομεν] ἴδωμεν CS. 2b. trot| In my note I sug-
gested the omission of this word, and Gebhardt accordingly omitted it.
It is wanting in CS.
Ρ. 111 l. 20 ἐκοσμήθησαν)] C; ἐκοιμήθησαν S.
p. 112]. 1 οὖν] δὲ CS. ib. ἔργοις] add. ἀγαθοῖς CS.
p. 112 L. 3 eg] καὶ Ἐξ CS. tb. ἰσχύος] τῆς ἰσχύος C.
XXXIV.
p. 112 1. 6 ὁ νωθρὸς] C3 ὁ δὲ νωθρὸς 5.
p. 112 1]. 7 ἀντοφθαλμεῖν] Comp. ἀντομματεῖν Apost. Const. vi. 2.
Ρ. 112 1. 8 ἡμᾶς] C3; ὑμᾶς 5.
p. 112]. 9 ἐξ αὐτοῦῇ C. S translates as if it referred to προθύμους
ὑμᾶς εἶναι εἰς ἀγαθοποιΐαν.
p. 112]. 10 ὁ Κύριος] Κύριος (om. ὁ) Ὁ.
Ρ. 113. 12 ἐξ ὅλης] CS insert πιστεύοντας before these words. The
insertion simplifies the construction and is doubtless correct ; see above
p. 226. ib. tynret| μηδὲ C, and so probably S; as it is pointed
out in my note that usage requires.
Ρ. 113 1. 18 παρειστήκεισαν....ἐλειτούργουν] C; but S translates them
as presents.
p- 113 1. 20 κτίσις] 5; γῇ C.
Ρ. 113]. 21 τῇ συνειδήσει] translated in S zz una conscientia. On
the meaning of συνείδησις here, see above, p. 404.
428 ADDENDA.
p. 114]. 2 ὀφθαλμὸς] ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς CS, as in τ Cor. il. 9.
pi ΤΥ ΙΗ 3 ὅσα] (C5 om.:S. 20. ἡτοίμασεν] add. Κύριος CS.
In x Cor. ii. 9 it is ὁ Θεὸς. ib. τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν] τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν CS;
obviously from 1 Cor. i. 9. Itis clear on the other hand, that Clement
read τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν from the words which follow at the beginning of
the next chapter, τίνα οὖν apa ἐστὶν τὰ ἑτοιμαζόμενα τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ;
see below on p. 144 1. 2. For the expedient of S to reestablish the
connexion which has thus been severed by the substitution of a different
word, see below on p. 116 ]. 5.
XXXV.
p. 115 1. ὃ ὑπέπιπτεν πάντα] ὑποπίπτει πάντα C ; ὑποπίπτοντα S, some
letters having dropped out, γποπιπτεί πὰ ἰντὰ.
p- 116 l. 2 sq. καὶ πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων ὁ πανάγιος] S; τῶν αἰώνων καὶ
πατὴρ πανάγιος Cc.
p. 116 l. 3 πανάγιος]) Mr Bensly has pointed out to me that the
word occurs in 4 Macc. vii. 4, xiv. 7, a work which is supposed to be
earlier by a few years than Clement’s epistle.
p- 116]. 5 ὑπομενόντων] C; add. καὶ ἀγαπώντων S, obviously in
order to bring the statement into connexion with the altered form of
quotation adopted at the end of the preceding chapter, τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν
αὐτὸν for τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν. ib. αὐτόν] om. CS.
p. 1161.6 τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων δωρεῶν] τῶν δωρεῶν τῶν ἐπηγγελμέ-
νων C, and so probably 5.
p. 116 1. 7 ἀγαπητοί) C; om. S. ib. ἢ ἡ] ἡ (om. ἢ) Ὁ. ib. διὰ
πίστεως] διὰ being absent from A and supplied by the editors generally
after Young. This is confirmed by S, which has fer Μάη. On the
other hand C reads simply πιστῶς, which was Hilgenfeld’s emendation ;
but it must be regarded merely as a scribe’s correction of πίστεως after
the διὰ had disappeared; see above, p. 245.
p. 1161.8 ἐκζητῶμεν] ἐκζητήσωμεν C. ib. τὰ εὐάρεστα καὶ
εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτῷ] 8; τὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ εὐάρεστα αὐτῷ καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα C.
Ρ. 117 1. 12 ἀνομίαν] πονηρίαν CS. ib. πλεονεξίαν] S; om. C.
p. 117 1. 13 ὑπερηφανίαν τε] C ; καὶ ὑπερηφανίαν 5.
p. 117 1. 14 ἀφιλοξενίαν] the reading of CS. The duty of φιλοξενία
was the subject of a special treatise by Melito, Euseb. H. £. iv. 26.
p- 117 1. 18 διηγῇ] ἐκδιηγῇ Ὁ. This is a various reading in the Lxx
also. S is doubtful. .
p. 117 1. 19 ἐπὶ} dua CS:
Ρ. 117 Δ. 20 od δὲ. ΟΡ... 118 1. 2 0 pvopevos] om. C. After the
Omission comes καὶ ἐν τῶ τέλει θυσία αἰνέσεως κ.τ.λ.
bo
ADDENDA. 429
p. 117 1. 22 ἐπλεόνασεν] ἐπλεόναζεν 5.
p. 117 1. 26 dvope| ἀνομίαν S, a various reading in the Lxx.
Ρ. 118 1. I παραστήσω σε κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου) παραστήσω κατὰ
πρόσωπόν σου τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου S, a various reading in the Lxx; see
Ῥ. 244.
p. 118 1. 4 ἡ] ἣν CS, and so some Mss of the Lxx. ib. αὐτῷ] C ;
αὐτοῖς 5. ib. τοῦ Θεοῦ] S; μου Ὁ.
p. 118 1. 8 τούτου] ( ; τοῦτο S, and so Il. 9, το, but not Il. 11, 13.
ib. ἀτενίσωμεν)] ἀτενίζομεν C; contemplemur (or contemplabimur) 5.
p. 118 1. 9 ἐνοπτριζόμεθα] C3; videamus (or videbimus) tanguam in
spetule S.
XXXVI.
p. 119 1. 10 ἠνεώωχθησαν] ἀνεώχθησαν C.
p- 119]. 12 θαυμαστὸν] C; om. S, with Clem. Alex. See the note
on ὃ 59; p. 286 above. Comp. also Clem. Alex. Ped. i. 6 (p. 117) πρὸς
τὸ αἴδιον ἀνατρἔέχομεν φῶς. 27. αὐτοῦ] om. CS, with Clem. Alex.
p- 119 l. 13 τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεως] C; but S translates mortis
scienli@, i.e. θανάτου γνώσεως, where τῆς has been absorbed in the
final syllable of the preceding δεσπότης and θανάτου is written for
ἀθανάτου. For an instance of θάνατος for ἀθάνατος see [Clem. Rom.]
ll. § το (p. 339), and conversely of ἀθάνατος for θάνατος, Ign. ΚΖ 2}. 7.
p. 119 l. 15 ὅσῳ] The reading of A is ocw, not οσῶ ( -- οσων), as 1
have incorrectly stated.
p. 119 1. τό ὄνομα KexAnpovopnKev] κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα C, as in
Heb. i. 4.
p- 119 1. 18 πυρὸς φλόγα] φλόγα πυρὸς C, as e.g. Rev. 11. 18; for
here C departs from the text of Heb. i. 7, which has πυρὸς φλόγα.
XXXVII.
p- 121 1. τι εὐεικτικῶς] ἑκτικῶς C; Jeniter (placide) ΤΣ) S.
The word ἑκτικῶς means ‘habitually’, and so ‘familiarly’, ‘ easily’,
‘readily’ (i.e. ‘as a matter of habit’); comp. Epict. Déss. ii. 24. 78
συλλογισμοὺς ἵν᾽ ἀναλύσῃς ἑκτικώτερον, Plut. Mor. 802 F ἑκτικῶς ἢ
τεχνικῶς ἢ διαιρετικῶς, Porph. de Abst. iv. 20 τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ συμμένειν
εἴποις ἂν καὶ τοῦ ἑκτικῶς διαμένειν, Diod. Sic. iii. 4 μελέτῃ πολυχρονίῳ
καὶ μνήμῃ γυμνάζοντες τὰς ψυχάς ἑκτικῶς ἕκαστα τῶν γεγραμμένων
ἀναγινώσκουσι, i.e. ‘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. Dyess. ii. 18. 4 εἴ τι ποιεῖν ἐθέλεις ἑκτικόν.
CLEM. 28
430 ADDENDA.
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 it has eyektik[wc] as described in
my note, and not εγέκτωζο] as read by Tisch.; for the latter has
no relation to the ἑκτικῶς of C. The ey (altered from εἰ, as it was
first written) must be explained by the preceding ΕΥ̓ of εὐτάκτως catching
the scribe’s eye as he was forming the initial letters of either εκτικῶὼς
or elktikwc. He had written as far as Εἰ, and at this point he was
misled by the same conjunction of letters Twcey just before. Whether
this Εἰ was the beginning of elKTIKWc, or an incomplete ek as the begin-
ning of extik@c, may be doubtful. In the latter case we must suppose
that the second 1, written above the line, was a deliberate (and perhaps
later) emendation to get a word with an adequate sense; but on the
whole it seems more probable that he had eixtikac in his copy, and
not εκτικὼς as read in C. If so, εἰκτικῶς has the higher claim to be
regarded as the word used by Clement. It is difficult to say whether
the rendering in S represents εἰκτικῶς or ἑκτικῶς. _ In the Peshito Luke
vii. 25 δὲ" stands for μαλακός, and in the Harclean Mark xiii. 28
for ἁπαλόςς Thus it seems slightly nearer to εἰκτικῶς than to ἑκτικώς.
The word εἰκτικός occurs Orig. de Princ. il. 15 (1. p. 124), and occasion-
ally elsewhere. On these adjectives in -txos see Lobeck Phryn. p. 228.
Ῥ. 121 l. 12 ἐπιτελοῦσιν] τελοῦσι C. The reading of S is doubtful.
ib. ov πάντες κιτ.λ.] Comp. Senec. De Trang. An. 4 ‘ Quid si militare
nolis nisi imperator aut tribunus? etiamsi alii primam frontem tenebunt,
te sors inter triarios posuerit, inde voce, adhortatione, exemplo, animo
milita’.
p. 121]. 13 ἔπαρχοι] C; 5 adopts the Greek word ὕπαρχοι, but it
perhaps does not imply any variation in the Greek text.
p- 121 1. 15 ἐπιτασσόμενα] ὑποτασσόμενα C. The converse error
appears in the Ms of Ign. Aphes. 2 ἐπιτασσόμενοι for ὑποτασσόμενοι.
p. 122 l. 3 οὐδέν ἐστιν] So probably S; ἐστιν οὐδέν C.
p. 122]. 5 συνπνεῖ] συμπνεῖ C.
p- 122 1. 6 χρῆται] χρᾶται C; see the note on p. 195 1. 21 in these
Addenda (below, p. 452).
XXXVITI.
p. 122 1. 9 “Iyaod] om. CS.
p. 122 1. τὸ καὶ] “om: 'CS.
p. 122 1. rr μὴ ἀτημελείτω] where A has μητμμελειτω. CS read
ADDENDA. 431
τημελείτω, Omitting the μὴ. Obviously the a of ἀτημελείτω had already
disappeared in their Mss, as it has in A, and they are obliged to strike
out the counterbalancing negative μὴ in order to restore the sense;
see above, p. 245.
p. 122 1. 11 sq. ἐντρεπέτω] ἐντρεπέσθω C. This is demanded by
the sense. The active ἐντρεπέτω, as read in A, cannot have the meaning
‘reverence’, which is required here. I cannot explain how I over-
looked this very necessary correction. It is no excuse that all the
editors before and after me, apparently without exception, were equally
guilty with myself. Yet Gebhardt (ed. 2) still retains the solcecistic
ἐντρεπέτω.
p. 123 1. 15 sq. ἐν ἔργοις]Ϊ͵ ἔργοις C, thus omitting the preposition in
the second clause, while conversely Clem. Alex. omits it in the first
and retains it in the second. S has it in both; but no stress can be
laid on the fact, since the translator frequently repeats the preposition
when it does not recur in the Greek: see above, p. 239 sq.
p- 123 1. 16 ταπεινοφρονῶν] and so probably 5. ; ταπεινόφρων C, as
also Clem. Alex. See above, on p. 81 1. 29.
p- 123 1. 17 ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου ἑαυτὸν] ἑαυτὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου C. S translates the
sentence sed αὖ aliis testimonium detur (μαρτυρείσθω) super ipso.
Ρ. 123 1. 18 ἔστω καὶ] Laurent in his edition substitutes ἤτω καὶ
which is an improvement on his first suggestion, since ἤτω is better
adapted to the space, besides being the form of the imperative found
elsewhere in Clement, § 48. CS omit the words altogether reading
ὁ ἁγνὸς ἐν TH σαρκὶ μὴ ἀλαζονευέσθω, as does Clem. Alex. : see above,
p- 245. Here again the corrector’s hand is manifest; see my note,
p. 123. Dr Hort would read στήτω καὶ, comparing 1 Cor. vil. 37.
Ρ. 123 1. 21 καὶ τίνες] C; om. S. tb. εἰσήλθαμεν] εἰσήλ-
θομεν Ὁ.
Ρ. 123 1. 22 ὡς ἐκ τοῦ τάφου] ἐκ ποίου τάφου CS; a great improve-
ment. ib. ὃ ποιήσας] ὁ πλάσας CS.
p. 1241.1 τὸν κόσμον] C; Aunc mundum S, but it probably does
not represent a various reading ; see above, p. 339.
p. 124 1. 3 κατὰ πάντα] C; om. 5.
XXXIX.
“ΠΡ. 124 L 6 "Adpoves...draideutor] S; "Adpoves καὶ ἀπαίδευτοι καὶ
μωροὶ Ὁ.
Ρ. 1241. 11 καθαρὸς] C; xban corruptor S; see above p. 242. The
translator may perhaps have had φθόρος in his text. ib. ἔσται] C ;
ἐστιν S, th. ἔναντι] ἐναντίον C.
28—2
432 ADDENDA.
piteqll το εὖ’ -Cs.9 8.
p. 125]. 13 αὐτοῦ] ἑαυτοῦ C. ib. οὐ] C3 om. 5.
ib. πιστεύει] C; πιστεύσει 5.
p. 125]. 16 ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς] C; ἔπεσον αὐτοῦ S; see above, p. 245-
ib. σητὸς τρόπον] Tisch. now accepts my reading of A.
2: 27 ὅτι} Cy om. &
pr τ25 core} SS. ib. σοι] so probably S; σου C.
ib. dm) Sper C.
p. 125 1. 22 dé] C; om. S. ib. βαλόντας] βάλλοντας C; and
S also has a present. ib. εὐθέως} εὐθὺς C.
p- 126 ]. τ ἐκείνοις ἡτοίμασται] C; ἐκεῖνοι ἡτοίμασαν 5. The Lxx
has ἐκεῖνοι συνήγαγον.
ΧΙ,
p. 126]. 2 τούτων] C; add. ἀδελφοί 5.
p. 127 |. 5 cea} Ἐπ, τῶν (os?) 'S.
p. 128]. 1 ἐπιμελῶς] Of this conjectural insertion of mine Gebh.
says ‘fort. recte’. It is wanting however in C, as well as in A. This
_ is not the only instance where the recurrence of the same letters has
led to an omission in both mss. The awkwardness created by the
omission of ἐπιμελῶς is remedied in S by omitting also ἐπιτελεῖσθαι
καὶ ; see above, p. 245.
Ρ. 128 1. 2 tékéAevoevt] The obeli and the critical note are wrongly
assigned to this ἐκέλευσεν through inadvertence. They belong to the
previous ἐκέλευσεν (p. 127 1. 5), as indeed the tenour of the note
shows. This error is pointed out by Tisch. (Pref p. vill), and
Gebhardt has tacitly transferred my remarks to the proper ἐκέλευσεν.
C has ἐκέλευσε in p. 127 1. 5, and this was also the reading of 5.
ib. ἀλλἼ ἀλλὰ Ὁ.
Ρ. 128 1. 3 ὧραις ποῦ τε] C; S translates as if it had read ὥραις τέ
σπου.
Ρ. 128 1. 4 ὑπερτάτῳ] ὑπερτάτῃ C. ib. πάντα] This emendation
is accepted by Gebh. C reads πάντα τὰ with A. The omission of τὰ is
confirmed by S.
p. 128 1. 5 ἐν εὐδοκήσει] C3; S seems to have taken ἐνευδοκήσει (one
word) as a verb, also reading εἶναι for εἴη, or translating as if it had so
read. The sentence is rendered, t/a ut, guum omnia pie fiant, velit ut
acceptabilia sint voluntati suc. ib. εἴη] add. πάντα C, notwithstanding
the previous πάντα. :
Ρ. 128 1. 6 προστεταγμένοις] προσταγεῖσι C.
p. 129]. 9 ἀρχιερεῖ] C3 ἀρχιερεῦσι S. This alteration is probably
ADDENDA. 433
due to a misapprehension of a scribe or of the translator, who supposed
that the Christian high-priests (bishops) were alluded to.
p- 129]. 10 ὁ τόπος] τόπος [om. ὁ] C. S translates as if it had
read ἰδίοις τόποις.
Ῥ. 129 1. τι λευΐταις... ἐπίκεινται] C; levite in ministeriis proprits
fonuntur 8.
Ρ. 129]. 12 δέδεται] δέδοται CS.
XLI.
Ρ. 129}. 13 ὑμῶν] ἡμῶν CS.
p. 129 1. 14 εὐχαριστείτω] εὐαρεστείτω CS. Though this seems
simpler, εὐχαριστείτω is doubtless the right reading; see my note here
and comp. ὃ 38, together with Rom. xiv. 6, 1 Cor. xiv. 17. For another
instance of the confusion between εὐαρεστεῖν and εὐχαριστεῖν in our
authorities see § 62 (p. 297, above).
p- 130 1. 1 μὴ παρεκβαίνων] C ; et perficiens S.
p- 130]. 2 προσφέρονται] C; om. S.
Ῥ. 130 1. 3 εὐχῶν] προσευχῶν C. The same ν.]. appears in James
v. 15, τό, Ign. Zphes. το, Rom. 9. The tendency is to substitute
προσευχὴ for εὐχὴ, as being the commoner word.
p. 130 1. 4 πλημμελείας] πλημμελημάτων C. S has a singular. I
have omitted to record in my notes the reading of A, πλημμελιασ.
26. μόνῃ] S; om. C, as a pleonasm after ἀλλ᾽ 7. For the language here
comp. Afost. Const. ii. 25 ἀπὸ τῶν θυσιῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης πλημμελείας καὶ
περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν.
Ρ. 1311]. 5 προσφέρεται] C ; offeruntur sacrificia 8.
p- 131 1. 7 τῶν] C; ceterorum S.
p. 131 1. 8 βουλήσεως] βουλῆς C. The reading of S is uncertain.
p. 132 l. 1 πρόστιμον] It should be added that this is a very common
word in inscriptions for ‘a fine’.
p- 132]. 2 ὅσῳ] C; add. yap S.
XLII.
p- 132]. 4 εὐηγγελίσθησαν] rendered as a transitive evangelizaverunt
in S.
p. 132]. 5 ὁ Χριστός] Χριστός (om. ὁ) C.
Ῥ. 132]. 6 ἐξεπέμφθη... ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ] om. C, owing to the homeeo-
teleuton. My punctuation of this passage is accepted by Gebhardt and
Harnack and by Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), and is confirmed by S. For other
instances of the omission of the verb in similar antithetical clauses see
Rom. v. 18, 1 Cor. vi. 13, Gal, ii. 9.
434 ADDENDA.
p. 132 1. 8 λαβόντες] C; add. of ἀπόστολοι S.
p. 132 1. 10 ἡμῶν] om. C. The reading of S is uncertain: see
above, p. 323.
Ῥ. 1331. 13 καθίστανον] καθιστᾶν C.
p. 1331. 14 τῷ πνεύματι] C; spiritu sancto (or rather sanctos, for the
word has χη) S.
Ῥ. 133 1. τό καινῶς] ( ; κενῶς S.
Ρ. 133 1. 18 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
XLII.
Ῥ. 134 1. 6 ἐπηκολούθησαν] ἠκολούθησαν C.
Ῥ. 1341. 9 φυλῶν] C; add. πασῶν [τοῦ] Ἰσραὴλ 5.
p. 134 1. 12 αὗτας} 5); αὐτὸς C. ib. τοῖς] ἐν τοῖς C, ἃ
repetition of the last syllable οἵ ἐσφραγισεν.
p. 124]. 15 ὡσαύτως καὶ] So ὁμοίως καὶ Ign. Lphes. 16, το.
Ῥ. 135 1. τό ῥάβδους) C3; θύρας ὃ. This must, I think, be the right
reading, for it removes a great difficulty: see above, p. 242.
p- 135 πὸ tov] om. C.
Ῥ. 135 1. 20 ἐπεδείξατο] ἐπέδειξε C.
Pp. 135 Ll. 21 τὰς σφρουγίδας C; om. S.
Ῥ. 135 1. 22 προέφερεν] Tisch. allows that the reading of A may as well
be Tpoe... as Tpoc... and accepts my correction προέφερεν. So too
did Gebhardt (ed. 1). C has προεῖλε, which with the v paragogic
(προεῖλεν) must be substituted on the ground of evidence, though
προαιρεῖν Promere is not the most natural word. S has swstulit.
Ῥ. 135 l. 23 τοῦ ᾿Ααρὼν] approved by Tisch. and accepted by Gebh.
(ed. 1). C however reads ᾿Ααρὼν without the article.
Ῥ. 135 l. 25 προέγνω] mponder C.
Ῥ. 135 1. 27 εἰς τὸ] wore C, and so apparently 5. The variation is to
be explained by the uncial letters eicto, were.
Ῥ. 135 1. 28 Θεοῦ] S; Κυρίου C. S translates as if it had read τοῦ
μόνου ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ.
XLIV.
p- 136 1. 1 ἔσται] C; but S seems to have read ἐστιν.
ib. ἐπὶ] περὶ C, and so apparently 5.
Ὁ. τὸ 1 aor] δ ὉΠ
p. 1361. 4 ἐπιμονὴν] C has ἐπιδομὴν, a reading which, so far as I am
aware, has never been suggested before. It can hardly be correct and
is probably an attempt to emend ἐπινομήν. S has spa Sy ΠΡΟΣ
IID PWIN INT NIDN NIT HN yan ef 272 medio (interim) super probatione
ADDENDA. 435
(ἐπὶ δοκιμὴν or ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ) dederunt etiam hoc ita ut si homines ex its ete.
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), not knowing the reading of S, conjectured ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ,
which he explains καὶ μεταξὺ (‘jam conditis ecclesiis’) ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ ἔδωκαν
(τὸ ὄνομα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς) ὅπως (‘hac ratione inducta’) «.7.A., adding ‘jam
ecclesiarum ai ἀπαρχαὶ spiritu probati episcoporum et diaconorum
munera susceperunt, post eos sola probationis ratione episcopi constituti
sunt’. But notwithstanding the coincidence of this conjecture with S, I
do not think that a reading so harsh can possibly stand. I ought to
have said that the original author of the emendation ἐπιμονήν, to which
I still adhere, is mentioned by Ussher (Ignat. Zfzs¢. Proleg. p. cxxxvii)
who quoting the passage adds this note in his margin; “ ἐπιμονὴν Ὁ.
Petrus Turnerus' hic legit, ut continuatio episcopatus ab Apostolis stabi-
lita significetur ; quod Athanasiano illi, καὶ βέβαια μένει, bene respondet’.
The word ἐπινομὴν is retained by Laurent, who explains it ‘adsignatio
munetris episcopalis’ (a meaning of ἐπινομὴ which though possible is
unsupported, and which even if allowable in itself would be very
awkward here) ; and (in their first edition) by Gebhardt and Harnack,
where it is interpreted ‘dispositio, preceptum’ (a meaning which
would be adequate indeed, but which the word could not, I think, possi-
bly have). In ed. 2 however Harnack expresses a belief that the word
is corrupt and suggests ἐπιβολήν. Hagemann (Romische Kirche p. 684)
conjectures ἐπινομίν, ‘d. ἢ. wenn diese Form des Accusativs von érwopis
nachgewiesen werden kénnte’; and Dr Hort quite independently sug-
gests to me ‘érwopida, or conceivably but improbably ἐπίνομιν, as we
have both χάριτα and χάριν, νήστιδα and νῆστιν, κλεῖδα and κλεῖν᾽, and
refers to Philo de Creat. Princ. 4 (11. p. 363 M) where Deuteronomy is so
called [comp. Qués rer. div. 33, 51, 1. pp. 495, 509]. Donaldson
conjectures ἐπίδομα ‘an addition’ (Zheol. Rev. Jan. 1877, p. 45), and
Lipsius ἐπιτάγην (Jen. Lit. 13 Jan. 1877).
ib. δεδώκασιν] ἔδωκαν C.
p- 136 ]. 5 κοιμηθῶσιν] τινες κοιμηθῶσιν C, and similarly homines
22.328 Ὁ, ib. ἄνδρες] S; om. C. These two last are obviously
emendations to make the sense smoother.
Ρ. 137 1. 7 ἀνδρῶν] C; add. ἐκλελεγμένους 5.
p- 137 1. το ἀβαναύσως] ἀβανάσως C. tb. τε] C; om. 5.
p. 138 1. τ τούτους] C ; add. οὖν 5.
1 Fellow of Merton and Savilian Professor at Oxford (+ 1651), a man of great and
varied learning. He was a friend of Laud’s and was ejected from his fellowship and
professorship by the Parliamentarians: see Wood’s Athene Oxonienses 11. Ὁ. 152
(ed. 2).
436 ADDENDA.
Ρ. 1381. 2 ἀποβαλέσθαι)] ἀποβάλλεσθαι C: see my note. It is
rendered by an active verb in S.
p. 138 1. 3 ἔσται] S; ἐστίν C.
p- 138 1. 5 μακαριοι] C ; add. yap 5.
p- 139 1. 9 πολιτευομένους] S; πολιτευσαμένους C. 720. ἀμέμπτως] C;
om. S, probably from a feeling that it was inappropriate with τετιμημένης.
Ρ. 139 1. 10 τετιμημένης] So too CS. My emendation τετηρημένης
was accepted by Gebh. (ed. 1), and mdeed it seems to be required not-
withstanding the coincidence of our existing authorities. In their 2nd
edition however Gebhardt and Harnack return to τετιμημένης, explaining
it ‘officio quo inculpabiliter ac legitime honorati erant’, and supposing
that τιμᾶν τινί τι can mean ‘aliquid alicui tamquam honorem tribuere’.
But the passages quoted by them, which seem to favour this meaning,
Pind. Οἱ []. Pyth.] iv. 270 Παιάν τέ σοι τιμᾷ φάος, Soph. Ant. 514
ἐκείνῳ δυσσεβῆ τιμᾷς χάριν [comp. also 47. 675], are highly poetical.
Moreover even in these the expression must be referred to the original
meaning of τιμᾶν, ‘to respect (and so ‘to scrupulously observe’)
a-thing for a person’ (comp. e.g. Eur. Orvest. 828 πατρῴαν τιμῶν χάριν
with Soph. Azz. l.c.); and thus they afford no countenance for a passive
use τιμᾶσθαί τινι ‘to be bestowed as an honour on a person’. The
instances of the passive, which are quoted in their note, all make against
this interpretation; e.g. Euseb. H. 2.x. 4 yepapa φρονήσει παρὰ Θεοῦ
τετιμημένε, Const. Ap. ii. 26 ὁ ἐπίσκοπος... Θεοῦ ἀξίᾳ τετιμημένος. If τετι-
μημένης can stand at all here, it must mean ‘respected’, ie. ‘duly
discharged’. Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) speaks favourably of τετηρημένης.
XLV.
p- 140 1. 1 περὶ τῶν avnkovrwy| My conjecture was approved by
Tisch. and accepted by Gebh., and is now confirmed by C. S. trans-
lates ἔστε as an indicative, and is obliged in consequence to insert a
negative with ἀνηκόντων, thus falling into the same trap as the editors.
Omit the reference to Ign. Polyc. 7 in the lower note. ab. ἐν-
κύπτετε] ἐγκεκύφατε C; εἰ [ἐγ]κεκύφατε S. τος 40. τὰς γραφάς] C ;
τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς 5. This is probably taken from ὃ 53 ἐπίστασθε τὰς
ἱερὰς γραφάς, ἀγαπητοί, καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ.
p. 140]. 2 τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος] This emendation, which I proposed
somewhat hesitatingly, was adopted by Gebhardt in place of the ῥήσεις
πνεύματος οἵ previous editors. It is confirmed to a greater extent than I
could have hoped by CS, which have τὰς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. It is diffi-
cult however to see how there was room for so many letters in the
ADDENDA. 437
lacuna of A; for the space left for τασδιατου is at most half a letter
more than is taken up in the next line by οτιουδ, 1. 6. six letters. Since
the lacunz here are at the beginnings, not (as commonly) at the ends
of the lines, there can be no uncertainty about the spaces.
p- 140 1]. 4 γέγραπται] γέγραπτο C. ib. πότε εὑρήσετε)
approved by Tisch. and adopted by Gebh. (ed. 1). C however has οὐχ
εὑρήσετε, which was anticipated by Laurent, and similarly S wom invenitis
(a present tense).
Ρ. 1401]. 7 ὑπὸ παρανόμων] C; ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ παρανόμων S. ib, ὑπὸ
τῶν] ἀπὸ τῶν ( ; ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τῶν S; see above, p. 244.
Ῥ. 140]. 8 μιαρὸν] This emendation was accepted by Gebh., and is
confirmed by C. S has μιαρῶν. ib. ἄδικον] C3 ἀδίκων S ;
see above, p. 245. ib. ταῦτα] C; καὶ ταῦτα S.
Ῥ. 140 1. 9 εἴπωμεν] εἴποιμεν C ; dicam (εἴπω) 5. ς
Ρ. 141]. 13 τοῦ ὑψίστου͵ C. The present text of S has x4, τοῦ
ib. κατείρχθησαν] καθείρχθησαν C.
me fer re ek] 5} αν C.
p. 141 1. 17 περιβαλεῖν] So also C. S has simply jaciant.
p. 141]. 20 τῶν αἰώνων] S; om. C. So also above, p. 109 |. 15.
p- 1411]. 22 ἔγγραφοι] This excellent emendation of Laurent is
confirmed by C, as might have been predicted. S has scripti sunt for
ἔγγραφοι ἐγένοντο.
Ῥ. 141 ]..23 αὐτῶν] αὐτοῦ CS.
p- 141], 24 ἀμὴν] C; om. S.
XLVI.
Ρ. 143 1. 8 πόλεμός τε] C; S has the plural (as determined by
ribui) πόλεμοί te and adds εὖ contentiones snysn), which probably
represents καὶ μάχαι, since the same word elsewhere stands for μάχαι
(e.g. James iv. 1, Pesh., Hcl.; 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. il. 9, Hcl.). The con-
necting particles in the Greek are favourable to such an addition; but
it is suspicious, as being perhaps borrowed from James iv. 1.
Ρ. 143 l. 9 καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα...ἐν Χριστῷ] The construction and punctua-
tion which I have adopted appear in S.
p- 143 1. 10 διέλκομεν] S; διέλκωμεν C.
p- 143 1. 14 Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν] tod Κυρίου ἡμῶν ‘Inoot Χριστοῦ
CS.
Ρ. 144]. 1 οὐκ] μὴ Ὁ.
Ρ. 144]. 3 τῶν μικρῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι] C; τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν pov δια-
438 ADDENDA.
στρέψαι S. I have no doubt that S has preserved the right reading ; and
this for three reasons. (1) This reading is farther from the language of
the Canonical Gospels and therefore more likely to have been changed ;
(2) Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iii. 18 (p. 561), so read the passage in
the Roman Clement (see my notes p. 144); (3) The word διαστρέ-
Wot explains the sequel τὸ σχίσμα ὑμῶν πολλοὺς διέστρεψεν (‘ perverted
not one, but many’), it being after Clement’s manner to take up and
comment on a leading word in his quotations; e.g. ὃ 14 ἀνθρώπῳ
εἰρηνικῷ followed by ὃ 15 κολληθῶμεν τοῖς per εὐσεβείας εἰρην εύ-
ουσιν, ὃ 27 ὧν ΟΥ̓ΧῚ AKOYONTAI followed by ὃ 28 πάντων οὖν βλεπο-
μένων καὶ ἀκουομένων, ὃ 29 ἐγενήθη μερὶς Kyploy...Aria ἁγίων
followed by ὃ 30 ᾿Αγίου οὖν μερίς, ὃ 30 Oedc...AIA@CIN YXAPIN
followed by οἷς ἡ χάρις ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέδοται, ὃ 34 ὅοὰ HTOIMACEN
τοῖς YTOMENOYCIN ἀὐτόν followed by ὃ 35 τίνα οὖν ἄρα ἐστὶν τὰ ἑτοιμα-
ζόμενα τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν; ὃ 35 ὁλὸς Ἢ δείξω ἀὐτῷ τὸ COOTHPION
τοῦ Θεοῦ followed by ὃ 36 αὕτη ἡ ὁδὸς...ἐν ἣ εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον
ἡμῶν, § 36 ἕως ἂν θῶ ToYc ἐχθροΥῦς x.7.A. followed by τίνες οὖν ot
ἐχθροί, 8 46 (just above) μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἀθῴου ἀθῷος ἔσῃ Kal META
ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ followed by κολληθῶμεν οὖν τοῖς ἀθῴοις...
εἰσὶν δὲ οὗτοι ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ 48 ANOIZATE MOI πύλὰς AIKAI0-
CYNHC «.7.A. followed by πολλῶν οὖν πυλῶν ἀνεῳγυιῶν ἡ ἐν δικαιο-
σύνῃ αὕτη ἐστίν, § 50 ὧν ἀφέθηοσδν Al ἀνομίδι κ'ιτιλ. followed by
§ 51 ὅσα οὖν παρεπέσαμεν...ἀξιώσωμεν ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν, ὃ 57 KATACKH-
Nwcel ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι πεποιθώς followed by § 58 ἵνα κατασκηνώσωμεν
πεποιθότες κιτιλ. I have collected these examples, because this cha-
racteristic determines the readings in three passages of interest (here and
§$§ 35, 57; comp. also § 51), where there are variations; see above,
pp. 283,.428, and below, p. 442.
p- 1441. 5 ἡμᾶς] S; ὑμᾶς C.
XLVII.
Ῥ. 1441. 7 τὴν ἐπιστολὴν To the instances given in my note
add Iren. i. 8. 2 ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους (where the Latin specifies ‘in
prima ad Corinthios epistola’), 20. iv. 27. 3 ‘in epistola que est ad
Corinthios’, Orig. ¢ Ces. 1. 63 ἐν τῇ πρὸς Τιμόθεόν φησι, 111. 20 τῇ πρὸς
Θεσσαλονικεῖς, Method. Sym. 111. 14 (p. 22 Jahn) λαβέτω δὲ μετὰ χειρὸς
ὁ βουλόμενος τὴν πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολήν, Macarius Magnes <Afoer.
iil. 36 (p. 131 Blondel) καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους δὲ ἐπιστολῇ λέγει Περὶ
δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω κιτ.λ., Hieron. Ζ 2157. 11. 9 (I. p.
ADDENDA. 439
264) ‘Lege Pauli epistolam ad Corinthios, quomodo diversa membra
unum corpus efficiunt’, Anast. Sin. Hodeg. 12 (p. 97) ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Κοριν-
θίους.
Ρ. 145 1. 10 αὐτοῦ τε...᾿Απολλώ] ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ᾿Απολλὼ καὶ Κηφᾶ C, thus
conforming the order to 1 Cor. i. 12 (comp. iv. 6). S has the same
order as A but omits τε in both places. It also repeats the preposition
before each word, but no stress can be laid on this: see above, p. 239.
p. 145 1. 11 προσκλίσεις] divisiones S; προσκλήσεις C, and so ]. 12
πρόσκλησις, 1. 13 προσεκλήθητε. For this itacism see above ὃ 21. The
intermediate note in my edition (p. 144) refers to 1. 12, not to ]. 11, as
incorrectly printed.
ib. ἧττον] ἥττονα C, and so apparently 5. ib. προσήνεγκεν]
ἐπήνεγκε C, and so apparently 8.
p. 145 1. 13 μεμαρτυρημένοις] δεδοκιμασμένοις C; and conversely
μεμαρτυρημένῳ for δεδοκιμασμένῳ inl, 14. S agrees with A.
p- 145 1. 14 παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς] S; παρ᾽ αὐτῶν C.
Ρ. 145 L 15 περιβοήτου] C; om. S.
p- 145 l. 16 αἰσχρά, ἀγαπητοί] C ; om. 5.
Ρ. 1451. 17 Χριστῷ] C3; add. Ἰησοῦ 5. ib. ἀγωγῆς] 5;
ἀγάπης C.
Ῥ. 145 1. 18 καὶ] C; om. S, translating βεβαιοτάτην, as if βεβαιότητα.
p- 1461. 4 ἡμῶν] 5; ὑμῶν Ὁ.
Ρ. 1461. 5 ἑαυτοῖς δὲ] ἑαυτοῖς τε C ; εὖ vobis ipsis S.
XLVIII.
p- 146 1. ο ἵλεως γενόμενος] γενόμενος ἵλεως C.
ab. ἡμῖν] 5; ὑμῖν C. ab. ἐπὶ τὴν κιτ.λ.} 5. translates loosely
restituat nos ad priorem illam modestiam nostram amoris fraternitatis
et ad puram illam conversationem, but this probably does not represent
a various reading.
Ρ. 147 L το ἡμῶν] S; ὑμῶν C.
p. 147 1. 11 ἡμᾶς] S; ὑμᾶς Ὁ. ib. avewyvia eis ζωὴν] εἰς
ζωὴν avewyvia CS.
Ρ. 147 1. 12 αὕτη] ἐστιν αὕτη C, and so apparently S.
ib. ἀνοίξατε] C; aperi S.
p- 147 1. 13 ἐξομολογήσωμαι] ἐξομολογήσομαι C ; 5 has ἵνα...ἐξομολο-
γήσωμαι with Clem. Alex. See above, p. 245.
p- 147 1. 16 ἡ] C; but apparently om. 8.
p- 148 1. 1 ἤτω...ἀγνός] This passage is read in C in the same way
asin A. Shas sit homo (quispiam) fidelis, sit validus, scientiam possideat
(possidebit), laboret (laborabit) sapiens in interpretatione verborum, sit purus
440 ADDENDA.
in operibus. This represents substantially the same Greek with AC, except
that (as Mr Bensly has pointed out to me) ἥτω δύνατος γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν,
ἤτω σόφος k.T.A. must have been corrupted into ἤτω δύνατος, γνῶσιν ἕξει,
πονείτω aopos. Notwithstanding this combination of authorities, I am
disposed to think still that Clem. Alex. has preserved the original
reading, for ἐν ἔργοις is much better adapted to γοργός than to ayvds. -
p. ταϑ yep] SisromenC. 2b. ὀφείλει] I have omitted to
record that A has οφιλει.
p- 148 1. 3 μᾶλλον] connected with δοκεῖ in S. ib. τὸ κοινωφελὲς]
See Apost. Const. vi. 12 συζητοῦντες πρὸς τὸ κοινωφελές,
ΧΙΧ.
p. 148 ]. 5 ποιησάτω] So it is read in CS. There is a various reading
ποιῶμεν, τηρῶμεν (both well supported), in 1 Joh. v. 2.
p- 149 1. 8 ἀρκετὸς] S; om. C. At least so Bryennios gives the
reading of C in his note; but, inasmuch as he puts apxeros in his text, it
is not easy to see where else he got it from, since he supposes that A
read ἀρκεῖ ws ἔδει.
p. 149]. 9 ἐστιν. ἀγάπη] ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη C. The whole of the pre-
ceding passage is disturbed in CS by false punctuation.
p. 149 1. το πλῆθος] C; but S translates snyw ‘ murum’.
Ρ. 150 1. 4 οὐδὲν εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν τῷ Θεῷ] C; Deaplacere nemo potest
S; Le, as Mr Bensly suggests, οὐδενὶ εὐαρεστεῖν ἐστιν τῷ Θεῷ. Clem.
Alex. however reads with AC, except that he omits ἐστιν. ib. οὐκ
ἔστιν κιτ.λ.] C; S translates zon est sermo ullus sufficiens ut inveniatur,
thus reading ἐξήγησίς τις and making ἱκανὸς feminine.
p. 50 1. 5 ἡμᾶς} S3 ὑμᾶς C.
p. 150 1. 6 ἔδωκεν] δέδωκεν C.
p. 150 L 7 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν “Incots Χριστὸς] S3 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν C.
Ρ- 150 1. 9 τῶν ψυχῶν] 5; τῆς ψυχῆς C.
L.
p. 151 1. 11 ἢ ἀγάπη] ἀγάπη C. 2b. αὐτῆς] αὐτοῦ C. 5
translates ejusdem (ipsius) perfectionis. It seems to have had αὐτῆς, and
to have made it agree with τελειότητος.
p. 151 1. 12 εἰ μὴ] C; S apparently adds here ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ, but the
translation of the whole context is confused owing to a false punctua-
tion.
p- 151 1. 13 καταξιώσῃ] S; καταδιώξη C. 2b. δεώμεθα] My
reading was approved by Tisch. and adopted by Gebh. It is now
ADDENDA. 441
confirmed by CS; the former having δεόμεθα and the latter supplicemus.
ib. οὖν] C ; add. ἀγαπητοί S. ib. αἰτώμεθα] S; αἰτούμεθα (Ὁ.
p- 151]. 14 αὐτοῦ] C τοῦ Θεοῦ 5. ib. ζῶμεν] εὑρεθῶμεν CS.
ib. προσκλίσεως] adherentia S; προσκλήσεως C. On this itacism see
above, p. 439.
p. 151 1. 15 πᾶσαι] add. ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμ CS, with Clem. Alex.
p. 151 1. 16 τῆσδε ἡμέρας] τῆς ἡμέρας τῆσδε C; while Clem. Alex.
has τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας. The reading of S is indeterminable.
Ρ. 151]. 17 χῶρον εὐσεβῶν] Lebas and Waddington Asie Mincure
Inscr. 168 εὐσεβέων χῶρον δέξατο πᾶσι φίλον, Afpost. Const. vili. 41
χῶρος εὐσεβῶν ἀνειμένος κ.τ.λ.
p- 151]. 18 οὗ] S; οὗ δὲ Ο. ib. φανεροὶ ἔσονται] φανερωθή-
σονται CS, with Clem. Alex.
p- 151 1. 19 τοῦ Χριστοῦ] τοῦ Θεοῦ CS. I have looked again at A,
and still think it impossible to decide whether the reading is 6y or yy,
ib. εἴσελθε] εἰσέλθετε CS. ib. ταμεῖα] ταμιεῖα C. I have omitted
to record in its proper place the reading of A, ταμια.
p. 152 1. 1 θυμός] ὁ θυμός C.
p. 152 1. 3 μακάριοι] The critical note giving the v. 1. of A μακακαριοι
should be transferred to the later μακάριοι 1. 6. Hilgenfeld erroneously
states the v. 1. there to be μαμακαριοι, pp. xvill, 56. ib. ἐσμεν]
ἦμεν CS, which should probably be adopted.
Ρ- 152 1. 5 ἡμῖν] S; ὑμῖν C.
p. 1521. 7 ov] δ There is the same v. 1. in the Lxx.
Ρ. 152]. 10 τοῦ Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ Ὁ.
LI.
Ρ. 153 1. 12 παρέβημεν] παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν CS. The last
word indeed, as new read in the Μ5 of S, is pias transgressi Sumus ;
but the diacritic point has been altered and it was originally dias
Jecimus.
But what was the reading of A? The editors have hitherto given
παρέβημεν ; but the older collators Young and Wotton professed only to
see παρε...μεν, and after C was discovered, Gebhardt (ed. 2), observing
that nothing was said either by Tischendorf or by myself ‘de litera B
adhuc conspicua’, suggested that the reading of A was not παρέβημεν but
παρεπέσαμεν and that the following words καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν were omitted
owing to homeeoteleuton, 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 8 but saw traces of a
442 ADDENDA.
square letter which looked like m followed by a curved letter which
might be ε. Not satisfied with my own inspection, I wrote afterwards
to Mr E. M. Thompson 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 παρεπέσαμεν. This reading is favoured
by the words which follow καλὸν γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν
παραπτωμάτων, 85 also by the loose paraphrase of the younger Cle-
ment Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614) ἢν δὲ καὶ περιπέσῃ ἄκων τοιαύτῃ τινὶ περι-
στάσει διὰ τὰς παρεμπτώσεις τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, Where περιπέσῃ Seems to
have been suggested by the association of sounds.
ib. τινος τῶν τοῦ ἀντικειμένου] So also CS. My misgivings therefore
as to the reading of A were not justified. Yet notwithstanding the
agreement of our authorities I can hardly think the text correct. Geb-
hardt (ed. 1) read πειρασμῶν for τινος τῶν, an emendation of Davis; but
afterwards (ed. 2) he abandoned it for the reading of the ss.
Ῥ. 1531. 13 tovyyvopnvt] ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν CS. Among other sugges-
tions I had proposed ἀφεθῆναι in my notes; comp. ὃ 50 εἰς τὸ ἀφεθῆναι
ἡμῖν...γέγραπται γάρ' Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν «.t.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, p. 438. There can be no
doubt therefore that Tischendorf misread A. Nevertheless he reiterated
the statement to which I took exception and said ‘Emendatione veteris
scripture vix opus est [cyr]rNwm[HN]: literarum fNwm pars superior in
codice superest, quapropter de vera lectione vix dubito. Dubitat vero
Lightf. et dicit etc.’ He took no notice of my grammatical objection
to this construction of ἀξιοῦν. 1 might have added a further lexical
objection ; for neither in the Lxx nor in the N.T. nor in the Apostolic
Fathers are συγγινώσκειν, συγγνώμη, ever said of God. The fact is that
the Ms is eaten mto holes here and nothing can be vead. ‘The letters
can only be conjectured from the indentations left. Mr E. M. Thompson,
whom I consulted here again and whose practised eye I should trust
much more than my own, gives it as his opinion that CYTTN@MHN
would not fit into these indentations but that ade@HNaiHm[in| might.
p- 153 1. 14 τῆς στάσεως] στάσεως C.
p. 153 1. 15 τῆς ἐλπίδος] C3 spei nostre S; but it perhaps does not
represent a different Greek text.
p- 153 1. 16 φόβου] C; add. Dez 5.
p. 153 1.17 θέλουσιν] C; cogunt (coarctant) 5. ib. τοὺς πλη-
σίον] C: τοῖς πλησίον S, which also omits δὲ ἑαυτῶν, thus throwing
the syntax of the sentence into confusion.
ADDENDA. 443
Ῥ. 153 1. 22 στασιαζόντων] στασιασάντων C. tb. θεράποντα] S ;
ἄνθρωπον C. Moses is called ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Deut. xxxiil. 1, Josh.
xiv. 6, 1 Chron. xxiii. 14, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, Ezra 111. 2. Familiarity
with the phrase (which is especially prominent in Deut. xxxiil. 1 where
it prefaces the Song of Moses) would lead to its introduction here.
Elsewhere (§ 53) C alters the designation θεράπων τοῦ Θεοῦ in another
way. On the other hand θεράπων τοῦ Θεοῦ is itself a common desig-
nation of Moses (see the note on § 4, p. 44 sq.); and might well have
been substituted for the other expression here. But the combination
AS, as against C, must be considered decisive as to the reading.
Ρ. 154 1. 1 κατέβησαν K.7.A.] Apost. Const. ii. 27 Δαθὰν καὶ ᾿Αβειρὼν
ζῶντες κατέβησαν εἰς adov, καὶ ῥάβδος βλαστήσασα x.t.X. (comp. ὃ 43).
See also 2. vi. 3.
p. 154 1. 2 κατέπιεν] ποιμανεῖ CS. This reading could not have been
foreseen. Clement is quoting from Ps. xlviii (xlix). 14 ὡς πρόβατα ἐν
adn ἔθεντο, θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς.
Ρ. 1541. 4 Αἰγύπτου] S; αὐτοῦ C. Perhaps the archetype of C was
partially erased here and ran a..v. Tov.
Ρ. 1541. 7 αὐτῶν] after καρδίας C.
p. 154 1. ὃ γῇ Αἰγύπτου] Αἰγύπτῳ CS.
Ρ. 154 1. 9 Μωὐσέως] Μωσέως C.
LIT.
p- 154 1. 11 οὐδὲν] om. CS. 2b. τὸ] τοῦ C. ~The οὐδὲν has
obviously been omitted by carelessness before οὐδενός, and this has
necessitated the further change of τὸ into τοῦ ; see above, p. 245.
p- 154 1. 12 αὐτῷ] C; add. μόνον S,
Ρ. 155 l. 14 sq. κέρατα... εὐφρανθήτωσαν] S; om, C.
p- 155 1. 16—18 καὶ ἐπικάλεσαι.. δοξάσεις με] S; om. C.
p- 155 1. 17 σου] om. 5.
1.111.
Ρ. 155 lL το γὰρ] C; add. ἀδελφοὶ S, omitting ἀγαπητοὶ 1. 20; see
above, p. 399. 2. καὶ] S; om. C.
Ρ. 155 l. 21 εἰς] πρὸς C ; ὡς πρὸς (or ὡς εἰς) S.
ib. δέχεσθε] γράφομεν CS. Dr Wright confirms my statement, as
against Tisch., that a final 1 is visible in A. It is doubtless the last
stroke of the N in γράφομεν.
Ρ. 155 1]. 22 ἀναβαίνοντος] ἀναβάντος C. But the reading in A must
certainly have been ἀναβαίνοντος. S has a past tense, but on such a
444 ADDENDA.
point its authority cannot be urged. As usual, C alters the tenses,
where they do not seem appropriate: see above, p. 228.
Ρ. 155 l. 23 τεσσεράκοντα] τεσσαράκοντα C, in both places.
p. 156 1. 1 Mwio7, Μωῦσῇ] Μωσῇ, Μωσῆ C ; om. S.
p. 156 1. 2 ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου] C; ἐξ Αἰγύπτου S with the Hebrew.
Ρ. 1561. 3 ἐποίησαν] C; καὶ ἐποίησαν S. The καὶ appears in Β of
the Lxx: ib. xovevpata] C3 χώνευμα (owing to the absence οὗ
ribut)S. In the Lxx A has χωνευτά, and B χώνευμα.
Ῥι 156 1. 6 Χαὺς] ἐστε CS; as in Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617),
where Potter writes ‘Clementis Romani editor lacunam inter idov et
σκληροτράχηλος supplevit voce λαὸς ex recensione τῶν ὁ [The Lxx is
ἰδοὺ λαὸς σκληροτράχηλός ἐστιν]. Erat autem Romanus ex Alexandrino
potius supplendus: qui, ut superius, ita proculdubio hic etiam Ro-
manum secutus est’. His warning was overlooked by later editors
of the Roman Clement. 2b. ἔασον] C; καὶ ἔασον 5. In the Lxx
A has simply ἔασον and B καὶ νῦν ἔασον.
ib. ἐξολεθρεῦσαι] ἐξολοθρεῦσαι C; ἐξολεθρεύσω (or -λοθρεύσω) appa-
rently S.
Ρ. 157 1. 9 εἶπεν δὲ] καὶ εἶπε CS. th, Μωυσῆς) If the
silence of Bryennios may be trusted, C here adopts this spelling of the
name, contrary to its usual practice.
Ρ. 157 1. 10 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν] C ; peccatum hoc 8.
Ρ. 157 1. 11 ὦ μεγάλης] S; μεγάλης (om. ὦ) C. According to the
rule of the grammarians the interjections should have been accentuated
@...0, not @...86; see Chandler Greck Accentuation § 904, p. 246 sq.
The editors here vary.
p. 157 1. 12 θεράπων] S; δεσπότης C, 1.6. ‘as a master’, but this does
not represent the fact and cannot be right. ‘The reading of C is
adopted by Bryennios, but rejected by Gebhardt and Hilgenfeld.
LAY.
Dp: ag7 lL εὖ ope] Ss ἡμῖν C.
p- 157 1. 16 πεπληροφορημένος] So read also in C; 5 has plenus
(émpletus). 2b. εἰ Ov ἐμὲ κιτ.λ.}] Mr Bensly has pointed
out to me that there are several echoes of this passage in John of
Ephesus (iv. 13, 48, 60). Perhaps they were got from some such
ὑπομνηματισμοὶ as Epiphanius used (see above, p. 157), rather than
directly from Clement himself.
Ρ. 158 1. τ: ἐκχωρῶ] C; ἐγὼ ἐκχωρῶ (apparently) 5.
Ρ. 158 1. 8 πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ] τοῦ Θεοῦ πολιτείαν C. Comp. Marz.
LPolyc. τῇ τὴν ἀνεπίληπτον αὐτοῦ πολιτείαν.
ADDENDA. 445
LV. |
p. 158 1. 9 ὑποδείγματα] S (ribui however being omitted); ὑπομνή-
ματα C. It might almost seem as though Origen had this reading,
for in the passage quoted in my note (zz Joann. vi. § 36) he speaks
of Clement as οὐκ ἀλόγως πιστεύσας Tals ἱστορίαις. 4b, ἐνέγ-
κωμεν] C ; add. vodzs S.
p. 1581]. 10 πολλοὶ...καιροῦ] C; multi reges et magnates 6 principibus
populorum, gui quum tempus affiictionis vel famis alicujus instaret
populo S. This is unusually paraphrastic, but perhaps does not repre-
sent a various reading. There is however a confusion of λοιμός and
λιμός.
Ῥ. 159]. 15 λυτρώσονται] So also C.
Ῥ. 159]. 16 παρέδωκαν] S (apparently); ἐξέδωκαν C.
p. 160 1. 1 τῆς πόλεως] C; urbe sua 8.
p. 160 1. 4 δ ἀγάπην...λαοῦ] C; propter amorem civitatis patrum
suorum et propter populum S.
Ρ. 160 L § συγκλεισμῷ] It is to this συγκλεισμῷ and not to the
previous occurrence of the word in 1. r that my critical note should
refer.
p- 160]. 6 ἥττονι] ἧττον CS.
Ρ. 160]. 7 τὸ δωδεκάφυλον]ὔ C ; tribum 8.
p. 161 L. 9 τῆς ταπεινώσεως] ταπεινώσεως C.
p. 1ότ]. 10 δεσπότην] om. C, obviously by homeeoteleuton. S has
spectatorem universi et dominum saculorum Deum, as if the order had
been δεσπότην τῶν αἰώνων Θεόν.
p. 161]. 11 ἐρύσατο] ἐρρύσατο (. 1. ὧν χάριν ἐκινδύνευσεν] C ;
ex tis propter que erat in periculo 5, probably only a mistranslation.
LVI.
Ρ. 161 1. 16 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
Ρ. 161 1. 17 9 mpos...ayious] C; sive in Deum sive tn sanctos S, as if
it had read ἢ... ἢ for ἥ... καὶ, ib. τὸν] om. C.
p. 162 1. 4 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
p. 162 1. 8 δίκαιος] S; Κύριος C. ib. ἔλεος] ἔλεον (i.e.
ἔλαιον) C; and so also S, This is doubtless the original reading in
the Lxx, but may have been a scribe’s correction in the text of Clement.
p. 162 1. 9 ἁμαρτωλῶν] ἁμαρτωλοῦ C ; and so S, but the singular here
depends on the absence of rzduz.
p. 162]. 10 ὃν] ὃν dv C. There is nothing to represent ἄν in S.
p. 162]. 11 ἀπαναίνου] C: rejiciat (or rejiciamus) S.
p- 163 1. 14 οὐχ ἅψεται] ov μὴ ἅψηται C; non attrectabit S. Both
CLEM. 29
446 ADDENDA.
readings are found in different Mss of the Lxx. ib. ἐν λιμῷ] C;
add. δὲ 5.
p. 163 1. 18 οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆς] od μὴ φοβηθήσῃ C. Both these readings
again appear in different mss of the Lxx. ib. γὰρ] C; δὲ 5.
p. 163 1. 19 εἰρηνεύσει)] C: εἰρηνεύει 5. ib. ἡ δὲ δίαιτα.. .«ἁμάρτῃ)] C;
om. S.
p. 163 1]. 20 σου] om. C.
p. 163 1. 21 παμβότανον] παμβήτανον C.
p- 163 l. 22 ἐλεύσῃ] ἐλεύσει C.
p- 163 1. 24 συνκομισθεῖσα] συγκομισθεῖσα C. ib. ὅτι}
πόσος CS.
p- 164 1. 1 καὶ γὰρ...νουθετηθῆναι] πατὴρ yap ἀγαθὸς ὧν παιδεύει εἰς τὸ
ἐλεηθῆναι CS (the transposition in S, by which διὰ τῆς ὁσίας παιδείας
αὐτοῦ is placed before eis τὸ ἐλεηθῆναι ἡμᾶς so as to connect it with
παιδεύει Θεός, does not probably represent a different reading). Thus
Tischendorf is justified in his remark on the common restoration vovfe-
τηθῆναι ; ‘id vix recte, quum syllabae non ita dirimi solent [i.e. vovfer|n-
θηναι]. Requiritur potius simile verbum ac aro|n6yvar’.
LVII.
p. 1641. 5 τὰ γόνατα τῆς καρδίας] So Sir C. Hatton to Q. Elizabeth
(Froude ΧΙ. p. 166) ‘I can use no other means of thankfulness than by
bowing the knees of my own heart with all humility’ etc,
. 1641. 7 adalova] C; ἀλαζονείαν S. ib. γλώσσης] γλώττης C.
. 165 1. 9 ἐλλογίμους] add. ὑμᾶς C. S is doubtful.
165 1. 11 ἰδοὺ] C; add. yap S.
165 1. 12 διδάξω] S; διδάξαι C.
165 1. 13 ὑπηκούσατε] C; ὑπηκούετε 5.
165 1. 14 ἐμὰς] τὰς ἐμὰς C.
165 1. 16 ἡνίκα] C; st (ἤν) 5.
165 1. 17 ὑμῖν ὄλεθρος ΓΟ; ὑμῶν ὄλεθρος 5,
. 166 1. 1 παρῇ] C; om. 5.
. 166 1. 2 θλίψις] add. καὶ στενοχωρία C, a familiar combination in
S. anil Rom. 11. 9, vii. 35. S has affiictio pea εἰ angustia (Δ. ΔΓ)
gue a prelio (Δ 2); Where affictio represents θλίψις and angustia
gue a prelio is probably a paraphrase of πολιορκία. The possible alter-
native that angustia que a prelio represents στενοχωρία καὶ πολιορκία,
treated as a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, is not so likely, since the usual gle of S is
to expand. The space in A will not admit καὶ aie nic and these
words are wanting also in the Lxx.
is eS sp Sp ts
ADDENDA. 447
p. 166 1. 4 ζητήσουσιν) C; ζητοῦσιν (Ὁ) 5.
p- 1661]. 5 τοῦ] om. C. ib. προείλαντο] Tischendorf accepts
my reading of A (for mpootAavto) ; and it is confirmed by C which has
προείλοντο (see above p. 229), and by S which translates edegerunt.
p- 167 1. 9
(i) The critical grounds on which I gave a place to this quotation
of the Pseudo-Justin in the lacuna of the genuine epistle seemed quite
sufficient to justify its insertion there. Harnack indeed objected (ed. 1,
pp. 155, 177) that the use of γραφαί, applied to prophets and apostles
alike, would be an anachronism in the genuine Clement. I did not
mean however that the Pseudo-Justin was giving the exact words of the
author quoted, but, as Harnack himself says (Zectschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1.
p. 273), a free paraphrase. The objection therefore was not, I think,
valid.
Still constructive criticism has failed here, and Harnack’s opinion
has proved correct. We have every reason to believe now that we
possess the genuine epistle complete, and the passage to which Pseudo-
Justin refers is not found there. When the edition of Bryennios
appeared, the solution became evident. The newly recovered ending
of the so-called Second Epistle presents references to the destruction of
the world by fire and to the punishment of the wicked (δ τό ἔρχεται ἤδη
ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως ws κλίβανος καιόμενος K.T.A., § 17 THY ἡμέραν ἐκεΐνην
λέγει τῆς κρίσεως ὅταν ὄψονται τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν ἀσεβήσαντας... ὅπως κολάζονται
δειναῖς βασάνοις πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ) which satisfy the allusion of the Pseudo-
Justin, as I pointed out in the Academy (May 20, 1876). Harnack
also (Zeitschr. 1. c.) takes the same view. But there is no mention of
the Sibyl in these passages. How is this difficulty to be met? Harnack
would treat the clause containing this mention as parenthetical in
accordance with a suggestion of Hilgenfeld (Vow. Zest. ext. Can. Rec. τ.
Ρ. xviii, note 1), and would read accordingly ; εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστα-
σεως TO τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν (καθά φασιν ai γραφαὶ
προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης), καθώς φησιν ὁ μακά-
ριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ κιτιλ. But to this solution it
appears to me that there are two grave objections. (1) The mode of
expression is rendered very awkward, by the suspension of the last
clause, when καθὰ and καθὼς are no longer coordinated. (2) As the
writer quotes not the exact words, but only the general sense, of the
supposed Clement, he must quote him not for his language, but for his
authority. But the form of the sentence so interpreted makes Clem-
ent’s authority paramount and subordinates the prophets and apostles
to it; ‘If Clement is right in saying that the world will be judged by
29—2
448 ADDENDA.
fire as we are told in the writings of the prophets and apostles’, This
sense seems to me to be intolerable ; and I must therefore fall back upon
a suggestion which is given in my notes (p. 166) that for καθὼς we should
read καὶ καθώς. The omission of καὶ (which was frequently contracted
into a single letter %) before καθὼς would be an easy accident, and
probably not a few instances could be produced; comp. e.g. Rom.
iii. 8, 1 Joh. 11. 18, 27. The testimony of Clement then falls into its
proper place, as subordinate to the scriptures of the Old and New
Testament, and even to the writings of the Sibyl. For other instances
of the insertion or omission of καὶ before words beginning with xa in
our epistle see § 7 [καὶ] καταμάθωμεν, ὃ 8 [καὶ] κάθαροι, ὃ 53 [καὶ] καλῶς ;
comp. also Gal. ill. 29 [καὶ] κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν, Ign. Zphes. τ [καὶ] κατὰ
πίστι. Hilgenfeld now offers another solution. He postulates a
lacuna in the Second Epistle § ro (see below, p. 458 sq.), where he sup- -
poses the Janguage (including the mention of the Sibyl), to which the
Pseudo-Justin refers, to have occurred.
Ὁ. 168 1. 13
(ii) ‘This quotation in Basil is found in the newly recovered portion
of the epistle: see above p. 284, with the remarks in the introduction
p. 271 sq. Gebhardt and Harnack (ed. 1, p. 155) did not venture to
insert it in this lacuna ‘cum multa spuria sub Clementis nomine a
patribus allegata esse constet’, though in a later place (p. 177) the
opinion was expressed ‘ Nihil impedit quominus hoc fragm. e priore
Clementis epistula depromtum esse censeamus’.
The other quotations, which previous editors (including Hilgenfeld
ed. 1, p. 61) had assigned to the genuine epistle and which I have
assigned to other sources, are not in the newly recovered portion.
LXIV ΓΝ 111}:
p. 169 ]. 5 Λοιπὸν] This conjecture was accepted by Gebhardt, and
is confirmed by CS. S however reads Λοιπὸν δὲ.
p. 169 1. 7 ἡμᾶς) 5; ἡμεῖς C.
p. 169 1. 9 μεγαλοπρεπὲς καὶ ἅγιον] C3; sanctum et decens (in) magnitu-
dine et gloriosum S; see above p. 239.
p. 169 1. 10 φόβον, εἰρήνην, ὑπομονήν] C; καὶ φόβον καὶ εἰρήνην καὶ
ὁμόνοιαν καὶ ἀγάπην καὶ ὑπομονήν 5. ᾿ 16. μακροθυμίαν) καὶ
μακροθυμίαν CS. ib, ἐγκρατείαν, ἁγνείαν) C; καὶ ἐγκρατείαν
καὶ ἀγνεΐαν 8. ,
Ρ. 169 ]. 11 καὶ σωφροσύνην] S; σωφροσύνην (om. καὶ) C.
p. 169]. 12 ὀνόματι) C; add. sancto 8.
ADDENDA. 449
p. 1701. 1 δόξα] C; πᾶσα δόξα S, which omits the following words
καὶ μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, τιμή, καὶ νῦν Kal. tb. καὶ] om. C.
p. 170 1. 2 τιμή] καὶ τιμή Ὁ. ἐδ. πάντας] C; om. 5.
LXV (LIX).
Ρ. 170 1. 5 καὶ Ουάλεριον] Valerium (om. καὶ) or οἱ AleriumS; but
this is doubtless owing to the accidental omission of a 4 before pi IN?)
by a Syrian scribe. ib. Βίτωνα] C; om. S. The punctuation
of both C and S is faulty here, in separating names which belong to the
same person.
In speaking of the rareness of the name Sito, I ought to have
restricted the remark to Latin sources, to which my attention was
confined. As a Greek name, it is not uncommon, as Harnack has
pointed out. Indeed the familiar story of Cleobis and Bito would have
occurred to my mind, if I had thought of Greek writers, and prevented
the unguarded statement. I find the cognomen Bitus (?) with the same no-
men in an inscription at Bostra, Corp. /nsc. Lat, 111. ΠΟ. 104, D.M. L. VALE-
RIO. BITO. NATIONE. BESSYS, etc.
p. 170 1. 5 σὺν καὶ] C; σὺν (om. καὶ) S. ib. Φορτουνάτῳ]
Povprovvatw C; Lrutunato S.
p. 170 1. 7 ἐπιποθήτην] ἐπιπόθητον C. ib. εἰρήνην καὶ ὁμό-
νοιαν] C ; ὁμόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην 8.
p. 171]. 8 ἀπαγγέλλωσιν] ἀπαγγείλωσιν C.
p. 1711}. 12 καὶ dv αὐτοῦ] S; δ αὐτοῦ (om. καὶ) C.
ib. τιμὴ...ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων] C; om. 5. As the general tendency of 5
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 how-
ever that the omissions of S, here and above § 64 (58), reduce the
doxology to Clement’s normal type; comp. e.g. δὲ 32, 38, 43, 45, 590.
p. 171 1. 13 εἰς] S; καὶ εἰς C.
The Second Epistle.
Ρ. 173 1. 3 sq. On the possibility that the title to the Second
Epistle has. been cut off see p. 307, note 2.
p. 179 1. 13 sq. Hagemann’s opinion is not correctly stated here.
He supposes this so-called Second Epistle to be the letter alluded to in
Vis. ii. 4, and to have been attached to the Shepherd of Hermas: but
450 ADDENDA.
he supposes also that both Hermas and Clement were names assumed
by the common writer of both documents for the purposes of his fiction.
p. 179 1. 32 sq. The homiletic character of the document is now
proved beyond a doubt, see p. 303 sq.; but the points in Grabe’s
theory which are here controverted receive no countenance from the
newly recovered ending of the document. See p. 305, note 1.
p. 185, προς κορινθιογς B. For the title of this work in CS see
above pp. 225, 234.
i
p. 185 1. 1 note. For these Syriac extracts see Wnight’s Cazal. of
Syr. MSS in the Brit. Mus. pp. 551, 916, 966, 974, 1004, 1013.
p. 185 1. 1 ypas| ὁ; ὑμᾶς C.
p. 1861. 2 ἡμᾶς] 5; ὑμᾶς Ὁ.
p. 1861. 4 λαβεῖν] ἀπολαβεῖν C. The reading of S is uncertain, for
Sap (the word used here) occurs elsewhere indifferently as a rendering
of both λαμβάνειν and ἀπολαμβάνειν, e.g. below § 8, 9, 11.
p. 1861. 4 sq. ws περὶ] confirmed by CS, as might have been antici-
pated.
p. 186 1. 5 μικρών] C; add. ἁμαρτάνουσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς S. The difficulty
of the article, of ἀκούοντες, is not perhaps sufficient in itself to condemn
the text of AC (see ὃ 19 μὴ ἀγανακτῶμεν ot ἄσοφοι, which however is
not an exact parallel); but S comes to the rescue, showing that some
words have been omitted owing to the repetition of the same beginnings,
ἁμαρτάνουσιν, ἁμαρτάνομεν.
p. 187 1. 8 καρπὸν] C; add. offeremus ili 5. This however does not
perhaps imply any additional words in the Greek text.
p. 187 1 9 de] γὰρ S; om. C.
p- 188 1. 1 ποῖον οὖν] C; ποῖον S. Thus the reading of A, ποιουν, is
intermediate ; see above, p. 246.
p- 188 1. 2 αὐτῷ δώσωμεν] δώσομεν αὐτῷ C. This reading disposes of
the grammatical difficulty presented by a future conjunctive, δώσωμεν ;
see Winer Gramm. § xiii. p. 89 (ed. Moulton). Of all such future
conjunctives however δώσω is perhaps the best supported ; see 7d. ὃ xiv.
Ρ. 95:
p- 188 1. 2 πηροὶ] cect S; πονηροὶ C.
p. 188 1. 3 καὶ χρυσὸν] χρυσὸν (om. καὶ) CS.
p. 188 1. 5 ἄλλο οὐδὲν] οὐδὲν ἄλλο C; and so apparently 5.
ib, ἀμαύρωσιν)] C; tantam obscuritatem S.
p. 188 1. 8 τῇ αὐτοῦ θελήσει] τῇ θελήσει αὐτοῦ C; voluntate nostra 9,
as if αὑτῶν.
ADDENDA. 451
p. 188 1. 9 πολλὴν πλάνην] C; hunc omnem (=tantum=rocadrny)
errorem multum ὃ.
p. 188 1. το μηδεμίαν κιτ.λ.} So also C; and this was evidently the
reading of S, though it translates by a finite verb, ef guod ne una quidem
Shes salutis sit nobis.
p. 188 1. r1 yap] C; δὲ 5.
p. 189 1. 12 ἐκ μὴ] ἐκ τοῦ μὴ Ὁ.
II.
p. 189 1. 13 εὐφράνθητι] C; add. yap, λέγει, 8. ib, ῥῆξον] C;
καὶ ῥῆξον 8.
p. 1891. 17 ἡμῶν] C; om. 5.
p. 189 1. 18 τὰς προσευχὰς] C; τὰ πρὸς τὰς προσευχὰς (or τὰ πρὸς
εὐχὰς, as suggested by Bensly) S. See above, p. 243.
p. 189 1. 19 αἱ ὠδίνουσαι] C; 7 ὠδίνουσα 8.
p. 189 1. 20 ἐγκακῶώμεν] ἐκκακῶμεν C.
p. 189 1. 22 τοῦ] om. C.
p. 1901. 1 δὲ} S; om. C.
p- 190]. 5 οὕτως] οὕτω C. ib, Χριστὸς] 5; Κύριος C.
III.
p. 190 1. 10 καὶ od προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς] S; om. C. ib, ἀλλὰ] C;
S translates as if it had read ἔπειτα δὲ ὅτι ; see above, p. 244.
p. 190 1. 11 ris] C; τίς δὲ 85.
Ρ. 190 l. 12 ἡ πρὸς αὐτὸν] 5; τῆς ἀληθείας C: see above p. 229.
ib. ἢ] C; om. S. ib. ἀρνεῖσθαι] add. αὐτὸν C. The testimony of
S cannot be alleged in such a case.
p- 190]. 13 ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων] C; om. 5. The reading of S is
probably correct, the words having been inserted by scribes from a well-
known evangelical passage, Luke xii. 9. For a similar instance, where
S preserves the true reading, see Clem. Rom. 46 (p. 437 sq., above). Our
preacher is in the habit of dropping out words in his quotations, and
presenting them in skeleton.
p. 191 L 14 αὐτὸν] S; om. C.
p. 191]. 15 μου] C; om. S, which adds etiam ego (κἀγώ). id. ὁ
μισθὸς ἡμῶν] C; merces magna S, ib. οὖν] om. CS.
p- 191]. 18 αὐτὸν τιμᾶν] C; debemus invocare (vocare) eum S, as if
ὀφείλομεν αὐτὸν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (καλεῖν).
Ῥ. 191]. 19 τῆς] om. C. ib, διανοίας] C ; δυνάμεως S,
ib, δὲ] γὰρ S; om. C.
ΡΟ 191 1. 21 αὐτῶν] S; αὐτοῦ C. ib, ἄπεστιν] 5; ἀπέστην C.
452 ADDENDA
p. 161 1,22 οὗν] 5: om. C.
p. 191]. 23 σώσει] C; σώζει 8.
Ρ. 191} 25 ὁμολογῶμεν] asap cic C:
p. 191 1. 26 ἀγαπᾶν] C; add. τοὺς πλησίον ws 5: ‘see above p. 244.
p:. 1921.3 τοιούτοις; τούτοις τοῖς C; his Ss
p. 192 1. 6 ὑμῶν] ἡμῶν CS.
p- 192 l. 7 Κύριος] C; Ἰησοῦς 5. th. ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου] C; i
uno sinu 5.
. 193 1. τἰ παροικίαν] ΓΟ; πηϑουκίαν S.
. 194 1. 3 πυρὸς] Ὁ; om. S.
. 194 l. 6 Χριστοῦ] C; Κυρίου 8. ἐδ. ἐστιν) C; om. (appa-
rently) S. |
Ῥ. 194 1. 7 ἀνάπαυσις] ἡ ἀνάπαυσις C.
p. 194.1. ὃ τί... ἐπιτυχεῖν] C; guid igitur est id quod facit ut attinga-
tis S. The translator seems to have had ποιῆσαν for ποιήσαντας in his
text, and to have wrested the grammar to make sense of it.
p. 194 1. 11 yap τῷ] τῷ yap C. 2b, ταῦτα] 5; αὐτὰ C.
Vv
Pp
Ὁ: 193 τὸ ἀποκτέννοντας] a ἀποκτένοντας ὯΝ
Ρ
Ρ
VI.
p. 194 1. 13 λέγει δὲ] Cy λέγει yap καὶ S.
p. 195 1. 14 ἐὰν] C; add. οὖν S.
p. 195 l. 16 τὸν κόσμον ὅλον] τὸν κόσμον (om. ὅλον) C; omnem hunc
mundum S, but the insertion of unc probably does not imply any
different reading from A: see above p. 339.
Ρ- 195 1. 18 καὶ φθορὰν] C; om. S.
p. 195 ]. 19 τούτοις] C; τοῖς τοιούτοις 8. See conversely below on
p. 1961. 2
Ὁ. ΤῸ lL 21 χρᾶσθαι] χρῆσθαι C. For the form in a comp. συγχρᾶσ-
θαι Ignat. Magn. 3, παραχρᾶσθαι Apost. Const. vi. το. 2b. οἰώμεθα]
οἰόμεθα CS. ‘S also adds δὲ ἀδελφοί.
p- 195 1. 23 ἀγαθὰ καὶ] ἀγαθὰ τὰ C; 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.
p. 195 1. 24 yap] 5; om. Ὁ.
Ῥ. 195 1]. 25 ἀνάπαυσιν] C; add. gue illic S, as if it had read τὴν
ἐκεῖ, but this may be only a translator’s gloss. tb. ἡμᾶς] C; om. S.
ADDENDA. 453
p. 195 1. 27 δὲ] C; yap 8. ib. ἐν τῷ] C3 τοῦ S.
p. 196 1. 1 Νῶε κιτ.λ] The same order of the names appears in
Apost. Const. 1. 14.
Ρ- 196 1. 2 of τοιοῦτοι] C; οὗτοι S: see conversely above on Ὁ. 195
1, 19. tb, δίκαιοι] C; om. S. ib. οὐ δύνανται] after δικαιο-
σύναις in C; but S has apparently the same order as A.
p. 196 l. 3 αὐτῶν] ἑαυτῶν C. This is also the reading of A, as it is
correctly given by Tischendorf. ib. ῥύσασθαι ta τέκνα] τὰ τέκνα
ῥύσασθαι (.
p. 196 1. 4 αὐτῶν] om. CS. ib. βάπτισμα] C; add. guod
accepimus 8.
p. 196 1. 5 εἰσελευσόμεθα κιτ.λ.}] The more usual meaning of βασί-
λειον would have a parallel in S. Anselm Cur Deus homo iu. 16 ‘Ut
nullus palatium ejus ingrediatur.’
VII.
p. 197 1. 2 οὖν] om. CS. 46. μου] οἵω. Ὁ. As S always adds
the possessive pronoun where the vocative ἀδελφοί stands alone in the
Greek, its testimony is of no value here: see above p. 321.
Ρ. 197 1. το καταπλέουσιν] C; certant (=aywvigovrat) S, but it pro-
bably does not represent a different reading in the Greek. Lower down
S translates καταπλεύσωμεν descendamus in certamen.
p. 197 1. 11 εἰ μὴ] C; add. solum S..
θέωμεν] So S distinctly, curramus, while C follows A in the corrupt
reading θῶμεν. Gebhardt, having read θέωμεν in first edition, has re-
turned to θῶμεν in his second, being apparently persuaded by Bryennios.
But the argument of Bryennios appears to me to be based on a mis-
conception. He urges that we cannot read θέωμεν on account of
the words immediately following, καὶ πολλοὶ εἰς αὐτὸν καταπλεύσωμεν, and
he argues ὁ δὲ ἄρτι ἀγωνιζόμενος χρείαν οὐκ ἔχει εἰς TOV ἀγῶνα κατελθεῖν, as
if the reading θέωμεν involved ἃ hysteron-proteron. But in fact this clause
introduces an entirely new proposition, of which the stress lies on πολλοί;
‘Jet us not only take part in this race (θέωμεν τὴν ὁδόν), but let us go
there in great numbers and contend (πολλοὶ καταπλεύσωμεν Kal ἀγωνισώ-
μεθα). On the other hand it has not been shown that θεῖναι τὴν ὁδὸν or
τὸν ἀγῶνα can be said of the combatants themselves. Bryennios indeed
explains it θῶμεν ἑαυτοῖς ἢ προθώμεθα, but this explanation stands self-
condemned by the necessity of using either the reflexive pronoun
(ἑαυτοῖς) or the middle voice (προθώμεθα) to bring out the sense. The
construction which we have here occurs from time to time with θέειν,
but is more common with τρέχειν, because the verb itself is more com-
A54 ADDENDA.
mon; e.g. Heb. xii. 1 τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα (see Bleek’s
note). Polybius (i. 87. 1, xviii. 35. 6) has the proverb τρέχειν τὴν
ἐσχάτην.
Ρ. 198 1. 2 καὶ ἀγωνισώμεθα] C; ἀγωνισώμεθα (om, καὶ) 5.
p-.198 1. 3 κἂν ἐγγὺς κιτ.λ.}] See Joseph. B. Zi. 21. 8 ἄθλα μέγιστα
προθεὶς ἐν οἷς οὐ μόνον οἱ νικῶντες ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ οἱ τρίτοι τοῦ
βασιλικοῦ πλούτου μετελάμβανον. Comp. AZfost. Const. il. 14.
p- 198 1. 4 εἰδέναι] add. δὲ CS. 2b, o| transposed so as to
stand before ἀγωνιζόμενος in C.
Ρ. 198 1. 6 μαστιγωθείς)] See Schweighzeuser’s note on Epictet. Dass.
ili. 15. 4 (p- 689).
Ρ. 198 1. 7 φθείρας] φθείρων C; so apparently 5.
p. 198 1. 8 παθεῖται] πείσεται C.
p- 199 1]. 1 τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν] 5; τὸ πῦρ (om. αὐτῶν) C.
WAT
Ρ. 199 1. 13 ποιῇ] ποιήσῃ C, but the present tense is wanted here.
ib. καὶ] omitted by CS here and placed before διαστραφῇ, thus altering
the sense. ‘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 ix the making (ποιῇ), happens under the hands of the potter (ἐν
ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ διαστραφῇ), and not afterwards, as ποιήσῃ..-ταῖς χερσὶν
αὐτοῦ καὶ διαστραφῇ would imply. ib. ἐν] om. C; S is doubtful.
p. 199 1. 14 9] S; om. Ὁ
Ῥ. 199 l. 15 ἀναπλάσσει] ἀναπλάσει C. ib. τοῦ πυρὸς] C;
om. S, but see the next note.
Ῥ. 199 1. 16 βαλεῖν] C; add. εἰ comburat id et pereat ( perdatur) S. It
is not probable however that any corresponding words stood in the
Greek text. ib. βοηθήσει] βοηθεῖ CS. 2b. οὕτως] οὕτω C.
p. 200 1. 2 a] C; si guid 5. ib. τῆς] om. C.
p. 200 1. 3 ἕως] dum S; ws ἔτι C. ib. ἔχομεν καιρὸν] καιρὸν
ἔχομεν C.
p. 200 1. 4 μετανοίας] S; om. C. 2b. τοῦ κόσμου] C3
τῆς σαρκός S.
p. 200 1. 5 ἐξομολογήσασθαι] C : add. super peccatis 5.
p- 200 ]. 6 ποιήσαντες] C ; add. οὖν 5.
p- 200 1. 7 σάρκα] C; add. ἡμῶν S.
Ῥ. 201 ]. 14 αἰώνιον] C; om. S, which is probably correct; comp.
8 14 τοσαύτην δύναται ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη μεταλαβεῖν ζωὴν x.7.r., ὃ 17 συνηγμένοι
ὦμεν ἐπὶ τὴν ζωήν. The epithet may have been inserted from the
expression just above, ληψόμεθα ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Similarly in John xx. 31
ADDENDA. 455
αἰώνιον is added after ζωὴν by δὲ CD etc., and in τ Tim. vi. 19 τῆς
αἰωνίου ζωῆς (from ver. 12) is substituted for the less usual τῆς ὄντως
ζωῆς by several authorities. In Luke x. 25 Marcion read ζωὴν with-
Out αἰώνιον (see Tertull. c Marc. iv. 25), and so one Latin copy.
tb. ἀπολάβωμεν] ἀπολάβητε CS. The licence in the change of persons
(τηρήσατε, ἀπολάβωμεν) has offended the transcribers here, though oc-
casionally indulged in even by the best writers in all languages, e. g.
Jeremy Taylor Works v1. p. 364 ‘If they were all zealous for the
doctrines of righteousness, and impatient of sin, in yourselves and in
the people, it is not to be imagined what a happy nation we should be.’
See also e.g. Rom. vil. 4 ἐθανατώθητε, καρποφορήσωμεν, vill. 15 ἐλάβετε,
κράζομεν, and frequently in 5. Paul.
IX.
Ρ. 201]. 15 τις] C; S translates, as if it had read μηδείς.
ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ] Comp. Pseudo-Ign. Zars. 2 ἕτεροι δὲ [λέγουσιν] ὅτι
ἢ σὰρξ αὕτη οὐκ ἐγείρεται, καὶ det ἀπολαυστικὸν βίον ζῆν καὶ μετιέναι. See
also Orig. ¢. Cels. v. 22.
p. 201 1. 16 οὐδὲ] οὔτε C.
p. 202 l. 3 καὶ ἐν τῇ capkl...0 σώσας] ef in carne venit Christus
Dominus (noster), unus existens, ts gui salvavit S. This may be ex-
plained by the obliteration of some letters, so that ἐλεύσεσθε was read
ελ...θε, and translated as if ἦλθε.
p- 202]. 4 εἰ] εἷς CS. The corruption therefore was very early.
p- 202 1. 5 πνεῦμα] S; λόγος C. See above p. 227 for the motive of
this change. ib. ἐγένετο] C; add. δὲ S. ib. σάρξ]
C; in carne ὃ.
p. 202 1. 6 ἐκάλεσεν] C ; add. existens in carne (dv ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ) S, but
this may be only a gloss of ovrws and probably does not represent any
additional words in the Greek text. ib. οὕτως] S; καὶ οὕτω
C. The transcriber has felt that with the reading εἷς some connecting
particle was needed, and has supplied it.
p. 202 ]. 7 οὖν] S; om. C.
p. 203 1. 10 τῷ θεραπεύοντι] C ; add. nos 8.
p. 203 1. 13 τὰ ἐν καρδίᾳ] τὰ ἐγκάρδια C ; ca gue in corde nostrum S.
p. 203 1. 13 αἰώνιον] om. CS. Comp. “4202. Const. iii. 1 τὸν αἰώνιον
επαιψνον.
Ρ. 203 1. 14 ἡμᾶς) ( ; καὶ ἡμᾶς 5.
X.
p. 204 1. 1 ἀδελφοί μου] ἀδελφοί (om. pov) C; ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί
456 ADDENDA.
[μου] S. On the uncertainty respecting the pronoun in S in such cases
see above, p. 321.
Ρ- 204 1. 4 προοδοίπορον] C3 proditerem (as if Dee ae S. This
rendering again may be due to the obliteration of some letters in the |
word. 2b. ἁμαρτιῶν] ἁμαρτημάτων C.
p- 204 1. 7 yap] S; dé Ὁ. 2b. οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον] So
too C; and this must also have been the reading of S, which translates
‘Non est homini (cuiguam) inventre homines illos qui faciunt timorem hit-
manum, as if the construction were οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπον εὑρεῖν (ἐκείνους) οἵτινες
x.7.A. But for the Syriac pIaes ‘gut faciunt, ought we not to read
piasa ‘gut transeunt, thus more closely representing παράγουσι,
which however it mistranslates? Lipsius (Academy July 9, 1870: comp.
Jen. Lit., 13 Jan. 1877) would read οὐκ ἔστιν εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις οἵτινες
«7.4. On the theory of Hilgenfeld, who postulates a great lacuna in
the Ms at this point, see below p. 458.
p. 204 1. 8 προῃρημένοι] προαιρούμεθα C. S translates, as if it had
read προαιρούμενοι, which was also conjectured 2 Bryennios.
p. 204 1. 9 ἀπόλαυσιν] S; ἀνάπαυσιν C.
Ρ. 205 1. 11 ἀπόλαυσις] S; ; ἀνάπαυσις C,
Ρ. 205 l. 13 ἀνεκτὸν ἦν] C; S translates erat tis fortasse respiratio, but
this probably does not represent any different Greek.
p. 205 l. 14 δισσὴν κιτ.Χ.} Apost. Const. v. 6 καὶ ἑτέροις αἴτιοι ἀπω-
λείας γενησόμεθα καὶ διπλοτέραν ὑποίσομεν THY τίσιν.
ἜΤ:
Ῥ. 205 ]. 17 sq. δουλεύσωμεν διὰ τοῦ μὴ πιστεύειν κιτ.λ.Ἷ δουλεύσωμεν
\ Ν Ν v , Ἁ \ aA ,
διὰ τὸ μὴ πιστεύειν κιτ.λ. C ; πιστεύσωμεν, διὰ τὸ δεῖν πιστεύειν κιτ.λ. S,
p. 205 1. 19 ταλαίπωροι] C ; vere (ἀληθῶς or ὄντως) 2:11567γ1 S.
p- 206 1. 2 πάντα] πάλαι CS. ib. ἠκούσαμεν] ἠκούομεν CS,
p. 206 1:3 «xai| C ; om. S. tb. ἐπὶ] C ; amo S.
Dp 200d. 36 wer) C5vom. S. 2b, φυλλοροεῖ] φυλλορροεῖ C.
p. 206 1. 7 pera ταῦτα] 5 ; εἶτα C. ib, σταφυλὴ] 5;
βλαστὸς C. 2b. οὕτως] οὕτω (.
p. 206]. 8 6 λαός μου] C; add. πρῶτον S.
Ρ- 206 1. το ἀλλὰ] ἀλλ᾽ C, ᾿ sh, iva]. αι 558
above, p. 334.
p. 207 1. 15 οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν οὐδὲ ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν] C3 oculus non vidit
et auris non audivit (transposing the clauses) S. This latter is the order
im 1 Cor. Yi. 9, and in Clem. Rom. 34.
p. 207 1. 16 εἶδεν] I have omitted to record that A reads wey. |
ADDENDA. 457
XII.
p- 207 1. 18 ἐπειδὴ] ἐπεὶ C.
p. 207 l. 19 τοῦ Θεοῦ] C; αὐτοῦ 8. tb. ἐπερωτηθεὶς]
ἐρωτηθεὶς C,
Ρ. 207 1]. 20 ὑπό τινος] C; add. τῶν ἀποστόλων S. The addition is
unfortunate, for the questioner was Salome; see the note p. 207.
ib. ἥξει] C ; vent (a present) S.
p. 208 l. 1 sq. τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω] S; τὰ ἔξω ws τὰ ἔσω C.
Ῥ. 208 ]. 3 δύο de] δὲ δύο C.
p. 208 1]. 4 ἑαυτοῖς] C ; ποδὲς 8, which represents ἑαυτοῖς.
id. δυσὶ] δύο Ὁ.
p. 209]. 5 τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω] C3 τὸ ἔσω ὡς τὸ ἔξω 8.
Ρ. 209 ]. 6 τὸ ἔσω, τὸ δὲ ἔξω] 8 ; τὸ ἔξω τὸ δὲ ἔσω C.
p. 209]. 7 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
p. 209 1. 8 δῆλος] δήλη C.
p. 209 1. 9 θηλείας] I have omitted to record the reading of A,
θηλίας.
p. 210, note. The conjecture in this note as to the probable in-
terpretation which our author put on the words τὸ ἄρσεν κιτιλ. is not
confirmed by the newly recovered ending: see above p. 315.
Ρ. 211, note. Harnack (p. 176, ed. 1) took exception to this
calculation of the length of the lost portion, urging rightly that in the
Stichometria of Nicephorus the verses cannot have been of the same
length in the different books. He considered that the Epistle of
Barnabas would afford a safer standard of comparison; and arguing
on this basis (since 1360 verses are assigned to that epistle) he arrived
at the result that the lost portion of the Second Clementine Epistle
must have occupied ‘unum folium nec quidem completum.’ His
estimate is now found to be somewhat under the truth, as mine was
considerably above it. The lost portion would have taken up about a
leaf and a half in the Alexandrian ms.
In the colophon at the end of the Second Epistle in C we have
the enumeration στίχοι x'* ῥητὰ κε. Since Nicephorus gives the number
of στίχοι in the two Clementine Epistles as ,Bx’, Bryennios supposes
that x’ here is an error for By’, the β having dropped out. Hilgenfeld
however points to the fact that the ῥητά, or scriptural quotations, are
given as 25 in number, and that this must refer to the Second Epistle
alone. The quotations in the Second Epistle, when counted up,
amount to 25 (one or two more or less, for in a few cases it is difficult
458 ADDENDA.
to say whether the quotations would be reckoned separately or not) ;
but this number is impossible for the two epistles combined. It
follows therefore that the enumeration of 600 verses must refer to the
Second Epistle alone.
I may add that this accords with the reckoning in Nicephorus.
If we subtract the 600 verses from the 2600 which Nicephorus gives
for the two Epistles, 2000 verses are left for the First. Thus the pro-
portion of the First Epistle to the Second will be approximately as
2000 : 600, or as 10: 3; and this is the case, as may be seen from the
relative spaces occupied by the two epistles in my translation, where
they take up 341 pages and ro} pages respectively, these numbers
being almost exactly in the ratio of 10: 3.
This statement therefore in the colophon to C seems to have been
taken from some earlier copy which had an enumeration identical with
that of Nicephorus. In the actual text of C however the distribution
of verses is quite different. Here, as Bryennios states (p. 142), the
number reckoned up is 1120, consisting of 853 for the First Epistle
and 267 for the Second.
Of the fragments (i) (11), which are here assigned to the Second Epistle,
the first (p. 210), occurring in the Rochefoucauld Extracts which bear the
name of John of Damascus, is found in § 20 (see above p. 340), though
it proves not to have been quoted very exactly by the Pseudo-Damascene.
The second however, though quoted in the same work explicitly as
τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ἐπισκόπον Ῥώμης ἐκ τῆς β΄ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπι-
στολῆς, has no place in the newly recovered ending. What account
can we give of this fact?
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2, pp. xlvili, 77) supposes that there is still a great
lacuna in this work in ὃ IO οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον | οἵτινες παράγουσιν
φόβους ἀνθρωπινούς κιτιλ. In this lacuna he finds a place not only for
this quotation in the so-called John of Damascus, but also for the
reference to the Sibyl in Pseudo-Justin which I have discussed already
(pp. 308, 447, 54.). This solution 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 in ὃ ro (see pp. 204, 247), 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 p. 247) have the same text here. It 15 not indeed impos-
ADDENDA. 459
sible that this archetypal ms should have been defective, seeing that
the common progenitor of ACS certainly had minor corruptions.
But though fosséb/e in itself, this supposition is 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 acces-
sible to the Pseudo-Damascene, or even to the Pseudo-Justin. More-
over the enumeration of verses in the Stichometria of Nicephorus, as
will appear from the calculation just given (p. 458), seems to have
been made when the epistle was of its present size, and is not adapted
to a more lengthy document. ᾿
(2) Again; though the two fragments 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 appropriate to one another, and in this juxtaposition seem to
have been suggested by the language of Ps. xxxiv. 9 sq. quoted in my
note.
(3) I seem to see now that the style of the fragment quoted by
the Pseudo-Damascene betrays a different hand from our author's.
Its vocabulary is more philosophical (καθόλου, τὰ φεῦκτα, ὑπόθεσις καὶ
ὕλη, τὰ ἀσπαστὰ, κατ᾽ εὐχήν), and altogether it shows more literary skill.
We must suppose therefore, that the Pseudo-Damascene got his
quotations from some earlier collection of extracts, e.g. the Mes Sacre
of Leontius and John (for the titles of the subjects in their works were
much the same as his, and they had the particular title under which
these words are quoted, περὶ τῶν προσκαίρων καὶ αἰωνίων, in common
with him; see Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vu. p. 80: moreover the
true John of Damascus appears to have owed some of his extracts
to this same source; see above p. 426), and that in transferring these
extracts to his own volume he has displaced the reference to Clement,
which belonged to some other extract in the neighbourhood.
Fragments.
p. 213 1. 14. See above, p. 425 sq. This first fragment is not found
in the newly recovered ending of the Second Epistle. For the manner
in which it is quoted by Leontius and John, see above p. 426. It
will there be seen that the heading is not, as Mai (Script. Vet. Nov.
Coll. vit. p. 84) gives it, rod ἁγίον Κλήμεντος Ῥώμης ἐκ τῆς 0 ἐπιστολῆς,
460 ADDENDA.
but rod αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς θ ἐπιστολῆς. It is true that this follows im-
mediately after a quotation from the genuine epistle headed ‘Of Saint
Clement of Rome from the Epistle to the Corinthians.’ But this
indirectness makes all the difference in the value of the attribution.
These extracts for instance may have been taken from an earlier
collection containing an intermediate passage from some other author,
to whom, and not to Clement, rod αὐτοῦ refers. It is probably therefore
in some collection of letters written by a later father that this quotation
should be sought.
p. 215 1.1 sq. In giving the passages from the Clementine Homilies
which correspond to these fragments I have omitted one which has
been pointed out to me by a friend, and which is necessary to complete
the parallel ; iii. 10 εὐγνωμοσύνη δέ ἐστιν τὸ THY πρὸς τὸν TOD εἶναι ἡμᾶς
αἴτιον ἀποσώζειν στοργήν.
p. 21813. In ascribing to Nolte the first discovery of the source
of this fragment, I had overlooked Lagarde fel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. p. xi,
note. Lagarde however only refers to Clem. Hom. iv. 18, omitting
any reference to iv. 11, which covers the larger part of the quotation.
p. 2181.13. For δεινὴν σύνοικον comp. Clem, Hom. 1. 2 σύνοικον
Kahn ἔχων ἔννοιαν,
Appendix,
Ὁ. 230, note. Lipsius also (Jen. Zit., 13 Jan. 1877) considers A
to be superior to C. On the other hand Donaldson agrees with
Hilgenfeld’s estimate of their relative value so far as regards the First
Epistle, but thinks C inferior in the Second (Zxeol. Rev. p. 41).
p. 235}. 11. Since the earlier sheets of this Appendix were struck
off, I have noticed the following account of a Paris Ms in the Cafa-
logues des Manuscrits Syriaques et Sabéens de la Bibliotheque Nationale
(Paris, 1874) p. 19, no. 52.
1. Les quatre Evangiles, dans la version de THomas D’HERACLEE
...La note finale, relative ἃ la rédaction de la version héracléenne...
est suivie d’une note du copiste, qui dit avoir exécuté ce ms en
Yannée 1476 des Grecs (1165 de J. C.) dans le monastére de Mar-Salibo
de Béth-Yehidoyé, sur la montagne sainte d’Edesse, au temps de
Mar-Jean, metropolitain de cette ville.
ADDENDA. 461
2. (Fol. 204 v®.)...‘Legons de la Passion redemptrice prises dans
les quatre évangelistes’ etc.
Thus it was written only five years before our Ms and at the same
monastery. These two Mss therefore may be expected to resemble
each other closely. Unfortunately the Paris ms does not contain the
Acts and Epistles.
p- 2551. 5. The person who in the vision gives this direction
to Hermas is not the Shepherd himself, but the Church.
Ρ. 267, note 3. To these authorities should be added Georgius
Syncellus, who seems to have derived his information from some
authority not now extant. He says distinctly of Stephanus (p. 650)
τῇ πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην εὐνοίᾳ Κλήμεντα ἐνεδρεύσας κ.τ.λ,
Ῥ. 270, note 2. Among the prayers which are acknowledged to
be the most ancient is the form called either absolutely ZepAz//ah ‘The
Prayer’ (ndpn) or (from the number of the benedictions) Shemoneh
Esreh ‘The Eighteen’ (ΠΣ πολ). They are traditionally ascribed
by the Jews to the Great Synagogue; but this tradition is of course
valueless, except as implying a relative antiquity. They are mentioned
in the Mishna Zerachoth iv. 3, where certain precepts respecting them
are ascribed to Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Akiba ;
while from another passage, Rosh-ha-Shanah iv. 5, it appears that they
then existed in substantially the same form as at present. Thus their
high antiquity seems certain; so that the older parts (for they have
grown by accretion) were probably in existence in the age of our
Lord and the Apostles, and indeed some competent critics have
assigned to them a much earlier date than this. Of these eighteen
benedictions the first three and the last three are by common consent
allowed to be the oldest. On the date of the Shemoneh Esreh, see
Zunz Gottesdienstliche Vortrage p. 366 sq., Herzfeld Geschichte des
Volkes Jisraed τι. p. 200 sq., Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclop. of Bibl. Lit.
(ed. Alexander) s. v. Synagogue.
I have selected for comparison the first two and the last two; and
they are here written out in full with the parallel passages from
Clement opposite to them, so as to convey an adequate idea of the
amount of resemblance. ‘The third is too short to afford any material
for comparison; while the sixteenth, referring to the temple-service,
is too purely Jewish, and indeed appears to have been interpolated after
the destruction of the second temple.
CLEM. 30
462
ADDENDA.
[The parallels which belong to the other parts of S. Clement's
Epistle are in brackets. |
τ. Blessed art Thou, O Lord
our God, and the God of our
fathers, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, the God great and power-
ful and terrible, God Most High,
who bestowest Thy benefits gra-
ciously, the Possessor of the Uni-
verse, who rememberest the good
deeds of the fathers and sendest
a redeemer unto their sons’ sons
for Thy Name’s Sake in love.
Our King, our Helper and Saviour
and Shield, blessed art Thou, O
Lord, the Shield of Abraham.
2. Thou art mighty for ever,
O Lord; Thou bringest the dead
to life. Thou art mighty to save.
Thou sustainest the living by Thy
mercy, Thou bringest the dead to
life by Thy great compassion, Thou
supportest them that fall, and
healest the sick, and loosest them
that are in bonds, and makest
good Thy faithfulness to them that
Who is like
unto Thee, O Lord of might?
sleep in the dust.
and who can be compared unto
Thee, O King, who killest and
makest alive, and causest salvation
to shoot forth? And Thou art
[ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ABpadp § 31. ]
θαυμαστὸς ἐν ἰσχύϊ καὶ μεγαλο-
πρεπείᾳ ὃ 60. τὸν μόνον ὕψιστον
ὃ 59. ;
μόνον εὐεργέτην K.T.A. 10. [ὁ
οἰκτίρμων κατὰ πάντα καὶ εὐεργετικὸς
πατὴρ ὃ 23.
σύ, Κύριε, τὴν οἰκουμένην ἔκτισας
8 60. [δεσπότης τῶν ἁπάντων § 8,
20, 33; 52}. ᾿ η
καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς πατράσιν
ἡμῶν, ἐπικαλουμένων σε αὐτῶν ὁσίως
Ν ‘ ε
K.TA. ὃ 60, [καθὼς καὶ οἱ προδεδη-
λωμένοι πατέρες ἡμῶν εὐηρέστησαν
βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων ὃ 61.
> a / , Ν
ἀξιοῦμέν σε, δέσποτα, βοηθὸν γε-
νέσθαι καὶ ἀντιλήπτορα ᾿ ἡμῶν ὃ 59.
ὁ μόνος δυνατὸς ποιῆσαι ταῦτα
§ 61.
‘ a 3 , A
τὸν τῶν ἀπηλπισμένων σωτῆρα
ὃ 59:
ὃ ἀγαθὸς..
§ 60.
TOUS πεπτωκότας EyELPOV...TOUS
5 iad x 9 /
«ἐλεῆμον καὶ οἰκτίρμον
ἀσεβεῖς (ἀσθενεῖς) ἴασαι.. «λύτρωσαι
Ἀ ὃ ’ὔ ς A 98 ld
τοὺς δεσμίους ἡμῶν, ἐξανάστησον
3, 5» nw
τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ὃ 50.
‘ 9 A ’ὔ 9 7
πιστὸς ἐν τοῖς πεποιθόσιν ἐπὶ σέ
§ 60.
Lal 5 ’ ,
τοῦ... ἀνεκδιηγήτου κράτους σου
§ 61.
Ν 3 , ἈΝ A A
Tov ἀποκτείνοντα καὶ ζῆν ποιοῦντα
ὃ 50.
* The word 12 ‘shield’ is translated by ἀντιλήπτωρ in the Lxx of Ps. cxix
(cxviii). 114, from which Clement here borrows his expression.
ADDENDA.
faithful to bring the dead to life.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
bringest the dead to life.
17. We confess unto Thee
that Thou art He, the Lord our
God and the God of our fathers
for ever and ever, the Rock of our
life, the Shield of our salvation,
Thou art He from generation to
generation, We will thank Thee
and declare Thy praise. Blessed
art Thou, O Lord; Goodness is
Thy Name, and to Thee it is meet
to give thanks.
18. Grant peace, goodness
and blessing, grace and mercy and
compassion unto us and to all
Thy people Israel. Bless us, O
our Father, all together with the
light of Thy countenance. ‘Thou
hast given unto us, O Lord our
God, the law of life, and loving-
kindness and righteousness and
blessing and compassion and life
and peace. And may it seem
good in Thy sight to bless Thy
people Israel at all times and at
every moment with Thy peace.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
blessest Thy people Israel with
peace.
463
σοὶ ἐξομολογούμεθα ὃ 61.
ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Θεὸς μόνος § 50.
εἰς τὸ σκεπασθῆναι τῇ χεὶρί σου
κιτιλ, § 60.
A ’ » a
ὁ πιστὸς ἐν πάσαις Tals γενεαῖς
§ 60.
~ , > , [ὦ 6
τῷ παναρέτῳ ονόματί σοὺ ὃ 6ο.
, , e , " , ε ,
δός, Κύριε, ὑγιείαν, εἰρήνην, ὁμό-
3 /
voiav, εὐστάθειαν ὃ 61.
δὸς ὁμόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην ἡμῖν τε
καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν K.T.A. § 60.
> ’ Ἀ ’ ’ > 9
ἐπίφανον τὸ πρόσωπον σου ἐφ
ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀγαθὰ ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὃ 6ο.
[δῴη πίστιν, φόβον, εἰρήνην, ὗπο-
μόνην, μακροθυμίαν, ἐγκράτειαν, ἁγνεί-
αν καὶ σωφροσύνην § 64].
\ Ν 3s? > , ,
καλὸν καὶ εὔαρεστον ἐνώπιον σου
§ 61.
ε a ΄
ἡμεῖς λαὸς σου ὃ 59.
[ὁ ἐκλεξάβενος..«ἡμᾶς...εἰς λαὸν
περιούσιον ὃ 58].
These parallels are, I think, highly suggestive, and some others
might be gathered from other parts of the Shemoneh Esreh.
The
resemblance however is perhaps greater in the general tenour of the
thoughts and cast of the sentences than in the individual expressions.
At the same time it is instructive to observe what topics are rejected
as too purely Jewish, and what others are introduced to give expres-
sion to Christian ideas.
Jacobi (Zheol. Stud. u. Krit. 1876, iv. p. 710 sq.) doubts whether
30—z2
464 ADDENDA.
this liturgical portion was any part of Clement’s original letter, and
suggests that it was inserted afterwards at Corinth. ‘This theory seems
to me quite impossible for many reasons.
(1) In the first place it is contained in both our authorities CS,
and obviously was contained in A, before the missing leaf disappeared,
as the space shows (see Harnack Theolog. Literaturs. Feb. το, 1876).
The combination of these three authorities points to a very early date
(see above p. 247). Moreover the writer of the last two books of the
Apostolical Constitutions obviously borrows indifferently from this prayer
and from other parts of Clement’s Epistle; and though he might
have been indebted to two different sources for his obligations, the
probability is that he derived them from the same.
(2) The expedient which Jacobi ascribes to the Corinthians would
be extremely clumsy. He supposes that the reading of the letter in
the Corinthian Church was followed by congregational prayer, and that,
as Clement states it to be the intention of the Romans, if their appeal
to the Corinthians should be disregarded, to betake themselves to
prayer on behalf of Christendom generally (§ 59), it occurred to the
Church at Corinth to interpolate their own form of prayer in the
epistle at this point. When we remember that this prayer of Clement
is followed immediately by special directions relating to individual
persons who are mentioned by name, nothing could well be more in-
congruous than the gratuitous insertion of a liturgical service here.
(3) Jacobi remarks on the affinity to the type of prayer in the Greek
Church. I have shown that the resemblances to pre-existing Jewish
prayers are at least as great. Indeed the language is just what we
might expect from a writer in the age of Clement, when the liturgy of
the Synagogue was developing into the liturgy of the Church.
(4) Jacobi does not conceal a difficulty which occurs to him in the
fact that, together with ἀρχιερεύς, the very unusual title προστάτης,
‘Guardian’ or ‘ Patron’, which is* given to our Lord in this prayer
(§ 61), is found twice in other parts of the epistle, §§ 36, 58 (64);
but he thinks this may have been adopted into the Corinthian form of
prayer from Clement. If this had been the only coincidence, his
explanation might possibly have been admitted. [But in fact this prayer
is interpenetrated with the language and thoughts of Clement, so far as
the subject allowed and the frequent adoption of Old Testament phrases
left room for them. Thus in ὃ 59 for ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ see §§ 11, 123 again
ἀνοίξας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν has a close parallel in ὃ 36;
εὐεργέτην applied to God is matched by εὐεργετεῖν, εὐεργεσία, in the same
connexion §§ 19, 20, 21, 38; with the whole expression εὐεργέτην mvev-
ADDENDA. 465
μάτων Kal Θεὸν πάσης σαρκὸς... τὸν ἐπόπτην ἀνθρωπίνων ἔργων, Compare
§ 58 ὁ παντεπόπτης Θεὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ Κύριος πάσης
σαρκός ; for βοηθὸς see § 36 ; for κτιστής, S§ 19, 62 ; for ἐκλέγεσθαι, §§ 43,
58 (64), and the use of ἐκλεκτὸς elsewhere in this epistle ; for ἀγαπῶντάς
σε, ὃ 29; for διὰ 1. X. τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδός σου, ὃ 59 διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου
παιδὸς αὐτοῦ I, X. in the same connexion ; for ἀξιοῦμεν of prayer to God,
S$ 51, 53, and with an accusative case, as here, ὃ 55 ; for δεσπότης applied
to God, the rest of the epistle Aassim. In ὃ 60 for aévaos see ὃ 20; for
ὁ πιστὸς κιτιλ. Compare a very similar expression ὃ 27 τῷ πιστῷ ἐν ταῖς
ἐπαγγελίαις καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν ; for θαυμαστὸς, §§ 26, 35, [36],
43, 50; for ἑδράζειν οἵ God’s creative agency, ὃ 33; for the repetition of
the article tas ἀνομίας καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας κιτιλ., the rest of the epistle
passim, and for the connexion of the two words, § 35; for παραπτώματα,
S$ 2, 51, 56 (comp. παράπτωσις ὃ 59); for πλημμελείας, ὃ 41; for κατεύ-
θυνον «.7.X., ὃ 48 κατευθύνοντες τὴν πόρειαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁσιότητι Kal δικαιοσύνῃ ;
for πορεύεσθαι ἐν, § 3 (comp. ὃ 4) ; for τὰ καλὰ καὶ εὐάρεστα ἐνώπιον (comp.
§ 61) see § 21, where the identical phrase appears, and compare also
δὲ 75 35, 49; for the combination ὁμόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην (comp. ὃ 61) see
§ 20 (twice), 63, 59 (65); for καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν compare
§ 62 καθὼς καὶ of προδεδηλωμένοι πατέρες ἡμῶν x.t.’. (see the whole
context, and comp. ὃ 30): for ὁσίως (omitted however in C), §§ 6, 21
(twice), 26, 40, 44, 62; for ὑπηκόους, ξ8 10, 13, 14; for παντοκράτωρ,
inscr., §§ 2, 32, 62; for mavaperos, §§ 1, 2, 45, 573 for ἡγούμενοι, §§ 3, 5,
32, 37, 51, 55. In ὃ 61 for μεγαλοπρεπὴς (comp. μεγαλοπρεπεία in ὃ 60)
see ὅδ 1, 9, 19, 45, 58 (64); for ἀνεκδιήγητος, S$ 20, 49; for ὑπὸ σοῦ...
δεδομένην (see also twice below), ὃ 58 ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα ; for δόξαν καὶ
τιμήν, ὃ 45 (see below, and comp. § 59) ; for ὑποτάσσεσθαι, §§ 1, 2, 20, 34;
38, 573 for εὐστάθειαν, ὃ 59 (65); for ἀπροσκόπως, ὃ 20; for βασιλεῦ τῶν
αἰώνων, see ὃ 35 πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων, ὃ 55 Θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων ; for ὑπαρχόντων,
this epistle Aassim, where it occurs with more than average frequency ;
for διευθύνειν, δὲ 20, 62, and for διέπειν... εὐσεβῶς, ὃ 62 εὐσεβῶς καὶ δικαίως
διευθύνειν ; for ἵλεως, § 2; for ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, ὃδ 51, 52; for μεγαλωσύνη,
§$ 16, 27, 36, 58, and more especially joined with δόξα in doxologies, as
here, §§ 20, 58 (64), comp. ὃ 59 (65); and for εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων
see the conclusion of Clement’s doxologies generally.
Thus the linguistic argument is as strong as it well could be against '
Jacobi’s theory.
The anonymous writer of the articles in the Church Quarterly
(see above, p. 395), has collected parallels to Clement’s prayer from the
early Christian liturgies. My own text and notes were completed and
4.66 ADDENDA.
in print, before I saw these articles, and therefore my investigations in this
direction are altogether independent. Immediately after making myself
acquainted with the new portions of Clement in the edition of Bryen-
nios, I read the early liturgies through with a view to noting coinci-
dences.
p- 273, note r A manuscript containing the Thebaic Version of
these Egyptian ‘ Afpostolical Constitutions’ was formerly in the posses-
sion of Tattam (see his preface, p. xiv)’. It was lent by him to
Lagarde who transcribed it, and has given a very full account of it in
his el. Jur. Eccl, Ant. p. ix sq. Lagarde describes it as ‘codex
recentissimus non bombycinus sed papyraceus.’ It is now in the
British Museum, where its class mark is Orient. 440. Unfortunately
this copy is defective, and does not contain the proper ‘ Apostolical
Canons’ at all.
The Ms mentioned in my note, which is also in the British Museum,
Orient. 1320, supplies the deficiency. It is of large 4to or small folio
size, written on parchment, and was recently acquired from Sir C. A.
Murray’s collection. It consists of two parts, apparently in the same
hand-writing, but with separate paginations. At the end is the date ano
asonA. Rh The year 722 of Diocletian is A.D. 1006.
The two parts, of which it consists, are as follows’:
(1) Paged a to ma, the reverse of ma being blank. This part
begins
FLAIMEMRAIWMILITENMEIOTCETOTASAMAOCTOAOCATIEITR OEIC CITES CHt-
TATRKAATED PAIONMERRAMCIA.
Paujewnenuynpemititemuseepe etc. (see Tattam p. 2).
Its contents are the same as in the ms described by Lagarde
(p. xisq.), as far as the latter goes. The readings of the sections a—
oa are also the same with slight variations of orthography, etc. At
this point however the latter ms fails us (see Tattam p. xiv, Lagarde
p- xv).
1 Lagarde (p. ix.) is mistaken in saying that this Sahidic Ms was given to Tattam
by the Duke of Northumberland. He has transferred to the Sahidic Ms the statement
which Tattam makes of the Memphitic (p. xiv).
3 In giving the extracts from this Ms, I have copied the text exactly as I found it,
without altering the pointing or correcting other errors.
ADDENDA. 467
The subsequent sections are as follows:
Oc. eThENTEXC NH . MITITEFOTE.
Hapovusmettcanerhroconoswps etc.
oc. ethexeausiencoooreTensusccaareThenenTavennoth.
HaporepnujoMitTititenTavenkoTR etc. :
οζ: ετὐεπετου τωκειλιλιοουετδετπιστις. ATWHETHATOFOTCOMEhOA-
οχιπολιςεπολιςετδετπιοτις.. OWCTEETPETHOHGEIEPOOTQIOTCON.
[Πωπερωτπππετοσ δ ιωπελιοον etc.
on is without any heading but begins,
TlaractenmapacresAcM Mog nH TITHpTHOrOy con,
and ends,
MAPK IEPETCMME . MITOTTEETEMMREMOTTETENTWITEPOY,
followed by the colophon :
ATXORCHOANGMKAMNWIMIIEMEIOTEETOTAALMAMOCTOAOCC . πεῷ-
aAaton . OR.
ἐπωζδος δριδοδοηθειδαιπ.
Comparing the Thebaic sections with the Memphitic as printed by
Tattam, we find that
oa comprises of, o« (Tattam pp. 130—136, but without the
colophons etc.)
oh corresponds to oa (20. p. 136).
or 5 » 0 (2b. p. 138).
Cae » OF (2d. p. 166.)
oc begins as 0@ (ib. p. 166). It contains the whole of oe
(ib. p. 166—172), ending πστπεπροῴητης, followed
immediately by nicTOCACHIMAMICTHETUJAMTWOTH CLC.
(1d. p. 138) as far as εδολοπτεκκλησια (76. p. 146).
oc corresponds to or (20. pp. 146—150).
οζ a -4 0% (%. p. 150) as far as [ITEM TOAK-
MILBOEIC.
ox, as described above, comprises 7b. pp. 150—164.
(2) Paged a—Ka. This part contains the Afpostolical Canons,
properly so called, which are here so divided as to be 71 in number
(oa).
468 ADDENDA.
The heading (p. a) 1s:
MRANWHMTERRAHCIA . MAMITAMAMOCTOAOCTARTOITMRAHMAC .
NHENTAPTHMOOTEY . OQMOTEIPHNHNTENMMOTTE . COOMA.
Ereqcrpomwnteritensckonocertitcna ταις κοπος υτοῖπετι
The ending (p. ka) is:
ATWITOOMOOTCION . WAEIED . HEMEODAALHMT.
ArxwKchoANGMIRANOMMRAHMHC . RambaAasomn . Oa.
The remainder of this page, and the reverse, is taken up with
various colophons, including the date as already given.
The list of the O. T. books in Canon oa ends:
TcoiamMMMpHpencipax . eTougitchw.
After which is the following list of the N. T. books.
Henxwwmerncowwnanommanocroroc . Metar. ετεπα τ τα ϑυ-
πηπῦρρεπε.. WEeyTOOFETACTEALION . KATASENTANUJPMx00C . TRATA-
MAGOAIO’ . MRATAMAPROC . MKRATAAOTKAC . WRATAIWOANNHC . MeN
MpagicantonstawlocToroc.
TcttTemenicTOAHMITETPOC . THJOMTENTWOAMMHC . TEMICTOAHTIIA-
HWHOC . MNTAIOVAAC . TAITTATENMEMICTOAHMMTATAOC . TAMORAATAM-
APicHiWOAMMHC . TCHTEMEMICTOAHTIRAHAMAC . ετετπεδιπουοιδολ,
This part therefore corresponds to the Memphitic in Tattam, pp.
174—212.
The version in Tattam is stated in one of the concluding colophons
(p. 214) to have been translated from the language of upper Egypt (the
Thebaic) into that of lower Egypt (the Memphitic) ; and a very recent
date (Diocl. 1520 = A.D. 1804) is given.
Comparing the Thebaic ms with the Memphitic we find that:
(1) Whereas in the former we have two distinct works, in the
latter they are thrown together and then divided into eg#t books’, to
which special headings are prefixed. This division into eight books
was doubtless made in order to secure for them the sanction which was
accorded to the eight books of the Apostolical Constitutions, properly
so called.
(2) There seems to have been some displacement in the leaves
1 Strictly speaking seven books, in the collection as it stands. But in the colo-
phons the First Book is stated to be also the Second, the Second to be the Third,
and so forth.
ADDENDA, 469
of the Thebaic Ms from which the Memphitic Version was taken, so
that the portion, pp. 166—172, is placed after p. 164, instead of
standing after Senovtagscemaneg (p, 138) as in the Thebaic, which
(as the connexion of the subjects suggests) is its original position.
The Ethiopic Version (see Tattam p. v sq., Lagarde p. x) seems
to follow the Thebaic throughout, and was in all probability translated
from it.
p. 279 note 1. In this note I have carelessly taken Adler’s date
without testing his arithmetic. The year 1503 of Alexander (1.6. of
the Seleucidz) is not a.p. 1212, as Adler gives it, but A.D. 1192. Thus
this Paris Ms is brought nearer in date to our Cambridge ms. A
description of it is given in the Catalogues des Manuscrits Syriaques etc.,
Pp. 20, No. 54.
Another Paris ms (described above, p. 460 sq.) will probably prove an
exception to what I have said here, for it may be expected to resemble
closely our Cambridge Ms in its arrangement of lessons, as in other
respects.
Ρ. 2881.7 sq. See Afsost. Const. i. ὃ πάσης τε πνοῆς καὶ δυνάμεως
δημιουργόν.
p. 2891. 15. See Afpost. Const. i. 6 τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκετε, τοὺς
ἐπισταμένους στηρίζετε, τοὺς πεπλανημένους ἐπιστρέφετε.
Ρ. 2911.11. See Hippol. p. 69 (Lagarde) τῆς τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν
θέας ἀεὶ ἀπολαύοντες Kal τῇ τῶν ἑκάστοτε καινῶν ὁρωμένων προσδοκίᾳ
ἡδόμενοι κἀκεῖνα τούτων βελτίω ἡγούμενοι. Lipsius (¥en. Lit., Jan. 13,
1877) would read σωζομένοις with Harnack.
p- 293}. 11 sq. Lipsius (1. c.) would read ἐπικαλοῦμέν σε ῥῦσαι τοὺς
ἐν πίστει Kal ἀληθείᾳ ὑπηκόους γινομένους.
p. 293 1. 13 note. The expression παντοκρατορικὸν ὄνομα occurs
in Macar. Magn. Apoer. iv. 30 (p. 225).
Ρ. 304 note 1. Lipsius (l.c.) suggests reading pera τὴν τῆς θείας
ἀληθείας ἀνάγνωσιν ἀναγινώσκω.
p. 2961. 2. Lipsius defends the reading of C and says, ‘ Die con-
struction ist gut griechisch; iibersetze “‘ad probam vitam iis qui volunt
pie et juste dirigendam”’, This is to me quite unintelligible as a
rendering of the Greek.
Ρ. 314 note 3. [566 that Lipsius also, finding fault with Gebhardt,
says ‘ Ep. ii. 19... ist in Cod. φιλοσοφεῖν in φιλοποιεῖν, nicht φιλοπονεῖν
corrigirt ; lezteres ist emendation von Bryennios’. Both Lipsius and Hil-
genfeld seem to have misunderstood the words of Bryennios, ἐκ διορθώ-
σεως καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ ἀντιγραφέως, Which must mean not ‘my correction
421
470 ADDENDA.
of the scribe’, but ‘the scribe’s correction of himself’, as the rest of
the note plainly shows. The καὶ τοῦτο apparently refers to μεταλήψεται
§ 14 (p. 135), where he speaks of τὴν λέξιν διωρθωμένην χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ
ἀντιγραφέως.
p. 3261. 4. Lipsius would supply λέγουσι μέλλειν καταβαίνειν after
ἄνωθεν.
-p. 340]. 2. See Hippol. p. 69 (Lagarde) 7 τῶν πατέρων δικαίων
τε ὁρωμένη ὄψις πάντοτε μειδιᾷ ἀναμενόντων THY μετὰ τοῦτο TO χωρίον
ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ αἰωνίαν ἀναβίωσιν.. ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗτοι [οἱ ἄδικοι] τὸν τῶν
πατέρων χορὸν καὶ τοὺς δικαίους ὁρῶσι, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ κολαζό-
μενοι...καὶ τὸ σῶμα.. δυνατὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀναβιώσας ἀθάνατον ποιεῖν, and
lower down ἀποφθέγξονται φωνὴν οὕτως λέγοντες, Δικαία σου ἡ κρίσις,
and again τὸ πῦρ ἄσβεστον διαμένει...“ κώληξ δέ τις ἔμπυρος KT.A.
(comp. ὃ 17). These resemblances suggest that our Clementine homily
was known to this writer.
Ῥ. 4131. 9, note on ἡ πόρνη (§ 12). In Heb. xi. 31 also ἡ ἐπιλε-
γομένη πόρνη is read for ἡ πόρνη by ®& (first hand) and likewise (as Mr
Bensly informs me) by the Harclean Syriac, this part being preserved
only in the Cambridge Ms (see above p. 233). Mr Bensly also calls my
attention to a passage in Ephraem Syrus Of. Gree. τ. p. 310 ὁμοίως δὲ Kat
Ῥαὰβ ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη πόρνη διὰ τῆς φιλοξενίας ov συναπώλετο τοῖς ἀπειθή-
σασι, δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους ἐν εἰρήνῃ. Immediately before, this
father has mentioned Abraham and Lot as examples of persons rewarded
for their φιλοξενία, so that he seems to have had the passage of 5. Clement
in view.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
cs
“4
a
i
w ITO? etalon St) shit ἡ viet 5 Ὁ
τόν hue Ὁ 1 eile Wii: Glow ane |
saith ie 70 abode Sn δσν ἐἰξει υὐ B »
we
‘
e¢ 7 ' ἰὼ Ὁ
9 ash rook ΠΣ bivow ιν} Jae; Ἕ
a A ἣ
Beemep ren war ΨΚ (ole
Wy be owe’ TR WP T viv < aa yd Ἶ ΤΕ" aes ΓΙ r ay { 1a ae Ἃ “πε
<- aa : ᾿ ; oy : . e .
w [ioxsdS 6] τυ AA BAAD | 23%) SRY OD VOM@s ry ok Nice
‘
fa
oud
_
hogar tt < 17 . νὶ ἌΝ:
bad φυο τὸ FOP 29h ὙΨΆΡΥ jien 76
Rea υὐδοοι Guo “nd tox
A le y
uso TOS py Yb ὙΠῸ ΨῈῸ ἡ re 779) Ὁ, WW ., OY OF ins. aay
a. του δ, .29TTO sh Baro “fone τα ba por Ὁ οὐ
goer a) ait 96 Set i OAT Pk OROA VOENDE| OD we oF τῷ
ents!) Τοῦ 451 toys rides? oth Ags eee
= wie ol ἐπ δὴ ;
Malt 1% ἐν. gate gil) AGE. Ὁ) 9. Ὦ
sserecait OUR {eit δ , ᾿ 1
quai nh oe ΡΟ i Fads’oor) ex opbrddu ὭΣ
bass OVE ofp ish + ean) AD guwe emcidgel at ope Ι ngs
Bxaiiy axshyrsatry ἃ bo πο τῦτ bis (air τ ΑΓ ys Cine)
ay τοῖσί ybduitionmnl whe ὃν Μ᾿ mT OT Ee ον ταν νὸ ri
WET ΞΠΟΣΥΘΟ Ay eoaliransy Ae hes modal. boson ont
ἱ i
Mor. «30 90 ice Ot} eit) ἔμ SB Οὐ ΠΣ si ili Oe .* ep dx il
Ws
. Σ 7
ia 0? J ' 7 ἃ
- Ὁ --- στ. Sc “'. « "ὦ a ae
ars: ra bas Wala Ὁ 15 ἘΣ ΓΦ. ὦ
Works by the same Author.
ae ΗΓ Ss EPISTLE TO THE: GALATIANS.
A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations.
FIFTH EDITION. 8vo. 125.
a. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations.
FOURTH EDITION. 8vo. 125.
af PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,
AND TO PHILEMON.
A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations.
SECOND EDITION. 8vo. 125.
SE CLEMENT OF KROME.
THE TWO, EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
A Revised Text, with Introduction and Notes.
8vo. 8s. 6d.
ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH
NEW TESTAMENT. |
SECOND EDITION, revised. Crown 8vo. 6s.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
Le
“at
᾿ " «( ὦ ᾿
λυ; ΓΕΥΎῪ ΠΝ ay 7
Π i) ae
;
. ' 7
we Fok
OUEOL OO (ith. AED A: ye
ιῷ
᾿
NT
11012 01219 1625
re oe Pew |
Δὸν etre ak
ie ee cal fa
oe wr Sis
eo 42 Ὧν...
&
es δ
γ " os
»» 4
7
Sanit
t ey LS,
‘ yeaa
i
re
=
i , Srey -.
ne ls τ
: aye
ΠΛΉΝ
ἢ
“δ
¥
TEAeE
κ
ΕἾ
ἣ δὴ
ἢ Sy ἐν SN
; A hose
>
Ν Νὴ
20) Ω
Ny ἰδ '
t
Yi
i
ae
*
sao
τ
ay}
αὐτῇ
ΟΝ
Ly
Cah
Some preg
on ot ore
or,
ee
Mote cee ica
on
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11