Full text of "The New Testament in the Apostolic fathers"




LIBRARY 



TORONTO 



Shelf No. 6S 
Register No. 



..19 



NEW ESTAMEN r "N E 



APOSTOLIC FA r ERS 




BY 

A COMMITTEE OF THE OXFORD SOCIETY 
OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY 



OXFORD 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 

1905 



HENRY FROWDE, M.A. 

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 

LONDON, EDINBURGH 
NEW YORK AND TORONTO 



PREFACE 

THIS work had its origin in a resolution passed bv the 



ERRATA 



Pige 51, line n,/or passage read Epistle 



54, 
60, 

73, 
80, 
81, 
8l, 
83, 



25, far (48) read (49) 

15, insert Polycarp before (75) 

32, /or Symrn. read Smyrn. 

24, oii7 Luke 9 26 ; as also 

2, /or ^v read 77 

7, Mt s sentence should follow on (97) 

4 from bottom, /or (93) read (92) 

2 from bottom, for 123 read 125 



N.T. in Apostolic Fathers. 



useful material, but afford him some helpful direction in 
reaching his own conclusions. 

The first duty of the Committee was to agree upon a plan. 
It was decided to arrange the books of the New Testament in 
four classes, distinguished by the letters A, B, C, and D, 
according to the degree of probability of their use by the 
several authors. Class A includes those books about which 
there can be no reasonable doubt, either because they are 
expressly mentioned, or because there are other certain indica 
tions of their use. Class B comprises those books the use of 
which, in the judgement of the editors, reaches a high degree 
of probability. With class C we come to a lower degree of 
probability ; and in class D are placed those books which may 
possibly be referred to, but in regard to which the evidence 
appeared too uncertain to allow any reliance to be placed upon 
it. Under each author the books of the New Testament are 



PREFACE 

THIS work had its origin in a resolution passed by the 
Society of Historical Theology, in Oxford, appointing a small 
Committee to prepare a volume exhibiting those passages of 
early Christian writers which indicate, or have been thought 
to indicate, acquaintance with any of the books of the New 
Testament. Beyond the appointment of the Committee, the 
Society has no responsibility whatever for the work, and the 
judgements which are expressed belong to the Committee alone. 
The present volume deals with the writings of the Apostolic 
Fathers, in which information is scanty, and traces of de 
pendence on the Scriptures of the New Testament are most 
open to doubt. The editors are quite aware that their judge 
ments may not command universal assent ; but they may 
claim at least that these judgements have been carefully 
formed, sometimes after considerable hesitation, by men who 
are not without practice in this kind of investigation. It 
is hoped that the book will not only provide the student with 
useful material, but afford him some helpful direction in 
reaching his own conclusions. 

The first duty of the Committee was to agree upon a plan. 
It was decided to arrange the books of the New Testament in 
four classes, distinguished by the letters A, B, C, and D, 
according to the degree of probability of their use by the 
several authors. Class A includes those books about which 
there can be no reasonable doubt, either because they are 
expressly mentioned, or because there are other certain indica 
tions of their use. Class B comprises those books the use of 
which, in the judgement of the editors, reaches a high degree 
of probability. With class C we come to a lower degree of 
probability ; and in class D are placed those books which may 
possibly be referred to, but in regard to which the evidence 
appeared too uncertain to allow any reliance to be placed upon 
it. Under each author the books of the New Testament are 



iv PREFACE 

arranged in accordance with these four classes, except that the 
Gospels are reserved for a section by themselves after the other 
writings. In dealing with the Gospels the following division 
has been observed : First are presented references to the 
Synoptical Gospels severally; secondly, references to Synoptical 
material, where the individual Gospel cannot be distinguished 
cases to which the above classification seems inapplicable ; 
thirdly, references to the Fourth Gospel ; and lastly, references 
to apocryphal Gospels. Under each class (A, B, C, D) the 
books follow one another in the present canonical order ; and 
the passages cited under each head are arranged in the order 
of probability, according to the editors judgement, and marked 
a, b, c, d symbols to which an explanation will apply similar 
to that which has been given in connexion with the capital 
letters. 

The quotations are printed in parallel columns. The first 
presents the quotation containing the supposed reference. 
The second exhibits the corresponding passage, or passages, in 
the New Testament, quoted from the text approved by our 
English Revisers, with references, when necessary, to various 
readings. A third column, when required, contains illustrative 
passages from the LXX (the text of Dr. Swete s edition being 
used) or from other writings. Underneath the several quota 
tions are comments, calling attention to special points, or 
indicating briefly the grounds of the editors judgement. In 
class D references are given without the text in several 
instances, because, though they have been cited in evidence, 
they did not appear to deserve serious recognition. In 
addition to these a great many passages were examined 
by the Committee, but are not mentioned because the Com 
mittee came to the conclusion that there was no serious 
ground for arguing that they showed the influence of the 
New Testament. 

In the execution of the foregoing plan, books were in the 
first instance allotted to the several members of the Committee, 
in order that each might make a preliminary list of passages, 
with his own judgements and comments. These were carefully 
revised, passage by passage, at meetings of the Committee. 
They were then arranged in what was intended to be their 



PKEFACE v 

permanent form. Finally, they were once more revised by 
the Committee ; and in many cases previous judgements were 
again brought under consideration. It is obvious that the 
distinction of classes, especially between b and c, must often 
have involved delicate and doubtful deliberation ; for it is 
extremely difficult, where several are collaborating, to retain 
at all times the same standard of judgement. But even if in 
many cases other scholars may arrive at different conclusions, 
the Committee hope that their labours will not be wholly 
without fruit in this important field of Biblical study. 

The task of final redaction and the furnishing of special 
introductions were in each case left to the member of Com 
mittee to whom the preliminary work had fallen ; so that the 
full consensus of the Committee must be taken to apply only 
to the degrees of probability assigned to the apparent traces 
of given New Testament books in the authors examined. 

A list of the Committee is appended, in which is indicated 
the particular work for which each member is specially 
responsible 

Barnabas: J. V. Bartlet, M.A., D.D., Senior Tutor of 
Mansfield College. 

Didache : K. Lake, M.A., Professor of New Testament 
Exegesis in the University of Leyden. 

I Clement: A. J. Carlyle, M.A., Lecturer in Theology of 
University College. 

Ignatius : W. R. Inge, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Hertford 

College. 
Polycarp: P. V. M. Benecke, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of 

Magdalen College. 
Hennas : J. Drummond, M. A., LL.D.. Principal of Manchester 

College. 

II Clement : (Gospels) J. V. Bartlet ; (St. Paul s Epistles) 
A. J. Carlyle ; (Catholic Epistles) P. V. M. Benecke. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE . . . . iii 

BARNABAS . i 

DIDACHE 24 

I CLEMENT 37 

IGNATIUS 63 

POLYCARP 84 

HERMAS 105 

II CLEMENT 124 

TABLES OF RESULTS 137 

INDEX I (Passages from the New Testament) . . . 139 
INDEX II (Passages from the Apostolic Fathers) . . 142 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 

INTRODUCTION. 

Standard of Accuracy in quotation. Our author shares 
the Alexandrinism so widely diffused in the first century A.D. 
throughout the eastern Mediterranean. This has its effect on 
his methods in dealing with the O. T., which he uses through 
the LXX, known to him in a text which approximates to our 
Codex Alexandrinus (but reads also at times as if revised 
from the Hebrew) 1 . In general the O. T. is quoted even 
more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement, but with less 
precision. The writer is fairly exact in well-known contexts 
belonging to the Psalter or the Book of Isaiah ; but elsewhere 
he appears to trust to memory, and not to concern himself 
greatly about the words of his author. Even when preceded 
by a formula citandi his citations often wander far from the 
LXX, although they are clearly based upon it (e. g. Exod. 33 1 " 3 
= Barn. vi. 8 2 ). Similar liberties are taken even where the 
writer mentions the book which he is quoting, e.g. Tre pa? ye 
TOI Xe yet at/rot? ey ra) Aeirrepow)/xu&gt;, Kat 5ia#Tj(ro/zai irpos rbv Xabv 
TOVTOV ra 8t/caicop:ard pov a sentence which, though it has all 
the notes of a strict quotation, proves to be a mere summary 
of Deut. 4 1 " 23 . The following comparison of Exod. 33 1 " 3 and 
Barn. vi. 8 may give some measure of the freedom 3 for which 
we must allow in considering possible N. T. citations or 
echoes. 

Exodus. Barnabas. 

xat fmfv Kvpios npbs MWUCTT/I/J Ibov, rd8e Xeyet Kvpios 6 Q(6s 

Tlopfvov nvd^r)6i fVT(v6(v crv Kat 6 EtaeX$are (Is ^r]V yfjv TTJV dya6r]v, TJV 

Xaoy crow . . . els TTJV yrjv fjv &p.ocra wpocrfv Kvpios TW A/3paa/x Kat "icraoK 

T&lt; *A/3paap. Kat lo^aa* KOI laKcojS, KOI la/cw/3, KOI KaraKX^poi ou^crar* 

Xeytoi/ . . . KOI flaau&gt; tre (Is yi]v O.VTTJV, yrjv p(ovcrav yaXa Kat /xeXt. 
ptovcrav ydXa Kat yueXt. 

(See also Nos. (i) (40) below.) 

1 Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, 411-413, for this and what follows. 

1 Comp. vi. i, where he substitutes the correct gloss r&gt; iraiSi Kvpiov in 
the phrase fyyiadro} poi, in Isa. 50* ; and xii. 9, where he boldly adds o vlos 
TOV Qeov en ka^aruv rwv fjp.fpHjv to Exod. I7 14 . 

3 Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 31 ft., reckons 16 exact, 23 slightly 
variant, and 47 variant citations of the 0. T. 

CARLTL.E B 



a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Further we must remember that he freely blends passages 
from different quarters: e.g. ii. 7 f. = Jer. 7 22f - + Zech. 7 10 , 
8 17 ; iv. 7 = Deut 34 28 + 3i 18 ; iv. 8 = Exod. 32 7 + Deut. 9 12 ; 
cf. ix. 8, xv. i. The same applies to his quotations from 
apocryphal books like Enoch and 4 Ezra, which he also 
cites with the same phrases as introduce Scriptural allusions 
generally. 

The formulae of citation are : Ae yec, with 6 eo s or 6 Kvpios, 
T] ypacpry, 6 Trpotprjrrjs, expressed or understood ; or again with the 
name of the prophet in question, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, 
and even Enoch ; or most fully A^ya Kvpios (6 eos) Iv T&lt;J&gt; 
Trpocprjrjj, opi^iei (Kvptos) fv aAAca 7rpo&lt;/&gt;j}TT7 Aeyovri. Synonymous 
for Ae yei are eZ-Tre, eXaArjcre, evereiAaro. Similarly yeypaTirai, 
used even in citing Enoch (iv. 3, xvi. 6), and yeypaju/xeVrj? 
cvToXrjs (vii. 3). The general result is an absolute doctrine of 
inspiration, which equates the Divine and the human speaker 
or writer, and which neglects distinctions between canonical 
and apocryphal sources. In this connexion reference may be 
made to vi. 13 Ae yet 8e Kvptos, I8ov, TTOIO) TO eo-^ora a&gt;9 ra 7rp&lt;Sra 
(see Didascalia Apost. ed. Hauler, 75 Ecce facio prima 
sicut novissima et novissima sicut prima : cf. Apoc. 2i 5 I8ov, 
Kaiva TToici) Ttavra, Hipp, in Dan. 4 37 lo-oirat yap ra ecrxara a&gt;s 
ra Trpwra) : also to vii. 4, where rt ovv Aeyei fv rw Trpo^Tjrr; is 
followed by words not found in any other extant writing, 
though our author has Lev. i6 Tff - in mind in the context. 
Here the citation seems too definite (ei&gt; r&lt;5 TrpofpTjrrj coming 
in between yeypa^e i rjs e^roA^s and TTWS ovv e^ereiAaro) to be 
other than due to some written source, whether apocryphal or 
a passage that has crept from the margin into the text of a 
canonical book. The former view is supported by the analogous 
case in xi. 9 f., see below (40). So in ii. 10 6vo-ia rw Kupiw 
Kap8ta (rwrerpi/^ieirrjj 007x7) ei&gt;a&gt;i as rw Kupiw /capSt a ofabu&lt;ra TOV 
Tre-TrAa/co ra aiirriv, Barnabas has been quoting certain O. T. 
prophets, and continues in a way which suggests that he has 
his mind on them still, rj/j-lv ovv OVTO&gt;S Xeyet. But while the 
opening words are substantially those of Ps. 5 l17 (0wfo 
ew TiVfVfjia orvvTfTpip.iJ.evov, aapbiav crvvTTpiiJ,fj.fvr]v ) KrA.), the 
whole quotation actually comes from the Apocalypse of Adam 
(cf. Iren. iv. 17. a). Thus confusion of memory may explain 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 3 

the case in which ytypaitrai introduces words found also in 
our Matthew (see below). 

On the whole, then, we have reason to expect that, if 
Barnabas alludes to any N. T. writings, it will be in a free 
and glossing way, and that sympathy with its methods and 
style will be needful to appraise the likelihood attaching to 
alleged cases of dependence 1 . The phenomena in the section 
on the Two ways are dealt with under the Didache. 



EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE 
B 

Romans b 

(i) Barn. xiii. 7. Kom. 4 S . 10 f- 

TI ovv \fyti raj A/Spad/n, ore pavos ri yap 17 ypa(pf) \eyei; 

TTKTTevcras tredrj els ^tKaioavvrjv ; l8ov 8e A/3paa/i TW 0&lt;, KCti- f\ayi&lt;T0T) 
TfddKo. ere, A.fjpaap, irarepa tdva&gt;v ru&gt;v avrat (Is Kuuuoavmjv . . . irws ovv 
iricrTfvovTcw 6Y aKpoftvcrTias T&lt;U Kvpia e\oyicrdrj ; . . . OVK ev TT(piTOfj.rj dXX 
(GL, 6fw NC). fv aKpo{$v(TTia . . . els TO elvat avrbv 

Trare pa TTOVTUV TU&gt;V TricrrevovTatv 81 



LXX. Gen. I5 6 KOI 

ro) tls biKaioavvr)V. 

I7 4f Kal cyw, Ibov TJ Sta^Tj/cr; fj.ov fiera crov Kal 077 
TrXr/Oovs kQv&V Kal oi&gt; xXTj^Tjo-erai ert TO ovopd crov A/3pafx, dA\ 
IOTCU A/3/&gt;aa/x TO ofo/xa crov OTI Trarepa iroXX&v tQvwv r^deiKa o~e. 

In our author s memory the O. T. passages have become 

1 The final estimate of the literary dependence of our epistle cannot be 
separated from one s theory of its date, and this again involves that of its 
religious standpoint. In the view of the member of committee specially 
responsible for its work on Barnabas, it is most probable that the epistle was 
written under Vespasian (iv. 4 f.), within a very few years of the destruction 
of the Jewish Temple, the spiritual substitute for which, the Christian 
Church, is alluded to as in process of being built up (xvi. 10 ; cf. vii. n). 
The standpoint is essentially that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as distinct 
from other known types of primitive Christianity. For though they differ in 
their attitude to 0. T. ritual, both interpret the new Law and its people 
under the categories of the old, in such wise that the literal observances of 
Judaism are regarded as at once fulfilled in essence and superseded by the 
purely spiritual worship realized in and through Christ. To both, 0. T. 
worthies like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David were in the line of 
heirship of the Promise, but not Israel at large (cf. Heb. 3-4, u). J. V. B. 

B 2 



4 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

conflated with the comments in Rom. 4 ; for the phrase T&V 
nt.(rTv6vT(tiv 8t aKpo/3v&lt;TTuxs (by no means an obvious one), 
especially as qualifying eOv&v in Barnabas, can hardly be 
explained otherwise. 



on fer 
fKva, a\\ 
&lt;roi 0-Trepfj.a . . . 
Hflfav 8ov\evo~ti 
yeypanTai, Tov 



Rom. 9 7 ~ 13 . 

o-TTtpfj-a A/3pad/x, 
v lo-aaK K\T]df]o~(Ta.i 
fpprjdrj avrrj OTI 6 
O&gt; f\d&lt;r&lt;rovi Ka6a&gt;s 
fjya.T! r]o~a ) TOV 8e 



(2) Barn. xiii. 2-3. 

aKovo-aTf ovv nfpl TOV \aov ri 
Xeyfi f] ypa&lt;pr) . . . Auo eBvrj eV TTJ 
yao~Tpi o~ov . . . Kal 6 fj.fia&gt;v 8ovXfvo~fi 
TCO f\do~o~ovC alo~6dvfO~6ai o&lt;pfiXfTf . . . 
flit TIVCOV Se Set^ev OTI [j.eia&gt;v 6 Xaos 

OVTOS T] fKflVOS. 

Though the passages both turn on the phrase common to 
them, they use it differently, Barnabas seeing in it a prophecy 
of the Christian people, Paul citing it simply for the principle 
of sovereign election. Yet Barnabas often twists what he 
borrows, and his knowledge of Romans is otherwise probable. 



Ephesians 
(3) Barn. vi. 1 1 if. 



1 1 67Tft ovv ava- 
Kawi&lt;ras fipas tv Tfj 
d(f)fa(L TO&gt;V dp.apTi&gt;v 
tiroiTjcrev fmas aXKov 
TVJTOV, u&gt;s Tiaidicov ex f&lt;/v 
TjVj cos av Si) dva- 
OVTOS O.VTOV rjp,as. 
eav 7r\do~iv 



Xe-yet fie Kvpios l8ov, 
Troio) TO. ecr^ara cos ra 
TTpcora. 

Comp. xvi. 8 Xa- 

@6vTfS TTjV afpecriv T&gt;V 
dfj.apTimv KOI e\Trio~av- 
TCS fls TO ovop.a Kvpiov 
fyfvop.(6a Kaivoi, 7rd\iv 



(continued below). 
14 i Se ovv, rj(j.fis 



c 



,22ff. 



2 Cor. 5 17 , i Cor. 



,10 



2 " avTov yap fo~fj.fv 2 Cor. 5 17 coore i TIS 

:, KTlCrdfVTfS fV fV XplCTTCO, KOIVT) KTUTtS* 



Xptcrrco irjo-ov. 

4 22 ff- diro0fO-6ai {/[ids tdov, yeyove Kaivd (cf. 
. . . TOV rraXaiov av- Gal. 6 15 ). 
dpanov . . . , dvavfov- 

O~6ai 8f TCO TTVfVLLaTl TOV 



voos vp.a&gt;VKa fvv 

TOV KdlVOV av6p&lt;i&gt;TTOV TOV 

Kara Qeov KTiadevTa (cf. 
2 1B ). 

Cf. Col. 3 9 f a7T- 
dvo-dfj.fvoi TOV iraXaibv 
avdpainov . . . , Kai 
ev8vcrd/j:fvot: TOV veov 
TOV dvanaivovfjifvov fls 
fTriyvci)O~iv KOT fiKova 

TOV KTlO-aVTOS aVTOV. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 



Xpicrrov Sta TTJS 

tv TO.IS Kapbiais vp.&gt;v. 



2 21f&lt; (Xp. tyer.) ev I Cor 3 16f - OVK oi 

w Tracra oiKoSo/i?) (rui/- ort raoy Geov sore, 
apfj.o\oyovfj.evr] avei els 
vabv ayiov ev K.vpi&lt;o, ev 
&lt;a /cat vfiels (rvvoiKoo o- 

pelcrde els KUTOlK7)TT]plOV 

TOV Qeov ev Tlvev/jLaTi. 



TO nvevp.a TOV Qeov 
ev vfj.lv ; 

6 -yap vaos TOV Qeov 

OytOS fCTTtV, OlTtl es fO~T 



. . . Aeyft" l8ov, \eyei 
Kvptos, ee\u&gt; TOVTOIV . . . 
Tas \i6ivas Kap8ias Kal 
epQa\&gt; o~apKivas OTI 
avTos ev (rapid efieX\ev 
&lt;J)avepov(rdai Kal ev fjfj.lv 

KOTOlKelv. 

15 vaos yap ayios, 
d8e\(f)oi p.ov, rw Kvpi o) 

TO KaTOLKTJTTjpiOV f]fJ.a&gt;V 

TTJS Kcipftias. 

Comp. xvi. 8 (con 
tinued)- 10 810 ev TOJ 

KaTOlKTJTTIplO) f)fJ.S)V d\T)- 

6&gt;s 6 Qeos KaToixel ev 
fjfj.lv TTUIS ; 6 Xdyo? 
avrov TTJS TrLo-Teu&gt;s, . . . 
avTos ev flfJ.lv Trpo(f&gt;T)~ 
Tevcav, avTos ev //^*^ 

KUTOlKUtV . . . TOVTO COTIV 

TTvevfjiariKos vaos oiKo8o- 
p.ovfj.evos TW Kvpio) (see 

also iv. n). 

Here the phenomena are most complex, but Ephesians has 
the advantage over i and 2 Corinthians in several ways, (i) 
The idea of re-creation in Ephesians is really the nearer. The 
context of 2 Cor. 5 17 (and of Gal. 6 15 ) gives the phrases a 
rather specific reference ; while dependence on Ephesians ex 
plains both Barnabas s passages. (2) Ephesians has KarotK7jr?jpioy 
in close conjunction with vabv ayiov, as well as KaroiKT/crat rbv 
Xpiorov . . . . tv Tals Kapbtais vfj.u&gt;v (not God, as in 2 Cor. j 16 ) 
the idea from which Barnabas starts (1/xeXAev . . . tv fji/iv 
KdTotKflv) and the notion of the spiritual temple as in process 
of building (cf. Barn. xvi. 10). (3) The mystical idea of 
Christ indwelling the Saints, or the Church, which Barnabas 
expands in an emphatic way in 14-16, is most marked in 
Ephesians (and Colossians), in close connexion with the idea 
of the Church as the body or Tj-Aifpco/ua of Christ (Eph. i 23 ). 
This latter thought may even determine the strange turn 
Barnabas gives to the words of Ps. 4i 3 , viz. kv rLvi 6(p6r)- 
(TOjucu TO) Kvpiw TU&gt; 0e&lt;i p.ov Kal 6"oa(r0?](ro/&gt;iai (LXX, iroTd 77^00 
KCU o$0?y(ro/xai ra&gt; TrpoawTra) TOV &eov), as if the Son were 
bodied forth in the Church and so fulfilled as to His glory 



6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(cf. Eph. I 18 rt? 6 TrXoOros rrjs oogrjs rrjs K\T)povop.ias aiiTov h 
rot? ayt ois), even if avrov refers strictly to God. 

That the ideas underlying these sections of Barnabas are so 
subtle and inward, points to a source beyond common Christian 
tradition, and to a knowledge of the Pauline writings them 
selves. 

d 

(4) Barn. ii. i. Eph. 5", 2 2 . 

fjfjtfpSiV ovv ovcroiv TTovrjpS&gt;v Kal oTi at fjufpai novr/pai eltrw. 

avrov TOV tvepyovvros e^ovros TTJV Kara TOV apxovra rrjs e ovcriaj TOV 

fovo~iav. atpof^ TOV Trvev fiaros TOV vvv fvtp- 

yovvros (V Tols viols TTJS dntideias. 

The first of these parallels is a commonplace of early 
Christian thought ; the latter has parallels in Jewish Apoca 
lyptic, e.g. Test. Benj. iii TOV aepiov Trvev^aTos TOV BeXiap, cf. 
Secrets of Enoch, xxix. 5. Moreover in Ephesians it is the 
aerial power or spirit (collectively), not its ruler, to which 
evepyeiv belongs. 

(5) Barn. iii. 6. Eph. i 4 ~ 8 . 

6 fjLO.Kp66vfi.os 7rpo/3X\|^as a&gt;s fv Kadats e eXearo rjp.as tv OVTW npb 

aK(paioo~vvT) Trtcrreiitret 6 Xaof ov TJTOI- K.a.Tafio\f)s Koo-fiov . . ., irpoopio-as 

fiao-fv lv TW rjyamifieiHp avrov, Trpoe- f]p.as fis vlodeariav dia lr)o~ov Xpio-roi) 

(pav(pa&gt;o~fv Tjfiiv Trepi itdvrwv. tls avrov . . ., (Is erraivov do^rjs TTJS 



Here the resemblances, turning on TtpoftXtyas and ^ 
tv ru&gt; riyaTTr)fj.ev&lt;j&gt;, seem really striking. They can only partly 
be paralleled from Jewish Apocalyptic 1 , which taught that 
God made the world with a view to His Beloved (People), i. e. 
faithful Israel. Yet probably the Beloved was sometimes 
applied to Messiah in particular, even in pre-Christian usage 
(see Charles s note on Asc. Isaiae, i. 4) : and so Barnabas uses 
it himself again in iv. 3, 8. 

Hebrews C 

(6) Barn. v. 5 ff. (xiv. 4, xvi. 9}. Heb. i 2 ., 2 9 ff- (is 2 , i 3 12 ). 

5 fl 6 Kvpios VTTffifivtv iraBelv 1 2 2 vrrefieivf oravpov. 

irtpl TTJs fax is TIP&V, &&amp;gt;v navros TOV I3 12 ^ ffl TTJS TTV\T]S eiraBf. 



1 E. g. 4 Ezra 6 s8 But we thy people, whom thou has called thy First 
born, thy Only-begotten, and thy fervent Lover [? Beloved], are given into 
their hands. Comp. Apoc. of Baruch xiv. 18, with Charles s note. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 7 

007101; Kvpios, o&gt; (iTTfV 6 Qeos dnb I 2 ~ 13 , e. g. crv KOT ap^ds, Kvptf, 

KOfffiov, HoiTjo-a&gt;iJi(V KT\. TTJV yrjv edf/j.e\ia&gt;o-as, KT\. 

vno x fl P os 2 9 Tov &* @pa\ v Tl *"&lt;* ayy&lt;Xovs 
Tj\aTTd}fj.evov j3\(iro[jLfv, Ir/crovv, 8id TO 

6 avTos 8f, Iva KaTapyrjo-j) TOV 7rddr]p.a TOV SavaTOV . . . OTTCO? . . . 

ddvaTOv KOI TTJV (K veKpcov dvdo-Tao-iv vntp Travrus yevcrijTai OavaTov. 

8eir) (ort eV crapKi edet OVTOV (fiavepa)- l * fWi ovv TO. TraiSia Keicoiva&gt;vr)Ktv 

drjvat), vnffjLftvev, Iva Tols trarpdaiv ai/iaroy KOL o-npKos, Kal avTos irapa- 

TTJV (ivayy(\iav dno8q&gt;, KT\. n^rjo-Lus /nereV^ TO&gt;V avTuv, Iva 8id 

XIV. 4 81 rjuds VTro/iftVar. roC davdrov KaTapyr)o~r) TOV TO KpaTOS 

XVI. 9 avTos ev r)/j.1v KaToiKuiv, exovra TOV davaTov . . . 

TOIS rw 8avaT&lt;p SeSovXtoptvois, KT\. is ov yap SIJTTOU dyye\u&gt;v ei\ 



17 o6fv at&lt;p(i\f Kara irdvra Tois 
d8eX0oIy 6fjLoi&lt;i)0r)vai. 

5 (?^a) *cat aTraXXa^j; Toi/rous, 
otrot (jioftcp davdrov did TTOVTOS TOV 
tfjv evo^oi rjcrav 8ov\tias. 



Apai t from the actual phrasing of Iva. /carapyTjo-r; .... 
which recalls also 2 Tim. I 10 (see (19), below), the points of 
contact between Barnabas and Heb. 2 in particular seem 
too important to be accidental. The probability of literary 
dependence on the side of Barnabas becomes enhanced when 
we consider the relation of Barn. vi. 1 7-19 also to Heb. 2 5 ~ 9 (see 
below), as well as the similar use of the same O. T. quotation, 
Ps. 2 1 23 , in Barn. vi. 16 and Heb. 2 12 (though the wording 
differs). Further, Heb. 9 9 &gt; 13&gt; 39 may well suggest Barnabas s 
Iva rots TtaTpdcriv rrji; e-rrayyeAtav airobiS. 

(7) Barn. vi. 17-19 (xiv. 5). Heb. 2 5 ~ 9 . 

^rjcrofjLfv KaTOKvpievovrfs TTJS yrjs ... irdvra ti7Traa? vTTOKarco TU&gt;V 

fl ovv ov yivfTai TOVTO vvv, apa fffjiiv iro8a&gt;v avTov (sC. dv6pd&gt;nov} . . . vvv 

flpr/Kfv TTOTe oTav KO.\ avrol TeXeiw- 8f OVTTG) 6p5&gt;fj.fv aurai ra Trdvra VTTO- 

dtofjifv K\rjpov6fj.oi TT)S 8ia6r)Kr)s Kvpiov TfTayp.fva TOV Of . . . Ir)o~ovv , , . 
yevto-dai. 

Cf. xiv. 5 (pavcp&lt;a0ri 8e (sC. 6 

Kvptos) Iva KaKflvoi (the Jews) 

Tf\fi&lt;o6uio-iv Tols dp.apTTjfj.ao~ iv Kal 

TJfJLf^S 8ld TOV K\T]pOVOfJLOVVTOS 8ia6f]KT]V 

Kvpiov ITJO~OV \df3a&gt;[jiev, 

Here note the ideas of (i) lordship over things earthly as 
the destiny of man, (2) its delayed but certain realization, (3) 
when union with the archetypal Heritor (ov e0?7/ce K\r]pov6fj.ov 
v, Heb. i 2 , cf. Barn, xiv) shall reach its consummation (the 



THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

of the type, x. n fin.); and elsewhere the idea that all 
this was the rationale of the Divine Heritor s own manifesta 
tion and especially His sufferings : see (6). Nothing short 
of literary dependence seems to explain the appearance in 
Barnabas, alone in its age, of so much distinctive of Hebrews, 
especially as this state of lordship is also conceived as the 
true Sabbatic Rest in a new world (ch. xv, cf. x. n ; Heb. 
3 1Z 18 5 4 lj 9 ~ n ), on which Jesus has already entered (xv. 9). 
This idea of aAXos KoV/xo? (xv. 8) was a current Jewish one 1 , 
but seems to come to Barnabas through Hebrews with its 
olKov[j.evr] peXXovcra (ii. 5) an d ato&gt;y /xe XAcoy (vi. 5). Further the 
prominence of the ideas in K\rjpov6p.oi. TTJS 810077/079 Kvpiov and 
bia TOV K.Xr}povon.ovvTos biad^Krjv Kvpiov Irjcrou seems to point to 
Hebrews, which contains more on these lines than all the rest 
of the N. T. : e.g. Heb. I 2 ov I#TJK; K\r]pov6^ov ir&vTuv (cf. 
I 4 ), Barn. iv. 3 Iva. Ta\vvr) 6 riya.-mtyj.tvos avrov KCU eTU TT\V 
K\r)povofj.iav fjr] ; Heb. 7 22 KP^LTTOVOS StaflTj/oj? yiyovtv eyyvos 

(/xeamjs, 8 6 , p 15 , I3 24 ), Barn. iv. 8 Iva. rj TOV 
l7)(roS (Sta^T/K?;) eyKaracr^paytcr^r; et? rrjv Kapbiav 
(cf. xiii. l), xiv. 5 os els TOVTO rironiaa-B^, Iva avros (paveis . . , 
kv fjfuv iadr\Kr]v \oy&lt;j&gt; ; Heb. 6 17 rots /cA^poro /xots r^? 
(l 14 )) 9 15 OTTCO? . . . TTJV eTrayyeXiay 2 Ad/3axny ot 
TTJS alwviov KXrjpovoiJ.Las, Barn. xiii. 6 TOV Aaw TOVTOV . . . 
bia6riKr]S K\ripov6p.ov, xiv. 4 avTos 8e Kvpios fjfj.lv !8a&gt;/cez&gt; (7171; 
els Aaov uKripovo^ias. Indeed Heb. 9 1X ~ 15 seems to 
underlie Barnabas s whole soteriology: cf. (n). 

d 

(8) Barn. iv. 9-10, 13. Heb. 4 1 , io 24f - 

Sto Trpocre^cj/ief eV rat? eV^arais (f)oj3r]6ci)fji(i&gt; ovv p.fj Trore, Kara- 

f)iJ.(pais ov8ev yap a&gt;(j)(\T)(rfi fjfjidf \(irrop.evr)s eVayyeXiaf fl&lt;r(\delv els 

6 Iras XP VOS T *l s C&gt;*i s ?/ Lt ^ (/ &gt; c 1 M T *l v KaTcnravcnv avrov, 8oKrj TIS f 

vvv . . ., ws TrpeWfi viols Qeov, dvn- vp.5&gt;v vcrrtprjKfvai. 

(TTtofifv . . . M?) xaff eavTovs evftvvovTfs IO 24 ^ K.aTavoa&gt;yi.fV aXXjjXovr fls 

p.ovd(Tf ws f}8r) 8(8iKaiu&gt;p.fvoi, aXX 7ra.pot-vcrp.bi&gt; dydTrrjs Kal KO\U&gt;V epyutv, 

enl TO avTO o~vv(p^6fj.fvoi yw^TfTtirt p.r) eyKaraXetVoj/Tes TTJV fTricrvvay(t&gt;yr)v 

irtpl TOV Koivfi o~v/ji&lt;pfpovTos . . . favTfov, Ka8a&gt;s fdos Ticriv, dXXa rrapa- 

1 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 177 f. 

3 En-ayyeAfa very frequent in Hebrews, also in Barn. v. 6, vi. 17, xv. 7, 
xvi. 9 (conjoined with /c\TJais, cf. iv. 14). Observe too the similar use of 
Tt\tios (iv. 3, ir, v. u, viii. i, xiii. 7), T(\eiovv (vi. 19, xiv. 5), to express the 
final or absolute stage of a thing. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 9 

1 3 tva pjTrore firavarravofjifvoi a&gt;s KoKovvres, KOI TOCTOUTCO /iaXXoy otrw 
KX^rot fTriKa6virvto&lt;Ta&gt;(j.fi&gt; Tals apapTiais /SXeVere eyyi^ovcrav Ti)f rjfjLfpav. 

TJlitoV. 

Note the points in common : (i) the danger of a false sense 
of security amid temptations against which strenuous vigilance 
alone can prevail, (2) the value of frequent fellowship and 
stimulus to good works. 



(9) Barn. v. i. 

(is TOVTO yap V7rfp.fivfv 6 Kvptos 
jrapaSovvai rr/v crdpKa fls Kara(pdopdv, 
tva rfj d(j)eo~fi ra&gt;v ctfj.apTia&gt;v ayviaQS)- 
fj.fv, o (crriv (v rw at/^art TOV pavri- 
avrov 1 . ytypaTTTai yap Trtpl 
Isa. 53* 7 ) 



Heb. i2 2 &lt;, i 3 12 (i Pet. i 2 ). 

KOI at/zari pavricr^ov Kpeirrov 
XaXoCiri Trapa TOP *A/3eX. 

1 3 fito /cat irjcrovs, Ivo. ayidcrij 
8ia rov idiov at/iaroy rov Xaof, ea&gt; TTJS 
7rv\r]s tnadf. 

Cf. I s Ka6apicrp.ov r&lt;av 6.fj.apTiS&gt;v 

s, also p 15 . 

I Pet. I 2 fKXfKTo is irapfTTi8Tj- 
is . . . ev ayLacrfj.a&gt; Etveuftaroy, fls 

KOI pavTifr^ov aifJuiTOS 
Xpiorov. 



Here as regards i Pet. i 2 all depends on the reading 
adopted ; and as N is quite as likely to be right as C and 
a version, we must leave the phrase in question out of account. 
On the other hand the idea of sanctification rf/ dcpe cm rS&gt;v 
anapTLtov (see also viii. I pavri^tiv .... TOV \aov, Iva ayvifavrai. 
airo T&V anapTL&v ; cf. Heb. i 3 , 2 11 , 9 22 , io 18 ), achieved by 
blood of sprinkling (i3 llf&gt; , cf. 9 13 &gt; 19&gt; 21 , io 22 ), is far more 
characteristic of Hebrews than of i Peter. Hence this pas 
sage also must be added to those suggesting the influence of 
Hebrews (cf. Barn. v. 5 f., io f., viii. i, 3). 



(io) Barn. vi. 19. 

orav Kal aiiroii Tf\fiu&gt;8oi)fj.ev K\r/po- 
TTJS SiaQfjKrjs Kvpiov yfVfadai. 



Heb. 6 1 . 

7T\ TTJV TfXfiOTrjra 

Cf. 1 2 23 nvfvp.a(7i diKaiiav rtre- 



The idea of reAetorrj? underlying these passages is similar, 
and is one highly characteristic of Hebrews ; see a 10 8ta Tra6r]- 
HaTutv reAetwo-ai, 5 9 , 7 28 vibv fls TOV alS&gt;va rereXetco/xeVov, 9, IO 1 14 , 
ii 40 . It corresponds to bt,Kat(o6jjvai. in Barn. iv. io, xv. 7. 



1 v. 1. fv rip pavTia/MTt avrov TOV ai ^aros, C, cf. Lat. sparsione sanguinis 
illius. 



io THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
(n) Barn. viii. i ff., xiv. 4-6. Heb. 9 13 ff-, 3 5 f- 

riva 8e 8oKflre TVTTOV eivai, on fl yap TO oi/xa rpdycav KOI ravpcuv 

eWeraXrat TW lcrpaf)\ TrpO(T(pfpfiv Kal o~iro8bs 8a/j.d\fa&gt;s . . . pavrl^ova-a 

8dfia\iv . . . Kal OVTO&gt;S pavri(iv ra ... ayid^fi . . . nocrco fj.d\\ov TO alpa 

TraiSta Kaff eva TOV XaoV, iva dyvi- TOV XpitrroC . . . Kadapiel TTJV avvd- 

a&gt;VTai OTTO Ttov dp.apTio&gt;v ... 6 fiocr^o? brjcriv vfjicov drib VfitpSav epycw . . . 
o l^(ro)f fcrriv . . . 01 pavTi^ovres Kal 8ia TOVTO 8ia6r]Krjs Kaivrjs 

7raZ8fs ol fvayyeXicrd/if^ot TJIMV TTJV fjLfcrlTijs ftrrtv, OTTGOS, 6ai&gt;aTov ytvo- 

5&lt;f)e(rii&gt; TO&gt;V dp,apTia)p Kal TOV dyvi(rpoi&gt; [ifvov fis diro\vTpa&gt;(nv rcav errl TTJ 

TJJS KapSias. TrpcoTj) 8ia6r]Kr) TrapajBdo-fwv, TTJV eVay- 

XIV. 5"~^ ftpavcpca&ri 8e, Iva . . . yt\iav Xa^a)o - iJ ot KfK\r)fj,fvoi TTJS 

flfiels Sta TOV KXripovonovvTos 8ta6rjKr)v alwvlov K\Tjpovop.ias. 
Kvpiov irjcrov XdjSco/iei/, 6s els TOVTO Cf. 1 2 24 8iadr]Ki]s veas p.fo~iTr] 

TjToifido-6r) Iva avrbs (pavei.s . . . did- irjo-ov. 
6r)rai ev fjfJUV 8ia6f]Kriv Xoyw. 3 5 ^ Kat Maxr^s fj.ev mo Tos ev oXw 

xiv. 4. Mcoi/tr^s dfpdncov &&amp;gt;v eXajSev, TW O*KO) ai/TOv (sc. TOV 6eov) a&gt;s 

avTos 8f 6 Kvpios f]f* ii&gt; fbcoKfi* fis Xubv Stpdnatv . . . Xptcrros 8e a&gt;s vibs eirl 

K\ripovofj.ias } 81 f]p.ds wro/ieiVas. TOV OIKOV avTov ov OIKOS 



Here, no doubt, there are elements peculiar to Barnabas, 
especially certain ritual details in viii. i. Still he lays 
emphasis on the very points of contact between the Old and 
New Covenants which Hebrews also sets in relief, i. e. the ritual 
of the Heifer and the Covenant bequeathed by Jesus as the 
Son and Heir, as distinct from Moses who was only God s 
6epaTT(t&gt;v in all his action (quite another turn being given to 
the idea servant of God than that in Exod. I4 31 , Num. 
i a 8 , Joshua i 2 ). The probability of dependence on Hebrews 
is moreover increased by a like emphasis on the Rest of God 
(see below). 

(ia) Barn. xv. Heb. 4 1 " 11 . 

Barnabas is concerned primarily with the hallowing of the 
Sabbath, as something to find fulfilment in Christianity, as 
distinct from Judaism, in the Messianic Age soon to dawn. 
But he may have got his idea of its rest, e. g. ro re KaXws 
KarctTrauo /xeiXH ay lacro/^ez; avTi]v . . . avrol 8iKCua&gt;0eWes /cat a7roA.a/3o z&gt;res 
TT)I&gt; 7rayyeXtaj/ . . . avrol dyiacrfleVres irp&Tov, from the treatment 
of o-a/3/3cm0-|u6s TW A.a&lt;S TOV Qeov in Heb. 4, e.g. lof . See 
further (7). 

[Barn. i. 8, iv. 9 a, xxi. 2, 7 and Heb. ia 22 18 f , present 
some similarities in the writer s attitude to his readers.] 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS n 

On the whole, then, the passages severally marked as d 
seem to amount cumulatively to c, as suggesting that Hebrews 
influenced Barnabas s thinking and language in various ways. 
Even Barnabas s tv a-ap&lt;l (pavtpovo-Oai and its relation to Christ s 
Passion has its parallel in Heb. 9 26 els aOerrja-iv apapTias bia rfjs 
dva-ias avrov -netyavfpcDTai, read in the light of 2 14 , 5 7 ev rcus 
rfjs &lt;rapKos avrov, and IO 20 . 



D 

1 Corinthians d 

(13) Barn. iv. n. i Cor. 3 16 18 "- 

Xe yet -yap 17 ypcxpT) Oval of &lt;rvvt- OVK rj$vi/r)6r]v XaXJJcrat ifj.1v a&gt;g 

roil eavTols KOI evanriov tavrSiv eVtarij- irvtvpaTiKois . . . OVK oldare OTI 
fj.oves. yevaififda TrvfVfj.aTt.Kol, yfvu&gt;- vaos Qeov e crrt . . . et ns 8oKfl croffrbs 
fj.f0a vaos TfXfios TW 6f&lt;S. tlvai (V vfj.1v . . . fj,a&gt;p6s ytvtadat, 

Iva yfVTjrai cro(f&gt;6s . . . ytypaTrrat 
yap (Jobs 13 ; PS. 94")- 

Here the conjunction of ideas at first seems striking, be 
cause self-sufficiency, unspirituality, and God s true temple, do 
not obviously suggest each other ; and the citation of very 
similar passages from the 0. T. perhaps adds to the appearance 
of dependence. Yet on closer examination it appears that 
Barnabas means by Trvev/^aruo s that obedience to God s e^roAat 
as a whole which he goes on to demand, the opposite of 
drowsing in sins ; so that in fact it is the same as ayados 
in 12. 

2 Corinthians d 

(14) Barn. iv. n f. 2 Cor. 5 10 (i Pet. i 17 ). 

fj,(\(TO)fj,fv TOV &lt;$&gt;6$ov TOV Qfov TOVS yap iravras fjfj,as (pavpa&gt;6rivai 

. . . O Kvpios a7rpo(T&lt;t&gt;rTo\T]fj,TrTa&gt;s 5ei ZfjiTrpoadev TOV /Sij/taros TOV 
Kpivtl rbv KOCT/JLOV fKao-Tos Ka6u&gt;s Xpio~Tov, Iva KO^IOT/TCU enadTos TO 
enoirjaev KO/USITCU eaj* 3 dyados, rj 8ia TOV crw^iaToj, irpos a enpu(V, eire 
diKaiocrvvT) UVTOV TTpor]yfjO-(Tai aiiTov dyadov, ?T6 (f&gt;av\ov. (IdoTfs ovv TOV 
tav ft Trovrjpos, 6 fj.io~6bs TTJS Trovrjplas (j)o^ov TOV Kvpiov dvdp^rrovs irddofJLtv. 
f/jLirpoar6fv avTOv. I Pet. I 17 *a\ d iraTtpa fnt- 

KaXdcrde TOV aTrpocrwTroXjjTrrws Kpi- 
vovra Kara ro eKaorov fpyov, fv 
(pofta , . . dvao~Tpd(f)jjT(. 

Against the obvious resemblance in word and idea to 
2 Corinthians must be set the reference to a man s recompense 
becoming patent before his eyes (cf. Isa. 58 8 , cited in iii. 4), 



ia THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

which rather suggests some other source, possibly known to 
both. This view gains some support from i Pet. i 17 , which 
affords a close parallel to Barnabas s 6 Kvpios aTrpoo-coTroX^fxTrrcos 
KpLvel, a sentiment echoed in Bom. 2 11 ov yap eon 7rpo&lt;roo7ro- 
\r]\l/ia wapa rc3 0eo&gt;. It is to be noted, too, that in the context 
of all these writers fear of God is present (as in a similar 
passage in Hipp. Trepl TT/S crvvTeXetas, 39). 

Colossians d 

(15) Barn. vi. i2f. Col. 3 9f - 

a&gt;s \eyei TO&gt; vla&gt; Hoirjaatfjiev K.CLT direKo vo diJ.evoi, TOV naXaibv avdpta- 

elxova KOI Ka6 opoiaxriv T)fj,a&gt;v TOV TTOV o~vv TOLLS Trp&lt;ieo~iv OVTOV, Kai 

avdpwrrov . . . Aetrrepai&gt; TrXauw eV* fvdvcrafifvoi TOV vfov TOV dvaKaivov- 

f&lt;rxa.T&lt;i&gt;v eiroiri&lt;Tfv Xeyet fie Kuptos* pevov fls tniyvoxriv KUT fiKova TOV 

l8ov, TTOi5&gt; TO. ecr^ara a&gt;s TO. rrpS)Ta. KTIQ-UVTOS CLVTOV. 

The common reference to renewal /car ei icoW can count for 
little in view of the different contextual ideas : see also (3). 

(16) Barn. xii. 7. Col. i 16f - 

fX fls ToXti&gt; KCU ev TOVTOIS (sc. Ta iravTa 81 UVTOV Kai els avTov 

the Brazen Serpent) TTJV 86av eKTia-TaC KOI avros eVn irpb ndvTtav 
TOV lr](Toii, on ev avT&lt;a TtavTa K.CLL els Kai TU iravTa ev air&lt;5 o~vvecrTr]Ke. 



It is to be observed that the scope of the words common to 
the two is in Barnabas much narrower, viz. typological, cm 
Ttdvra 6 TrarT/p (pavepol Trept TOV vlov Irjo-ou, as he says just below. 
Yet he may be echoing a striking phrase, for all that. 

i Timothy d 

(17) Barn. v. 9. i Tim. i 15f - 

TOVS I8iovs aTTocrrdXovs . . . ovras TTIOTOS 6 \6yos . . ., on Xpitrros 

vnep Tracrac apapriav dvopu&gt;Tepovs, Iva irjcrovs r/Xdev els TOV KOfffiov ap-ap- 
$ei(-r) OTI OVK rfkQev Ka\eo~ai dwaiovs rcoXous crwcrai a&gt;i&gt; Trpwror elfjit eya&gt; 
a ap.apTci)\ovs. aXXa 8ia TOVTO r)\erjdr)v, Iva ev e/j.oi 

Trpwro) evdei^r/rai lyo-ovs Xptoros TJJI/ 
arraaav 



The relation of Barnabas s OVK fj\0ov, KT\., to our Synoptics 
is discussed under (31). But the application of this prin 
ciple to Apostles in particular, as palmary proof (eyetis) of 
the Saviour s grace a bold idea is so parallel to i Tim. i 15f&gt; 
as to suggest that the latter prompted Barnabas s thought. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 13 

(18) Barn. v. 6. i Tim. 3 16 . 

on tv crapKi &lt;=8ei avrov &lt;j)avfp&lt;o- ofioXoyovfjifvas peya eari TO rf/s 

dfjvai tvcrepfias /j.voTr]pi.ov 6s e&lt;pavfpo)6t] 

tv crapKi . . . 

i Tim. 3 16 certainly affords the most striking N. T. parallel 
to the recurring phrase in Barnabas. But as it is itself prob 
ably quoting a current liturgical form, literary dependence 
cannot be pressed either way : see also (19). 

2 Timothy d 

(19) Barn. v. 6. 2 Tim. i 10 . 

avros 8f, Iva Karapyrjcrrj TOV 6dva- (^dpiv TTJV . . .) (pavfpa&gt;dei(rav 8e 

TOV Kai TTJV K vfKptov (iwioTacrii/ Set 17 vvv 8m rrjs fm&lt;pavfias TOV (rurripos 

on ev (rapid (8ei avTov &lt;pavfpa&gt;6r)vai T)/J.&gt;V Xpicrrov lijcrov, KarapyrjcravTos 

vir(p.fivfv. fj.fi/ TOV ddvarov (putTicravTOS 8e C^ v 

Kai dcpdapcriav 8ia TOV cvayyeXt ov. 

Comp. I Tim. 3 16 os e(pavfpu&gt;8rj 
tv vapid. 

i Pet. i 20 . 



(pavepcoevTos f en e^arou TG&gt;V 
Xpovuiv 81 fi/j.ds TOVS 81 O.VTOV TTICTTOVS 
ets Qfbv TOV eydpavTa avTov (K vfKpwv. 

In both 2, Timothy and i Peter we have the conjunction of 
two ideas prominent in Barn. v. 6. The degree of likeness, how 
ever, to 2, Timothy is greater, and is supported by i Timothy, 
though there is some additional evidence that Barnabas used 
i Peter; see (23), (24). As regards the phrase ev crapul &lt;pave- 
povadat in Barnabas, its frequency (see vi. 7, 9, 14, xii. 10, cf. 
xiv. 5) calls for special notice. Its occurrence in i Tim. 3 16 , 
in what looks like a rhythmical hymn (Eph. 5 19 f - ; Col. 3 16 fl ) 
or liturgical form, implies that the idea of the incarnation as 
a manifestation (t-nifyaveia) of a Divine Saviour was fairly 
general (see Heb. 5 7 , 9 26 , cf. i Pet. i 20 ; 2 Tim. i 10 ; Titus 2 11 ) 
in the later apostolic age, long before the Fourth Gospel 
appeared. Such a usage in Barnabas s region may explain 
the hold the idea has on him. But the conjunction in 
Barnabas of the two ideas blended in the latter half of 2 Tim. 
i 10 is striking, and suggests literary connexion, unless here 
also the same holds as is probable in ei/ vapid (p 



i 4 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(20) Barn. vii. 2. 2 Tim. 4 1 . 

(I ovv 6 vlbs TOV Qfov, &&amp;gt;v Kvpios 8iap.apTvpop.ai awatov TOV Qtov 

Kal p.eX\a&gt;v Kpiveiv &gt;vras Kal veKpovs, Kal XpicrroC irjo-ov TOV p.f\\ovTos Kpi- 
enaOfv, fcrX. veiv a&gt;vTas Kal vfKpovs. 

Here in both cases a common formula of Christain faith 
seems to be cited; cf. I Pet. 4 5 ; Acts io 42 ; Polyc. ad Phil. 
ii. i; 2 Clem. i. i. 

Titus d 

(21) Barn. i. 3, 4, 6. Titus 3 8 ff-, i 2 . 

d\r)65)s ;3Xerra&gt; ev v/uv (KKf^vfjievov ecraxrev f)p.as 8ia Xoi/rpoO TraXty- 

aTro ToO TrXovcriou r^r TrrjyJjs Kvpiov yeveo-ias Kal dvaitaiv&lt;oo-fQ&gt;s Hvfv/jLaTos 
TrvfVfia e(j) u/xaf . . . fXiriSi ^U&gt;TJS avTov ayiov, ov tfx(fv t(p fjfjias 7rXov&lt;ri co9 
(C eV e XTTt Si) . . . fwfjf eXTTt s, a/J^iy 8ia l^croO Xptcrrov TOU trwr^pos f)p.&gt;v, 
KOI reXos niaTeons Jj/xwi/. iW 8iKaia&gt;6ti&gt;Tfs rrf tKfivov x^P tTl 

ei&gt; KUT (\irib~a 



I 2 tV eXTTt St 

The parallelism of language is considerable, as also of thought. 
To Barnabas the presence of salvation as evidenced by the 
effusion of the Spirit ; while, just below, he refers to hope of 
life eternal, in the phrase eArnSt (/of?? O.VTOV a phrase char 
acteristic of Titus (here, and in I 2 e?r I\7ri8t fafjs aloovtov, to 
which C seems assimilated in Barn. i. 4). Yet this may well 
be part of his own way of thinking, in view of i. 6, cf. iv. 8 
fir eAm8i TT;S Trtoretos avrov. 
(22) Barn. xiv. 5f. Titus 2 M . 

6f fls TOVTO rfToinaaQrij Iva euros of e8a&gt;KfV eavrov imep rjfj.S&gt;v, iva 

(pavds ras fj8rj 8f8anavr}p.fi&gt;as ij/xcoi XtrrptDcrr^Tat fjfJLas aVo irdnrTjs dvopias 
Kapftias TW Qavarca na\ TrapaSeSo/iiei/as Kal Ka6api&lt;TT) eavrai Xaoi 
TII TTJS irXdvrjs dvofiia ^vrpaxra/jLevos frXuTT/v KO\&gt;V fpya&gt;v. 
. . . \vrpa&gt;o~dp.fvov r]fj.as fK TOV (TKO- 
TOVt TOifj.ao~ai eaurai \aov ayiov. 

Cf. V. 7 o-tiTos eauraj TOV \abv TOV 



Here the idea of Christ preparing for Himself a special 
people, by redeeming it from dyo/ua, is present in both writings 
in rather similar language, and so far strengthens the pre 
sumption created by (si). 

i Peter d 

(23) Barn. v. 5, 6, vi. 7. i Pet. i lof - 

Trcof ovv {mffjidVfv vno \eipbs TTfpl rjs o-Q&gt;Tripias f(r)rr](Ta.v Kal 

dv6pa&gt;ira&gt;v naddv ; p.d6fTf. oi Trpo- t{-T)pevvr)o~av TrpotpfJTai. ol TTfpl TTJS (Is 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 15 

(frrjrai, air avrov e)(ovTts TTJV \dpiv, vp.as ^aptroy irpo&lt;pr]T(vcravrfs, fpev- 
tls avrov fTrpo(J)f)T(vcrav. avrbs 8e Iva vuivrts (Is riva f] iroiov Kaipbv e SijXoi/ 
Karapyfjcrr) rbv ddvarov KOI rf)V (K TO ev ai/rdis Hvevfjia XpttrroO, irpopap- 
vtKputv avdcrracriv Set j;, ort eV (rapid rvpofifvov TO. ds Xpurrbv 
fdfi avrbv (fravfptadrjvai, vjrep.(ivv, Iva Kal ray ^tera raura doas. 
Kal Tot? iraTpdcrtv TT\V firayye\iav 
aTTofiw, KT\. 

Cf. vi. 7 ev aapKi ovv avrov fjLf\\ov- 
Toy (f)avpovcrdai KOI Trdcr^fiv, 7rpot(f)a- 

Cf. vii. 7, xii. 8, 10. 



In Barn. v. 5, 6 the parallelism with I Peter is twofold; (i) 
prophecy foreshadows Christ s passion and its sequel, and (2) 
this is due to grace proceeding from Christ Himself, (i) is 
an idea native to Barnabas s own thought (see the parallels); 
but (2) is noteworthy. 

(24) Barn. vi. 2-4. i Pet. 2 6 ~ 8 . 

Kal irdXiv Xe yfi o Trpo(f)r)TT)s [Isa. fitcm irfpie^ti fv ypa(f)fj, "iSov, 

5&lt;D 8 f- has been quoted\ end wy Tidrmi ev 2to)i/ \idov dupoyutvialov 

\i6os icrxvpbs eredij els a-vvrpt,^r]v KT\. (Isa. 28 16 ). 
*crX. (Isa. 28 18 ). 



Though Barnabas and i Peter cite the same passage 
from Isaiah (with textual variation) and Psalm n8 22 , they 
use them rather differently, as is shown by Barnabas s ds 
&lt;TWTpipj]v, probably suggested by Isa. 8 15 Kal 
Comp. Rom. 9 33 for the idea of Jesus as 6 XiOos TOV 
P.O.TOS of Isa. s8 16 . 

Other seeming parallels have been treated in other con 
nexions: i Pet. i 2 under (9), i 17 under (14), i 20 under (19). 

Considered, but set aside. 
i Cor. 3 16 f -, cf. 6 19 ; see (3). 

Gal. 4 21 ff&gt; ; Barn, xiii (where Isaac s sons, not Abraham s, 
are the types). 

1 Tim. 5 24f -; Barn. iv. 12. 

2 Pet. 3 8 cannot be cited as affecting Barn. xv. 4 avros b4 
/zoi paprvpfl Ibov, f)fjt,(pa KvpCov (v. 1. arj^pov rjp-fpa) etrrai o&gt;s 
XiAia Irr) ; for such exegesis of Ps. 9&lt;D 4 seems to have become 
a commonplace of Judaism (cf. Charles s note on The Book of 
the Secrets of Enoch, xxxiii. i, 2). 

i John 4 2 , cf. 2 John 7 , cannot be treated as influencing 



1 6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Barn. v. 10 f. fjXOev ev aapul, especially in view of what is said 
under (19): see also (41). 

The greeting in Barn. xxi. 9 recalls several N. T. epistles. 
*O Kvpios rrjs 8o rj? (see i Cor. 2 8 ; James 2 1 , also Acts 7- 6 0eos 
rfjs 8orj?, cf. Ps. 28 3 ) Kal 7700-775 %dpiTos finds its most striking 
parallel in I Pet. 5 10 o be 0eds 7700-77? yapiros, 6 KaAeVas vfj.as 
els rr]v alwviov avrov boav fv Xpicrra). But the similar thought 
in 2 Cor. i 3 suggests that here too it is a common fund 
that is being drawn on by all; while the fj-era TOV Trvev^aros 
vfj.v, found also in Gal. 6 18 ; Phil. 4 23 ; Philem. 25 , may be 
a recognized epistolary phrase. 

UNCLASSED 
Apocalypse 

(25) Barn. vi. 13. Apoc. 2i 5 . 

Xeyet Se Kvpios ifiov, TTOW TO. KOI fiitfv 6 Ka6r)pfvos CTTI T&lt; 

(cr^aTO. uts ra np&gt;Ta. 6pova&gt;, ifiov, Kaivu TTOIW navra. 

Isa. 43" iSoi/ e -yo) TroiS) Kaiva a vvv dvareXel. 

That Barnabas, at least, cites an apocryphal source is made 
highly probable by the Didascalia (ed. Hauler, p. 75), Nam id 
dictum eat, Ecce facio prima sicut novissima et novissima 
sicut prima. 

(26) Barn. vii. 9. Apoc. i 7 &gt; 13 . 

7mS?) 5\l/ovTai avTov TOTS TTJ fjfjLtpa I8ov } ep^erai fiera TWV vt(f&gt;e\5&gt;v, 

TOV TTo8i]pr) f^ovra TOV KOK.KIVOV nepl KOL o\l/fTai OVTOV TTO.S o&lt;p6a\fj.6s, /cat 

TTJV aapKa KOI epovaiv Oi^ OVTOS olrives OVTOV (^fKfVTrjcrav . . . 

tOTlV ov iroTf fjfjLfls eo-Tavpa&gt;(TafjiV . . . KOL firiaTptyas fl8ov . . . o/notoi/ 

KaTdKfVTTjcravTfs . . . ; via dvdpamov, (v8(8v/jififov iroSrjpr] . . . 

The main reference in Barnabas is certainly to the situa 
tion described in our Gospels ; see (37). Moreover common 
knowledge of Zech. 1 2 10 (Heb. and LXX cod. Y) and the refer 
ence seen in it by early Christians (cf. John I9 3T KCU irdXiv Ire pa 
ypafpri Xe yei, "O^ovrai, els ov eeKeW?]&lt;rai&gt;) will serve to explain 
other features common to our two passages. But the sub 
stantival use of 770877/317, found in the N. T. only in Apoc. i 13 , 
might suggest that Barnabas s language was unconsciously 
influenced by this passage also. Yet see Ecclus. 27 s KOI 
fvbva-r] avTo (TO 81x0102;) o&gt;s 7ro8??p/7 oor]s, a passage which also 
implies that TroS?^? was a word of dignified associations, fitting 
it for Barnabas s purpose. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 17 

(27) Barn. xxi. 3. Apoc. 22 10 &gt; 12 . 

tyyvs 6 Kvpios KOI 6 fjucrdbs avro. 6 icaipos yap tyyvs funv . . . I8ov 

p)(op.at Ta\v Kai 6 (j,icr66s pov jj.fr 

LXX Isa. 40 10 Ibov Kvpios, Kvpios (om. KS 2 N*AQF) 
t(r)(vos epxerat tSov 6 (j,i(r9ds avroi; juer avrov. Here Barnabas, 
while not intending an exact quotation, seems to have Isa. 40 
in mind. Perhaps his use of eyyvs is due to its presence in the 
line before, fyyvs -yap fj T^e pa KT\. Comp. i Clem, xxxiv. 3 
TrpoAeyei yap fjiuv Ibov 6 Kvpios, KOI 6 pio-Obs O.VTOV TTpb Trpoo-wTrou 
avrov, KT\., and see i Clem. (54). 

GOSPELS. 

(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

Against Barnabas s knowledge of our Synoptic Gospels 
(and Acts) there is one piece of negative evidence which de 
serves attention. In xv. 9 he argues, against the observance 
of the Jewish Sabbath, that the Christian day of glad festival 
is the eighth day, ev rj KOL 6 l^crous avfa-rrj e/c vKpS&gt;v /ecu 
QavepaOels avefir} ds ovpavovs. Here, quite apart from all 
disputes as to whether Barnabas s words must needs imply 
that the Ascension of Jesus, after an act of self-manifestation 
(&lt;paz;epa&gt;0eis), was on the self-same Sunday as the Resurrection, 
we have to consider whether Barnabas would even have used 
language so ambiguous (to say the least), if he had known 
any of our Synoptics unless it were Luke, before Acts (see i 3 ) 
had come into his hands. This difficulty must be borne in mind 
in estimating the final effect of the positive evidence adduced 
below: see also (31), (33) for other negative indications 1 . It 
tells specially against the view that any Gospel whose authority 
counted for so little, would be cited with o&gt;s yeypaTirat (29). 

T) 

Matthew 

(28) Barn. vii. 3. Matt. 27". 

dXXa KOI crravpaidfis e7roTiTO oci fBatxav avra&gt; niflv oivov p.fra 



Ps. 68 22 /cat (buiKav ds rb /SpoS/^a p.ov ^oX?^, KCU ets TT\V 



1 Cunningham, Epistle of Barnabas, xciii, cites also the discussion of the 
Sabbath in ch. xv, where we find not the most distant allusion to the narra 
tives of Matt. 12, or the emphatic declarations of vv. 8 &gt; 12 , of that chapter. 

CARLYLE C 



1 8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Matthew alone of the Gospels refers to x ^ : but it and 
Barnabas seem to represent independent traditions influenced 
by Ps. 68, Barnabas being nearest to its wording (TTOTI&IV, 
ofos). Further Barnabas must have in view the Synoptic 
incident in Matt. 2; 48 ; Mark 15 36 ; (John I9 29f -), not that of 
Matt, ay 34 , which preceded the Crucifixion. And in general, 
Barnabas s handling of the Passion in terms of O. T. types, 
especially from the Psalms, seems parallel to, rather than 
dependent on, Matthew s narrative (cf. Luke 23 11 ; Barn. vii. 9 
(govOevelv) : see further under John l . 
(29) Barn. iv. 14. Matt. 22". 

Trpo(TfX(i)p.fv fj,r]7TOTf, coy yfypanrai, TroXAoi yap eiVt K\r)Toi, oXtyot fie 

TroXXot K\TjToi, oXt yot 8e e /cXeKToi e/cXeKrot. 
tvpcdtopev. 

Here we may set aside the idea of direct dependence on 
4 Ezra 8 3 -jroAAot /zei&gt; fKricrdrjcrav, oAiyoi 8e (r^dr\(jovrai (or Greek to 
that effect). But taken along with io 57 &lt;rv -yap i*.a.K.apios ei vi:ep 
TroAAovs, KOI Kar ovopa K\rjdr]s napa TOJ T\l/tcrT(t&gt; KO^W? Kai dAiyoi, 
this passage points to a familiar maxim, akin to Barnabas s 
quotation, as lying behind both 8 3 and io 57 . In 8 3 it would 
naturally be adapted to its context, which speaks of God s 
creative action, cf. 8 l The Most High hath made this 
world for many, but the world to come for few where 
the same antithesis is implied. In this light, Barnabas and 
Matthew probably draw on a common source for the saying, 
whose proverbial character seems proved by its addition to 
Matt, ao 16 in some copies (CDN Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. Orig.). 
There, too, Syr. Sin. and Pesh. omit the yap found in Matt. 22 U , 
as if it were no part of the familiar maxim. Where it was 
written we cannot now say. But &&amp;gt;s yeypaTrrai in Barnabas 
by no means excludes an apocryphal work ; witness Ae yei yap 
T? ypafyri, of Enoch in xvi. 5 (cf. vi. 13). So in xii. I an 
apocryphal dictum, somewhat akin to 4 Ezra 5 5 , is cited with 
#AAo&gt; 7r/30$?jTT/. Of course the improbability of &&amp;gt;s 
being used to cite one of our Gospels (a narrative, 



1 Compare Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 272 : We know that types and 
prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon 
collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his 
pleasure. 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 19 

not a prophetic, writing), varies in degree as we put Barnabas 
early or late. On the other hand, Barnabas may have 
known the maxim in connexion with the parable of the 
Wedding Feast, and thence derive its exact wording, while 
yet thinking of it as occurring in a prophetic scripture. 

UNCLASSED 
Luke 

(30) Barn. v. 9. Luke 5 8 . 

ore e rovy iftiovs diroaToXovs eeX$e QTT tpov, on dvrjp dpap- 

TOVS p.f\\ovTas Kr)pvo~o~(iv TO day- T&lt;o\6s tlp-i, Kvpie. 
yt\iov avTov e ^eXe ^aro, OVTOS inrip 
Trdcrav a/j.apTiai&gt; dv 



Peter s exclamation might possibly contribute, like i Tim. 
I 15f -, to suggest Barnabas s turn of thought; see (17), (31). 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(31) Barn. v. 9. Matt. 9". 13 ; Mark 2 16 f- 

(Luke 5 32 ). 

ore 8e TOVS Idiovs aTroordXous TOVS f\eyov roty p,a6rjTais O.VTOV, Atari 

fj.(\\ovras Krjpvcr(reiv TO evayyeXiov (T ) pera TG&gt;V Tf\&lt;at&gt;a&gt;v Kal 6.fj.ap- 

avTov e^eXe^aro, ovras virep Tracrav T&lt;aXa&gt;v (o~6i(i . . . ; 6 8t aKoixras (infv 

dpapriav dvoptoTtpovs, iva fifi ^3 on ... ov (yap) rj\6ov /caXeVat ditaiovs 

OVK rf\6fv KaXecrai 8iKaiovs aXXa dXXa ap.apT&lt;u\oi&gt;s. 

&papT(o\ovs, Tore ffpavepuafv favTQit 
t\ - 
aval viov Gcou. 

This points to knowledge of a Logian tradition only partly 
parallel to the tradition common to our Synoptics ; for the 
inference as to the sinful character of the Apostles is excluded 
by the context of all three Synoptists (including Luke, who 
adds els fj-erdvoLav), as well as by the general impression which 
they convey. That the saying, in a more or less detached 
form, was a familiar Ao yo? among Christians, is both likely 
and is implied by I Tim. i 15 mo-ros 6 Xoyos KOL "ndcrrjs a.Tro^o\ijs 
aio?, on Xpioro? Irja-oS? y\6ev eis TOV Kocrfjiov ap.apTu&gt;\ovs cruxrai. 
(see further under (17)): compare the way Barnabas con 
tinues, ei yap /U.TJ fj\6ev ev aap/a, TTW? av eo-wtfrjcrai; ot hvOpwoi 
P\t novTts avrov. That there was no basis for Barnabas s 
idea in any apocryphal writing is so far proved by Origen, 
Contra Celsum, i. 63, where he traces a similar suggestion to 
the passage in Barnabas. 

c 2 



20 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(32) Barn. v. 1 1. Matt. 23" f- (Luke 1 1 49 f-). 

OVKOVV 6 vlos roil Q(ov (Is TOVTO tv 8ia TOVTO, Idov, (ya&gt; aTrocrreXXw 

(TapKi r)\6ev, iva TO TfXeiov T)V a/xap- Trpbs vfj.ds Trpo^jjra? . . . OTrcoy eX^i? 

Tiaii/ dj/aKf0aXaia&gt;o-7 rots oia&gt;ao-iv tv e(p vfj,as irav alpa diKaiov fK^vixlpfvov 

QavciTKt TOVS Trpo(f)T]Tas avTov. OVKOVV eVl TTJS yrjs . . . 
(Is TOVTO vnf[i(ii&gt;(i&gt;. 

The general idea is the same, though not its exact ap 
plication. 

(33) Barn. v. 12. Matt. 26"; Mark 14". 

Xtyet yap 6 Qebs TTJV TrXrjyrjv TTJS yeypairTai yap, ILaTa.& TOV woifj-eva 

o-apKos avTov OTI ( avratv OTCIV KOI 8iao~Kop7rLo-dfio~Tai TO. Trpoftara TTJS 

TOV uoip.eva eavrwi , rdre Troip.vr)s. 
Ta 7rpo/3ara TTJS 



Cod. A of LXX has all the textual agreements here presented. 
As the application in Barnabas (on e CLVT&V, sc. the Jews) is 
quite foreign to Matthew and Mark, it looks as if he were 
unaware of any setting such as theirs. 

(34) Barn. vi. 6. Matt. 27 35 ; Mark 15"; 

Luke 23 34 . 

The casting of lots on Christ s garments is common to all 
our Gospels (including John I9 24 ). Barnabas quotes Ps. 21 for 
it and further Messianic touches. 

(35) Barn. vi. u. 

ore! ovv avaKaivicras rjfjias fv TTJ d(po~(i TO&gt;V ap-apTiatv (Troirjo-fv rjfjias aX\ov 
TVTTOV, a&gt;s iraiditav fx fw r *l v ^ V X^1 V &gt; "&gt; s &-V 8f) dvaTr\dcrtjovTos OVTOV f/fj.ds .... 

Is the clause o&gt;s TratSiajv fx iv T ^1 V fyxfa ^ ue merely to the 
parable which Barnabas sees in the promise as to entrance 
into a land of milk and honey ; or is it only in the light of 
the idea of Christians as childlike in heart (cf. viii. i, 3) that 
he perceives the parable as latent in this phrase "? If the 
latter, then one of Christ s logia seems presupposed, e. g. a^ere 
ra Traibia . . . r5v yap TOLOVTMV kcrrlv rj (3a&lt;TtXfia TOV 0eo&gt; (Mark 
io u ; Luke i8 16 , cf. Matt. I9 14 ), which gains special emphasis 
in Mark and Luke by the added words, Afj.r]v Ae yco vfuv, bs eav 
jn) de ^Tjrat rr]v flaaiXdav TOV eou &lt;ys -TratStoy, ov p.r] eicre Aflr; tls 
avrfv (cf. also Matt. i8 3 ). 

(36) Barn. vii. 3: see (37). 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 21 

(37) Barn. vii. 9. Matt, a; 28 ; Mark 15". 

. . . firtiSri o^fovrai avrbv Tore 
rf) fj^epa TOV nodfjpij f^ovra TOV 

KOKKIVOV TTfpl TT)V (TapKO, KO.I fpOVCTlV, 

Oi/x OVTOS fo-nv OK TroTf fjfj.t is eWavpco- Matt. 2 6 83 f - ; Mark 1 4 61 f - ; 

(rap.fi&gt; e^ovdfvrjcravTfs Kal Karanevrr]- Luke 22 69 ^ 

vavTfs Kal e/ZTrrvcrai Tf s ; a\rjda&gt;y OVTOS 
rjv 6 Tore Xrya&gt;i&gt; eavrbv vibv GeoO 
(ivai. 

As to the incident of the red robe, it forms part of the 
Synoptic tradition (see also John I9 2 ): the agreement be 
tween Barnabas and Matthew in the use of KOKKWOS (Mark 
TToptyvpav, John l^anov iropffrvpovv) is due to Barnabas s reference 
to TO epiorro KOKKIVOV just above. As to the assertion of Divine 
Sonship, the reference to the Synoptic incident at the hearing 
before the Sanhedrin is manifest ; note the ro re and the 
implicit reference to the prophecy of a regal Return (Matt. 
26 64 , ||). The descriptive participles cot&gt;0ey?j(rai&gt;re? ( = ejii7rai- 
gavrts: see Matt. 27 29 - 31 41 ; Mark I5 20 &gt; 31 ; Luke 22 63 , 23 36 , in 
the light of Luke 23 11 ), KaraKeirrjo-avres , e/xTrrvo-avre?, refer simply 
to the type of occurrence seen in Matt. 27 28 ~ 30 ; Mark I5 17 - 20 , 
prior to the crucifixion and so without reference to John 
j 9,34-37 : see also (41). 

(38) Barn. vii. u. 

OVTCO, (f)r](Tiv (sc. 6 ITJCTOUS), ot 6f\oVTS jue i8eu&gt; Kai a\l/acr9ai /xou 
rrjs /3a&lt;riAeias, 6&lt;pi\ovmv dXifiovres KOI Tradovrcs Aa/3eu/ /xe. 

These words simply state in a dramatic form (cf. vii. 5) the 
moral of what goes before, viz. the allegory of the Red Wool 
amid the Thorns. They are no traditional logion of Jesus, 
falling outside our Synoptic tradition: cf. Matt. i6 24 , ||. For 
&lt;?7(ru;= He means, see x. 36., 7 f., xi. u, cf. vi. 9, xi. 8. 



(39) Barn. xii. 10. Matt. 22 41 ~ 45 ; Marki2 55 - 37 ; 

tTTfi ovv pf \\ovcriv \tyeiv ori 6 JjUKG 2O 

\picrros vios ecrriv Aavt 5, avros npo- rivos vi6s ecrrt ; Xeyoutrii avreS, 

(prjrtvfi A., &lt;pof3ovp.(vos KOI crvviatv Tou Aa/3t S. Xe-yet avrols, HS&gt;s ovv 

rfjv Tr\avr]v TU&gt;V afj.apra&gt;\5&gt;v Eurcv 6 Aa/318 fv Hvfufjiari ttvpiov avrbv /caXet, 

Kupior . . . Kal irdXiv Xeyei OVT&S Xeywf, EiTrei* 6 Kupios . . . VTTO- 

Hcraias (45 1 ) *^ e 7T " )S & ^eyet Kara) 1 rfov iro8a&gt;v &lt;rov ; fl ovv A. /caXci 

avrov Kvpiov (cat viov ov Xe yet. avrov Kvpiov, iras vios avrov e ort; 

Luke (Mark NAL) 



22 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Here the use of Ps. no 1 is quite parallel, down to the 
application which concludes the argument. Textually Barnabas 
agrees with the LXX (Alexandrine : B deest) in 
where Matthew and Mark (BD) have 



(Ill) The Fourth Gospel. 

UNCLASSED 
(40) Barn. vi. 3. John 6 81 , cf. 58 . 

eira ri Xeyei ; Kai 6s ehnicrei eV fdv TLS &lt;f&gt;ayrj (&lt; TOVTOV TOV aprov, 

avTov r)crfTai is TOV alwva. fijcrerat els TOV al&gt;va. 

V. 1. o TTHTTfvcav fls, cf. LXX. 
. 28 16 Kai 6 irto-Tevcav (eV avTco, 
ov fir) 



Barn. viii. 5 Tt * T fyww f^i T & v^ov ; on f] /3acrtAeia 
Irjo-ou eirl v\u&gt;, /cat on ot &ir(ovTfS ew* avrbv ^croyrat ets rdy 
atw^a. 

ix. 2 ris etrriy 6 0eAa)V ^crat et? roy aiaira ; Ps. 33 13 6 6f\(av 
fcoTjy. 

xi. IO KOI 6? hv 4&gt;ay[i e avr&v (sc. 6~ey8p&&amp;gt;i&gt;), ^crerat et? roy al&va 
(as from a prophet influenced by Ezek. 47 1 " 12 ), interpreted 
in ii as meaning os &z&gt; aKovari TOVTUIV Xa\ov^vo)v [the words 
connected with Baptism] /ecu -Trtorevo-T;, ^Tja-erat ets TOV aiG&gt;va. 

Compare Gen. 3 22 KCU ySy ju,?] TTOTC . . . hdflrj TOV u\ov Trjs 
^COTJ? Kai ^ayrj, Kai ^Vjcrerat ets roy atwva. 

Apoc. 2 7 rw yiKwi/n 8wcra) avrw fyaytiv CK TOU ^vXou T?)S fays . . 

22 2 v\ov fafjs TTOIOVV Kapirovs 8co8eKa, also 14&gt; 19 . 

Barnabas is clearly haunted by the phrase ^jo-erai et? roy 
aiwva, which he uses to gloss other phrases of the LXX in 
vi. 3, ix. 2,, (xi. 10). But whether he got it from Gen. 3 22 , 
the Psalms of Solomon, xiv. 2, or rather from the apocryphal 
* prophet seemingly cited in xi. 9-1 1 (as his use of it in 
connexion with v\ov, especially in xi. 6f. and 10, rather 
suggests : cf. Apoc. 2 7 , &c.), or again from current Christian 
usage (see Ecclus. 37 26 , cf. Wisd. 5 15 ), is obscure. In any case 
he seems independent of John ; for he makes no allusion to 
Jesus as 6 apros T 



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 23 

(41) Barn. xi. i ff., 8. John ig 84 . 



e e 



npo(pavtpa&gt;(rai, Trtpl TOV vSaroj KOI 

rrfpl TOV o-Tovpov (then quota- 
tions, especially Ps. i 3 ~ 6 ) . . . at- 

o~6dv(crdf TT&lt;OS TO vdup KOI TOV (rravpov 
(in TO avTO o)pio~fv TovTO yap Xeyet, 
fiaKapioi 01 tirl TOV o~Tavpbv fXiri- 
cravTfs KaTf&rjcrav fls TO vdatp, OTI TOV 
H*v fj.i(r66v \tyci fv Ktuput OVTOV . . . 

Barnabas s treatment of the Water and the Cross (not Blood, 
as in John) is quite independent, being connected in his own 
mind with the vXov and 8ara in Ps. I. Indeed the treatment 
of the Blood and the Water in John i9 34 , i John 5 6 ~ 8 6 
fXOav 8t #8aros /ecu afyiaro?, is so different that, had Barnabas 
known the Johannine writings, he could hardly have written 
as he does. 

(42) Barn. xii. 7. John 3 uf - 

The handling of the type of the Brazen Serpent is so 
different that, taken by itself, it makes against rather than 
for the theory of acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel 
(Kendall, ad loc.). 



On the whole, in spite of their affinities in the deeper 
order of conceptions, to which Keim in particular has called 
attention (cf. Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 270 ff.), 
we must regard Barnabas as unacquainted with the Fourth 
Gospel. Its Logos conception is one upon which he would be 
almost sure to seize, with much else to his anti- Judaic purpose. 
Rather it looks as if Barnabas and this Gospel shared to some 
degree in a common mode of thought touching Eternal Life 
and feeding upon words of Life a mode of thought visible 
also in the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache. 



THE DIDACHE 

INTRODUCTION. 

THE treatment of apparent quotations from Scripture in 
the Didache is rendered difficult by the composite character 
of the document. It is impossible to treat it as an homo 
geneous whole, but it is hard to decide what strata are to be 
recognized in its composition. 

It has been thorght best to adopt the following arrange 
ment, while admitting that the classification is uncertain in 
several respects. 

1. The Two Ways, i-vi. In this section no attempt has 
been made to reconstruct the primitive text from a com 
parison of the Greek MS. found by Bryennios, the Latin 
version and the text used in Barnabas except in the 
omission of the section evAoyeire . . . rrjs bibaxTJs (i. 3 ii. i). 
This is treated separately, as manifestly secondary. 

2. The ecclesiastical section, vii. i-xv. 3. 

3. The eschatological section in xvi. 

4. The interpolation in the Two Ways, i. 3-ii. i. 

The formulae which appear to introduce quotations are as 
follows : 

1. In the Two Ways. 

Except in the interpolated section (see below) no formulae 
are used. 

2. In the Ecclesiastical section. 

(1) Did. Vlii. 2 &lt;ws fWXevo-ei/ 6 Kvpios (V TO) (vayyeXia avrov . . . 
cf. XV. 3, 4. 

(2) Did. ix. 5 fipn KfV o Kvpior . . . 

3. In the Eschatological section. 

(i) Did. Xvi. 7 wf eppfdr) . . . 

4. In the Interpolation in the Two Ways (i. 3-ii. i). 

(i) Did. i. 6 eipqrat . . . [introducing the saying I8p&lt;oo-&lt;mo f) 

(XfrjpotrvvT) &lt;TOV (Is ras ^ftpa? trow, (JiexP 15 & v y v $s T ^i 8&lt;a?, which Cannot 

be traced to any known source]. 



THE DIDACHE 25 

1. THE TWO WAYS, I- VI. 

There are no certain quotations from or allusions to the 
Old Testament or to any other documents which can serve 
as a standard of accuracy in quotation. 

ACTS AND EPISTLES. 
D 

Acts d 

(i) Did. iv. 8. Acts 4 s2 . 

(TvyKoiv&lt;avr](T(is be Trdvra T&lt;5 dSeX^w ovot fis TL TUIV vTrapxovTcav avTa&gt; 

aov Kal OVK eptls tSta tlvai. eXeyev {8iov twai, dXX rjv avTols 



anavra KOMI. 



The resemblance is such as might be due to similarity of 
circle or of conditions of life, and is not sufficiently close to 
prove literary dependence, on one side or the other. 

Romans d 

(2) Did. v. 2. Eom. i2 9 . 

ov Ko\\a&gt;p.(voi. dya6&lt;a. aTroaTvyovvres TO Trovrjpov, KoXXw- 

/j.fi/01 TO&gt; ayadto. 

The verbal coincidence is close, but the phrase is not re 
markable (cf. iii. 9), and seems like an ethical commonplace. 
In the absence of other signs of any use of the epistle, it cannot 
prove literary dependence on either side. 

UNCLASSED 
Hebrews 

(3) Did. iv. i. Heb. is 7 . 

TOV XaXotWtJs crot TOV \6yov TOV yLvr^iovfdfTt rcov rjyovfifvatv vp.&gt;v, 01- 

Geoii (jLVT)a-6r)crT) VVKTOS /cat fjfifpas. rivts f\a\rjcrav vp.lv TOV \6yov TOV Qeov. 

There is some similarity of thought, but the distinctive 
f)yovp.evMv is not in Didache, and the phrase AaAetz; TOV \6yov 
TOV eou is a natural one. 

Jude 

( 4 ) Did. ii. 7. Jude 22 f. 

oi fuo~T)(rfis Tiavra avOpconov [dXXa Text very uncertain. 

ovs p-tv e Xey^ety, nepl de u&gt;v -rrpocr- 
fvr), om. Lat. J, ovs 8( dyanfjo-fis vnep 
TTJV fyvxrjv crov. 

See Lev. 1 9 17 f . for wording of 
Did. 



26 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

GOSPELS. 

(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 
UNCLASSED 

(5) Did. iii. 7, cf. Matt, g 5 (due to Ps. 36"). 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(6) Did. i. 2. Matt. 22 37 - 39 . 

irp&TOV ayoTnjcreis TOV Qebv TOV dycnrrjo-fis Kvpiov rbv Qeov crov Iv o\rj 

iroirjcravTo. erf, devrepov TOV TrXqcrtoi rfj Kap8ia crov . . . avrrj ecrrlv fj fjieyaXr] 
crov cos creavrov. Kal Trpo^Tr] eVroXij. SfVTepa 8e 6/Wa 

GUTTJ, ayairrjcrfis TOV irXrjcnov crov as 

o-favTov : cf. Mark i2 29f&lt; 

Here there is juxtaposition of the two principles associated 
in the Gospels and with like emphasis on their order ; but the 
addition TOV Tioi^avra ere suggests direct Jewish influence. 
See Ecclus. 7 30 , and cf. (5). 

(7) Did. i. 2. Matt. 7 12 . 

Trdvra 8e ocra eav ^eXjjcTT/s ^i^ yive- navra ovv Sera eav 6e\rjT Iva Tfoico- 

crdai croi, Kal crv aXXw p.rj iroid. criv vfj.lv ol av@pa&gt;Troi, ourtaf KOI vfjifls 

Trowtre avTols (cf. Luke 6 31 ). 

Tobit 4 15 . 

6 fjucrfls, p.i)8ev\ TroirjcrrjS. 

Acts is 20 29 . 

KOI ocra /nij 6f\fTc tavTols yivtcrdai 
eTcpois (-&lt;p) W TTOteirf. C. D min. 

pauc. syr 111 c&lt; * sah. aeth. Iren. lat 
Cyprian. 

The evidence seems to show that the form preserved in 
Tobit re-emerges in the Jewish saying ascribed to Hillel, 
What is hateful to thyself, do not to thy fellow ; and 
the negative form in the Didache may be due to such 
influence. On the other hand the wording oVa tav ^eArjo-Tjs ^7) 
KrA., instead of 6 juio-ets (found also in Greek, attributed e.g. 
to Cleobulus), seems due to the influence of the evangelical 
form of the saying (cf. Lampridius, in Vita Alex. Severi, 
51, 7 quod a quibusdam sive ludaeis sive Christianis audie- 
rat . . . Quod tibi fieri non vis, alter! ne feceris ; so Didascalia, 
i. i, adding ab alio ). If the saying be part of the true text 
of the Acts, it would here most naturally be attributed to the 
use of the Acts. If it be regarded as a gloss in Acts, the 
Didache may have originated such a gloss. 



THE DIDACHE 27 

2. THE ECCLESIASTICAL SECTION, VII-XV. 

There are no certain quotations or allusions to the Old 
Testament or to any other documents which can serve as 
a standard of accuracy in quotation, save the free quotation 
from Mai. i llff - in xiv. 3, where KCU XP ( )V( P (added to kv Tiavrl 
TO TTW) finds a parallel in the Targum ad loc. 

EPISTLES. 

D 

i Corinthians d 

(8) Did. x. 6. i Cor. i6 22 . 

fiapav add. fiapav add. 

The Aramaic words would seem, from the sudden way in 
which they are introduced in i Corinthians, to have been 
in common use. But it may be noted that in each case they 
are used to enforce a warning. In the Didache, d TLS OVK fcrnv 
In i Corinthians, et TIS ov $iAet T&V Kvpiov, 



GOSPELS. 
(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

C 

Matthew C 

(9) Did. vii. i. Matt. 28 19 . 

/SaTTTi crare (Is TO ovopa TOV irarpbg ftairri^ovTes avrovs fls TO ovofia rov 

KU\ TOV mov Kai TOV ayiov TfVtvfjuiTOS. TraTpbs Kal TOV viov KCU TOV dyiov 



The Trinitarian baptismal formula is not found in the 
Canonical New Testament except in Matthew ; but on account 
of its liturgical use, its presence here cannot prove literary 
dependence on the Gospel. Further, it cannot be held 
certain that these words stood originally either in this section 
of the Didache or in the original text of Matthew (om. codd. 
ap. Euseb.). 

d 
(10) Did. ix. 5. Matt. f. 

Kal yap -rrtpi TOVTOV (tprjKtv 6 Kvpios, fir) 8S&gt;Tt TO ayiov rots KVVI. 

fir) 8a&gt;T( TO ayiov TO IS KwrL 

The verbal resemblance is exact, but the passage in 
Matthew contains no reference to the Eucharist, and the 
proverbial character of the saying reduces the weight which 
must be attached to verbal similarity, cf. (13). It is cited 
as a saying of the Lord. 



28 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(n) Did. viii. if. Matt. 6 16 . 

at 8e vrjorTfiai vuo&gt;v fiy firTaxrav p.fra orav 8e vr](TTtvT]Tf p.r) yiveaQc, coy ol 

rSav vTroKpiToof vrjaTevovo i yap 8ev- vnoKpirat, crKvdpanoi d(paviovo~i yap 

Tfpa cra/3/3ar0i Kal Tre/wrr?; vfj.tls 8e TO. np6o~u&gt;Tra avrcav, onus (pavcao~i rois 

tnja-TfvcraTf rerpaSa *at 7rapa(TKfvf]v. dvdpwirois vrjorfvovres. a/xiji Xeyw vpiv 

2 p-r)8e irpo&lt;rfvx*o-6e a&gt;s ol vnoKpiTai, on aWxoticri TOV p,io-66i&gt; avTo&gt;V o~v 8f 

dXX wr fK\fV(TfV 6 KvpLos fv roi vrjcrTtvuv aXtL^ai arov TTJV /ce^aXiji /cat 

(vayyeXim avrov, OVTO&gt; Trpocrev^ecr^e. TO Trpoo-coTroi crov vtyai. 

TTurtp fjfjLwv 6 tv TW ovpavco, ayia- Matt. 6 5&gt; 9 ~ 13 . 

crdfjTco TO ovop.d o"ou, f\dfTa&gt; f) Kal orai&gt; irpovevxTjcrde OVK fcrecrdf 

Pa&lt;ri\fia (rov, yfvrj8r]Ta&gt; TO 6eKrj^ia (rov &lt;ws ot vnoKpiTai . . . OVTGOS ovv Trpoo-fv- 

wr ev ovpava /cat eVt -yijy rbv apTov ^fcrdf vfjifis TraTtp TJ/JLCOV 6 ev Tols ovpa- 

r)fj.S)v TOV eiriovo-nv 86s r}fuv a-rjufpov, vols, dyiao-^ijra) TO ovofj.0. (rov, (\6fTa&gt; rj 

Kal a(f)fs Tjp.iv TTJV o(pei\r)v rjfjiuv, o&gt;s /SatriXfta o-ov, yevrjdrjTca TO GeXrjpA (rov 

KOI fj/jif ts d(piffj.fv TO IS otpfikerais o&gt;s eVoipaj/w xat eVty^s* TovapTov f)n&gt;v 

r)/JiS)V, Kai /IT; fiirevfyKrjS rjpas (is TOV (movo-iov 86s fjfJiiv O"f)p.fpov } Kal afas 

TTfipaa-uov aXXa pCcrai rjuas drro rov r^lv TO. o(pei\r]uaTa r]p-S&gt;v, is *cat T]p.fls 

trovrjpov- OTI crov eo~Tiv fj 8vvapis Kal d(pf)Kafj,ev TOIJ o^etXeVats r)^au/, *at p.r) 

f) 8da els TUVS aiwi/ay. ti&lt;rtvryKflt rjads fls ireipa&lt;rp.6v aXXa 

pvo-ai fjuas OTTO TOV irovrjpov. 



Matt. v. 5 om. syr" ln . a^Kanfv} atyioiiuv DELAn 3 al., wpientv N c GKMSUn* 
codd. recent. irovrjpov] add. on arov tffriv 97 &aatXtia KOI fj Svvafus Kal % 5oa tls 
TOVS alwvas a^fy. codd. recent. ; add. on aov tanv 17 fiacriXfia Kal 97 5oa ts TOVS 
aiwvar apTjv. syr 00 * (syr sln deesf) ; add. quoniam tuum est robur et potentia 
in aevum aevi amen. sah. ; add. quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saecu- 
lorum. k. 

In the section about fasting the only point in common is 
the connexion of fasting with hypocrisy ; there is also in 
the Didache a complete perversion of the spirit of Christ s 
teaching about fasting, and the specific reference to Pharisees 
is wanting. 

In the sections touching prayer the writer seems clearly 
familiar with a definite statement of Christ s teaching, though 
hardly a written one, cf. avrov after ev rw evayycA.iw. There 
is also a superficial point of connexion with Matt. 6 5 , inas 
much as both there and in the Didache the true method of 
prayer is contrasted with a false one. But Matthew dis 
tinguishes (cf. v. 7) between the false methods of the v-xoKpiTai 
(a class of Jews) and the tdviK-oL, while the Didache makes no 
mention of tdviKoi It must however be remembered that the 
text of Matthew is doubtful on this point, as B syr cur read 
vTroKpircu instead of edviKot. It would also appear probable 
from what precedes and follows that the Didache makes the 



THE DIDACHE 29 

falsity of method on the part of the VTTOKPLTCLI lie not so much 
in the spirit as in the form of their prayers. 

The Lord s Prayer in the Didache agrees with the Matthaean 
version as against the Lucan, in the number of clauses which 
it contains, in the introduction by the words OVTM TTpoa-fv^crde, 
and in its verbal similarity. There are no divergences from 
Matt. 6 9 ff - except in four points : 

(1) r&lt; ovpavu&gt; foT rois ovpavols. 

(2) o$etA.?jj&gt; for 

(3) a(pU[j.fv for a( 

(4) The doxology. 

(3) may be dismissed on the ground of possible assimilation 
in the text of our MS. of the Didache to the later text of the 
Lord s Prayer. As to (i) and (2) the differences would be 
insignificant, were it not that they come in a liturgical 
passage, where the text is apt to be strictly fixed by use, and 
that the whole quotation seems to come directly from a local 
liturgical usage. (4) The peculiar form of the doxology does 
not agree exactly with any of the forms known to occur in 
the authorities for the text of Matthew. 

These three sections, on fasting, on prayer, on the Lord s 
Prayer, cannot be separated from each other. They point at 
least to similar local conditions ; but the two former rather 
weaken the probability that the Lord s Prayer is a direct 
quotation from our Matthew. 

(12) Did. xi. 7. Matt. 12". 

Tracra yap apapria d(pe8rjcrfTai, avrrj Tratra d/j-apria /cat jB\a(T(f)T}iJ.ia a0e- 

8e fj apapria OVK d&lt;f)fdi)cr(Tai. 6r)&lt;rtTcu TO IS dvQpamois, f) Se TOU 

UvtvfjLOTOs fiXaafftrjuia OVK a0e$ij&lt;rera. 

Mark s 28 . 

irdvra d&lt;pfdf)(TfTai TO IS viols rS&gt;i&gt; dv- 
6pa&gt;ira&gt;v ra a/napT7j/^ara, Kai at /3Xa&lt;r- 
&lt;j)T)/j.iai oaa av ^Aacr^jj/xjjo-axrtj &s S 
av [3\a&lt;T(f&gt;T)fi.r)&lt;Tr] ts T6Hvfvp.a ro*Aytoj/, 
OVK e\fi afaffiv (Is rbv &lt;ii&gt;va, dAA 
evokes (OTiv aicovlov ajj.apTrifj.aTOs, cf. 

Luke i2 10 . 

The form of the quotation is closer to Matthew than to 
Mark or Luke, and a similar context for the saying is obviously 
implied. Yet what is true of (10) applies here also. 



30 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(13) Did. xiii. i. Matt. io 10 . 

TTO.S 8e TrpcMprjTr/s a\r)6ivot, $e X&lt;of agios yap 6 epydrrjs TTJS Tpo&lt;pfjs UVTOV. 
Ka6&gt;)o-6ai rrpos vuds, agios ecrn TT)&lt;; Luke IO 7 . 

rpo^s avrov, wo-avTtas SiSacrKaXor g los yfy 6 fpydrrjs TOV fjnadov avrov. 
dXrjdivos eo-Tiv agios KOI avros &o-nfp Tim c- 18 

r &gt; / - I- 5 * **** 5 

o fpyarrts rris Tpofpris avrov. /. &lt; &gt; / ~ n - &gt; 

rr i m i r -r i agios o epyar^j TOW p.i&lt;T0ov avrov. 

The verbal coincidence is exact, and is made the more 
noticeable by the fact that in Luke and i Timothy rpotyrjs is 
replaced by /juvOov. But i Timothy seems to show that the 
saying was one in common Christian use, while the Didache 
does not refer it to the Lord, as in clear Gospel citations. 

r&gt; 

Luke d 

(14) Did. ix. 2. Luke 22 17 " 19 . 

trpcarov TTfpl TOV TTOTTjplov. Ka\ 8fa[j,fvos TTOTTjpiov ei&gt;xapi(rTT)(Tas 

enre, Xa/Sere rovro KOI biap.epi(raT fls 
eavrovs . . . Kal Xa/Scbv ciprov KT\. 

The R. V. goes on to give an account of another Trorripiov. 
But D omits, and so does the Syriac, though it inverts the 
order. If, then, we regard this as a Western non-interpola 
tion, the order in the Didache is the same as that found in 
what would be the earliest text of Luke. But the specific 
associations of the Last Supper in Luke are ignored ; there 
fore it does not seem that the resemblance is to be explained 
by any literary dependence, but rather by a common traditional 
usage. 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(15) This, as implied in the Didache, corresponds closely 
to what is found in our Synoptics, particularly Matthew, and 
is alluded to under the phrase TO eiayye Atoy, which apparently 
means the Message itself rather than any special record. 

Thus we have in xi. 3 the phrase Kara TO boy^a TOV evay- 
yeXtou. Here the closest point of connexion in the context 
is to be found in xi. 4 mis be cnrocrToXos epxV ez;os npbs v^as 
8ex#?F&gt; ws Kvpios, which suggests Matt, io 40 , but can scarcely 
be regarded as a quotation; see also (12) for xi. 7. So in 
viii. 2, the tense e/ce Aevo-ei; supports the view that the evay- 
ye Xiov is thought of as uttered by the Lord, and not as 
written down. In view of these passages, it is not certain 



THE DIDACHE 31 



that the phrase &&amp;gt;? ^X ere * v T evayyeAt w (TOV Kuptov fjufiiv), in 
xv. 3, 4, has any other sense. 

(Ill) The Fourth Gospel. 

UNCLASSED 

Under this heading it will be proper to mention the 
passages in ix-x which seem reminiscent of Johannine ideas 
and terminology. Three are especially noticeable : 

(16) Did. ix. 2 vTrep rrjs aytas a/xWAou Aa/3i8 TOV 770180? crou. 
This must refer primarily at least to the Church regarded 

as the Messianic kingdom, and not to Christ personally 
(which is excluded by eyrcopto-as 8ia ITJCTOV). It may also 
refer secondarily to the Davidic Messianic king, who in 
Jewish thought is almost interchangeable with the nation in 
its ideal aspect. Cf. the Targum on Ps. 8o 14 . 15 , The vine- 
shoot ivhich thy right hand hath planted and the king Messiah 
whom thou hast established for thyself, and Apoc. Baruch 39 
Tune revelabitur Messiae mei principatus qui similis estfonti 
et viti. It is relative to this mystical idea of the Church that 
the Cup is to be understood (cf. TryevynartKo? TTOTO? in x. 3). 
The resemblance to John I5 1 rests on little more than the 
figure of the vine for the Messianic Kingdom. 

(17) Did. ix. 3 fi&gt;^apLcrTovfj.v o-ot . . . vTrtp rrjs 077? KCU yvwo-eoos 
r/s eyrcopto-as fip.lv 8ia !TJO-OU TOV 7rcu8o s aov. Cf. John IJ 3 . 

(18) Did. x. 3 tyfuv 8e cx a P - " a) Tr^fvp-ortK^y Tpo&lt;pr]v KOI TTOTOV 
/cat farjv alu&gt;vi.ov 8ta TOV iraibos crov. Cf. John 6 45 ~ 55 . 

It is noticeable that the distinctive ideas of the manna and 
the identification of the bread with the body of Christ, are 
not found in the Didache. The point of closest resemblance is 
that the Didache, like the Fourth Gospel, does not connect the 
spiritual food with the specific ideas of the institution, as is 
done in the Synoptic narrative. 

3. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL CHAPTER. 

GOSPELS. 

The Synoptic Tradition. 
(19) Did. xvi. i. Matt. 2 4 42 . 44 . 

yprjyopeiTf vntp rrjy fays vp.&gt;v ol yprjyopdre ovv, on OVK otSare TTOIO 

Xv^j/ot v/j.(av p.T] cr/Sfcr^^Tcoo ai (cat ol ^M f/ P9 o xvpios vp.a&gt;v ep^erai . . . KOI 
o(r&lt;pv(s vp.)v pf) (K\vfcrd&lt;&gt;)(Tav, dXXa vpds yivtadt trotfiM OTI y &&amp;gt;pq ov 



32 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

yivfcrQt eroi/xor oi&gt; yap oiSare TTJV &pav SoKeTrf o vlos TOV dvdpatirov ep^f rat. 
fv TI 6 Kvpios fjfJicov spheral. Cf. 2ft 13 . 

Luke 1 2 s5 . 

fcrTcocrav vp.a&gt;v ai 6cr(pvS 7repieaxr- 
fjLfvai Kai ol \v%voi Kdio/Jifvoi. Cf. 1 2 40 . 

Matt. 24 42 i?p.epa] &pa LTKU al. pier, lat-vet. syr 9 * 11 pesh. Tat ar - 
Orig. Ath. 

There is a marked parallel to Luke I2 35 , where alone oorcpves 
and Aw^ ot occur in the same combination ; but it is in Matt. 
that ypTjyopeire goes with ov/c otSare Trota f]fJ.epq [wpa] 6 /cvptos 
i, and with rj^pav oi/6e TTJy wpay in 25 13 . 



(20) Did. xvi. 3-5. Matt. 24 10 - 19 . 

ev yap rais ecr^arats f]p,epais ir\r)dvv- Kai rare &lt;TKav8aXi(r()r)crovTai TroXXot, 

6r)crovTai ol v^euSoTrpcX^ijTai Kal oi(pdo- KOI d\\rj\ovs TrapaSaxrotwi, KOI 
pe is Kai crTpa&lt;pr)0~ovTai ra 7rpo/3ara tty aovcriv dXXr/Xous Kai TroXXoi 
XuKovr *al 17 dyaTTT] crrpa^^o-erai ets TrpofpTJrai eyfp6r]&lt;jovTai K.CLL irh 
p.l&lt;Tos. av^avovcrr]syaprr]sdi&gt;onias[J.ia ri- TroXXous Kai Sia TO ir\r]6vv6i]vai rr]v 
&lt;rov(Tiv dXX^Xovf Kat &ia&gt;ovcri at napa- dvo/j.iav ^/vy^tTfrai f) dyaTrrj ra&gt;v iro\- 
8d&gt;&lt;rovo~i ) Kai rare (pavyartTai 6 Kocrpo- \&gt;v 6 fie VTroptivas th re\os OVTOS 
TrXai oy a&gt;s vloy 0eoO at 7ron;cri cn;peTa crw^crerai. Cf. Matt. 7 15 &gt; 24 24 and 
Kai repara, Kai 17 y^ Trapaoo6jjo~(Tat fls Mark 1 3 13 . 
Xtlpas alirov KOI Troirjuei ddep-iTa & 
ov8enoTf yeyovev f atwi/os Tore i7*ft 
f] KTIVIS TCOV dvdpa&gt;ir&lt;ov fls TTJV Trvpaxyw 
TTJS SoKipacri as Kai (TKav8a\icr6r]crovTai 
TroXXoi KOI aVoXovi Tai 01 8e inrop.fi- 
vavres (v rfj jriorei avraiv o-a&gt;6f]&lt;7ovTai 
VTT aliTov rov Karadcfiaros. 

There are several points of connexion with Matt. 24 10 ~ 13 , 
but this may not represent more than a common oral basis 
containing a good many conventional Apocalyptic ideas. It 
is to be noted that there is nothing in Matthew analogous to 
6 KoayxoTrAaro? /crA. and to VTT avrov TOV Kara^e/xaro?, parallels 
to which are rather to be found in Ascensio Isaiae, iv. z ff. 

(21) Did. xvi. 6. Matt. 2 4 3 f- 

Kai TOTE (pavycrfTai TO. arrjut ia rrjs Kai Tore (pavr)o~fTai TO o-rmfiov TOV 

ias Trpatrov (Tijutlov eKTrerdo-fcos ev viov TOV dvQpanrov ev T&lt; ovpav&lt;a . . . Kai 

to, eira o-rjp.flov (pavfjs &lt;rd\iriyyos, aTroo-TeXei TOUS dyye Xous avTov 

KOI TO rpirov dvdaTao-is vfKpatv. aakinyyos (pcovfis /teyaXi;?. 



The parallelism is insufficient to warrant any sure inference. 
The scheme in the DidacTie is rather that of i Thess. 4 14 ~ 16 , 
where we have (i) the revelation of the Lord from Heaven 



THE DIDACHE 33 

with angels of power, (2) the archangel s trumpet call, (3) the 
resurrection. Of. too the a^ara rpicro-a of the Sibylline 
Oracles, ii. 188 (po/x(aia, o-aA7ny, amorcurt?, cf. iv. 173 ff.), and 
the description of the Trapoixria in the Ascensio Isaiae, 
chap. iv. For heavenly portents, cf. Josephus s account of 
signs before the war ; and for the meaning of eKTreYao-is, cf. 
Sib. Orac. viii. 302 and Isa. 6$ 3 (in which Barnahas sees 
a reference to the Crucifixion). Apparently this idea was 
a more specific form given to the sign of the Son of Man, 
which originally pointed simply to Dan. 7 13 and its imagery. 

On the whole, we notice that this section (i) contains 
features not found in our Synoptic tradition, and represents 
a more specific and personal doctrine of Antichrist, more 
closely resembling that found in a Thess. 2 ; Barn, iv ; Asc. 
Isaiae, iv : (2) agrees far more fully with Matthew than with 
any other single Synoptic, though it has certain points 
peculiar to Luke, cf. (19): but (3) cannot be said to prove 
its author s knowledge of our Matthew, as distinct from the 
tradition lying behind it, which may well have been that of 
the region in which the Didache itself was compiled. While, 
then, use of our Synoptic tradition is highly probable, the 
verdict in relation to the individual gospels must remain 
doubtful. 

4. THE INTERPOLATION IN THE TWO WAYS 
(i. 3-ii. I). 

EPISTLES. 
D 

i Peter d 

(22) Did. i. 4. i Pet. 2". 

dne^ov TU&gt;V (rapKiK&v Kai orco/iariKcov dirt^ea dai TU&gt;V crapKiKaiv fTridvfUfov, 

hrtffvfu&v, 

The text of the Didache, as it stands, recalls i Pet. a 11 . 
The sentiment, however, is a natural one, and it is worth 
noticing that the conjunction of o-oo/xariKcSi; and crapKiK&v seems 
rather tautologous, and that o-co/xartKwy has been replaced in 
A. C. vii. I by K.oa-p.iKu&gt;v. For the possibility that 



34 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



originally stood alone, cf. 4 Mace. I 32 T&V 8e fTu 
\l/v\LK.al at 5e a-a^cm/cai. If this suggestion be right, crap/a/cay 
would be a later gloss derived from I Peter and due to the 
same feeling as that which led to the substitution of 
Koo&gt;uK&lt;3f in A. C. vii. i (possibly from Titus a 12 ). The context 
suggests that Didache has in view eiri0u/uai that wrong one s 
neighbour, as in Matt. 5 27 ~ 30 . 

(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

D 

Matthew 

(23) Did. i. 5. Matt. 5 26 . 

OVK f^eXevcrerai. fKfWcv pexpis ov ov p-r] ff\6ys enfiQfv eo&gt;? nv diro- 

077080) rov O"xa.Tov Ko8pdvTr)v. &lt;5s rov fcr^arov Koftpdvrrjv. Cf. Luke 

I 2 59 , which has Xen-roj/ dVoSois. 

The wording of the Didache is closer to Matthew than it is 
to Luke, especially in the use of Kobpavrriv and not \CTTTOV. 
But the context is quite different, and it would be hazardous 
to lay much stress on a phrase which must have been a 
familiar one. See further under (25), (26). 

Luke 

(24) See under the next section. 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(25) Did. i. 3. Matt. 5"~* 7 . 

fiiXoyerrf TOVS Karapaifjifvovs Vfjuv dyairare TOVS ex^povs iynojj/, *ai 

KOI Trpo&lt;rfvx((r6f vrrep T&gt;V e-ftdpuiv v/icor, npoatv^fcrde vnep ruiv di&KovTcav vp.us 

VT](TT(VfTf 8e irrrep TU&gt;V diaxovrav vp.as, . . . eav yap d-yaTr^cr^re roiis dya- 

Trota yap X^P 15 e " l/ oyairarf TOVS TrS&gt;vras v/^ius, riva fj.i(rdbv e^ere ; ov^l 

dyair)i&gt;Tas v^as ; oi^l KOI rd edvrj TO /cat 01 reXcoi/at TO OVTO TroioCut KT\. 

OVTO TTOIOIKTIV ; u/xeij 8e dyaTrare TOVS T .,i__ /:27 33 

e \ &gt; ft. /I -Ijlliie O . 

vpas nai ov% e^cre (jfOpov. , ^ , 

TOVS 



Tos fjucroiiQ-iv vfjis, 
TOVS KUTapcofjievovs vfuv, 
virtp TO&gt;V f7TT]p(aovTa&gt;v vp.ds . . . Kal 
fl dyanaTe TOVS dyanuivras vfj.ds, troia 
vfj.lv xdpi? tori; . . . Kal yap ol dfiap- 
ro)Xol TO aiTo noiovcri. 

In Matt, post f\6povs vfuav add. (v\oyfiTe TOUJ Karapcafievovs ii^ias DLKII c f h 
pesh et mss. vss. pp. recen. ante /cat irpoaevx- add. /ca\us iroieire TOVS fj.iffovvTas 
vfj.ds D lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen. ante SIOJKUVTOJV add. enrjpta- 
UVTUV iifjids ital D lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen, 



THE DIDACHE 35 

1 It seems impossible to decide whether the occurrence of 
Matthaean and Lucan features, e. g. iroia x"P ls ( c ^- Luke 6 32 ) 
and TO. cOvr] (cf. Matt. 5 47 ), be due (i) to a blending of the two 
Gospels, (2) or to the knowledge of another Greek source 
nearer to the Aoyta, which are generally supposed to be the 
source of this section of the matter common to the first and 
third evangelists, (3) or to oral tradition, (4) or to an early 
harmony (e. g. the Diatessaron). 

With regard to the second possibility, it may be noted that 
the emphasis on fasting, which seems to be represented as 
a climax, is in keeping with a tendency discernible in later 
Jewish literature (cf. Tobit I2 8 ) and which assumes promi 
nence in 2 Clement i6 4 , but it is not found in the N. T. 1 
It is therefore unlikely that it appeared in a source earlier 
than the Canonical Gospels. ov% e ere tyQpov at the end of 
a paragraph, if an addition of a redactor, cannot be very 
late, see Didasc. i. i, and cf. Apol. Aristidis 15, Justin, 
Apol. i. 14. 
(26) Did. i. 4-6. Matt. s 39 -" 2 . 

(i) fdv TIS croi 8(5 pdrrtcrp.a ds rf]v OCTTIS ere pcnrift els TTJV 8fidv crov 

fiff-iav criayova, crTpetyoi&gt; avTO&gt; KO.\ Tr/v criaydi/a, crrpetyov aira&gt; Kal TTJV SXXrjv 

aXXr/v Kai 077 TfXetos. (2) fav dyya- KOI rco 6e\ovri trot Kpidrjvai KOI rbv 

p(v&lt;Tr] ere TIS fii\iov (v, vrrayf per ^truvd crov Xa/Sfti a(pes aurai Kai TO 

avrov ftvo. (3) eav aprj TIS TO I^IUTIOV tfiaTiov Kal OCTTIS ere dyyapfvcrei p.i\iov 

crov, 86s cairoi Kai TOV xiT&va. (4) edv ei/ } vTtaye /xtr avrov 8vo TW aiTovvrl 

\d$rj TIS OTTO crov TO (TOV, pr) GTraiVft, ere 8idov, Ka\ TOV ^e Xoi/ra OTTO &lt;roi5 

ov8e yap Svvacrai. (5) iro.vr\ rai ai&gt;etcracr$ai p.rj aTrocrrpnCp^s. 

aiTovvri ere 8i8ov Kal p.r] aTrat ret. j ,-2930 

TO) TVTfTovri ae rt TTJV aiayova 
irdpfx* Kal TTJI&gt; a\\r)v Kal OTTO roO 
atpovTos crov TO i/jLOTiov Kal TOV ^vrStva 
fifj KcaXvcrrjs TTOVTl aiTOVvri are 8t Sou, 
Kai OTTO TOV a"ipovros TO era pr) aTraiTfi. 

The resemblance of this passage to Matthew and Luke is 
obvious. It should however be observed that, if we take the 
five cases as arranged and numbered above in the Didache, 
Matthew has i, 3, 2, 5, omitting 4, while Luke has i, 3, 5, 4, 
omitting 2. Going outside the Canonical Gospels, Tatian s 
Diatessaron (according to the reconstruction made by Zahn in 

1 But notice in this connexion the quite early addition in Mark p 29 of *at 
to TTpocftvxy, which is found in syr sln and almost all late authorities. 

D 2 



36 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

his Forschungen, i. 17) had i, 2, 3, 4, omitting 5, and Justin s 
Apology, i. 16, cites only i, 3, and 2 a line later. It is hard 
to draw any more definite conclusion from these facts, than 
that the resemblance to our Gospels may be explained in any 
one of the four ways mentioned in the preceding note. It 
should be added that the addition of the phrases K&lt;H eo-rj 
re Aeios and ovbe yap bvvacrcu shows the freedom with which 
the redactor is handling his material, whencesoever derived. 
It is useless to analyse closely the exact verbal corre 
spondences with Matthew and Luke ; for in a passage 
in which so many possibilities are open, only the closest 
verbal resemblances would be sufficient to prove literary 
dependence. 



CLEMENT OF ROME 

INTRODUCTION. 

Standard of Accuracy in quotations. The quotations from 
the Old Testament seem for the most part to be made with 
great exactness, especially in the case of the citation of longer 
passages. Occasional variations from the text of the Septua- 
gint occur ; but these are usually very slight, and may possibly 
represent readings of the text differing from those in the 
principal MSS. : see also p. 124. 

The quotations from the N. T. are clearly made in a different 
way. Even in the case of N. T. works which as it appears 
to us were certainly known and used by Clement, such as 
Romans and i Corinthians, the citations are loose and inexact. 
This is not the place to discuss the causes of this difference 
in method ; it is sufficient to point out that this fact makes it 
in the highest degree precarious to argue from the inexact 
ness of possible quotations of other works in the N. T., that 
Clement did not know, and was not using these works. 

Formulae of Citation. Passages from the O. T. are fre 
quently introduced by the phrases yeypaTmu, TO 
fj 



EPISTLES, ACTS, AND APOCALYPSE. 

A 

Romans a 

(i) Clem. xxxv. 5, 6. Eom. 



&lt;* tavrtav Tracrai/ irfir\r)pa&gt;[j.evovs irdcrrj dSiKt a, irovr)- 

d8iKtnv Kal dvopiav, 7r\(ovfiav, fpfis, piq, TrXeorf^i a, Ka/cia, fifo-rovs (frdovov, 

KaK07)0tias re Kal BOKOVS, ^idvpia-fiovs (fiovov, eptSoy, SoAov, KaKorjQfiay, 

re KOI KaraXaXids, Oeotrrvyiav, inrfprj- ^ndvpicrrds, KaraXdkovs, $eocrru-yeiy, 

(paviav Tf Kal d\aoveiav } Ktvo8oiav vftptOTds, VTTfprj(pdvovs, d\a{6vaf, 

re Kal d&lt;pi\o(viav. (favptTas KaK&v, yovfvviv dntidtls, 



38 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

ravra yap ot irpdcr&lt;7OVTes (rrvyrj- davverovs, da~uv8fTOVs, dcrropyovs, 
rail T&lt; QecS VTrdp^ovaiv ov povov 8e dvf\er) novas, oinves TO biKaicofia TOW 
01 TrpdcrarovTfs avrd, dXXa *al ot &lt;rvv- GeoC emyvovres, on ra roiavra TTpdff- 
ev&OKOvvTfs avrols. ffovTfs aiot davdrov elcriv, ov fj.6vov 

avra TTOIOVQ-IV, dXXa KQI o-vvevdoKovo~i 

rols irpdo~o-ovcn, 

An examination of this passage makes it practically certain 
that Clement is influenced by the recollection of the passage 
in the Epistle to the Romans. This judgement is founded 
upon 

1. The remarkable coincidence of the vices which are 
mentioned: this seems too detailed to have occurred by 
chance. 

2. The character of the concluding sentences in the two 
passages : it would be very difficult to imagine that Clement 
is here independent of St. Paul. 

b 

(2) Clem, xxxiii. i. Rom. 6 1 . 

TI ovv Troir]O-a&gt;fJ.v, d8e\(poi ; apy*]- ri ovv fpovpev ; firipfvttfitlt rjj 

o-fOfifv dno TTJS dyadonouas Kal ey- d/xapr/a, ?j/a 17 X^P (f irKtovatrr] ; pf) 
KaraXtVcu^tei TTJV a.yanr\v ; p.T]6apS)S yevotro. 
TOVTO fdcrai 6 SfcnroTTjs f(j) fip-lv ye 
ytvrjQrjvai, dXXa o-nev(ra&gt;p.V pfTO. 
fKTfvtias KCU -irpodvpias rrdv fpyov 
dyaBov fniTehe lv. 

It seems most probable that Clement is here writing under 
the impression of the passage in the Romans. It is true that 
there is little verbal coincidence between the passages, but 
their thought is closely related. The impression produced 
by this is very much strengthened when the context of the two 
passages is observed. In the last section of the previous 
chapter Clement has stated that we are justified by means of 
faith. 

C 

(3) Clem, xxxii. 2. Rom. 9 5 . 

e| auToii ( laKob/3) 6 Kvptos lrjo~ovs eg a&gt;v (TU&gt;V Trarepcov) 6 Xpioros TO 

TO Kara vdpKa. Kara ardpKa. 

It seems probable that the sentence in Clement was 



CLEMENT OF ROME 



39 



suggested by that in Romans. The phrase rd Kara orapxa is 
not a very obvious one. 

(4) Clem. 1. 6, 7. Rom. 4 7 ~ 9 . Ps. 31 (32) J 2 . 

[MUKapioi u&gt;v d(pf6r)crai&gt; 
al dvofjiiai, KOI &&amp;gt;v eVe- 
Ka\vfp6r]o~ai&gt; al dfj,apriai. 
fiaKapios dvfjp ov ov /ti) 
\oyicrr)Tai Kvpios dp.ap- 
Ttav, ov8e fffTiv ev TW 
avTOV 86\os. 



al avowal, KOI S&gt;v eVe- 
KaXvCpfyo-av al afjuip- 
TiaC /j,aKapios dvfjp o&gt; 
ov p.rj \oyiffrj-rai Kvpios 
afj.apri.av. 6 paKapicrpos 

OVV OVTOS 7Tl TTjV JTfpl- 

TOfj.fjv ; f) Kal (Trl TTJV 



yap Ma- 

Kapioi &gt;v d(pedi](Tai&gt; al 
dvofjiiai Kal Z&gt;v (ireKa- 
hvfpdrjcrav al d^apriat 
fiaKapios dvrjp w ov pr) 
\oyiarjrai Kvpios dfj.ap- 
riav, ovde (crriv tv rai 
ord/Liari avTov 86\os. 
OVTOS 6 iJ.aKapicrp.os rye- 
Vfro enl TOVS fK\e\ty- 

/i6COUf VTTO TOV QfOV 

8ia lr](rov Xpiorov roO 
Kvpiov f]p.cov. 

It is clear that Clement intends to quote the Psalm ; he 
introduces the quotation with the word yeypaTrrat, and we 
have not found any clear case where he has done this in the 
case of a passage from the N. T. This seems also evident 
from his concluding the quotation with words which are in 
the Psalm, but not in Romans. But it must also be recog 
nized that the words OVTOS 6 fj.a&lt;a pianos suggest strongly that 
he was influenced by his recollection of the same words in the 
Romans. 



(5) Clem, xxxvi. 2. Rom. i 21 . 

f] do-vveTOS Kal f(TKOT(afJ.fvr) Bidvoia Kal fo-KOTio-dr) f) dcrvvfTOS avT&v 

ijfjiwv. Kap8ia. 

Clem. li. 5. Eph. 4 18 - 

TOS do~vvfTovs Kap8ias. eo~KOTio~p,evoi Tfj 8iavoia. 

The phrases in Clement may have been suggested by the 
Romans, but there is a similar phrase in Eph. 4 18 : see (37). 



(6) Clem, xxxviii. i. 

a~(t)^o~6a&gt; ovv fifj,oav o\ov TO o~o&gt;/j.a 
(v Xptoro) irjo-oO, Kal viroTatrveo-dfi) 
(KaoTos TO) n\T)(riov avTov. 

Clem. xlvi. 7. 

IVOTI 8ie\Kop.ei&gt; Kal 8iao~nit&gt;iJ,(v TU 
fjf\r] TOV Xpio-rou Kal OTaaia(|b/iei&gt; 
trpos TO o~d)jLia TO 18iov. 



Rom. i2 4 . 

yap fi&gt; evl o-a&gt;fj.aTi TroXXa 



TroXXoi 



ev crajfia e(Tfj.fv ev Xptarcu. 

i Cor. 6 15 . 

0-u/j.aTa 



40 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

i Cor. i2 12 . 

KaQairep yap TO crw/ia ev fcrri, KOI 
fie\r] TroXXa exei, TrdWa 8e TO. fj,e\r] 
TOV o~a&gt;p.aTos TroXXa ovra ev e orc 
crco/ia, ovTot KOL 6 Xpiaros. 

Eph. 4 4 . 
ev trw/xtt Kal Iv Trvevfia. 

Eph. 4 28 . 

e!rt eo~p.ev aXXiyXwi/ peX;. 

Eph. 5 80 . 

ort peX?7 eo-pev TOV o-a&gt;/AaToj aurov. 

It is hardly possible to say here whether Clement is 
influenced by the Romans or the other Epistles. 

i Corinthians a 

(7) Clem, xxxvii. 5. i Cor. i2 12 ff- 

\dj3a&gt;p.fv TO o-w/ia r/puv fj Kf(f)a\fi KaQajrep yap TO &lt;r/ia ev eWi, KOI 

8i\a T&V Tro8S)v ov8ev fo~Tiv, OVTQ&gt;S fjLtXrj TroXXa e^ei, Trdvra Be ra (teXr) 

ov8e ol Tr68(s St^a TTJS Kf(pa\rjs TO. TOV o-w/naros TroXXa 6Wa ev e crn 

de e Xa^io-Ta pe\r) TOV o-apaTos f]p.S&gt;v o-co^ia, ovTca Kal 6 XpivTos . . . 

avayKoia KOL evxprjo-TO, flaw 6Aa&gt; roi u /cat yap TO o-copa OVK eaTiv ev 

erco/iart aXXa iravra o-vwirvti KOL VTTO- /ieXoy, dXXa TroXXa . . . 

Ttiyf) fjiia XPV 6 c T0 o-tafco-dai 8\ov 21 ov dvvaTai 8e 6 6(pda\fios 

TO o"ai/xa. eiTTfiv T X f P j Xpeiav o-ou OVK ?^&) 

XXXVlii. I. 7 TrdXtv 17 KffpdXf] Tols Trocri, Xpdav 



ev rw ^apto-jotari aro. 

Cf. i Clem. xlvi. 7 and i Cor. 6 15 . 

It would appear to be certain that Clement is here in 
fluenced by the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The 
metaphor of the body and its members is indeed found also 
in Romans and Ephesians, but the details are taken from the 
passage in Corinthians. 

(8) Clem, xlvii. i. i Cor. i 11 - 13 . 

apaXd/Sere Trjv an0ToXi^t&gt; TOV fia- e8rj\d&gt;6r] yap pot JT*pl vp&gt;v, dSfX- 

Kapinv UatjXou roC uTrocrToXou. 2 TI (pot ^tov, IITTO TO)V XXd^j, on epides ev 

TfpSaTov vfjiiv ev dpxf/ TOV evayye\iov v^iiv elai. Xe yw 8e TOVTO, OTI t/caoros 

eypa^ev ; 3 eV uXq&i ar Trj/ev/za- vp-wv Xeyet, Eyw p,ev eip,t IlavXou, 



CLEMENT OF HOME 41 

TIKCOS WorXfi&gt; vp.lv nepl tavrov Te *Eyo&gt; fie A7roXXo&gt;, Eyw fie K.r]&lt;pa, 

Kal K7$a Te *ai ATroXXw, fiia TO xat *Eya&gt; fie Xpiorov. 
Tore jrpocrK\io-fis vfJ.as 



It cannot be doubted that this passage refers to the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians ; the references to Cephas and 
Apollos and the trouble in the Church seem to make this 
plain, and the conclusion is borne out by actual quotations 
from the Epistle. 

It is important to ask whether the mode of referring to this 
letter implies that Clement had no knowledge of our second 
letter. Dr. Lightfoot, in his note on the passage, cites 
parallels which seem to make it plain that such a conclusion 
would be unwarranted. 

(9) Clem. xlix. 5. i Cor. is 4 " 7 . 

dydnr) Trdvra dvi \trai, irdvra fiaitpo- rj dydnr) fiaKpodvfj.fi, xprjo-Tfi/fTai 

Qvfi.fi* ovftev pdvavvov fv dydnrj, f/ dydrrrj ov fjjXoZ 17 dycmrj ov 
ovBfv vTTfprjfpavoV dyd-nT) o-x Vjua OVK irfpirfpfixrai, ov ^vo-tovrai, OVK d&lt;T\rj- 
fX f &gt;-) dydrrr) ov orao-iafft, dyaTrr) -ndvra pond, ov fartl ra eavrrjs, ov irap- 
Trotfi tv Ofiovoia ogvverai, ov Xoyifcrai TO KUKOV, ov 

\aipfi (nl rfj d8iKiq } vvyxaipti fie 
T^ dXrjGfiq, Trdvra oryet, irdvra 
irio-TfVfi) irdi&gt;Ta i\viti t -ndvra VTTO- 

fJ.V(l. 

It can hardly be doubted that many of the phrases in 
Clement were suggested by the recollection of the passage in 
Corinthians. 



(10) Clem. xxiv. i. i Cor. is 20 . 

fVj dycnrrjToi, irS&gt;s 6 inivl fie Xpicrros (yriytprai 



TTIV ufXXovfrav avdo"ra(jiv fO~f&lt;r6ai. rts 

/^ 23 

rr)v aTrap)(f]V fTToifjO-aro rov Kvpiov vOr, 15 

l^o ovj fK vfKpcav dvao-rtjo-as. aTrap^ij Xpiaro s. 



This would appear to be almost certainly a reminiscence. 
The word dTrapx^ used in this sense of our Lord, in reference 
to the resurrection, seems to make this plain. 

(u) Clem. xxiv. 4, 5. i Cor. is 36 S7 . 

Xd/3a&gt;^ei&gt; TOVS Kapirovs 6 o-iropos a&lt;ppuv, o~v o aTTfipfis ov fcooTrotet- 

ir)S Koi riva rpoirov yivfrai ; f^rj\6fi&gt; rat, lav p.T) dnodavrj Kal o o~TTftpfis, 
6 o-nfipvv Kal (fia\fv els TTJV yrjv ov TO o-&gt;p,a TO yivrjo-optvov 



42 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



fKacrrov TO&gt;V a-n-(pp.a.To&gt;V ariva ire- aXXa yvfivbv KOKKOV, el ru^oi, crirov, T} 

croi/ra tls TTJV yrjv r]pa Kal yvfMva TIVOS TU&gt;V \onra&gt;v 6 8e Qtbs 8i8axnv 

StaXuerai, err fK TTJS 8ia\vcre(os 17 avTW o~co/J.a Kadws r]6f\rj(Tf, not eKaoreo 

Trjs TTJS trpovoias TOV 8fo~noTov rcov &lt;JTttp\t,a.Ta&gt;v i8iov rrutpa. 
-w avrd, KOL en TOV evos TrXtiova 
avfi KOI eit(pfp(i 



It seems most probable that the thought of this passage is 
suggested by that in Corinthians. It is true that the develop 
ment of the conception is different, but there is nothing 
surprising in this, if, as seems probable, Clement s references 
to the N. T. are usually made from memory. 



(12) Clem, xlviii. 5. i Cor. i2 8 . 9 . 

77700 TIS 7rtcn-or, TJTo&gt; Swarbs yvSxriv cj) fiiv yap 8ia TOV HvevpaTos 8180- 

e^emfiv, fJTo&gt; aocfrbs ev 8iaKpi&lt;Tfi rat \6yos &lt;ro&lt;pias, aXXco 8e \6yos 
Xoyooi , rJTo&gt; ayvbs tv epyois. yvuxreais Kara TO OVTO Hvfvfj.a, fTepa 

iria Tis fv Ttu auTW Hvevp-aTi. 

It is noticeable that though the form of Clement s phrase 
is quite different from that of St. Paul, he groups together the 
same three qualities or gifts, TTIO-TOS TTI OTI?, yvaxns Aoyo? 
yywtrecos, &lt;ro$6? ev Sta/cpurei Aoya)i; Ao yos cro(/)tas. In view of 
this it would seem probable that we have here a reminiscence 
of St. Paul s words. 



(13) Clem. v. i, 5. 



i Cor. 9 24 . 

OVK oi SaTf, on, ol fv crraSiG) Tpe- 
iravres p.ev Tpe^ovcnv, (is 8e 
i TO flpafielov ; 



(14) Clem, xxxiv. 8. 

Xe yei yap I 6&lt;p6a\fj,bs 

OVK fl8fV KOI OVS OVK 

fJKOvtrtV) Kal firl Kap8iav 
dv6pa&gt;irov OVK dveprj) ocra 

TJTOlfJiaO fV TOiS UTTO/ie- 

vovcriv 3 avTov. 



Cf, Phil. 3 14 . 
i Cor. 2 9 . 

aXXa Ka6a&gt;s 
A o(pdaXij.bs OVK i Se, 

KOI OVS OVK TJKOVO-f, Kal 

eTTi Kiip8iav dv6pa&gt;irov 
OVK avefBr), ocra jjTOt /xa- 
&lt;rev 6 eos Toly dyaira&gt;- 

(TIV 



Isa. 64*. 

dirb TOV aiwi/os 
oixranev ov8e ol 



7rXr)v &lt;rov, Kal TO. epya 
(TOV a 7rotJ7&lt;ref rolr LITTO- 
fj.evovo~ive\fov. Cf. 65 

eirl TTJV Kap8iav. 

1 Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert a. 2 Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert 

6 Kvpios. 3 Constant, reads dyaTrwaiv, and Syr. supports this ; Lat. reads 

sustinentibus, with Alexand. 

Corinthians are almost 



The passages in Clement and 



CLEMENT OF ROME 43 

verbally agreed, and it would at first sight seem natural to 
conclude that Clement is quoting from i Corinthians, while 
the relation of St. Paul s phrase to that of Isaiah is a difficult 
question. But a more careful examination of the passages 
shows clearly that the phenomena are very complex. 

1. The context, and therefore the meaning of the passage 
in Clement, is entirely different from that in St. Paul. In 
Clement the things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard 
are the rewards promised to the servants of God. This is 
evident from the whole character of the chapter, and espe 
cially of the preceding sentence, tls TO /lero xovs rj^as yei&gt;e o-#at 
T&V [ityaXutv KCU fvbo^utv eTrayyeAtooy avrov. In I Corinthians 
the things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard are the 
hidden mysteries which are revealed to the believers by the 
Spirit of God. In Isaiah the meaning of the passage is 
like that of Clement, but the phrases are very different. 

2. A. Resch (Agrapha, p. 102) has collected a great number 
of cases where the same phrase is quoted or referred to 

Hegesippus in Stephen Gobarus ap. Photium, cod. 232, 
col. 893; Horn. Clem. ii. 13; Clem. Alex. Protrept. x. 94; 
Origen, in lerem. Horn,, xviii. 15; Apost. Const, vii. 32; 
Athanasius, De Virginitate, 18 ; Epiph. Haer. Ixiv. 69. We 
may add Actus Petri, 10, Acts of Thomas, Syriac, ed. Wright, 
p. 205, and 2 Clem. xi. 7. 

In all these passages the phrase seems to be used in the 
same sense as in Clem, xxxiv. 8, that is as referring to the 
future rewards promised to the righteous. 

3. Resch also points out that St. Jerome, Comm. on Isaiah, 
lib. xvii, says that the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah con 
tained this phrase, and (Ep. 57) that it was also contained 
in the Apocalypse of Elias\ while Origen, Comni. on Matt. 
xxvii. 9, says that the phrase occurs in nullo regulari libro, 
but in secretis Eliae prophetae. The Testainentum lesu 
Christi, xxviii (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1899), cites the passage as 
a saying of the Lord, but adds as Moses and other holy men 
have said. 

It seems then most probable that Clement and the other 
authors mentioned are not taking the phrase from St. Paul. It 
is impossible to think that they take it from Isaiah ; the form 



44 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



in which they cite the saying is wholly different from his, 
while it corresponds almost exactly with that of St. Paul. 
Accordingly it is probable that St. Paul, Clement, and the 
other writers are quoting from some unknown source, a pre- 
Christian work, to judge from Paul s use of it (with 



(15) Clem, xxxvii. 3. i Cor. i5 2S . 

dXX enao TOs ev TO&gt; tSicp ray/icm fKaoros 8e ev ra&gt; I8i&lt;a T&lt; 

There is here an exact correspondence of words, but the 
phrase in Clement arises quite naturally from the context, and 
is of too obvious a character to demand explanation. 



(16) Clem, xxxyiii. 2, 

6 8e TTTCO^OS ev^apifTTeiTO) TU&gt; 0fc3 
OTI e8a&gt;Kev avrm 81 ov dva7r\rjpu&gt;6fj 
OVTOV TO vo-Tepr)fia. 



i Cor. i6 17 . 

eVi TJJ Trapovo-iq 
Kal $opTovva.Tov KOI A^aiVo 
{jfjiaiv v&lt;TTfpr]p.a OVTOI 

Phil. 2 S0 . 

irapa^o\fvo-dfj.evos TTJ ^v^, ""a dva- 
ir\ijpo&gt;o-r] TO vp.S)V vcrreprjua TJJS npos 
^e \ciTOVpyias. 

Cf. also 2 Cor. 9", n 9 , and 
Col. i 24 . 



(17) Clem. xl. i. i Cor. 2 10 . 

Trpo&jXwi/ ovv r)p.lv OVTCOV TOVT&V, TO yap Hvtvfj.a ircana epevvq, Kal TO. 

Kal eyneKVCpoTes els TO. fiddj) TTJS Geias ftddrj TOV Qfov. 

Rom. ii 33 . 

2&gt; J3d6os TrXourou Kal o~o(p[as Kal 



(18) 



Clem, xlviii. 6. 



Qeov. 

i Cor. lo 24 . 3S . 



Cf. Phil. 2 4 . 



Hebrews a 

(19) Clem, xxxvi. 2-5. 

Sta TOVTOV (^Irjo-ov X/jtcTToC) f)t 
&lt;Tfv 6 SecrTTOTT/s TTJS ddavdrov yvdxrecos 



Heb. i. 

us &gt;cat TToXurpoTrws 1 TraXat I 
6 Geos XaXiycras Tols naTpdcriv ev Tols 



yevo-aadaC os &&amp;gt;v dnavyaafjia. TTJS 7rpo(pr)Tais eV eV^arou rSn 
p,eyaX&lt;t&gt;o-vi&gt;T)s avTov, Tocrourw [itifaov TO&gt;V eXaX^cref i]^iv ev m&lt;f, ov 
dyye\a&gt;v ocrw biafyopurepov K\rjpov6p,ov ndvTav, 81 ov Kal e 



CLEMENT OF ROME 



45 



ovo/id K(K\ripovofj.TjK(V *. yeypOTrrat 
yap OVTCOS *O 7rota&gt;v TOVS dyyeXous 
arrow nvtv/JLOTa Kal TOVS XeiTovpyoi&gt;s 
avTov rrvpbs (pAdya. eVi fie r&lt;5 uicp 
airov ourajs e?Trei&gt; 6 oWTrdrjjs* Yids 
p-ov &lt;t crv, e yto crr]p.(pov yeyeVir^d ae 
alTrjcrai nap* epot) Kal 8d&gt;o~a&gt; croi fdvrj 
TTJV K\rjpovop.lav crov Kal TTJV AcaTao-^e- 
criv crov TO. rrfpaTa Trjs yrjs. Kal 
ndXiv Xeyet Trpos auToi * Kd$oti (K 
8(i5&gt;v p.ov, ecos av 6&lt;a TOVS i 
a-ou vTTOiroSiov TUV iro8S)V crov. 



TOVS alStvas os &v aTravyacrpa Trjs 3 
&6gr)s Kal x a P aKTr lP Tr J s vnocrrdo-ftos 
aiiTov, &lt;f)(pa&gt;v Tf TO. ndvTa ra&gt; p^paTi 
TTJS 8vvd/j.(u&gt;s avTOV } Kadapicrnov T&gt;V 
apapTifav TrotTjcrdfjLfvos fKaQicrfv eV 8(ia 
TTJS fj.(ya\&lt;i&gt;o-vvr]s (V u^Xois, TOCTOVTIO 4 
Kptirreav ytvo^tvos T&gt;V dyyeXcoi oo-w 
8(.a(pop(OT(pov Trap avTovs K(K\Tjpov6- 
fj.r)Kev ovop.a. TIVI yap fine Trore rcov 5 
dyytXcav, Yids p-ou ei crv, (yen crrjfj.(pov 
yfyfWTjKa. erf ; Kal TrdXti/, *Eyd&gt; ecrofiai. 
avTcp ds rraTtpa, Kal avrbs eo~Tat fioi 
fls viov oTav 8e na\iv flcraydyrj TOV 6 

TrpCOTOTOKOV flS TTJV OlKOVfJ.fVTjV Xt yft, 

Kai Trpoo~KVVTjcrdT(acrav avT(a ndvTts 
ayyeXot 0eou. Kai Trpos p.fv TOVS 7 
dyyeXovs Xeyet, O rroi&v TOVS dyyeXovs 
avTov Trv(Vfj,a.Ta, Kal TOVS \eiTovpyovs 
avTov Trvpbs (pXdya Trpos Se TOV viov, 8 
O 6pdvos crov, 6 0eds, eis TOV alcova 
TOV al&vos, Kal fj pd(38os TTJS (vdvTTjTos 
pdjSSoy TTJS /SaaiXeias o~ou r/ydTrrjcras 9 
8iKatocrvvTjv, Kal ffiicrrjcras dvofj.iav 
ftia TOVTO fxpicre ere 6 Qtos, 6 6eds o-oi, 
eXatoi/ dyaXXtdaecos Trapa TOVS fMfTo- 
Xovs crov. Kai) 2i&gt; KUT dpxds, Kupie, IO 
TTJV yrjv fdfp.i^itocras, Kal epya Ttav 
^e(pcov o~ou eto~ii&gt; 01 ovpavoi avTol 1 1 
aTToXovj/rat, crv 8f Siap-evets Kai 
Travres cos ip-drtov TraXaKadrjcrovraij Kal 1 2 
d)rrfl TTfpi/36\aiov eXt^ets UVTOVS, ats 
IfjiaTiov, Kal dX\ayf)crovTai crv 8e 6 
avTos eij/cai TO fTrj crov OVK tKXtfyovcri. 13 
Trpos Ttva 8f TUIV dyytXcov (ipr/Kf Trore, 
Kdc9ou fK 8(iu&gt;v p-ou, ecus av 6a&gt; TOVS 
(X^povs crov VTTOTr68i.ov T&V Tro8S&gt;v 
crov ; ovxl irdvT(s fieri XtiTOVpyiKa 1 4 
TTV(vp,aTa (Is 8iaKovtav aTrocrreXXdpei a 
Sia rows p.e AXoi/ras K\ripovo^.flv cr(o- 
Trjpiav ; 

Ps. 2 7 , 8 vtds p.ov ti crv, e ya&gt; crTjpepov yfyevvrjKa ere. a"iTrjcrai Trap e p,ov, 
*ai Scotrco croi tdvij TTJV K\rjpovop.iav crov, Kal TTJV KaTacrxfcriv crov TO Trepara 
TTJS yTjs. 

Ps. 103 (104)* 6 TTOICOV TOVS dyye Xous OVTOV irvevpaTa, Kal TOVS 
\ttTovpyovs avTov rrvp cpiXeyov 2 . 

Ps. 109 (lio) 1 KaBov (K 8(iS&gt;v (j.ov ea)s av 6u&gt; TOVS e ^^povs o~ou VTTO- 

T&lt;0)V TTo8(i)V CTOV. 

1 C. reads KeK\r/poi 6/j.rjK(v ovo^a. 
3 A* read Trvpbs &lt; 



4 6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

There can be practically no doubt that in this passage we 
have a reminiscence of the first chapter of the Hebrews. The 
following are the most important points : 

1. Clement quotes the first words of Heb. i 3 , and then 
Heb. i 4 , omitting the intervening words, and with the follow 
ing changes. Clement reads jixeyaAcoa-w?]? for 8o ?]s, peifav evriv 
for /cpeiTTa)/; yevopevos : he omits Trap O.VTOVS, and in the best 
texts transposes KeKAr/poi o/xrjKez; and ovo^a. The substitution of 
/^eyaAcocrwTj for o a might easily be accounted for by the occur 
rence of the former at the end of Heb. i 3 . 

2. Clement then quotes, with the formula y^ypa-mai, 
Ps. IO4 4 , in a form which corresponds exactly with Heb. i 7 . 
It can hardly be doubted that Clement intends to quote the 
Psalm, but the form in which he does it is exactly the same as 
that in Hebrews, while it differs from the best text of the LXX 
in one particular. Clement reads vvpos &lt;Ao ya, while the 
LXX reads Trvp (p\4yov (A a irvpds &lt;/&gt;Aeya). 

3. Clement then quotes Ps. 2 7 and 8 , while in Heb. i 5 only 
Ps. 2 7 is quoted. 

4. Clement then quotes Ps. no 1 , which is quoted in 
Heb. i 13 . 

We have then an almost verbal citation from the Hebrews, 
and the citation of a group of passages from the Psalms which 
would be difficult to explain except as suggested by the 
Hebrews. It may, indeed, be objected that the latter pheno 
menon might be explained as being due to the citation of some 
collection of Messianic passages in common use ; but against 
this it must be observed that the passage quoted from 
Ps. IO4 4 , which occurs naturally in the context in Heb. i 7 , 
would not naturally be included in any collection of 
Messianic passages. 

C 

(20) Clem. xvii. 5. Heb. 3 2 . Num. i2 7 . 

MCOVOTJS 7TICTTOS fV lrj(roVV, TTlCTTnV OVTd 6 6epaTTO&gt;V fJLOV 

oXw TO&gt; (HKw aiirov e- T5 TroiTjcravTi. aurdf, a&gt;s MCOVCTTJS eV oXw TW 
K\rj6r). Kal Mcacrrjs Iv oXw T&lt; OIKO&gt; pov Trtaros 



The passage might be based on Num. ia 7 , but the 



CLEMENT OF ROME 



47 



substitution of avrov for p,ov suggests the influence of the 
Hebrews. 

Cf. Clem, xliii. i and Heb. 3 5 . 

(21) Clem, xxxvi. i. Heb. 2 18 , 3*. 

irjcrovv XpioTo i&gt;, TOV dp^tepea T&gt;V fv co yap Trfirovdfv aiiTos ntt- 

rrpocrcpopcoj f]p.cav t TOV TrpocrTaTrjv Kal pacrdds, Swarm Tols irfipa^ofifvois 
@OT)66v TTJS da-Qtvdas fipwv. @or)dr)o-ai, . . . KaTavofiaaTe TOV dno- 

O-TO\OV Kal dp^ifpea Trjs o/. 
irjffovv. 



It seems probable that we have in this passage a remini 
scence of the Hebrews. Cf. Clem. Ixi. 3 and Ixiv. 



(22) Clem. xvii. i. Heb. u 37 , 39 . 

lj.ip.rjTal ytvu&gt;p.e6a KaKdvav olTives TrtpirjXBov tv pr/XcoTatr, ev alydois 

fv fteppao-iv alydois Kal /Lt^Xtorats Mpfuuriv, vo-Ttpovp.fvoi, 0\i/36fjivoi, 

TrepifTraTrjcrav KijpvcrarovTfs TYJV e \evcriv KaKov^ovfievoi . . . Kal OVTOI travrfs, 

TOV XptcrroO Xeyco/xev 8e HXiav *cal fj.apTvpr)devres 8ia TTJS Triorecof, OVK 

EXtcrate, ert 8c Kal lefKirj\, TOVS (KOfiiaavro TTJV enayyeXiav. 
7rpo0^raf, Trpos TOVTOIS Kal TOVS p.t- 



It would at first sight appear that we have in the passage of 
Clement a probable reminiscence of the passage in the Hebrews, 
but against this it must be observed : 

1. That the author of the Hebrews is very possibly using 
some uncanonical source. 

2. That it is, therefore, quite possible that the passage in 
Clement is founded upon this source rather than on Hebrews, 
and that the reference to Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel points in 
this direction. 



(23) 



Clem. xix. 2. 



7roXXoii&gt; ovv Kal nfyd\a&gt;v Kal tv- 
dirava- 
Trapa- 



pufjLU&gt;/jLfv tn TOV f 
8(8ofj.fvoi&gt; rifJ.lv TTJS flprivr/s 
Kal aTfvi(ra&gt;p.fv els TOV TraTtpa Kal 

KTLO-TT)V TOV Q-llfJiTTaVTOS KOVpOV, KO.I 

Tals /j.(yd\O7rpen(O-i. Kal uTrep/SaXXov- 
crai? avTOv ficopeats Trjs elprjvrjs fvfp- 
ye&iais re KO\\rj6u&gt;iJ.fv. 



Heb. I2 1 . 

oiyapovv Kal rjfifls, TO&OVTOV 
vrfS TffpiKfifjLfvov rjfjuv V(pos pap- 
v, oyKov dnodf^evoi. ivavra Kal TTJV 
tviftpumerov duapTiav 81 vTrop.ovf)s 
TpfjfUfim TOV TtpOKfifjifvov fjp.lv dyu&gt;va, 
dfpop&vTfs els TOV TTJS Trtorecor dp\rj- 
ybv Kal T(\fi(OTrjv irjo-ovv. 



48 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

There is little correspondence in phrase, but a strong 
similarity in general conception. But if the preceding passage 
is founded upon some uncanonical document, the influence of the 
document might also extend to the present one. 

(24) Clem. xxi. 9. Heb. 4". 

fpevvrfTTjs ydp CCTTIV IvvoiSav Kal &gt;v yap 6 Xoyo? TOV 9eoO, KUI 

fv6v^ir]0~fa&gt;v ov 17 nvor) OVTOV ev fjp.lv evtpyfjs . . . KOI KpiTiKos fv6vp.f)o~f&lt;av 
eVriV, Kal oTav 0fhy dveXel UVTTJV. Kal (i&gt;voi&gt;v Kapftias. 

It seems possible that we have here a reminiscence of the 
Hebrews, but it must be noticed : 

1. We have epevvtiTrjs instead of Kpm/cos. 

2. The subject of the sentence is not the same ; in Hebrews 
it is the Word of God, in Clement it seems to be the Fear of 
God. 

3. The conception is found also in Philo Quis rer. div. 
heres, 26, 27. 

(25) Clem, xxvii. i. Heb. io 23 . 

IVTT) ovv Trj f\7Ti8i TrpocrSfSe- TTIOTOS yap 6 e-iTayyei\dfjLfVos, 



at v^uat )j.&gt;v TCO 



TT T_ 11 

Tals (TrayytXiais Kal TO) 8iKai(p ev HeD. 1 1 . 

Tolf Kpip-ao-iv. eVei TTIOTOV rjyf)vaTO TOV tiray- 



(26) Clem, xxvii. 2. Heb. 6 18 . 

ov8ev yap d8vvaTOV irapa r&lt;5 6eda tv oii d8vvaTOV ^fvo~ao~dai Qtov. 



(27) Clem. Ivi. 4. Heb. I2 6 . Prov. 3 12 . 

ov yap dyana Kvpios ov yap dyairq Kvpios ov yap dyairq K.vpios 

irdt/Ta vlov ov Trapa- irdvra vlov ov Trapa- irdvra vlov ov irapa- 

1 NA read iraiofvti. 

C 

Ads c 

(28) Clem, xviii. i. Acts is 22 . 

TI fie (tir&lt;0fi.fv eirl TO&gt; p.ffj.apTvpr]- rjytipf TOV Aa/3!8 avTols (Is ^acrtXea, 

p.fvco Aam S ; irpos ov tmev 6 Qeos w Kal tme papTvpfjcras, Evpov AajSIS 

Evpov at&gt;8pa Kara TTJV Kap8iav p-ov, TOV TOV leacrai, av8pa Kara T^V 

AauiS TOV TOV lfo~o~ai ev e Xe fi Kap8iav p-ov, os Trotijcrfi ndvra TO. 



CLEMENT OF ROME 49 

Ps. 88 (89) 21 . i Sam. 13". 

tvpov AavflB TOV SoOAoj pov, ev KOI ftrrjcrfi Kvpioy eaurw avQpamov 

e Aeet 1 dyiw expicra avrov. Kara TTJV Kapdiav avrov. 

1 B fXu (R ?), B b XA(R ?) 



It is to be noticed in the passages that : 

1. Clement and the author of the Acts combine phrases 
from the Psalm and from i Samuel. 

2. Clement and the Acts both insert the words TOV TOV 
Jeo-o-eu, which are not read either in the Psalm or in 
i Samuel. 

3. Clement and Acts agree in reading &vbpa, Ps. 88 21 reads 
bovXov, and i Sam. i3 u reads HvOpaynov, 

There are, however, certain differences between Clement 
and the Acts : 

i. Clement finishes the quotation with the words h eAe ei 

XP L(ra UVTOV, agreeing with the Psalm. 
Acts concludes the quotation with bs muTjo-ei irdvTa ra 0eA.?)- 
^ov (cf. Isa. 44 28 ), for which there is no authority either 
in the LXX, or in the Hebrew of the Psalm, or of i Sam. I3 U . 

The phenomena of the passages are thus somewhat com 
plicated ; the conclusion to which we incline is that Clement 
intended to quote Ps. 88 21 this would seem to be indicated by 
the conclusion of the passage but that he has possibly been 
influenced by a recollection of the passage as it is quoted in 
Acts 13 22 . It seems difficult otherwise to account for the 
combination of the passages from the Psalm and from 
i Samuel, and for the addition of the words TOV TOV lecra-at, 
which is found both in Acts and in Clement. 

It must, however, be observed that these suggestions do not 
account for the conclusion of the quotation in the Acts. It 
may be suggested that this is simply an example of the 
inaccuracy which may be due to quotation from memory. 
But it may also be suggested that the form of the quotation 
in Acts may be due to some other cause, e. g. the possible 
influence of some collection of Davidic or Messianic passages. 
It is possible that such collections of O. T. passages may have 
been current in Apostolic times. Such a collection might 
explain the phenomena presented by the passages in Clement 

CARLTLK E 



50 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

and in the Acts without requiring any direct dependence of 
the one upon the other. 



(29) Clem. ii. i. Acts 2O 35 . 

irdvTt s re fTairfivo(ppovfiTe fjujftev fivrjfjiovevfiv re T&lt;OV \6yatv TOV 

d\aovfvop.(voi, vnorawofjifvoi, p.d\\ov Kvpiov ijjcrou, on avrbs etTTf, Macd- 

fj VTroTacrffovres, rjdiov diftovrts 17 piov e crn /iaXXoi&gt; Sibovai f) 
Aa/i$di/oi&gt;Tej, rols e&lt;po8lois TOV Qeov 



The phrase in Clement finds a parallel in the words of our 
Lord quoted by St. Paul, but we do not feel that the circum 
stances are such that we are compelled to think that Clement 
has the passage in the Acts in his mind. 

1. St. Paul is quoting an otherwise unrecorded saying of 
our Lord s, which may have been known to Clement simply 
as a saying of our Lord current among Christian men. 

2. It is possible that the phrase in Clement has no direct 
relation to any particular saying of our Lord, but represents 
a conception current among Christians. 

(30) Clem. lix. 2. Acts 26 18 . 

(KaXt(TfV fi[J.as dirb CTKOTOVS fls (pas. cirurrpfifrai OTTO CTKOTOVS (Is &lt;o&gt;s. 

Cf. Col. i 13 and i Peter a 9 , under (42) and (49). 

Titus C 

(31) Clem. i. 3. Titus 2 4 6 . 

yvvailv Tf (V dfj.&lt;ap.&lt;o KOI (TffJivfj l va &lt;ra&gt;&lt;ppovifa&lt;ri ras vtas &lt;pi\dv- 

KOI &yvf) crvveiSijcm rrdira firtfuXelv fjpovs (Ivai, (piXoreKvovt, (rdxppovas, 

iraprjyyf \\frty arepyovcras Ka6r)K.6vra&gt;s dyvds, oiKovpyovs 2 , dyadds, viro- 

TOVS av8pas tavrlav ev re ra&gt; Kavovi racrcrop.fvas rols I8iois dvbpdcriv, "iva 

TJJS \JTVorayrjS imap^oixras ra Kara TOV ^rj 6 Xoyor TOV Qeov j3Xacr^)j/x^rai 
oucov &lt;r([j.v(0s olnovpyeiv 1 eSiddcrKfTf, 
Tfdw (ra&gt;&lt;ppovovcras. 

1 L. regore ; S. curam gerentes ; C. (e rasura) o ncovptTv. * N C D olicovpovs. 

The passage in Clement contains a number of phrases 
which correspond with those of Titus. 

uyvji &lt;rvv(ibr]cr(i. dyvds. 

(TTtpyovcras KadrjKovras TOVS avSpas 

tavruv. &lt;pi\dvo povs. 



CLEMENT OF ROME 



tv Tf TO) KOVOVI TTIS vnoTayf)s vnap- viroTaffo-op.fvas rots Idiots avbpdaiv. 



otKovpyeiv. 

irdw 0&lt;a&lt;ppovovo~as. 



oiKovpyovs. 
&lt;ra&gt;&lt;ppovas. 



There is a parallel list in Philo, De Execr. yvvalKa? auxppovas 
oUovpovs KCU (piXdvfipovs. 

The Committee is inclined to think that the correspondence 
of phrases, and especially of olK.ovpyf.lv and olKovpyovs, cannot 
well be accounted for by chance, and makes it probable that 
the one writer is dependent on the other: they have, there 
fore, with some hesitation, decided to place the passage in 
Class C. 

(I am inclined to think that the correspondence of the two 
passages may be accounted for by the conjecture that the 
author of Titus and Clement are both using some manual of 
directions for the moral life. A. J. C.) 



(32) Clem. ii. 7. 

eroip.01 els TTCLV tpyov dya66v. 

Clem. xxiv. 4. 

^ir) iipyovs p.T)8 
TTI nav fpyov aya66v. 



Titus s 1 . 

irpbs "nav fpyov ayaBbv froip.ovs 
(ivat. 

2 Tim. 2 21 . 

its irav fpyov dyaObv fiToip.affp.fVOV. 

2 Tim. 3". 

Trpbs irav fpyov dyadbv fr)pTio~- 
p.fvos. 

2 Cor. 9 8 . 

iva , . . irtpio-&lt;T(vr)Tf fit irav tpyov 



2 Corinthians 
(33) Clem, xxxvi. 2. 

tola TOVTOV aTfvtop.(v (Is TO 
Tutv ovpaviav 8ia TOVTOV 
p.0a TTJV ap.a&gt;p,ov Kal imtpTarrjV 
avrov. 



D 
d 



2 Cor. 3 18 . 



jrpo&lt;r7ra) TT)V S6av Kvpiov 
1 6p.fvoi TTJV avTT)V f\Kova p.trap.op(pov- 
p.tda dirb 86rjs fls boj-av, Kaddntp 
dirb Kvpiov Hvevp.aTOs. 

The form of the two passages is very different, and there is 
little correspondence between the conceptions ; but the phrases 
fvonrpL^ofjifOa and KaTOTTTpi^6p.fvoL might seem to suggest some 
connexion. 

2 



52 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Dr. Lightfoot has, however, pointed out in his note that 
there is a parallel phrase in Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 33 ^r/bf 
KaroTirpicrai^v (V aAAo) rivl TT\V (rr}v t8eay r\ v crol TO) 0ecS. It 
would appear that the phrase is not distinctive enough to 
enable us to infer that Clement knew this Epistle. 

UNCLASSED 

(34) Clem. v. 5, 6. 2 Cor. n 23 " 27 . 

Clement s enumeration of St. Paul s sufferings might at 
first sight seem to suggest this Epistle ; but these would pro 
bably be known to Clement apart from the account in the 
Epistle, and one of his statements, eTmms deo^a ^opeVas, is 
obviously not derived from the Epistle. 

Galatians d 

(35) Clem. ii. i. Gal. 3 1 . Deut. 28 66 . 

KOI TO. Tra6f)fj.aTa avrov ois /car o(f)da\novs Koi eaTai 17 a)&gt;y &lt;rov 

rjv Ttpb o(f)da\^j.uiv vfj.5&gt;t&gt;. irjaovs Xpicrros irpo- KpffJ.afJ.fvr] mrcvam Ta&gt;v 
typd(pr) fcrravpco/jLevos. 6(p6d\fj.S&gt;v crov. 



It has been suggested that St. Paul has been influenced 
by Deuteronomy, and that Clement is affected both by 
Deuteronomy and by St. Paul. 

But the coincidence appears to be too uncertain to serve as 
the foundation for the conclusion that Clement was acquainted 
with Galatians. 

(36) Clem. v. 2. Gal. 2 9 . 

The word orOAoi is used in both passages in connexion with 
the Apostles and leading men in the Church. 

Dr. Lightfoot, however, has pointed out in his note that the 
use of the word seems to have been very common in this 
sense in Jewish writers. 

Ephesians d 

(37) Clem, xxxvi. 2. Eph. 4 18 . 

These passages have already been considered in connexion 
with Rom. i 21 , see (5). It should be observed that Clement s 
ca-KOTM^vr] biavoio, corresponds with Ephesians 
(NAB, W. & H. eo-KOTco/x^oi) rfj biavoia. 



CLEMENT OF ROME 53 

(38) Clem. xlvi. 6. Eph. 4 4 ~ 6 . 

r) ovx\ fva 6fbv exop-ev Kai eva ev cro}/j.a KOI ev Tlvevfjia, Ka6a&gt;s KU\ 

Xpio-Tov Kai ev 7TVtiifj.a TTJS ^aptTos fK\r]dr]Tf ev pia e\irl8i rfjs K\r)(re&lt;as 
TO eKxvdev e(p fjfMS ; Kai pia xX^trt? f]fj.5&gt;v, fls Kvpios, pia TT HTTIS, ev ftd- 
ev Xpjorw; Trrtcr/Lia, us Qeos KOI Trarrjp Travrtav, 

6 enl irdpTcov Kai 8ia KCLVTUIV KOI fv 
Tracriv. evl 8f eKacrrw ij/xcoi eboQr) ij 
^apiy Kara TO p.fTpov TTJS dtaptas TOV 

X/JiOTOt). 

It is noticeable that there is not only a general resemblance 
between these two passages, but a close correspondence in 

phrase 

Clem. Eph. 

I . ei/a 0f 6v. I . (Is Qf6s. 

2. eva XpiaToi/. 2. fls Kvpios. 

3. ev jrvfvfjM TTJS x^P lTOS ro e&gt;K ~ 3- * v n^ev/xa and fin 8e eKacrrw 
\vdev 0* r)p.as, T]IJL&gt;I&gt; fdodrj fj x&lt;*P ls Kara TO fttrpov 

TTJS ftaipfas TOV Xptoroi). 

4. fjiia K\TIO-IS ft&gt; XptfTTW. 4. (K\r]6r)Tf ev fiioL eXirio i TTJS 



Cf. Hermas, Sim. ix. 13, 5, and 18, 4. 

At first sight it would appear probable that Clement has 
the passage in Ephesians in his mind ; but we must remember 
that the passages both in Ephesians and in Clement are 
very possibly founded upon some liturgical forms, and it 
thus seems impossible to establish any dependence of Clement 
upon Ephesians. 

(39) Clem. lix. 3. Eph. i 18 . 

dvoias TOVS 6&lt;pda\p.ovs TTJS Kap8ias TTf&lt;pa&gt;Tio~iJ.fvovs TOVS 6(p6aXfj.ovs TT)C 

iijifav. Kap8ias vp&v. 

Cf. Clem, xxx vi. 2. 

The phrase is noticeable, and it should be observed that the 
preceding sentences in Clement have considerable affinity 
with Eph. i 4 - 6 17 . 

PhUippiana d 

(40) Clem. iii. 4. Phil. i 27 . 

fj.r)8e . . . Tropfvfo-ffai fir]8e TroXi- /JLOVOV diu&gt;s TOV evayyf\iov TOV 

Kara TO KaOfjicov T&lt;B Xpiora. Xpio-Tov TtoXiTt \ieo~6e. 

Clem. xxi. i. 

eav p.f] df-icas O.VTOV Tro\iTfv6[j.fvoi . . . 

A possible reminiscence, but the metaphorical use of the 



54 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

phrases of citizenship in connexion with the moral and 
spiritual life was probably common. 

(41) Clem, xlvii. i, a. Phil. 4 15 . 

AvaXajSere TTJV Trio~ro\f)v TOV pa- oi&OTf 8e KOI v/ieir SuXirrTrijcnoi on 

Kapiov Hav\ov TOV dno(TT6\ov. ri tv dpxfj TOV fvayy(\iov, ore ttjK6ov 
npStTov vfj.1v (v dpxfj T0 ^ fvayyeXiov OTTO 



The phrase kv tipxy, &c., is peculiar, and it seems clear that 
Clement is using it in the same sense as St. Paul. 

But it would scarcely appear that this is enough to prove 
that Clement takes the phrase from Philippians. 

Colossians d 

(42) Clem. lix. 2. Col. i 12 . 1S . 

$1 OV (KoXf&fV IJ/JlSs OTTO (TKOTOVS tVXOplCTTOVVTfS TW TTCLTpl TW IKOVto- 

tls 0oir, OTTO dyvaxrias fls firiyv&lt;i)&lt;nv acorn ij/xaj (is TTJV p.epi8a TOV K\r)pov 
OVOJMTOS avTOv. TO&gt;V &yiu&gt;v tv rai &lt;pa&gt;Ti os tppiHTaTO 

f)[MS fK TTJS t^OV&iaS TOV (TKOTOVS, KOI 

fls TTJV jSatriXeiav TOV vlov 



TT)S yaTTrjs avTov. 

Cf. also Col. i 9 . 



va irrjpaTe TTJV ejryva&gt;o-iv TOV 
6(\T)paTos avTov tv Trdo-rj o~o(f)iq . . , 



The metaphor of transference from darkness to light is 
worth observing, but it is also found in Acts 26 18 and 
i Peter a 9 , see (30) and (48). 

We cannot, therefore, assert that Clement is dependent 
upon Colossians. 

UNCLASSED 
(43) Clem. ii. 4. Col. a 1 . 

dya&gt;j/ TJV vp.lv Tjp.fpas re KOI WKTOS 6fXa yap vpas et8e j/at ffXinov 

Tfdorjs TTJS d8eX^)dr7;ros dyS&gt;va e^w inrip vp.&gt;v 



i Timothy d 

(44) Clem- Ixi. 2. i Tim. i 17 . 

(TV ydp } fieoTrora inovpavif, ^afftXeC TW 8e /SacriXet TO&gt;V alu&gt;vu&gt;v, d(f)6dpTa&gt;, 



ai&gt;v(ov. 



The phrase is striking, but Dr. Lightfoot has pointed out 
in his notes on the passage, that it is probably based upon 



CLEMENT OF HOME 



55 



Jewish liturgical forms, and the phrase itself occurs in Tobit 
i3 6 &gt; 10 , and in Apoc. i5 3 (N and C read afoW; NA and B 
read edv&v). 

UNCLASSED 



i Tim. 2". 

eiraipovras ocriovs vetpas va&gt;ptj 
*at SiaXoyj 07x01}. 



(45) Clem. xxix. i. 

irpo(re\0(i)fj.fv ovv avru tv oariorrjTi 
fax*]*) aypaj xal dpidvrovs x^P as 
aipovrfs -rrpbs avTov. 

The phrase appears to be used by many writers. Cf. 
Dr. Lightfoot s note. 



i Peter 
(46) Clem. vii. 2, 4. 

fiio d7roXi7T&lt;o/iez&gt; ras Ktvas Kal 
fiaraias (ppovribas, Kal f\6&lt;ofj.tv erri 
TOV evKXerj teal &lt;rfp.vbv rrjs irapa86afa&gt;s 
rfiMiav Kavova, . . . a.T(vi(ra&gt;[J.fV els TO 
at/xa TOV Xptoroi) Kal yvS&gt;/j.fv o&gt;s ftrriv dcTTT/Xou XptoroiJ ... 

Tip-Mil T(S 6(to TO) TTOTpl OVTOV, OTl 8m 

TT}V f)[j.fTfpav o-taTTjpiav fK^ydev iravrl 
p.fTavoias xP 



i Pet. i 18 ". 

fl8oT(g on ov {pQaprols, dpyvpia T) 
f\vTp&lt;a8r)Te K rrjs ftaraiat 
u/icovdj/acrrpo^yTrarpOTrapaSdrou, dXXa 
Tip.i(a at/xart as a^w/ov dfj.u&gt;/j.ov KOI 



These passages present many points of correspondence of 
phrase and thought, but the conception of redemption through 
the blood of Christ is not peculiar to St. Peter s Epistles in the 
N. T., and may well be supposed to have been current among 
all Christians. 



i Pet. 2 1 , 5". 

d7rodep.(voi ovv iraaav naniav &lt;a\ 
Trdvra 86\ov Kal imoKplaas Kal (pdovovs 
Kal irdo-as /caraXaXiar a&gt;j 
{ipe(prj TO \oyiKOv a8o\ov yaX 
trarf. 

I Pet. 5 ort 
(pdvois dwirdero eTaj, Tairewols fie 
818030-1 XP lv - 

Cf. JaS. 4 6 fito X y, 6 Qfbs (trX. 

Prov. 3 34 . 

Kvptos virtpr)(f)dvois dvriTd&lt;rcrfTai, Tandvols fie 8i8a&gt;o~iv X&lt;*P lv 

The correspondence of thought with i Peter is interesting, 
but the last words are probably quoted from Prov. 3 34 , and 



(47) Clem. xxx. i, 2. 

Ayiov ovv pepls vTrdp^ovres iroif)- 
ffa&gt;(jLfv TO. TOV dyiacrpov jrdvra, (pev- 
yovrfs KaroXaXiaj, p.iapds Tt Kal 
dvdyvovs o~vp.7T\oK&lt;is, p.fdas Tf Kal 
VftoTfpicrpovs Kal pSfXvKTas iridvfj.ias, 
fj.vo-fpav /xoi^fi af /SSeXuKT^i/ vnfprj- 
(paviav. Qeos yap, fprjo-iv, vTrepr)&lt;pdvois 
dvriTao-0-fTai Tairfivols fie 8i8&lt;ao-iv 



56 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

the subject of Clement s passage is probably suggested by 
the quotation from Deuteronomy, contained in the previous 
chapter. 

(48) Clem. xlix. 5. i Pet. 4". Jas. 5 20 . 

dydirr] KaXvirTfi 77X77- dydirr] KaXinrrei TT\TJ- 6 enicTTptyas d/*ap- 

6os apapTitoV, Boy d^aprtwi/. TooXov f&lt; TrXdV^s 68ov 

Prov. io 12 LXX. Prov. io 12 , Heb. T &lt;^W 

( , .-P. . oavarov. KCII KaXuwet 

ra* 8c TOW M , But love covereth n ^ 6os d ^ 

(f)i\ov(iKovvras KaXunret all transgressions. 

&lt;f)i\ia. 

1. Clement and i Peter agree exactly in the terms of the 
passage ; they differ from the Hebrew text of Proverbs in 
reading a multitude instead of all, and they differ entirely 
from the LXX text of Proverbs. It would, therefore, at first 
sight seem probable that Clement is quoting the phrase from 
i Peter. 

2. A. Resch (Agrapha, p. 348) has argued that this phrase 
was originally a saying of our Lord, and brings forward the 
following parallels. 

Didasc. ii. 3. 

ort Xeyei Kvptos dydnrj KaXvnrfi Tr\fjdos ApapTiiav. 

Clem. Alex. Paedagog. iii. 12. 

va\ fifjv Kai Trept dydnrjf dyciTrr), rprjcri, KaXvirrei jr\i)6os d^tapriwi/ KOL ntpi 
TToXireias aTrdSoTe TO KaiVapos Kaurapi KOI TO. rov dtov T&lt;5 6f&lt;n. 

2 Clem. xvi. 4. 

dyaTrrj 8e KaXwrrei TrX^or 6./j.apTi&gt;v. 

Resch urges that the author of the Didascalia clearly 
regards the phrase as a saying of our Lord s, but an examina 
tion of the context shows plainly that the author cites with 
the same formula, the Lord saith, passages from the O. T. 
He also argues that the fact that Clement of Alexandria sets 
this phrase beside a well-known saying of our Lord, shows 
that he looked upon it as having been spoken by Him ; but 
again an examination of the context makes it plain that 
Clement is citing indifferently phrases from the Old and 
New Testaments as embodying the instruction of the 
Paedagogus. 

It appears, therefore, that these parallels do not justify the 



CLEMENT OF ROME 57 

conclusion that i Peter and Clement are quoting a traditional 
saying of our Lord. 

3. It may, however, be suggested that Clement and I Peter 
are both quoting from some unknown source, i. e. another 
Greek version of the passage in Proverbs, or some Apocryphal 
writing, and it does not seem therefore that we can say more 
than that it is possible that Clement is quoting the passage 
from i Peter. 

(49) Clem. lix. 2. i Pet. 2 9 . 
See under Colossians (42). 

UNCLASSED 

(50) Clem. Introduction. i Pet. i 1 - 2 . 

There are some parallel phrases, but they are not sufficiently 
important or distinctive to require special discussion. 

(51) Clem. ii. 2. i Pet. 4 19 . 

dyadoTTOuav. tv dyaQcnrouq. 

The word occurs in the N. T. only in i Peter, and is not 
found in the LXX or other Greek versions of the O. T. and 
Apocrypha ; and apparently it does not occur in classical 
literature. 

(52) Clem. ii. 4. i Pet. 2". 

TT/V ddf\&lt;p6TT)Ta. 

i Pet. 5 9 . 



The word occurs in the N. T. only in i Peter ; it is found 
in the LXX of i Mace. I2 10 17 , but in the sense of brotherly 
affection. It does not apparently occur in classical literature. 

i John d 

(53) Clem. xlix. 5. i John 4 18 . 

fv rfj dydnr) eT(\i&lt;bdr](rav irdvrfs ol 6 Se (frofiovpfvos ov rereAetWai iv 

eVcAeKTol rov 0eou. rrj dyaTrrj. 

Clem. 1. 3. 

aXX* ol tv dyajTT) Te\(iu&gt;6fVT(S . . . 

There is a verbal similarity between the first passage in 
Clement and that in John, but the meaning is different ; the 



58 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

meaning in the second passage may perhaps be the same as 
in John. 

Apocalypse d 

(54) Clem, xxxiv. 3. Apoc. 22 12 . Isa. 4O 10 . 

npoXeyti yap rjp.lv I8ov, fpxofj.cn TO^U, I8ov Kvpios, Kvpios 

l8ov 6 Kvpios, Kal 6 KOI 6 pio-dos fiov P.(T p.fTa tcrvvor tpverat 

fiio-Qbs OVTOV irpb npoa- e /nov, diro8ovvai eKaorw I8ov 6 p-io-Qos avTov ptT 

uirrov avTov, diro8ovvai u&gt;s TO fpyov early avTov. OVTOV, Kal ro fpyov tvav- 

e Kaoro) Kara TO fpyov T iov avrov. 



Isa. 62". 

napayeyovfv ^o)i/ TOV 
favTov fjLio-66v, Kal TO 
epyov avTov irpo nrpotr- 
OJTTOV avrov, 

Prov. 24 13 . 

Kai 6 ir\do~as TTVOTJV 
" &gt; \ ^ / 

TTaffiv avTos oioev iravra, 

og airo8i8&lt;oo iv eKaorw 
Kara TO fpya avrov, 

The passages in Clement and the Apocalypse seem to be 
made up of a combination of phrases from Isaiah and Proverbs. 
The combination is noticeable, but may perhaps be accounted 
for by the hypothesis that it may have been made in some 
earlier Apocalyptic work. Cf. Barnabas (27). 

GOSPELS. 

The Synoptic Tradition. 
(55) Clem. xiii. i Matt. 5 7 , &c. Luke 6 s1 . S6 - 38 . 

T&gt;V \6yaiv TOV Kvpiov p.ovfs OTI avrol f\frj6rj- iva iroiwaiv vfj.lv ol av 

itjo-ov, ovs f\d\T)(Tfv (rovrai. flpwiroi, KOI v/j.fls Trotetre 

o"i8do-KO)v emfiKfiav Kal 6 12 Kat a&lt;j)fs yplv avTols ofioicos. 

lMKpo6vp.lav. OVTCOS yap TO 6(pei\rjp.aTa fip&v, a&gt;s 6 s6 yivecrdf oiKTip- 

1 fiirtv EXeare iva (\erj- Kal f)/j.ds d(pr)Kap.fv Tols fioves, Ka6a&gt;s 6 TraTrjp 

2 6r}Tf , d(pi(T( Iva d&lt;pfdfj offxiXfTois f]p.5&gt;v. vfjicav oiKTipp.a&gt;v e art. 
o vfj.lv a&gt;s TToielre, OVTU&gt; 6 (ov yap d(pf)TC Kal fjif/ KptvfTf Kal ov fifi 
A iroiqdf)0-eTai vp.lv a&gt;s Tols dvBpunrois TO. Trapa- Kpi6r)re ; Kai pf) Kara- 

St Sore, OVTO&gt;S 8o6r)fffTai TrTU&gt;p.ara avTa&gt;v, d&lt;pf)o~fi 8iKafT(, Kal ov p.r] Kara- 
5 vfj.lv a&gt;s KplvfTf, ovTas Kai vfj.lv 6 rraTTjp vfuav 6 



CLEMENT OF KOME 



59 



6 Kpi6r](TT6f a&gt;s XP 1 ! 
OTfVfcrdf, ovra&gt;s XP1~ 

* &lt;TTfv6r]&lt;rfTaL vp.lv 1 w 
p,erpcp ufrpdrf, ev avreS 



Lat. omits the clause. 
Lat. reads remetietur. 



ovpdvios, (av 8t p.f] d(pr)Tt 
TOIS avdpoinots ra irapa- 
jrrco/Liara avratv, ov8e 6 
TTCITTJP vp.&gt;v a(pT)(Tei TO 
Traparrrco/iiara vp.&gt;v. 

7 1 p.T) Kpivere, Iva 
p,fj KpiQfJTf ev aj yap xpi- 
p.ari Kpivtre 
Koi tv a&gt; 
p.fTpr]6r)&lt;TfTai vp.v. 

y 12 Trdvra ovv 

&V 6(\T)Tf 

(Tiv vp.lv ol avOpamoi, 

OVTO) Kal Vp.fls TTOtflTC 

avrols OVTOS yap fcrnv 
6 vofjtos KO\ ol irpo&lt;^r]Tai.. 



Tai vp.v 

TffTTlfCTp.fVOV, 

&lt;ra\fvp.fvov 
p.(vov, Saxrovaiv els TOV 
Kokirov vp.v. &lt;a yap 
dvri- 



vp.v. 



Clem. Alex. 
Stromata, ii. 18, 91. 

eXearf, (prjalv 6 Kvpios, 
iva f\er)df)Tf d(pifTt, Iva 

dffiedf) vp.lv 0)S TTOielrf, 

OVTOIS iroir)0fi&lt;T(Tai vp.lv 
wr 8i8orf OVTUS 8o0r)~ 
(Tfrai vp.lv o&gt;s 
ovr&lt;as Kpidrja-fa 

, ovras 

vp.lv w p,e- 
rpco p-trpelre, dvrip.(Tpr)- 
GrjO tTai vp.lv. 

Didasc. ii. 42. 

on Xe yei 6 Kvpios co Kpipari Kpi- 
VfTf, Kpidrjo-fo-di, KOI o&gt;s Karaducd- 



Poly carp ii. 3. 



6 Kvpios 8i8dcrKa&gt;v 
P.T) Kpivtre Iva P.TI Kpidrjre 
d&lt;pitTf, Kal d(p(df)cr(Tai 
vfilv eXfart, Iva 1 f\er)- 

dfJTf, 



Didasc. ii. 21. 

686s 8( (lpT)vrjs f&lt;rr\v 
6 crutrrip r]p.5&gt;v 
Xpicrros], 6s Kal 
a&lt;p(Tt Kal 
vp.lv [Si Sorf Kal 8o0Tj- 
2 



vp.v. 



Lat. et. 



* Syr. Lat. omit SiSort 



Macarius Aegypt., Horn. 
xxx vii. 3. 

Kaffirs (VfTfiXaro, afare Kal d&lt;pt6r)~ 
crfrai vp.lv. 



The phenomena of the passage are very complex. 

I. The passage numbered i has no phrase directly corre 
sponding to it in any of our Gospels, but might be founded on 
Matt. 5 7 . 

The passage numbered a has no proper parallel in St. 
Matthew, but is near Luke ^TroXvere, &c. 

No. 3 has no proper parallel in our Gospels, but may be 
compared with Matt. 7 12 and Luke 6 31 . 

No. 4 has no parallel in Matthew, but is very near Luke 6 38 , 
only Clement has o&gt;s and ovroj?, while Luke has KCU. 



60 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

No. 5 is parallel to Matt. 7 1 and Luke 6 37 , but Clement has 
&lt;a? and ovrcos, while Matthew has JUT? and Iva /XT) Kprtfjre, and 
Luke /XTJ and KOL ov /U.T) /cpi0?jre. 

No. 6 has no parallel in either Gospel. 

No. 7 is parallel to Matt. 7 1 and Luke 6 36 , but Matthew 
has h w for o&gt;, and Luke inserts yap after o&gt;, and reads 



II. Resch (Agrapha, p. 136) has collected a number of 
parallels. 

Clement of Alexandria has the passage exactly as in 
Clement with a few unimportant variations. 

Clement of Alexandria s use of Clement of Rome is well 
established, and this fact, therefore, requires no special 
explanation. 

In Polycarp some of Clement s phrases recur, cf. (75). 

No. i is exactly the same, but Lat. reads et. 

No. 2 is in Polycarp, but he reads KCU d$e07j&lt;rercu instead of 
tva a(f)f6fi. 

Nos. 3 and 4 are not in Polycarp. 

No. 5 is found in Polycarp, but in the same form as in 
St. Matthew, not in Clement s form. 

No. 6 is not in Polycarp. 

No. 7 is found in Polycarp, but he omits Clement s h avr^ 
and reads dw/xerpr^T/o-ercu like Luke, yet he omits Luke s yap. 

Didasc. ii. 21. 

No. 2 is in the same form as in Polycarp. 
No. 4 reads exactly as in Luke (but see critical note to 
text), omitting Clement s w? and ourcos. 

Didasc. ii. 42. 

No. 5 occurs in the form of Matthew, while the clause nal 
o&gt;s Kara8iKaere, &c., is parallel to Luke. 

Macarius, Horn, xxxvii. 3. 

No. 2 reads as Polycarp. 

IIL To sum up these phenomena 

No. i is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp. 

No. 2 is in Clem. Alex., Polycarp, Didasc., and Macarius. 

No. 3 is found only in Clem. Alex. 



CLEMENT OF ROME 61 

No. 4 is found in Clem. Alex, and Didasc., but in the 
latter in the form of Luke. 

No. 5 is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp, but in the 
latter in the form of Matthew. 

No. 6 is found only in Clem. Alex. 

No. 7 is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp, but in the 
latter in a form which approaches nearer to that of 
Matthew and Luke than that of Clem. Rom. 

It must also be observed that except by Clem. Alex, the 
passage of Clem. Rom. is only partially reproduced, and so 
far as it is reproduced by Polycarp, it is in a totally different 
order. 

IV. The Committee concludes that in the circumstances it 
is impossible to say with any confidence what is the source 
of Clement s quotations. It may be urged that they repre 
sent an inaccurate quotation of Matthew and Luke made 
from memory, but the recurrence in Polycarp of the phrase 
marked i, and in Polycarp, Didasc., and Macarius of that 
marked 2, makes this less probable. On the other hand, the 
fact that the series of phrases as it is found in Polycarp 
and the Didasc. is incomplete, and not in the same order as in 
Clem. Rom., seems to show that there is no one documentary 
source common to all these writers. 

We incline to think that we have in Clem. Rom. a citation 
from some written or unwritten form of Catechesis as to 
our Lord s teaching, current in the Roman Church, perhaps 
a local form which may go back to a time before our Gospels 
existed. 

(56) Clem. xlvi. Matt. 2 6 24 . Mark i4 21 . Luke 17 . 2 . 

&gt;T 52 &gt; \ v tt t \ t\ - &gt; ^ / &gt; 

7&gt; ovat oe rw av- on o fj.ev vios TOV A.i&gt;(v8fKTov OTI 

fjivrjcrdr/Tf ro&gt;i&gt; Xo- 6pd&gt;ira&gt; fKctpqi 81 ov dvdpa&gt;Trov vrrdyfi, Ka- TOV rd crKavdaXa p.f) 

yoov l^troC TOV Ku- 6 vlos TOV dvdputTTov 6u&gt;s yfypairrai irtp\ (\dfiv TrXfjv oval 81 

piov rjfjiuiv irapa8i8oTai KaXbv avrov oval 8f TW dv- ov ep^erai. At/(7t- 

tlirev yap Oval r)v avTW, d OVK fytv- 6p&lt;a7r&lt;t&gt; eVcctVa&gt;, 8t ov TeAfI aura? ft \idos 

rw dv6pu&gt;ira&gt; (Kfiv&lt;f vydij 6 avdpamos f- 6 vlos TOV dvdpvirov HV\IKOS TTf 

KaXbv rjv avTia fl p.f) Kflvos. irapaSio OTai KaXbv Trepl TOV T 

fyfvvrjdri, fj eva TU&gt;V l8 6 f. %" avT ^&gt;) f OVK fyfv- avrov, Kal e 

titXcKrvv pov (TKav- os fan ffKav8a- v ^ r ) o avdpwnos end- fls TTJV 6d 

SaXtcrat upeiTTOv rfv XiVn (va TU&gt;V ui- vo * % l/a (TKa 



62 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



avTa irfpiTt6r]i&gt;ai pv- Kp&gt;v TOVTO&gt;V ratv Q 42 . row p,ucpS&gt;v TOVTW 

\ov KOI KaraTTovri- irKTTfvovrav els fpe, Ka \ fa av o- Ka v8a- *"" 

vdfjvai tls TTJV 6a- avpcpfpti avrtS, tva Xio-j? &lt;, T ^ v ^^^ 

\ao-arav, t) eva T&gt;V Kptfiao-dfjfj.vXosoviKos TOVTa)V T S&gt; V 

fj.ucpS&gt;v p.ov (TKavSa- irtpl rov TpdxqXo 

XtVat 1 . avrov, KOI Karcnrov- ( 



arptyai, Clem. Alex., 
Syr., Lat. 



1 TTfp lKtlTCU fJ.V\OS 

6a\aa-crr)s. ^ VIK ^ S ^ e \ T ^ v T . 



ol TO o-&lt;dv8a\ov tp- \ a(ra - a v. 



We have here the combination of the words spoken by our 
Lord with regard to Judas, recorded by Matthew and Mark, 
with a saying which is recorded in another connexion in 
the three Synoptic Gospels. It is not impossible that Clement, 
quoting from memory, might have combined some words from 
the one context with the more general saying, and that he may 
thus be quoting from one or other of the Gospels. But it is 
just as probable that we have here, as in Clem, xiii, a 
quotation from some form of catechetical instruction in our 
Lord s doctrine. 



(57) Clem. xxiv. 5. 

fij\dfv 6 



Matt. 13 j Mark 4 3 ; Luke 8\ 

(fj\6fv 6 avtlpw, 



(58) Clem. xv. 2. 

\eyti yap jrov OVTOS 
6 \aos TOIS fi\fo~iv pe 



Matt. is 8 . 

KoXcas Trpopr)TVO~e 
nepl v/j.&gt;v H&lt;raiar 



Isa. 29. 

KOI flirtv Kvpios, ty- 
OVTOS 



fj 8e Kapdia avrtov \tya&gt;v, 6 Xaos OVTOS Tols ev ra&gt; oTO/xart OVTOV, 



jroppa) 



tv TOIS xei(o~tv 
Ti/ieoo-iV /xf, f) be 
avT&v iroppat 

tfiOV 



Kapbia avT&v iroppu 
aTre^ei air ffj.ov, 

Mark 7 . 
Practically the 
same. 

The quotation is probably from Isaiah, but the form of the 
quotation in Clement is the same as that in the Gospels : cf. 
2 Clem. (33). 



IGNATIUS 

INTRODUCTION. 

BESIDES his references to books of N. T., none of which 
stands as a direct quotation, Ignatius occasionally quotes from, 
or refers to, books of O. T. The passages are these : 
(a) Eph. v. 3. Prov. 3". 

ytypaTTTui yap YTTfprjtydvois 6 Kvpios VTTfpT](pdvois dvTirdcra eTai. 

Qebs avTirda-crfTai. 

This quotation is discussed below (76). Ignatius deviates 
from the order of the words, besides substituting 0eo s for 
Kvpios. 
(6) Eph. xv. i. Ps. 33 9 . 

fnrfv KOI iyevfTO. emev KOI fyfvvfj6rj(rav. 

Here cyeVero is a better translation of the original than 
tytvvr\Q-r\&lt;ra.v , but we need not suppose that Ignatius had 
access to the Hebrew text. 

(c) Magn. x. 3. Isa. 66 18 . 

&lt;j) iraara y\&gt;cro-a Trtoreuo-acra tls crvvayaydv irdvra ra fdvrj KOI ras 

Qtov vvvrixfy y\a&gt;cr&lt;ras. 

A loose reference. 

(d) Magn. xii. i. Prov. i8 17 . 

6 SiKaios iavTov KaTrjyopos. diicaios favrov Karfiyopos. 

Ignatius here follows the LXX. The Hebrew gives quite 
a different sense : the first man is upright in his suit ; his 
neighbour then cometh and searcheth him out (Lightfoot). 

(e) Magn. xiii. i. Ps. i s . 

Iva rrdvra ocra Troidre Kareuo8o&gt;- Trdvra ocra av irotr) Karevodw- 

6f)T(. 6f)&lt;TfTai. 

(/) Trail, viii. 2. Isa. 52". 

oval yap 8t ov firl fMaraioTTjTi TO o\o\v(Tf rddf Xtyei 6 Kvpios, 

ovopd pov tiri TIVOJV /3Xacr0r//iIrai. 8* vpas ftia navrbs TO ovopd pov 

/3Xa(r&lt;^)j;/x6tTat iv rots tQvtaw. 

The words are also quoted indirectly by St. Paul (Rom. a 24 ). 



64 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHEKS 

Polycarp (Phil. x. 3) quotes them similarly to Ignatius, and so 
do the Apostolical Constitutions in two places. Both these 
last are probably borrowing directly from Ignatius. 

(g) Smyrn. i. 2. Isa. 49 22 , 62 10 . 

Iva apy crvcrcrT)p.ov tls TOVS ala&gt;vas. 

Cf. also Isa. 5 26 . LXX has cupety (rixra-^ov. 

A comparison of these references, and of those in Class B 
from N. T., will show that Ignatius always quotes from 
memory ; that he is inexact even as compared with his 
contemporaries ; and that he appears sometimes to have 
a vague recollection of a phrase when he is not thinking of, 
or wishing to remind his readers of, the original context. 

EPISTLES AND ACTS. 

A 

i Corinthians b 

(i) Eph. xvi. i. i Cor. 6 9 - 10 . 

fj.i] TrXavaade, d8e\(poi fiov ot firf Tr\ava&lt;r6e ovTf Tropvoi, . . , 

oiKofpdopoi, jSamXei ai/ Qtov ov K\rjpo- ovre poi^u i . . . j3a&lt;ri\ei.av Qeov K\T)- 



Cf. also Philad. iii Mr; Tt\ava&lt;r6e, d8eA&lt;/&gt;ot juov ei TLS O-\LOVTI 
aKoXovdcl, ftao-iXfiav 6eov ov KXr]povop.fl. These passages also 
resemble Gal. 5 21 (43), where Stxooracriat and atpe &lt;reis are 
mentioned (cf. O-^OVTI. in Philad. iii). oiKofydopoi in Ignatius 
probably means seducers, especially poiyoi . if, however, we 
understand the house to be the Church (so Hilgenfeld), we 
may also compare i Cor. 3 17 ei TIS TOV vabv TOV @eou ^&gt;0eipci, 



(2) Eph. xviii. i. i Cor. i". 20 . 

crravpov, o earn aK&lt;iv8a\ov rois 6 \6yos yap TOV VTuvpov rots fifv 

dnia-ToiKTiv, fjfjuv 8e arcoTrjpia KOI fay diro\\vfj.fvois fMtspia ecrnv, roils 8f 
al&vios. irov crofpos ; TTOV (Tv^rjTTjTrjs ; (rtsfo/xewis rjfj.1v bvvapus Qeov eariv . . . 
TTOV Kav^T](Tis TU&gt;V \tyofjievutv trvveTcov ; TTOV tjo(f)6s ; irov ypap/j.aTfvs ; TTOV 

(rvT)TT)Tr)s TOV aluvos TOVTOV ; 

St. Paul s words (TTOV o-o&lt;p6s, &c.) are a paraphrase of Isa. 
33 18 ; cf. also ig 11 sq. That Ignatius is quoting St. Paul is 
made more certain by the echo of i Cor. i 18 in the preceding 
sentence. The phrase o-Kavba\ov TOV o-Tavpov occurs Gal. 5 11 (44). 



IGNATIUS 65 

(3) Magn. x. 3. i Cor. 5 7 . 

virep0f(rdf ovv TTJV KUK^V vp.r)v fKKaddpare TTJV iraXaiav (v^v, iva 

TTJV na\ata&gt;d(lcrav Kal im^Ufturcv t KOI ^re vtov &lt;pvpa.fj.a. 
/ifra/3uXecr$e els veav vp.rjv, os fcrnv 
lijaovs Xptcrroj 1 . 

A free quotation ; but there can be little doubt that Ignatius 
had this passage in his mind. 

(4) Rom. v. i. i Cor. 4*. 

dXX oi&gt; Trapa TOVTO 8e8tKUL(t)fj.m. dXX OVK fv TOVTOI fieSi/cauo/zru. 

Ignatius quotes from memory ; there is no difference in 
meaning between Trapa TOVTO and ev TOVTW. 

(5) Kom. ix. 2. i Cor. is 8 " 10 . 

tya&gt; yap atcr^vi/o^iai e avra&gt;v etr^aroi Se TraiTcoi/, wcrTrepet Tffl 

\(y(adai ov8( yap tiios ftji", &&amp;gt;v tKTpu&gt;p.aTi, u&gt;&lt;f)0r) Kapoi. eycb yap . . . 

etr^aros avra&gt;v Kal e/crpco/ia, dXX OVK flfu IKOVOS KaXeicr^ai aTroaroXos 

f]\erjfj.ai TIS eivai, r\v Qeov (irirv^d). . . . ^aptrt Se Qfov dpi 5 dpi. 



(6) Eph. xv. 3. i Cor. 3 16 . 

iravra ovv Troiw/xev, a&gt;s avrov ev vaos Qeov tore, Kal TO Ili/ev/xa TOV 

fffiiv KaroiKovvros, Iva S&gt;p,(V avrov Geou oixei tv vp.lv. 
vaoi Kal OVTOS tv rjp-"iv Qf6s. 

Cf. also i Cor. 6 19 and a Cor. 6 16 . See ( 39). Zahn without 
reason compares Apoc. 2i 3 . 

(7) Trail, ii. 3. i Cor. 4*. 

S oe Kal TOVS SIOKOVOVS ovras OVTWS fip.as \oyiea6a&gt; avdp&nos, 

iiwmjpuiv irja-ov Xptorov KOTO ndpra a&gt;s vmjptTag XprToO Kal OIKOVOIJ.OVS 
Tpoirov Tracriv dpf&Kfiv. /ivcmjpi wi Geov. 

Cf. also I Cor. IO 33 eyw itavra TTCLO-IV dpeo-Kco. 

(8) Trail, v. i. i Cor. s 1 . 2 . 
(pof3ovp.ai p.f) VTJITIOIS ovcriv vp.1v a&gt;s vrprlms tv Xpicrry . . . OVTTU&gt; 

P\d&T)v irapadta. yap T)8vvaade. 

In the next sentence ov bwrfO^vres xcapfja-ai is suggested by 
the same passage. 

(9) Trail, xii. 3. i Cor. 9". 

iva /iij dftoKip.os fvpfdS). p.rjira)s . . . avros d8oKip.os ytvapai. 

The idea of a race seems to be present in Ignatius as well 
as in St. Paul. 

(10) Kom. iv. 3. i Cor. f\ 
dir(\fv6fpos Irjo-ov Xpiorou. airt\(v6epos Kvpiov. 

Cf. also i Cor. 9 1 . 



66 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
(n) Kom. vi i. i Cor. p 15 . 

KO\OV p.01 dnodavelv 8ia Irjcrovv KO\OV yap p.oi /mXXoi/ airoQavfiv 

XpioToV (v. 1. fis XpioToi lijcrovv), 77 rj TO Kav\T]fJid fiov ovdfls KevaxTtt. 
/3acrtXfveii&gt; rS&gt;v Trepdruv rrjs yfjs. 

(12) Philad. iv. i. i Cor. io 16 , . 

^u a yap crap TOV Kvpi ou ^/iuv TO irorfjpiov . . . ov^i Koivcavla tcrriv 

ijjcroO Xpiarou, Kat ei TTOTrjpiov fls TOV alfiaros TOV Xptorou ; Tof api-ov 
tvaxriv TOV at/iaros avroiJ. ov K\&gt;p,(v, ou^l Koivatvia TOV o~tbfj,aTos 

TOV Xpio-Tov ftrriv or* eis opros, ev 
aai/xa ol TroXXot evfitv. 

(13) Philad. vii. i. i Cor. 2 10 . 

TO TTVfVfj.a ... TO KpvTTTa f\ey%fi. TO yap TTVfVfjia jrdvra eptwa. 

Cf. also i Cor. I 4 25 and Eph. 5 12 13 . 

(14) Smyrn. Inscrip. i Cor. i 7 . 
dwo-Tepr)Tcp ovvrj TVO.VTOS X a P &gt;L ~ &&amp;lt;TTC vpas prj vo-Tepflcrdai tv 

0-p.aTos. fjiTjoc 



(15) Eph. ii. 2. i Cor. i6 18 . 

Kara TraVra p.t dveiravo-fv. 

(16) Eph. ii. 3. i Cor. i 10 . 



In both passages the idea of unity is prominent. 

(17) Eph. iv. 2. i Cor. 6 15 . 

/LieXr/ oVrar, &c. 

Cf. also Trail, xi. 2, ovras /ue A?; avrov, and with these compare 
Rom. is 4 5 and Eph. 5 30 . 

(18) Eph, viii. 2. i Cor. 2 U . 

ot o-apKiKolj &C. 

The resemblance is closer to Rom. 8 5 &gt; 8 . See below (35). 

(19) Eph. ix. i. i Cor. 3 10 -". 

a&gt;S oVTfs \i6oi vaov, &C. 

Cf. also Eph. a 20 f -, and possibly i Pet. a 5 . 

(20) Eph. x. 2 and xx. i. i Cor. i5 58 . 



Cf. also Col. i 23 , (64) a possible allusion. 
(21) Eph. xi. i. i Cor. 7 29 . 

(o-^aToi Kaipoi, &C. 

There is probably no reference to T John i 18 . 



IGNATIUS 67 

(22) Eph. xvii. 2. i Cor. i 24 &gt; 30 . 

8ia TI . . . 6 Kvpiof. 

(23) Eph. xx. i. i Cor. is 45 47 . 

TOV Kaivbv avQp&nov, 

See below on Eph. a 15 , 4 24 (28). 

(24) Trail, vi. i. i Cor. 7 10 . 

OVK eya&gt; dXX 17 dydirq, &C. 

(25) Trail, xi. 2. i Cor. 12". 

ovras fieX; airow. 

See above (17). 

Ignatius must have known this Epistle almost by heart. 
Although there are no quotations (in the strictest sense, with 
mention of the source), echoes of its language and thought 
pervade the whole of his writings in such a manner as to 
leave no doubt whatever that he was acquainted with the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians. 

B 

Ephesians b 

(26) Eph. Inscript. Eph. i 3ff . 

TT) (ii\oyrjp.(vrj (V p.(y(0(t t Q(ov (v\oyr)Tos 6 Q(os KCU Trarfjp ... 6 

narpos TrXjjpco/wm, TTJ TT pout p iff p.(vrj ciihoyrjcras f)fJ.as fi&gt; Trdcrrj ei/Xoyt a . . . 

TTpo ald&gt;va&gt;v tlvai 8ia TTOVTOS (Is 86av Ka6u&gt;s f(\(aro r)fi.us . . . irpb Kara- 

irapdp-ovov arpcnrov, fivapevr) KOI jSoX^s KO CT/XOV, fivai f]p,as . . . dp.ajp.ovs 

(K\t\fyp.evrj iv Trd6et d\rj8iv&lt;u tv 6f\r}~ . . . irpoopicras Kara rrjv fvSoKiav TOV 

Han TOV TTaTpos KOI irjaov Xpiorou 6e\r]p.aros . . . 8ia TOV alp.aTOS avrov 

TOV Qfov T]p-(H&gt;J&gt;, Trj (KK\7)O-iq rfj ... TOW rrXj/pco^aros TO&gt;V naipaiv . . . 

dtop.aKapicrT&lt;a TTJ ovcrrj fv Ec^eVo), Trpoopio-dtvTfs . . . Kara TTJV ^ovXiji/ 

TrXturTa iv irjo-ov Xpio~Tq&gt; KOI iv TOV 6f\r]p.aTos OVTOV . . . fls TO fivai 

dp.o&gt;p.a&gt; X a P$ X a&gt;L P flv - rjp.as (Is tiraivov &6r]s avTOv. 

A comparison of these two passages will show a very large 
number of correspondences, which Zahn undervalues when 
he calls them not very certain echoes. The evidence is 
cumulative, and is not impaired by the fact that Ignatius 
applies to the Church collectively expressions which St. Paul 
applies to individual Christians, such adaptations being 
common to our author. 

(27) Polyc. v. i. Eph. s 25 . 

Trapdyyt\\( . . . dyanav TO? cru/i- dyairaT( Tas yvvatxas, Kadcas Kal 

$i ovs , OK 6 Kupior TTJV (KK\T]o~iav. 6 Xpioros rjydnrjiK TTJV (KK\rjo~iav. 

Cf. also (29). 

F 2 



68 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



(28) Eph. xx. i. Eph. 2 15 and 4 24 . 

TOV K.awbv avdpanov lr](roiiv naivbv avdpanov. 

\pio~Tov. 

St. Paul uses the phrase in a slightly different sense ; but, 
as Lightfoot suggests, Ignatius may have taken to put on 
the new man as meaning to put on Christ, an explanation, 
we may add, which St. Paul would not have repudiated. 
Cf. also i Cor. I5 45 6 Sey repos avOpairos. 

(29) Smyrn. i. i. Eph. 2 18 . 

fv fv\ &lt;ra&gt;na.Ti rfjs eKK\rjcria.s avrov. ev tin (ToyiaTt. 

The context in both passages contains a reference to Isaiah, 
as well as the common idea of Jew and Gentile as one body. 
Cf. also Eph. i 23 and Col. i 18 . 

(30) Polyc. i. 2. Eph. 4*. 

iravTatv ave^ov ev ayairr). avf^fOfifvoi aXXjjXojv tv ayanrj. 

This correspondence is strengthened by the preceding words 
in Ignatius, rfjs eywcreoK cf&gt;p6vTi(, rjs ovbev fijuei^or, which should 
be compared with the following verse in Ephesians, o-TrouSa- 

^OVTfS TYIpflv TT]V lyOTTJTa TOV 7fVVp.aTOS. 

d 

(31) Eph. i. i. Eph. 5 1 . 

[U[jir)Ta\ OVTCS Qfov. 

Cf. also Eph. x. 3, pi^ral TOV Kvpiov, where the context is 
the same (forgiveness of injuries, &c.). 

(32) Eph. ix. i. Eph. 2 20 " 22 . 

\idoi vaov. 

This may well be accounted for by i Cor. 3 10 ~ 17 ; see (19). 
Compare also Col. a 7 and i Pet. a 5 . 

(33) Eph. xix. Eph. 3 9 . 

TTcas ovv t(pai&gt;(pa&gt;dr) rots alSxnv. ris fj alKOvOfua TOV /Ltutrnypiov TOV 

aTTOKfKpvufjLfvov diro TUIV aliovwv . . . 
Iva yv&purOfj. 

Cf. also Col. i 26 (66). 

(34) Polyc. vi. 2. Eph. 6 13 - 17 . 

wy OTrXa, &C. 

The parts in the armour are differently assigned, and the 
metaphor was doubtless a favourite one in Christian preaching. 
Cf. too i Thess. 5 8 , where the resemblance is still slighter. 



IGNATIUS 69 

Though the correspondences between Ignatius and this 
Epistle are not nearly so numerous as in the case of 
i Corinthians, it may be considered almost certain that they 
are not accidental. Ignatius mentions St. Paul by name in 
Eph. xii, calling the Ephesians o-iyzjuvorai ITavAou TOV fiyia- 
a phrase which reminds us of St. Paul s frequent use of 
for the Gospel dispensation in this Epistle (Eph. i 9 , 
3 3 &gt; 4 &gt; 9 , 5 32 , 6 19 ). The words of Ignatius (Eph. xii) tv -naa-rj 
(TTia-ToXp doubtless mean in every letter, and are a pardon 
able exaggeration of the fact that the Apostle makes mention 
of the Ephesians in five of his Epistles besides that which 
bears their name. 

Von der Goltz considers the literary dependence doubtful, in 
view of the difference in form of most of the supposed echoes, 
and of the fact that several of them have parallels also in 
Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, or i Peter. The strength 
of the argument must rest mainly on the first passage quoted 
(26), in which the resemblances are numerous and striking; 
but even without it a strong case might be made out for the 
use of the Epistle by Ignatius. 

G 

Romans C 

(35) Eph. viii. 2. Eom. 8 5 ^ 8 . 

01 (rapxiKoi ra m&gt;tvfj.aTiKU Trpdcr- ol yap Kara o-apxa ovrts TO. rrjs 

&lt;Tfiv ov dvvavrai ovde of TrvtvpaTiKol o~apKos (ppovovcrtv, ol 8e KOTO, rrvfvfjta 
ra crapKiKa. ra Trvfuparos . . . of Se eV crap/cl ovrts 

0ea&gt; apteral ov 8vpavrat. 

This passage may be from i Cor. a 14 (18), but the resem 
blance to Rom. 8 5 8 is rather closer : cf. also Gal. 5 16 17 . The 
use of the word o-a.pt; in an ethical sense is Pauline ; in Ignatius 
it generally has an anti-docetic force. 

(36) Eph. xix. 3. Rom. 6*. 

KaQrjpeiTo TTaXaia. /SacrtXe/a, Qeov iva fjufls fv KaivoTTjTi fays nepi- 

dvdpa&gt;Trii&gt;(i)S (pavfpovnevov (Is Kaiv6- iraT7)o~a&gt;fji(i&gt;. 
TTJTU dtSi ou ^(af/s. 

The phrase KCUVOTTJS fays ( = the new state which is life ) 
is probably from St. Paul. 



yo THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
(37) Smyrn. i. i. Rom. i s *. 

f&lt; yevovs AavelS Kara adpKa, irtpi rov vlov avrov, rov ytvoptvov 

vlov Qeov Kara 6f\rjp.a /cat 8vi/a/xii/. e/c (rireppaTos Aa/318 Kara &lt;rapKa, rov 

6picr6fVTOg vlov Qtov ev Swdpei Kara 
Trvev/ja dyi&lt;ao~vvT)s. 

Cf. also Eph. xviii. Z e/c o-Trep/^aroy p-ev AaveiS 
8e aytou. 



(38) Eph. Inscript. Rom. i5 29 . 

fv\oyias. 



2 Corinthians d 

(39) Eph. xv. 3. 2 Cor. 6 16 . 

avrou eV fjpZv KUTOIKOVVTOS, iva yiifis yap vaos Qtov fcrptv 5&gt;vros. 

&fj.(V vaol KOI avros tv r^iiv dtos. 

The resemblance here is close, but may be sufficiently 
accounted for by i Cor. 3 16 &gt; 27 and 6 19 : see (6). 

(40) Trail, ix. 2. 2 Cor. 4". 

eyfipavros, &C. 

Apparently a reminiscence (Lightfoot). 

(41) Philad. vi. 3. 2 Cor. i 12 , n 9 , i2 16 . Cf. 2 5 . 

rw 0eo&gt; .OV OTI cvcrvv- 



(V ifuv, Kal OVK e%ei TIS 
i . . . ort e/3apjj(ra riva, 
&C. 

A cumulative case, which is slightly strengthened by 
a-aa-dai ; cf. Kat^x^o" ? 2 Cor. n 10 . Cf. also i Thess. 3 9 . None 
of the above, taken singly, is more than a possible allusion ; 
but taken together they make the use of the Epistle by 
Ignatius fairly probable. 

Galatians C 

(42) Philad. i. i. Gal. i 1 . 

6f ort ffKOTroi fyvdtv OVK d&lt;f) tavTOv OVK CTT dvdp&n&v ov8f 81 di&gt;8pa&gt;- 

ov8f di dv6o)na&gt;v. TTOV. 



d 

(43) Eph. xvi. i. Gal. 5 21 . 

/SacriXet av . . . K\t]povo[j.j]a ov(Tiv. ol ra roiavra Trpdacrovrfs jSatrtXetai/ 

Qeov ov K\r)povoiJLT]ffova i.v. 

See above (i) on i Cor. 6 9 10 . 



IGNATIUS 



(44) Eph. xviii. i. 

(TTOVpOV O f(TTl &lt; 

(45) Trail, x. i. 

da&gt;pfai&gt; dno6vrj(TK&lt;i&gt;. 

(46) Kom. vii. 2. 

6 tp-os fpa&gt;s fcrravp&Tai 



The passage in Philad. is the only one which strongly 
indicates knowledge of this Epistle by Ignatius ; and as it 
stands almost alone, we cannot claim a very high degree of 
probability for the reference. 



Gal. 5". 

row oravpov. 

Gal. 2 21 . 

apa Xptoros Scapea? diredavtv. 

Gal. 6 14 . 

ffioi Kocrp-os eoravpwTat fcayw 



Philippians 

(47) Smyrn. iv. 2. 

TToWa VTrOfJiV(i&gt; OVTOV /X6 
fiOVVTOS. fJif. 

Cf. Eph. 6 13 ; i Tim. i 12 (54). 

(48) Smyrn. xi. 3. 
reXeioi 6Wes reXeia KOI (ppoveiTt. 



Phil. 4 13 . 
v TW 



Phil. 3 15 . 

oo-ot oiJi/ reXetot, roCro (ppovapev. 



(49) Kom. ii and iv. 
O"rrov8tcr6rivai and dvcria. 

Cf. also 2 Tim. 4 6 (59). 

(50) Philad. i. i. 

ovSe Kara Kfvo8oiav. 

Philad. viii. 2. 

prjSfv Kar fpldeiav . . . dXXa Kara 



Phil. 2 1T . 



i Timothy C 

(51) Eph. xiv. i. 

iev iritmt) re\os 8e dydirrf. 

Eph. xx. i. 



Phil. 2 8 . S . 

fear epidlav pySe Kara xei/o- 
. . (V Xpiorw I;(rou. 



vopas. 

Magn. viii. i. 

IMT/ irXavdarde rais Tfpo8oiais 
pvdfv/j.acriv rois TraXaiois dv 
ovcrtv fl yap ftfXP 1 v ^ v KO.TO. 



i Tim. I s 
a trapayytiKrjy TIO\ 

jLT]8e Trpo&lt;Tfx flv f*v6ois KOI 
ytixaXoyiais dnepdiTois atrives fK^rjrr)- 
WWW OIK - w Trap/xovo-t M 5XXov $ oiVora/ii av 
eou TIJJ/ V TTioret. ro Se reXos r^s 
TrapayyeXt as eVrtv dyaTri; C K Kadapds 
Kap8las K.al 

7riO-T60)S 



72 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

If these three passages from Ignatius are compared with 
the opening sentences of I Timothy, it will be seen that the 
resemblance is very close, and that it lies in words and 
expressions which are not commonplaces. (See, however, 
Hermas, Vis. iii. 8. 3-5, for a list of virtues beginning with 
Ttio-Tis and ending with ayj.-nr].} It is also clear that, if 
literary dependence be admitted, it is on the side of Ignatius. 
See also (60). 

(52) Polyc. iv. 3. i Tim. 6 2 . 

fiovXovy KOI 8ov\as pf] invfp^dvti py KaTatppovtiTcoaav, on d$f\(poi 

aXXa pr)8f avrol (pv(Tiov(rda&gt;&lt;rai&gt;, aXX etcrij/ dXXa /laXXov SouXeveraxrai . 
els 86av Qeov nXeov SovXeveraxrav. 

d 

(53) Eom. ix. 2. i Tim. i 18 . 

aXX f)\fr)[j.ai TIS flvai fav Qeov aXXa f]\er)6rjv } ort dyi/owv eT 



Cf. above, on i Cor. 7 25 , i5 9 , 10 (5). 

(54) Smyrn. iv. 2. i Tim. i 18 . 

O.VTOV /Lie fv8vvafj.ovvTos TOV reXftou 
dvdpwnov yevofj.evov. 

Cf. also a Tim. a 1 and 4". 

a Timothy C 

(55) Eph. ii. i, 2 Tim. i 16 . 

Kara ndvra pe avfiravatv, as KOI Sw?; eXfos 6 Kvpios TW Ovr)&lt;Ti&lt;f)6pov 

avrov 6 TTdTrjp Irja-ov XpiOTOi) dva- &lt;HKO&gt; ort TroXXaKis p.f avfyvfc, Kal 
Tifvtcu. T *l v akvalv p.ov OVK firrja-x^vdr}. 

Smyrn. x. 2. 

dvrtyvxov vfiS&gt;v TO Trvevpa /iov, 
Kal ra Sea-pa pov a OVK . . . firrjcrxvv- 

0T)T6. 

These two passages seem to be reminiscences of the same 
context in 3 Timothy. The following words in Smyrn. x 
resemble Mark 8 38 and Luke 9 26 : see (90). 

(56) Polyc. vi. 2. 2 Tim. 2 s . 

o&gt; o-Tpareveffdf. "iva rw vrpaToXoyrja-avTi dpf&lt;rrj. 



(57) Eph. xvii. i. 2 Tim. 

fj.r) al\fid^.ariaji vpas. 

Cf. also Bom. y 23 . 



IGNATIUS 73 

(58) Trail, vii. 2. 2 Tim i 3 . 

Kadapos tanv r); (rvvfi8fj(Tfi. ev Kadapa (rvvfibrjcrfi. 

(59) Eom. ii. 2. 2 Tim. 4". 
/ii) ir\eov TiapdcrxT)(r6e TOV &lt;rnovfti- fj8r) &lt;r7TJ 8o/*at. 

(r6fjvai QecS. 

Cf. Phil. 2 17 . 

The reminiscences of 2 Timothy, as of i Timothy, are 
tolerably clear. Both Epistles are nearly in Class B. 

Titus G 

(60) Magn. viii. i. Titus i 14 . 

fif) TrXavaade rats fTfpoBogiais fJH]be fjtr) Trpoo-exovTts lovda tKo is pi/dots 

fjiv6evp.acriv rots TraXaiols dvafpeXecnv KOI eWoXat? avdpunrcov. 
ova-iv el yap /le xpi vvv KOTO. lovSa i- Tituq Q 9 

tr/iof C^Mfj opoXoyovuev YaptJ /iij 
ti\T)(f)evai. /iwpas 8 ^TTjcreiy *cai -y 

. . . Trepiicrracro etcrt yap 

teat id 



See (51) on i Tim. i 4 . The word dvw^eXTjs and the reference 
to Judaism occur in Titus and not in i Timothy. 

d 

(61) Polyc. vi. i. Titus i 7 . 

Q(OV OlKOVOp.Ol. tbff QfOV OtKOVOfJiOV. 

See (7) for i Cor. 4 1 ; cf. i Pet, 4 10 . 

The evidence in the case of Titus is weaker than in that of 
i Timothy or 2 Timothy. 

P 

Acts d 

(62) Magn. v. i, Acts I SB . 

fKaoTOS (Is TOV idiov TOTTOV fif\\fi dtp r)S Trape^Tj lovdas Tropev6r)vai 

^Wpftl . flf TOV TO7TOV TOV l8lOV. 

These phenomena must be taken along with those in relation 
to Luke s Gospel. 

(63) Symrn. iii. 3. ^.cts io 41 . 

/xera 8e TTJV dvdo~Taaiv crvvf(payfv crvvt(pdyop.(v KOL crvvfrriofifv auroj 

avTo is KOI crvvfiriev. /jLfTa TO diKXTTrjvai O.VTQV (K vfKpwv. 

These look like allusions ; but the words are common and 
obvious ones, and may be only the result of coincidence. 



74 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Colossians d 

(63*) Eph. ii. i. Col. i 7 , 4 7 . 



Cf. Magn. 2 ; Philad. 4 ; and see Lightfoot s note on Col. 4 7 . 

(64) Eph. x. 2. Col. i 23 . 

edpaloi TJ; Trt oret. 

See on i Cor. i5 58 (20). 

(65) Eph. xvii. 2. Col. 2 2 . 

Qfov yvSxriv. 

In the passage of Colossians, St. Paul, according to the best 
reading, identifies the knowledge of God with Christ. 

(66) Eph. xix. 2. Col. i 26 . 

TToJf ovv (CpavepuidT) TCHJ aluxriv 5 

Cf. also Eph. 3 9 (33). 

(67) Trail, v. 2. Col. i w . 
opara Kal aopara. ra opara KOI ra aopara. 

(68) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. 2 U . 

KadrjXwfjifvovs ev TU&gt; crraupw. Trpoo-T/Xaxrar auro T o-ravpw. 

The metaphor is the same, but the application is different. 

(69) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. i 18 . 

tv evl (ra&gt;fj.aTi. 

Cf. on Eph. a 16 (29). 

There is thus a considerable number of possible allusions 
to Colossians in Ignatius, but none of them is at all certain. 

i Thessalonians d 

(70) Eph. x. i. i Thess. 5 17 . 

dStaXetTrTws 1 npocrfv^fcrde. The Same. 

The reading in Ignatius is doubtful - (see Lightfoot) ; the 
adverb may have been inserted from the passage in i Thes- 
salonians. The adjective dStdAetTrros occurs in Polyc. i, but 
there also it is suspect. 

(71) Kom. ii. i. i Thess. 2*. 

ov 6e\a&gt; vfjias aj^pwTrapecr/cfjo at, ov^ as avQpwirois dpevKovrts, dXXa 

aXXa Sea). GeaJ. 

The evidence that Ignatius knew i Thessalonians is almost 
nil. 



IGNATIUS 75 

2 Thessalonians d 

(72) Eom. x. 3. 2 Thess. 3". 

V \mopovrj iqo-oC Xpio-Tou. s rq/ vTropovfjv TOV XptoroO. 



Philemon d 

(73) Eph. ii. 2. Philem. 20 . 

vai, dot\(pe, ey&lt;u &lt;rov ovatfirjv 



In spite of the fact that the name Onesimus occurs in this 
sentence of Ignatius, the allusion is very doubtful. The 
Pauline phrase ovai^v occurs in this sense several times in 
Ignatius. 

Hebrews d 

(74) Magn. iii. 2. Heb. 4 13 . 

TO 8f TOIOVTOV ov TTpbs 0-dpKa 6 irdvra 8f yvpva KOI 



Xoyos, dXAa Trpos Qtov TOV ra Kpv(f&gt;ia rois 6(p6d\p.ols avrov npbs ov rjp. iv 6 
etSdra. \6yos. 

We have here a double resemblance, in the idea of nothing 
being hidden from the knowledge of God, and in the expres 
sion 6 \6yos [rjfj.lv eori] Trpos 



(75) Philad. ix. i. Heb. f 19 &gt; **&gt; 2S . 26 . 

KaXoi /cat ot If pels Kptlo-crov 8e 6 
dpftifpevs 6 TTfTrio-TfVfjifvos ra ayia T&gt;V 
ayidov, os fiovos iririo~TfVTai TO. Kpimra 

TOV Q(OV. 

Lightfoot also compares Heb. 2 17 , 3 1 , 4 U , 5 5 10 , 6 20 , 7 26 , 
8 1 , 9 11 . He adds : The reference (in 6 TreTrto-reu/xei os, &c.) is 
to the special privilege of the High Priest (Heb. 9 7 ~ 12 , 
io 19sq&gt; ) of entering into the Holy Place. This coincidence, 
combined with those noticed above, shows, I think, that 
Ignatius must have had the Epistle to the Hebrews in his 
mind. It is no doubt true that no other book in N. T. 
develops the idea of Christ as High Priest, and that Clement 
of Rome, who also uses it, e.g. (21), shows knowledge of 
Hebrews ; but the comparison may well have been suggested 
to Ignatius from other sources, and the resemblance does not 
seem close enough to justify the degree of confidence which 
Lightfoot expresses. Cf. also Polycarp (65). 



;6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

i Peter d 

(76) Eph. v. 3. i Pet. 5 5 . 

yeypaTrrai yap YTTtpytpdvois 6 Qebs 6 Qfos vjrfprjfpdvois 



The quotation is from Prov. 3 34 . The words are quoted not 
only in i Peter, but in James 4 6 and in Clement of Rome (47). 
In all alike eos or 6 eo s takes the place of the Kv/nos of the 
LXX ; but Ignatius alone puts -inrepricpdvoi.? first in the 
sentence. 

(77) Rom. v. i. i Pet. 2 25 , 5*. 

The connexion of TTOI/XTJI with e-Tuo-KOTro? is considered by 
Lightfoot to present a close parallel with i Peter ; but the 
resemblance must not be pressed. See also (19). 

GOSPELS. 

(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

The much closer parallels with Matthew than with Mark 
or Luke are a remarkable phenomenon, but one which fre 
quently meets us in the earliest sub-Apostolic literature. 

B 

Matthew b 

(78) Trail. 3d. i. Matt. 15". 

OVTOI yap OVK el&iv (pvrda irarpot. Tracra 0urei a TJV OVK f(pvTtvcrfv 6 

Ph ilarl Trarrjp /iou 6 ovpdvios, 



a&lt;TTivas ov yapyfi irjcrovs Xpiords, 
fita TO pf) tlvai avrovs (pvrfiav narpos. 

(79) Smyrn. i ? i. Matt. 3 15 . 

^fj3aTTTicriJivov inro icadvvov iva OVTCO yap irpenov ecmv rjfj.lv 7T\r)- 

TT\ripu&gt;6fi TrcKTa 8iKaioa-vvT] VTT avrov. piacrai na^av biKaiocrvvrfv. 

Matthew alone of the Evangelists gives this motive for our 
Lord s Baptism. The use of the phrase irArjp. TT&O-. 8. is so 
peculiar, and falls in so entirely with the characteristic 
Christian Judaizing of our first Evangelist, that it seems 
unreasonable to refer it to any one else (Sanday). The fact 
that Ignatius elsewhere (Eph. xviii. a) ascribes a different 



IGNATIUS 77 



motive for the Baptism, viz. Iva ro&gt; Trdflei rb $5o&gt;p 
perhaps strengthens the case. 

(80) Smyrn. vi. i. Matt. ip 12 . 

6 x&lt;opa&gt;i&gt; x/3et ra&gt;. 6 

The meaning of the phrase is the same in the two passages ; 
it stamps the doctrine just stated as a difficult and mysterious 
one. 

(81) Polyc. ii. 2. Matt. io 16 . 

&lt;f)p6i&gt;i/jios yivov eof 6 6(pis eV iracriv, yivecrdf ovv (ppovipoi u&gt;s ol o&lt;p(is 

Kal aKepaios flcrael cos rj Treptorepu. Kal aKfpaioi a&gt;s al irfpiarfpai. 

This sentence is wanting in the parallel passage of 
Luke (io 3 ). 

C 

(82) Eph. v. 2. Matt. i8 19 20 . 

i yap tvbs Kal Sevrepov Trpo&lt;rfVX T ) *** v ^ vo vpatv (rvfjLffxovTjO coa iv iri 

To&lt;ravTTjv Icrxvv e%fi. rrjs yijs . . . yevfjcrfTai avrois, ov yap 

fi&lt;ri 8vo f) rpds &lt;rvvr)ynfvoi fls TO 
efj.6v ovofj.a, fKfl flfu (v p.f&lt;rq&gt; avT&v. 

Here Ignatius s evbs nai bevrtpov = bvolv. The reference 
is clearly to the saying recorded in Matthew probably a 
well-known saying of Christ (Zahn). Cf. also James 5 16 . 

(83) Eph. vi. i. Matt. io 40 . 

iravra yap ov nffjitrti 6 otKoSecTTror^S 6 Se^o/xfi/oy v/nas tp,( Se^crat, Kal 

(Is tS/a// olnovofjuav, OVTCOS 8tl rjp.as 6 ep.f Se^o /^ei os St^trat TOV cmoa-Tti- 
avrov Se^err^at, cos avrbv TOV ufp^favTa. \avrd fie. 

It is possible that Ignatius may also be alluding to the 
parable narrated in Matt. 2i 33sq - (where oi/co8eo-7roTjs occurs, 
not in Mark or Luke). There is also a resemblance to 
John I3 20 (see below (102)), which is perhaps as close as 
the resemblance to Matthew (John uses -n^-n^v}. Luke io 18 
is much less similar in language than either. 

(84) Polyc. i. 2, 3. Matt. 8 17 . 

irdvras jSdorafe a&gt;s Kai &lt;re 6 Kvptoy OVTOS TOS d&deveias THJ.O&gt;V eXa/3f, 

. . . ndvra&gt;i&gt; TO.S vovovs /Sacrra^V, ats Kal TOS vovovs e/3acrTacrev. 
TtXeios ddXrj 



The idea is found in Isa. 53* ; but it is probable that 
Ignatius borrows from Matthew and not direct from O. T. ; 
for the LXX reading is different, viz. OVTOS ras djuaprtaj r] 



78 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



rj^&v dSwarcu. Ignatius, however, translates 
the Hebrew correctly, and the possibility that he is using 
a translation other than the LXX cannot be excluded. 

d 

(85) Eph. xvii. i. Matt. 2 6 7 . 

dia TOVTO fivpov f\aj3ev eVi Ttjf irpO(rf)\Qfv avTat yvvf) . . . KOI 

Ke&lt;pa\f)s 6 Kvpios, Iva Trverj TTJ eKK\7]&lt;ria KUTexeev eVi TTJS K((pa\rjs avTov ava- 

CL(p6cipO~lClV. K(l[J,VOV. 

Cf. also Mark I4 3ff -; John i2 3ff \ If there is literary 
dependence on any of our Gospels, the preference must be 
given to Matthew rather than Mark, who has Karexcev avrov 
TJ;S K(pa\rjs, while the reference to the head as anointed, and 
(seemingly) as the quarter from which the fragrance of in 
corruptibility is shed upon the Church, favours Matthew 
rather than John. 

(86) Magn. v. 2. Matt. 22 19 . 
Sxnrep yap e cm i/o/itcr^iara duo, &C. 

(87) Magn. ix. 3. Matt. 27 B2 . 

Trapaiv fjyfipev O.VTOVS. 

Lightfoot shows that the belief in a descensus ad inferos 
was prominent in the early Church. Here Christ is supposed 
to have visited the souls of patriarchs and prophets, and to 
have raised (?;yeipez&gt;) them either to paradise or heaven. Cf. 
also Philad. ix ; and i Pet. 3 19 , 4 6 for parallel views of the 
descent into Hades. The belief appears also in Justin, 
who quotes Jeremiah in confirmation, and asserts that the 
passage in question, which does not appear in the Hebrew 
Bible, had been wilfully excised by the Jews. Irenaeus also 
quotes it more than once, ascribing it both to Jeremiah and 
to Isaiah. 

(88) Kom. ix. 3. Matt. io 40 . 41 . 



fls ovofi.a irjcrov 

The phrase els Svo^a, as well as the similarity of thought, 
should be noticed, especially as there may be another echo 
of this passage in Eph. vi : see (83). 



IGNATIUS 79 

Ignatius was certainly acquainted either with our Matthew, 
or with the source of our Matthew, or with a Gospel very 
closely akin to it. In the present uncertain state of the 
Synoptic Problem, it would be rash to express any confident 
opinion ; but the indications on the whole favour the 
hypothesis that he used our Greek Matthew in something 
like its present shape. 

D 

Mark d 

(89) Eph. xvi. i. Mark 9 43 . 

fit TO 7TVp TO a&lt;T/3eCTTOI&gt;. 

The phrase, though in quite a different context, occurs in 
Matt. 3 12 and Luke 3". 

(90) Smyrn. x. 2. Mark 8 s8 . 

ov8e vfJLas fTrai&lt;rxvvdr]&lt;rfTai 17 TfXeia 

7TUTTI?, lriO~OVS 



Cf. also Luke 9 26 (93), and see (55). 

Scarcely anything can be built on these very doubtful 
allusions. 

Luke d 

(91) Smyrn. i. 2. Luke 23 7 " 11 . 

d\T)6u&gt;s eVi HOVTIOV TIiXaTOV KOI 
TfTpdp^ov Ka6r]\ci&gt;p:fvov vnep 
ev o~apKi. 



The part taken by Herod is mentioned by Luke alone in 
the Canonical writings (Lightf oot). 

(92) Smyrn. iii. 2. Luke 24 39 . 

Kal ore Trpbs TOVS nepl TIfTpov ^^Xa^^o-are fie KOI tSerf, on irvfv- 

rj\6fi&gt;, f(f)r) avTois Aa/3rre, ^jjXa^jjcra- pa o~dpKa Kal oare a OVK f^fi, Ka6u&gt;s 

Tf p.f, Kal "i8fTf OTI OVK (lp.i 8aifj.6vi.oi/ efj. dfupelre e \ovra. 
O.O~O&gt;IJUITOV. 

Eusebius (H. E. iii. 36) says of this passage of Ignatius, OVK 
ot5 oTroOfv prjrot? (ruyKe xprjrat. Jerome (Vir. III. 2) says that 
it is taken from the evangelium quod appellatur secundum 
Hebraeos, which he had lately translated into Greek and 



8o THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Latin, and which at the time he was disposed to regard as 
the original Matthew, though afterwards he spoke less con 
fidently on this point. In another place (Comm. in Isai. xviii. 
praef.) he repeats his statement that incorporate daemonium 
comes from this source. On the other hand, Eusebius, who was 
well acquainted with this Gospel, cannot verify the quotation ; 
and Origen, who also knew it well, ascribes the words to 
another apocryphal writing, viz. the Petri Doctrina (de Princ. 
praef. 8), which he pronounces to be the work neither of 
Peter nor of any other inspired writer. The contradiction 
cannot be explained. Lightfoot suggests that either Jerome s 
memory failed him, or that his copy of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews contained a different recension from that 
which was known to Origen and Eusebius. As regards 
Ignatius, he thinks it impossible to say whether he got the 
story from oral tradition or from some written source. Con 
sidering the carelessness of Ignatius in quotation, it is strange 
that Eusebius should not have suggested that he took the 
story from Luke ; and but for these Patristic comments, we 
should probably have formed that opinion. Ignatius men 
tions the incident as if it were already well-known to his 
readers. 

(93) Smyrn. x. 2. Luke p 26 . 

OiSe v/jias tirai&lt;Tyyv&ricrtTa.i . . . Irjcrovs Xpicrros. Cf. Luke 9 26 ; 
as also Mark 8 38 , see on (90). 



The balance of probability seems to be slightly in favour 
of a knowledge of the Third Gospel by Ignatius : cf. Acts (62). 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 
(94) Eph. xiv. 2. Matt. i2 3S . 

(pavepov TO dfvdpov dirb TOV KapTrov fK yap TOV Kapnov TO devbpov 

yiva&gt;o~KtTai. 

Luke 6 44 . 

eicao-Tov yap bevbpov e/c TOV ISiov 
KapTrov 



The words have the look of a current saying of Christ. 



IGNATIUS 8 1 

(95) Eph. xi. i. Matt. 3 7 . 



a&gt;p,fv, fj TTJV (vfarSxrav X**P IV oyaTrfj- Vfuv (pvyelv cmo rrjs /ifXXoucn/s opyrjs ; 

Luke 3 7 (the same words). 



(96) Magn. x. 2. Matt. 5 13 ; Mark 9 60 ; Luke 

dXr$7Tf eV airai. 1 4 

The mention of the kingdoms of the world may be a 
reminiscence of the narrative of the Temptation in Matt. 4 8 ; 
Luke 4 5 . 

(97) Eom. vi. i. Matt. i6 26 . 

ovS/ v nf &&amp;gt;&lt;fXi7&lt;m . . . TOVTOV. Also in Mark and Luke. 

This is at best a very doubtful allusion. 

(Ill) The Fourth Gospel. 
B 

John b 

(98) Kom. vii. 2. John 4 10 . M . 

OVK fcrrtv tv ffiol irvp (f)i\6v\ov, (TV av fJTT)(ras avrov, Kal f8a&gt;Kev av 

v8a&gt;p 8e &lt;ov Kal \a\ovv tv ffj.oi y &lt;TOI v8a&gt;p a&gt;v ... TO v8a&gt;p o fya&gt; Scotrcu 

e&lt;Ta&gt;6tv fj.oi \eyov AeOpo irpos TOV avrca yevT)&lt;TfTai tv avr&&amp;gt; TTT^yfj n8aros 

irartpa. dXXo^ieVou f? fco^i/ alatviov. 

Lightfoot s assertion that the whole passage is inspired by 
the Fourth Gospel seems to be justified, especially in view of 
John 4 23 Kal yap 6 TrarTjp rotovrous C 7 ? 7 " 6 TOVS npoa-KWovvTas avrov. 
Besides the close parallel quoted above, rpo&lt;f/ (f)6opas just below 
is probably suggested by John 6 27 TTJV fip&criv ryv &TtoX\viJ.tvr}v, 
and aprov Qeov by John 6 33 ; cf. also 7 38 . If we adopt the read 
ing (,S&gt;v a\\6p.fvov from the interpolator s text, we have another 
striking parallel with John 4 14 : Trr/yr/ vbaros &VTOS occurs in 
Justin, Dial. 69. On the other side (against the Johannine 
reference) it might be urged that the words about the living 
water may have been a well-known saying of Christ, with 
which Ignatius may have been acquainted from other sources. 
The words of Ignatius about the pleasures of this life have 
a Synoptic ring, and there is nothing corresponding to them, 
nor to the remarkable phrase about aydirr] cKpOapros as the 
blood of Christ, in John. Moreover, the passage in John 
speaks of present advantage, Ignatius of future reward. This 



82 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

last objection is not serious ; and on the whole direct literary 
dependence seems much the most probable hypothesis. 

(99) Philad. vii. i. John 3*. 

TO mxvfia ov TrAavarat, OTTO Qfov TO Trvev^ia onov $eX nvfi, KOLI T)I&gt; 

ov oibev yap irodfv epxerai KU\ irov (pcovrjv avrov aKovfif, dXX OVK oidas 
VTrdyei, K.a.1 TO. Kpvirra eXtyxei. iroBfv ep^erat KOI TTOV vjrdyft. 

The passage reads like an echo of the words in the Gospel, 
though the thought is quite different. This, however, is in 
Ignatius s manner. The idea in TO, KPVTTTO. eAey^et has nothing 
corresponding to it in the discourse to Nicodemus. The 
phrase 7r66ev cpx^rai. recurs John 8 1 * and I John 2 11 , in a 
different connexion. John 8 14 (ota vodtv yXOov Kol TTOV vTrdyw) 
is in some ways nearer to Ignatius than 3*. Both passages 
may have been floating in his mind. 



(100) Magn. vii. i. John8 28 &gt; 29 . 

cocrTrep ovv 6 K.vpios avev TOV ira- OTT e /xaurou TTOIOJ ovSei/, dXXd 

rpos ovftev fnoLr}(Tfv, , . . OVTWS fJ-i]8f Ka6a&gt;s e Si 8ae p.f 6 irarfjp, ravra 





vp.(ls, &C. AaX&lt;. Kal 6 irefj 

Magn. viii. 2. f ? Tlv , ov " "V* 1 ** 

r, -i , / &gt; / ape era aurai 7roia&gt; 

^ I7(rouy XpiarosJ Kara Travra tvrjpe- 

&lt;rrr)&lt;j tv rai Trtp^raim avrov. 

This parallel is much strengthened by the double remini 
scence. 

d 

(101) Eph. v. 2 andKom. 7 s . John 6 33 . 

OpTOS TOV QfOV. apTOS TOV QfOV. 

(102) Eph. vi. i. John i3 20 . 

irdvTa yap ov TTf^nft, &C. 

See above on Matt. io 40 (83). 

(103) Eph. xvii. i. John i2/ f . 

fjivpov eAajSej/, &C. 

Some commentators (e. g. Zahn and Lightfoot) have argued 
that this passage shows knowledge of John s Gospel as well 
as of Matthew s, because of the mention of the fragrance 
of the ointment (77 8e outa eirATjpco^rj, &c.) ; but this can 
hardly be pressed: see (85). Similarly, TOV ap^ovros TOV 



IGNATIUS 83 

al&vos TOVTOV need not imply knowledge of John i6 n , for 
St. Paul (i Cor. 2 6 &gt; 8 ) has the same phrase. The dominant 
thought in Ignatius is that the Church, as the Body of Christ, 
has a share in the anointing of the Head. Cf. Origen, c. Celsum, 
vi. 79, for the same idea. 
(104) Philad. ix. i. John io 9 . 

avTos &&amp;gt;i&gt; 6vpa TOV Trarpos. 

Cf. also John I4 6 and Apoc. 3. The Johannine doctrine of 
the pre-incarnate activity of the Logos is emphasized by 
Ignatius in this sentence. Compare his words about Abraham, 
&c., with John 8 56 . Besides the word 6vpa, compare Ignatius s 
et&lt;repxoi&gt;Tcu and (rcarrjpos with John s elae\6ri and (roo^o erai. 
But the metaphor of the Door occurs also in Hermas ; and in 
John io 9 there is no reference to drawing to the Father, 
nor to the Old Testament saints (as in Ignatius s next line). 
John 14 would have been more to the purpose, if Ignatius 
had wished to quote the Fourth Gospel here. 



Ignatius s use of the Fourth Gospel is highly probable, 
but falls some way short of certainty. The objections to 
accepting it are mainly (i) our ignorance how far some of the 
Logia of Christ recorded by John may have been current in 
Asia Minor before the publication of the Gospel. If they 
formed part of the Apostle s oral teaching, they must have 
been familiar to his disciples, and may have been collected 
and written down long before our Gospel was composed. 
(2) The paucity of phrases which recall the language of the 
Gospel, and the absence of direct appeals to it ; phenomena 
which are certainly remarkable when we consider the close 
resemblance between the theology of Ignatius and that of 
the Fourth Gospel. It is difficult, for example, to think of 
any reason why Ignatius did not quote John 20 in Smyrn. 
iii. 2 (93). 

(IV) Apocryphal Gospels. 

See under (92), for possible use of Gospel according to the 

Hebrews. 



G 2 



THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 

INTRODUCTION. 

Standard of Accuracy in Quotation. Very little help 
can be gained from Poly carp s use of O. T., as the number 
of cases in which he can be proved to have made use 
of O. T. is small. The clearest case of a quotation is 
from Tobit I2 9 ekerjuoavvrj CK Qavarov puercu (Polycarp. x. 2 
eleemosyna de morte liberat ). In Polycarp xi. 2 ( qui 
ignorant iudicium domini ) there seems undoubtedly to 
be a reference to Jer. 5 4 (^ K fywo-av obov Kvpiov KOL Kpicnv 
0eot5), and the freedom of the quotation deserves notice. 
There are many places where the language of O. T. may have 
influenced Polycarp, but the quotations, if they are such, are 
generally allusive and worked into the structure of the 
writer s sentences. Polycarp s use of O. T. is in fact very 
similar in its general phenomena to his use of those parts of 
N. T. on which he relies most frequently. 

In his undoubted quotations from N. T. we find that, while 
short collections of words are sometimes repeated exactly, in 
longer passages the order is treated very freely, omissions 
occur for which no reason can be assigned, and the spirit 
rather than the actual words is sometimes reproduced. The 
quotations have the appearance of having been made from 
memory ; rarely, if ever, from a book. 

The following formulae of citation may be mentioned : 
(i) dboTcs on: see Galatians (31), Ephesians (36), i Timothy 
(48), Gospels (82). 

(ii) Ka0&&amp;gt;$ eurei&gt; 6 Kvpios : see Gospels (77). 

(iii) iJ.viiiJ.ovevovTfs 8&gt;v fiTrev 6 Kvpios St8a&lt;r/&lt;coi&gt;: see Gospels 

(75)- 

(iv) sicut Paulus docet : see i Corinthians (2). 

(v) * ut his scripturis dictum est : see Ephesians (37). 



POLYCARP 85 

A 

i Corinthians a 

(1) Pol. v. 3. i Cor. 6 9 . 

ovre Tropvoi ovrf /xuAuKoi ovTf dpvt- ovTf TTOpvoi, ovTf tloo&gt;\o\drpai, 

voKolrai /3acriXetai&gt; Qfov K\r}povop.T)- ovrf poi^oi, ovre /zaXaKoi, ovrf apcrtvo- 
o~ovariv, ovrf ol Troiovvrts TO. aroTra. KolTcu, ovrf icXrrai, ovrf TrXfovticrai, 

ov p.fdv&lt;roi, ov Xoi Sopoi, ov% apirayts, 
(3a(n\fiav Qtov KXr]povoiJi.i}crov&lt;Ti.v. 

These passages agree verbally, except for omissions in 
Poly carp. The last words cited from Poly carp suggest that 
he may have been conscious of making omissions in his 
quotation, but these omissions do not appear to proceed on 
any fixed principle, and the quotation was probably therefore 
made from memory. On the other hand, it seems impossible 
to doubt that the passage in i Corinthians is the source of 
Polycarp s words. 

(2) Pol. xi. 2. i Cor. 6 2 . 

aut nescimus quia sancti ?} OVK o?8aTf on ol cfytot TW Koo-pov 
mundum iudicabunt ? sicut Kpivovo-w 
Paulus docet. 

The reference to St. Paul by name makes Polycarp s use of 
i Corinthians practically certain, though it occurs in a part 
of the letter for which the Latin version alone is extant. 

(3) Pol. iii. 2, 3. i Cor. i 3 13 . 

TTjv boQtiffav vp.lv irurrtv . . . eVa- wvl 8e pevfi irt oTtr, eXiris, aycmr], 

Ko\ov6ov&lt;TT]s Tys e XTTt Soy, Trpoayovo-rjs ra rpia Ttivra pdfav 8f TOVTWV TJ 
rrjs dyaTrrjs. dydirr). 

The collocation of faith, hope, love, occurs elsewhere in 
St. Paul (i Thess. i 3 ; Col. i 4 5 ), but i Cor. 13 is the chief 
passage, and the order there is the same as in Polycarp. 

(4) Pol. iii. 2. i Cor. 8 10 . 



etv rr\v 8odtl(rav vp.1v olKo8op,r)6f)crfTai fig TO ra flou&gt;\6- 

nlvriv. dvra (&lt;rdifiv. 

Pol. xi. 4. 
hoc enim agentes, vos ipsos i Cor. i4 10 . 

aedificatis. 6 XoXwv yXcoo-aj; eavrov oiKOOop.t i. 

Pol. xii. 2. 

aedificetvosinfideetveritate. 

otKoSofAeiy is a commoner word in i Corinthians than else 
where in N. T. ; outside Polycarp, on the other hand, it does 
not occur in the Apostolic Fathers. 



86 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(5) Pol. iv. 3. i Cor. i 4 25 . 

OVTf Tl TOJV KpVTTTOtV TTJS Kdp8tas. TO! KpVTTTCt TTjS Kapo las cf. 4 "". 

See also Rom. 2 15 &gt; 16 . 

(6) Pol. x. i. i Cor. 1 5 68 . Col. i 23 . 

1 firmi in fide et e Spcuoi yivevGe, ap,f- ei ye faiptvert rfj 

iramutabiles. TUKLV^TOI. irio-rei Tf6ffj,f\ia&gt;p. f voi 

Kai eSpaioi KOL f*r] pera- 

KlVOVfltVOl. 

The parallel with Colossians is verbally stronger, as rr) 
TnVrei does not occur in i Corinthians ; but the order is that 
of i Corinthians, and the evidence for Polycarp s use of 
Colossians is weak (see under Colossians). 

(7) Pol. xi. 4. i Cor. 1 2 26 . 

sicut passibilia membra et eire Travel ev /ue Xos, o-u/*7rdo-x 
errantia eos revocate. -ndvra rd fj.f\r). 

It is possible that passililia contains an allusion to the 
metaphor of i Corinthians. See also i Peter (17). 

(8) Pol. ii. i. i Cor. is 28 . 

cS iiirTa.yr) ra iravra fnovpdvta orav 8e vnorayrj avria ra navra. 

KOI eVt yeta. 

This parallelism is too weak to be classed. See also 
Philippians (42). 

In view of the fact that Polycarp s use of i Corinthians 
may be regarded as certain, the small amount of verifiable 
influence from i Corinthians is worthy of notice. 

i Peter a 

(9) Pol. i. 3. i Pet. i 8 . 

els ov OVK l86vTfs Trio-revere XP9 " ^" c i& VTes dyanaTf, ets ov apn 

dvfK\a\TjTCf&gt; KOI 8f8oga&lt;rp.ei&gt;ri. M opuvrts irurTtvovres 8e aya 



i Peter is almost certainly presupposed by Polycarp here, 
but the points of difference between the passages are instruc 
tive for Polycarp s method of quotation. 
(10) Pol. viii. i, 2. i Pet. 2 21 . Isa. 53". 

os dnriveyKfv r)p.cov ras cnadev vjrep vfj.au&gt;, or: dvopiav ov&lt; eTroirj- 

dfjiaprias ro&gt; iSi w trw/xan vplv {nroXifj-ndvuv iitio- crtv ov8e 86\ov [v. 1. 

eVi TO v\ov, os dfj,ap- ypap.jj.ov ... or dpapriav evptdr) SdXoy] ev T$ 

Ttav OVK. nrotiptrrv, ovre OVK eTroirjcrev, ovbf fvpfdrj crrofMari avrov. 

fvptdrj SdXoj ev ra) 86Xos ev rc5 arofjiari 

ord/iiart avToC* dXXa Si cwrov . . . os ras 

iva r)&lt;Ta&gt;iJLev ev ap.aprias rjfi&v avrbs 



POLYCARP 87 

nurw, irdvTa inrtfUUHV, dvrjveyKev tv TO&gt; crw/xart 
. . . KOI fdv Trdcrxu&gt;fj.fv avrov ri TO uXoi&gt;, tva 
8id TO ovofj.a auroG, 5o- rals d/xaprt aty dnoytvo- 
dfafjifv avTov. TOVTOV fj.tvoi rfj diKaioavvrj TJ- 
yap fjfj.lv TOP vnoypapubv crw/nei/. 
fdrjKe. 4 16 fl 8e ti&gt;s Xpion- 

avos, p,r/ ala"xyvf&lt;r6a&gt;) 

6oafeV&&amp;gt; Se TOV Qebv ew 

TCO Ol&gt;6p,a.Tl TOVTO). 

The whole of this passage is very strongly Petrine, and it 
will be noticed that all the parallel passages in i Peter 
(except one) come from the same context. In the place where 
i Peter is dependent on Isaiah (as quoted above), Polycarp 
seems clearly to be dependent on i Peter. At the same time, 
the variations of order and the occasional verbal differences 
should be noticed ; but there is a striking identity of thought, 
even where the form is different. 
(n) Pol. x. 2. i Pet. 2 12 . 

omnes vobis invicem subiecti rrjv dvao-Tpo&lt;pr]v V^MII / rolt 

estote, COnversationem Vestram edvecriv exovres KaXrjv, Iva eV w KaraXa- 

irreprehensibilem habentes in XoOo-tf v[j.&lt;av &lt;B? KaKo-Koivv, e&lt; rS&gt;v Kak5&gt;v 

gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus tpycov enoTTTfvovTfs 8ogd(TQ&gt;(ni&gt; TW 0eo&gt; 

vestris et vos laudem accipiatis tv VMW tiruTKainjs. vnordyrr 

et Dominus in vobis non bla- avdpanivr] (cr/o-ei 8ia rbv Kvpi 

Sphemetur. 5* ^ VTe ^ $* dXXijXoty 

The second clause in the passage quoted from Polycarp 
seems to be a certain quotation from i Peter, and the un 
conscious change implied by the word irreprehensibilem is 
therefore to be noticed. 

These three passages (9) (10) (u), taken together, strengthen 
each other, and justify the inclusion of all three in the first 
class. 

b 

(12) Pol. ii. i. r Pet. i 13 . 

810 dvaa&gt;&lt;Tdp.(voi ras 6cr(pvas 8ov- St6 dvafacrd/jifvoi ras oo-&lt;pvas rrjs 

\tvcraTf TW 6e&lt;u (V 0o/3w icai dXrjdfia, ftiavoias vp.u&gt;v, vr)(povTfs, 
. . . TTicrTfvcravTfs (Is TW tyfipavTa e XTTicrarf /crX. 
TOV Kvpiov fipajv lr)&lt;rovv Xpioroi K I Pet. I 21 . 

KOI 86vra avTco So|ai/. T0 {, s g t &gt; a {, TO {) Wl(rro {,y 

rov (ydpavra O.VTOV e&lt; v(K.pu&gt;v KOI 



It may be noticed that these two pairs of passages, which 
agree closely, follow each other in the same order in Polycarp 



88 THE N. T IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

and i Peter. In the first passage, Polycarp appears to conflate 
a passage from i Peter with Ps. 2 11 : see Lightfoot, ad loc. 

(13) Pol. ii. 2. i Pet. s 9 . 

ftf) dno8i8dvrfs KCLKOV avr\ KO.KOV ftfj airoSiftovres KO.KOV ami KUKOV 77 

77 XoiSoptap dvT\ \oi8opias rj ypovGov \oi8opiav dvrl \oidopias. 
dvr\ ypovdov fj Kardpav ami Kardpas. 

This is almost certainly a quotation from i Peter, but the 
possibility cannot be excluded that both Polycarp and i Peter 
are quoting a proverb in the part common to them. Poly carp s 
method of continuing the quotation by additions of his own is 
worth notice. 

(14) Pol. v. 3. i Pet. 2 11 . 

Ka\ov yap TO dvaKOTTTCcrdai dirb T&gt;V dirt^tcrdai T&gt;V crapxiK&v fnidv/juvv, 

firidvp,iS&gt;v tv TW Kocr/io), on ndcra eVi- alnves crTparfvovrai Kara rfjy ^vx^s- 
6v/j.ia Kara TOV nvtvfiaTOS (TTpaTfvtTai. Gal. 5 17 . 

17 yap &lt;rap firidvfj.fi Kara TOV irvcu- 
fiaros. 

It is highly probable that this is a quotation from i Peter, 
in view of the use of or/aareverai, a word of strong colouring. 
A fusion with Gal. 5 17 (34) may be responsible for Kara TOV 



(15) Pol. vii. 2. i Pet. 4 7 . 
vl]&lt;f&gt;ovTfs Ttpbs TOS (v%ds. vT)\l/arf tls irpocr(v\ds. 

Pol. xi. 4. 
sobrii ergo estote. 

The expression in vii. 2 is so striking, that it is very 
probably a quotation. 

d 

(16) Pol. i. 3. i Pet. i 12 . 

(Is f)V TToXAot eTri6v/j.ov&lt;riv flaeh.df iv. flsafiridvp.ovo iv ayyeXoi TrapaKvtyai. 

Polycarp may possibly be influenced by i Peter here, as his 
words follow immediately the certain quotation (9), while 
the words in i Peter follow the words cited from that Epistle 
under (9) after a short interval. 

(17) Pol. vi. i. i Pet, 2 25 . Ezek. 34*. 

(7n.&lt;TTpe(f)ovTes TO. dno- TJTC yap eo? 7rpo/3aTa TO ir\avo&gt;[j.evov OVK 

7Tf7r\avr]^.va. TrXavw/xei/ot, aXX* eVe- {TTeaTptyaTt (v. 1. dnt- 

Pol. XI. 4. (TTpd&lt;pT]Te VVV. 

1 sicut passibilia 
membra et errantia 
eos revocate. 



POLYCARP 89 

As Polycarp cannot be proved to have made much use 
of O. T., it is possible that i Peter has influenced these 
passages. The word passibUia may be due to i Cor. 1 2 26 ; 
see i Corinthians (7). 

(18) Pol. vi. 3. i Pet. 3 13 . Titus 2 H . 

^Xorrai ntpl TO KaXov. TOV dyadov rf\a&gt;Tai. rj\u&gt;Trjv Ka\a&gt;v tpycav. 

This is a possible case of influence, but the expression is not 
striking or distinctive enough to make the inference necessary. 

(19) Pol. xii. 2. i Pet. i 21 . Rom. 4 24 , io 9 ; 
qui credituri sunt quoted under (12). Gal. i 1 ; Col. 2 12 , &c. 

in Dominum nos 
trum et Deum lesum 
Christum et in ipsius 
patrem qui resusci- 
tavit eum a mortuis. 

The idea is too common in early Christian literature to be 
assigned to any one source ; but as this passage of i Peter 
has almost certainly influenced Polycarp in another place (12), 
it may also have influenced him here. 

(20) Pol.v. 2,vi. i. i Pet. 3 8 . Eph. 4 32 . 

In these passages the word means tender-hearted, whereas 
its classical sense is brave ; but no inference can be drawn 
from this, as the meaning tender-hearted seems to be fairly 
common in later Greek (cf., e.g., Test, xii Patr. Zeb. 5, 8, 9). 

B 

Romans b 

(21) Pol. vi. 2. Rom. i4 10 &gt; l2 . 2 Cor. 5 10 . 

irdvras Sei rrapaoTfJwu Travrts yap TrapacrTT)- TOVS yap navras 

TW (3ij/xaTi TOV XpioTou, croufda T&&amp;gt; /Siy/wrri TOV (pavfpvdijvat 8el 

KO.I fKOfTTOV VTTfp fOVTOV QfOV (v. 1. XptOTOl)) &lt;r6fl&gt; TOV |3j}jUai 

Xayov Suvvai. . . . apa ovv fKao~Tog Xpioroi) ii/a 

Tjp.H&gt;i TTfpi OVTOV \6yov exacrTOS Ta 8ia TOV aeo- 

8a)crt ra&gt; 0eaJ. [LOTOS npos a tnpatv, 

tire dyadov erre (pav\ov. 

This passage is very probably influenced by Romans, but 
there may be unconscious conflation with 2 Corinthians. The 
chief points of connexion between Polycarp and 2 Corinthians 
are in the word 5ei and in TOV Xpiorou (which is not found in 



90 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

any early text of this passage in Romans). But the latter 
alteration might have been introduced by Polycarp himself, 
and the case for Romans is decidedly stronger than that for 
2 Corinthians. 

d 

(22) Pol. iv. i. Eom. i3 12 . 2 Cor. 6 7 . 

o7r\i(Ta)fj.f6a Tols o- evo vo-cop.edao eTa OTrXa 8id T&gt;V oriXcov TTJS 5t- 

TrXois Ttjs SiKaioo~vvT]s. TOV (fcwTos. Kaioavvrjs. Cf. also 

6 13 OTrXa SiKaiocrvvrjs. Eph. 6 1S . 

This passage is certainly influenced by Pauline metaphors. 
It suggests the reference to Romans, but not much stress can 
be laid upon this. 

(23) Pol. iii. 3. Eom. 13". 

irpoayovo~rjs TTJS dydmjs TTJS els Qeov p.rjo fvl fj.rj8tv 60ei Xere, el /J.TJ TO 

Kal XpicTTOV Kal ely TOV TrXrjcriov. edv dyairav d\\r]\ovs. 6 yap dyaTrSav 

ydp TIS TOVTtoV fVTOS T], TTfTr^TjptaKfV TOV fTfpOV VO/JLOV 7Tfn\f]pU&gt;Kf. TO 

tvToXrjv biKaioavvTjs. yap . . . Iv TOVTCO rw Xoyw dvaKt- 

(paXaiovTai, ev TW dyanrjo-fis TOV 
TT\rjo-iov (rov a&gt;s eavTOv. rf dydirr) 

TO) ir\T)&lt;TlOV KOKOV OVK (pydfTdC 

TT\r]pcofJia ovv vopov T) dyditr}. 

Gral. 5 1 * y^P 7r J vofjios ev v\ \6ya&gt; TreTrXTjpcorat , ev TO&gt; dyanrjcrfis rov 
TT\r)aiov crov a&gt;s o~(avTov. 

Possibly a reminiscence of Rom. I3 8 , which, as being a 
more fully developed passage than Gal. 5 14 , is more probably 
the source of Polycarp s words than the latter. 

(24) Pol. ix. 2. Rom. 8 17 . 

els TOV o(peiX6fj,fvov avrols TOTTOV fiirep (Tvp.Trdo~xoiJ.ev, Iva Kal crvv- 

tlo~l irapd TO&gt; Kvpico, w Kal crvvenaOov. 8oao-6a&gt;fj.v. 

In view of the context, this should rather be treated as 
dependent on 2 Tim. 2 U , see (56). 

(25) Pol. x. i. Kom. i2 10 . 

fraternitatis amatores, dili- TTJ (pi\a8e\(pia els aXX^Xovs (pi\6- 

gentes invicem . . . mansuetu- o-ropyoi, r; Ttp-fj d\\^\ovs Trporjyov- 

dine Domini alterutri praesto- p.fvoi. 
lantes. 

Lightfoot s reconstruction of the Greek (see his note) gives 
the best explanation of the passage in Polycarp yet brought 
forward ; this reconstruction involves a reference to Romans, 
but too much stress ought not to be laid on what after all 
remains a conjecture. 



POLYCARP 91 

2 Corinthians b 

(26) Pol. ii. 2. 2 Cor. 4 14 . 

6 fie fyfipas avrbv IK v(Kpu&gt;v KOI fl86rfs ort 6 tyeipas TOV Kvptov 

TjfjLas eytpel. irjcrovv Kal rjfj.as avv irjcrov fyepfl. 

The resemblance between these two passages is not verbally 
exact, and the idea contained in them may have become a 
Christian commonplace. The fact that God is described as 
6 eyelets might be accounted for by the previous section in 
Polycarp, but the most noticeable connexion is contained 
in KOL ?7jua? eye/act. On the whole, it is difficult to resist the 
conclusion that we have here a reminiscence of 2 Corinthians. 

C 

(27) Pol. vi. 2. 2 Cor. 5 10 . 

See Romans (21) where the passages are quoted. Prob 
ably Polycarp is thinking primarily of Rom. i4 10 , but has 
unconsciously been influenced by 2 Cor. 5 10 also. 

d 

(28) Pol. v.i. 2 Cor. 8 21 . Prov. 3 4 . Rom. 12 17 . 

npovoovvTfs aei Trpovoovfj,ev yap KOL irpovoov KaXa Trpoi&gt;oovp.evoi KaXa 
TOV KaXov evdnriov KaXa ov JJ.QVOV fVco- fvunriov Kvpi ou al evanriov iravruiv av- 
Qeov ical dvdpconow. iriov Kvpiov, aXXa Kal dvdpwTrw. dputncov. 



The parallel to 2 Corinthians is closer than that to Romans, 
as the latter omits the characteristic words 0eou (Kuptou) KCU. 
But as the passage in St. Paul is dependent on Proverbs, no 
stress can be laid on the resemblance, for Polycarp may be 
also thinking of Proverbs, though the number of passages in 
which he can be proved to have made use of O. T. is small. 

(29) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Cor. 3 2 . 

qui estis in principle epi- 17 eVio-ToX?) fjp.S&gt;v v/ms tore. 
stulae eius. 

If Lightfoot s interpretation of the Latin version is correct 
(see his note), the reference to 2 Corinthians seems certain ; 
but the interpretation cannot be regarded as probable (see 
Harnack in T. u. U. xx. 2. 91). 

(30) Pol. iii. 2 IlavXov, os yevofjifvos ev iiinv Kara Trpocromov TU&gt;V rare 
av6pu&gt;iT&lt;i&gt;v e8i8a(v } ... or KOI dnaiv vfiiv fypa\l/fv eViOToXdy. 

No stress can be laid on the very slight resemblance of this 
passage to 2 Cor. jo 1 . 



92 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Galatians b 

(31) Pol. v. i. Gal. 6 7 . 

tiSoTfs ovv on Qfos ov p.VKTT)pierai. p.}] Tr\avao~df. Qeos ov /JLVKTTJ- 

pi((Tai. 

There is no doubt that the words in Polycarp are a quota 
tion, especially in view of the formula eibores 6Yi which 
introduces them. They also occur in a very Pauline context. 
No real parallel for 0e6s ov /lUKrrjpi ^erai appears to be known, 
and it is therefore highly probable that Polycarp is dependent 
on Galatians. But the possibility cannot be excluded that 
the words may be a quotation in Galatians also (/IT) TrXavacrOe 
perhaps suggests this inference), and that Polycarp may be 
dependent on the lost source. 

(32) Pol. iii. 3. Gal. 4 26 . 

vtariV rJTis to-rlv p-TjTrjp iravrw f) 8e ava&gt; ifpovo-aXrjfji fXevdfpa effriv, 

fjpfov. fjris fo-T\v pi}T"np \iravr uv^ fjfj.S&gt;v. 

It is highly probable that this is a quotation, though the 
word TTCLVTCDV appears to have been inserted in the later texts 
of Galatians through the influence of the passage in Polycarp. 
The application in Polycarp may well have been suggested by 
the thought that the Jerusalem that is above corresponds in 
Galatians to the dispensation of faith. 

d 

(33) Pol. iii. 3. Gal. 5 14 . 

See under Romans (23), which is more likely to be the 
source of the common matter. 

(34) Pol. v. 3. Gal. 5". 

Tracra (Tndvfiia Kara rov nvtv/MiTos fj yap &lt;rap i-ni6vii.fi Kara rov Trvtv- 

crrpaTfveTai. fiaros. 

See under i Peter (14). The passage in Galatians may have 
influenced the quotation. 

(35) Pol. ix. 2. Gal. 2 2 . 

OVTOI irdvTfs OVK els Kfvov e8pap.ov. pr) TTtoS fls Kfvov rpe^o) f) eSpa/iov. 

See under Philippians (41). 

Ephesians b 

(36) Pol. i. 3. Eph. 2 8 . 

&lt;i8oTf? OTI xdpiri eare ar(cr(i)(Tfj.fvoi y rfj yap ^dpiri tare crf(ra&gt;crij.ft&gt;oi 8ia 

OVK e tpyatv, dXXa 6f\fjfj.ari. ecu fiia iri&lt;TT(a&gt;s Kal roi/ro OVK e v/jiStv, QeoC 
lr)o~ov Xpiorov. TO 8&lt;opov OVK f (pyatv, iva pr] TIS 



POLYCARP 93 

The words clborcs on seem to imply a consciousness in Poly- 
carp that he is making a quotation ; the two passages agree 
verbally, except for the absence in Polycarp of some unessential 
words ; and it is to be noted that the sharp Pauline antithesis 
of faith and works is not characteristic of the Apostolic Fathers 
generally. 

(37) Pol. xii. i. Eph. 4 26 . Ps. 4 s . 

modo, ut his opyifcvde (cat /z^ opyifctrOf KOI (J.TJ 

SCripturis dictum est, ^naprdveTf 6 fj\ios pf) dfj-apravfrf. 

Irascimini et nolite iri8vfTa&gt; eVl irapop- 
peccare, et Sol non ytap.^ vfj.S&gt;v. 
occidat super iracun- 
diam vestram. 

Except for the insertion of et between the two clauses, 
Polycarp agrees verbally (if the Latin version can be trusted) 
with Ephesians. The passage in Ephesians consists in a quota 
tion from Ps. 4 5 and a comment on it by St. Paul (cf. Deut. 
24 13 aTroSwcrei? TO tveyypov avrov irpos bva-^as T)\LOV, 24 15 OVK 
eTuvo-eTcu 6 rj\ios eir avrut, Jer. I5 9 )- Even if St. Paul s com 
ment is influenced by these passages in Deuteronomy, the 
collocation of the two passages in Polycarp is almost certainly 
due to Ephesians. The words his scripturis and et may imply 
that Polycarp regards himself as making two separate quota 
tions, but the second of the two can hardly be other than from 
Ephesians. The supposition that St. Paul and Polycarp are 
quoting a common proverb (e. g. Plut. Mor. 488 b, as quoted 
by Lightfoot) seems to be excluded by his scripturis. 

C 

(38) Pol. xi. 2. Eph. 5 5 . Col. 3 5 . 

si quis non Se ab- TrXfoi/eVn;?, o eWtv TTJV 7r\foveiav, TJTIS 

stinuerit ab avaritia, eiSwXoXdT/jijs. tvriv eiSwXoXaTpet a. 

ab idololatria coin- 

quinabitur. 

There certainly seems to be a reference in Polycarp to one 
of these two passages, although ideas of this kind may have 
been Christian commonplaces. The words in Colossians are 
nearer to those in Polycarp, but as the evidence is inadequate for 
Polycarp s use of Colossians elsewhere, the passage in Ephesians 
ought probably to be preferred here. 



94 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(39) Pol. xii. 3. d Eph. 6 18 . 

pro omnibus sanctis orate. irpoa-evx6p.evoi inrep Trdvruv TWJ/ 

ayidiv. 

The idea here is very obvious, but there may be a remini 
scence of language. 
Philippians 

(40) Pol. iii. 2 6s KOL aTrwv vfj.lv typa^ffv eVicrroXdj. 

This passage shows that Poly carp knew that St. Paul had 
written letters to the Philippians (or possibly, a letter : see 
Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 138). It is highly probable that he 
knew the extant letter ; but the amount of evidence of his use 
of it is not large, though it must t&gt;e added that the general 
impression in favour of his acquaintance with it is stronger 
than can be fairly estimated from the isolated examination of 
single passages. 

b 

(41) PoL ix. 2. Phil. 2 16 . Gal. 2 2 . 

OTI ovTonrdvrfs ovKfls OTI OVK els Kevov p,r) irasels Kevov fpe^ut 

Kevov eSpafjiov. e 8pafj.ov. 17 e8pafj.ov. 

Besides the verbal parallel, the context in Poly carp, referring 
to life in the prospect of death, suggests the context in Philip 
pians, while the general meaning of Galatians is different. 

C 

(42) Pol. ii. i. Phil. 2 10 . 

a) VTrerdyr) TCI rrdvTa (irovpdvta Kcii iva. ev TW ovarian Iijcrov irav yovv 

f-n-lyeia, . . . ov TO alpa Kr)Tr)&lt;rei dno K ip.^r; enovpaviav Kai firiyeiw xal 
TUIV diTfidovvrtoV avTw. KaTaxdovicw. 

3 21 i/irord^ai aurw ra Trai/ra. 

As the context in Polycarp shows clearly that the passage 
refers to Christ, it is likely that he is dependent on Philippians. 

(43) Pol. xii. 3. Phil. 3 18 . 

et pro inimicis crucis. TOVS ex^P ^ 5 T v vravpov TOV 

XplOTOV. 

The expression is sufficiently striking to make it probable 
that Polycarp is thinking of the passage in Philippians. 

d 

(44) Pol. i. i. Phil. 2". 

&lt;TWf%d[&gt;r]v {ip.lv fjLfyd\a&gt;s ev Kvpi co \aipu&gt; KOI crvyxaipa* irdcnv vfj.lv. 

TJ/J.UIV ITJCTOV Xptoro). 4 10 exdprjv 8e ev Ki/piw p.eyd\a&gt;s OTI . . . 

Compare 2 Thessalonians (46). 



POLYCARP 95 

(45) Pol. v. 2. Phil. i* 7 . i Clem. xxi. i. 

eav no\tTfvo~u&gt;fJieda povov d^i tos row eav juij a^i ooy avrov 

uia&gt;s avroii. (vayye\iov TOV XptoroO 7roXtr6U(fyiei ot ra KaXa 

TTO\I.TfVeo-8f. KO.I vdpf&lt;TT(l fVUTTlOV 

ai/TOV Troia&gt;fJ.fv. 

Polycarp may here be thinking of the passage in Clement. 
Cf. Clement (40). 

2 Thessalonians. b 

(46) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Thess. i 4 . 

ego autem nihil tale sensi &o-Tf avrovs tjp.ds ev vfj.1v eyKav- 
in vobis vel audivi, in quibus x a(T ^ at ev rats eKK\r)o-iais TOV Qtov. 
laboravit beatus Paulus, qui 
estis in principio epistulae eius : 
de vobis etenim gloriatur in 
omnibus ecclesiis. 

The context shows that Polycarp supposes himself to be 
quoting words addressed to the Philippians (cf. etenim). 
Similar words actually occur only in 3 Thessalonians, an 
Epistle addressed to another Macedonian Church, which Poly 
carp might easily have thought of, by a lapse of memory, as 
sent to the Philippians. The present tense of gloriatur also 
suggests that he is quoting. 

C 

(47) Pol. xi. 4. 2 Thess. 3 15 . 

et non sicut inimicos tales *at ^17 a&gt;s (x&pov f]ytto-6(, aXXn 

existimetis. vovdfTt ire u&gt;s d8e\(f)6v. 

Polycarp s words sound as though he had purposely adapted 
the expression of 2 Thessalonians for his own object. 

In spite of the fact that both these passages occur in the 
part of Polycarp for which the Latin version alone is extant, 
his use of 2 Thessalonians appears to be very probable. 

i Timothy b 

(48) Pol. iv. i. i Tim. 6 7 . 

dp%r) Se TrdvToiv ^aXerrcoi/ (f)i\ap- ovSev yap flcnjvfyKafKv (Is TOV 

yvpia. flSoTfs ovv on ovStv do-r/vfy- nocr^ov, OTI ovde f^fveynflv TI 8vvd/j.fda. 
Kafj.(v els TOV xocrfjiov, aXX ovde j Tim. 6 10 . 

fffixyKflv TI f-voiifv. /. &lt; / - r &lt; 

pta yap navraiv TQ&gt;V KCIKUIV fcrTiv 17 

(pi\apyvpia. 

It is almost impossible to believe that these passages are 
independent. The formula (et So res on) with which Polycarp 
introduces the second of the two sentences, indicates that he 



96 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

is conscious of quoting and points to the priority of i Timothy. 
The word ovv may perhaps show that reference is being made 
to a well-known source, and that the one quotation has 
suggested the other. It may further be noted that dpx 7 ? is 
less vivid than pia ; this also points to the priority of 
i Timothy. 

C 

(49) Pol. iv. 3. i Tim. 5 5 . 

ras XyP as (raxppovovcras TTtpl TJJV fj Be ovru&gt;s XVP Ka MfM OI/&) / z * I T ? 

TOV K.vpiov iricTTiv, tvTvy\avov(Tas fj\niKei/ eVt Qebv /cat Trpocrpfvei Tats 

afitaXeiTTTcor Trtpl TravTcnv, /MiKpav 8er]crt(Tt.v Kai rats Trpocreu^ats VVKTOS 

ova-as irdo~T)s 8ta/3o\^y. KOA fjpepas. 

(50) Pol. v. 2. i Tim. 3 8 . 

6/ioi co? SiaKovoi a/i6/X7rrot Kan va&gt;rriov diaKovovs axravrms crepvovs, (J.TI 

avrov rrjs SiKaiocrvvrjs. . . pr) Sta^oXot, SiXayoi/j, fjifj oivat TroXXw irpocre^ovTay, 

ftfi SiXoyot, d(pi\dpyvpoi, fyKpart is P.TJ ata-^poK6p8ety, e^oi/Tas ro pvcrrrjpiov 

irepl Trdvra, evcrTrXay^vot, eTri/xeXeTj, rrjs rri(TTfa&gt;s ev icadapa crwftSijcrfi . . . 

TroptvofjLfvoi Kara TTJV dXfjdfiav TOV etra diaKovfiruxrav dvyK\rjToi ovres. 

Kvpt ov. yvvaiKas uo-aurwr (Ttfjvds, p.fj Sta/So- 

Xovy, vrj&lt;pd\iovs, TTKTTCIS ff irautv. 

In these passages the general character of thought and 
treatment is very similar, and there are a considerable number 
of verbal parallels. 

(51) Pol. viii. i. i Tim. i 1 . 

irpo&lt;TKapTep&lt;0fj.(v 177 e XTTi St f]fj.S&gt;v Kal Xptoroi) irjaov rfjs eXniftos f)fJ.u&gt;v. 

TW dppa^S&gt;vi TTJS 8iKaiO(Tvvrjs 



The unusual order Xpioros Irjo-ous is to be noted : it does not 
seem to occur elsewhere in Polycarp, and is not found in the 
passages of Ignatius which are general parallels (Magn. u ; 
Trail. Inscr., 2). 

(52) Pol. xii. 3. i Tim. 2 1 . 

orate pro regibus. iroificrQai dffjaeis . . . vnip jSacriXewi/. 

That kings and rulers were mentioned in the praises of the 
Church is clear from i Clem. Ixi. The plural regibus is strange 
as applied to the Emperor, and has even suggested to some 
critics an argument in favour of the spuriousness of Polycarp s 
Epistle (Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 592). But the 
later date suggested is impossible on other grounds, and the 
plural is most easily explained by a reference to i Timothy. 



POLYCARP 97 

d 

(53) Pol. xi. 2. i Tim. 3 5 . 

qui autem non potest se in fl 8e TIS TOV lolov O"KOV Trpoarrjvai 
his gubernare, quomodo alii OVK oldev, nS&gt;s e/ocX^o-tas Qeov eVt- 

pronuntiat hoc? /^eXijo-erai ; 

The language in Polycarp may be suggested by a rather 
weakened reminiscence of i Timothy. 

(54) Pol. xii. 3. i Tim. 4 15 . 

ut fructus vester manifestus iva aov f) TrpoKonf) (pavepa fj Tiaviv. 

sit in omnibus. 

Possibly a reminiscence. 

2 Timothy b 

(55) Pol. ix. 2. 2 Tim. 4 10 . 

ov yap TOV vvv r)yd7rr)o~av ala&gt;va. dyarrjjo as TOV vvv aloiiva. 

The dependence on 2, Timothy seems almost certain, especi 
ally as 6 vvv cu wy occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles among 
the books of N. T. (cf. i Tim. 6 17 ; Titus a 12 ). Besides the 
similarity of language, the reference in both cases is to loyalty 
in face of danger. 

C 

(56) Pol. v. 2. 2 Tim. 2". 

Kadais VTTfcr^fTO r)fuv eyeipai r^ias iriarTOf 6 Xo yor, fl yap (ruvaTrfddvo- 

e&lt; vfKpcov Kal OTI, fav TToXtTevcrto/xe^a p,f v Kal cruf^cro/xei , d v7TO[j.evofjLfv Kal 

d{(0s auroC, Kai a V/^jSacriXei cro/xei , crvfji^acri\fiia-oij.fv. 
fiye Tn(TTfvop.fv. 

Whatever may be the case with the first part of the promise 
referred to, the latter seems to be connected with some current 
Ao yos (cf. on in Polycarp) like that quoted in a Timothy, 
whether directly or indirectly through that passage. The 
word &lt;rviJi[3a.&lt;Ti.\eveiv is unique in the Apostolic Fathers, nor 
does the simple /3ao-iAeveii&gt; occur with the meaning- here 
implied. The notion of continuance in the present Triorevo^ey 
brings it nearer in meaning to v-no^ivo^v than might at first 
appear, especially when taken in connexion with 7roAu-eu&lt;rwjue#a 
that has preceded. 

(57) Pol. xi. 4. 2 Tim. 2 25 . 

* quibus det DominuS poeni- /LiijTrore 8anj avTois 6 Qfbs fifTavoiav 

tentiam veram. els iirtyvwrut d\r}dflas. 

The words of Polycarp certainly recall 2 Timothy : in view 



98 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

of the other evidence this should probably be regarded as 
a reminiscence. 

d 

(58) Pol. xii. i. 2 Tim. i 5 . 

quod ego credo esse in vobis. -rrfrrfia-p-ai 8e on KO\ tv a-oi. 
Possibly a reminiscence of language. 

C 

Acts c 

(59) Pol. i. 2. Acts 2 24 . 

ov rjyeipev 6 Qebs hvcras TO.S uSlvas ov 6 Qebs dveo-Trjcrev, \vcras ras 

TOV aSou. a&gt;8iras TOV 6a.va.rov (aSou is an early 

Western variant). 

davarov occurs in 2 Kings 22 6 (Ps. I7 5 ), Ps. H4 3 , and 
abov in Ps. I7 6 ; but the expression Xva-as ras a&gt;6iz;as 
depends upon a mistranslation of v3n ( = pains or fetters ). 
It is difficult to account for the same mistake being made 
wholly independently, and so it seems probable that Polycarp 
is dependent on Acts. But the mistake may also be due to 
an earlier writer followed both by the author of Acts and by 
Polycarp, especially as we have no particular reason for 
supposing the author of Acts to have been acquainted with 
Hebrew. 

d 

(60) Pol. ii. i. Acts io 42 . 

KplTTjS {uSVTtDV KOL veKp)V. KptTT)S u&gt;VTO&gt;V KOi VfKpSiV. 

Acts io 42 is the only passage in N. T. where these exact 
words occur, but 2 Tim. 4 1 , i Pet. 4 5 are closely parallel; 
cf. also 2 Clem. i. i. 

(61) Pol. ii. 3. Acts 20 s5 . 

jj.VT)fi.ov(voi&gt;Tfs &v fljiev 6 Kuptoj fivrifiovevfLv re T&gt;V Xoyo&gt;i&gt; TOU Ku- 

SiftacfKatv . piov ITJ&lt;TOV, on aiirbs fine . . . 

No stress can be laid on the use of this formula of intro 
duction, as the words are in themselves very natural, and 
i Clem. xiii. i has a very similar expression (see below, under 

(75) &gt; 

(62) Pol. vi. 3. Acts 7 B2 . 

01 jrpofprJTai ol npOKrjpi/^avres rfjv riva T&gt;V TrpofprjTiov OVK c8lwav 

(\ev(Tiv TOV K.vpiov, ol Trarepes v/J,5&gt;v ; KOI aTreKTftvav TOVS 

TrpoKciTayyftXavTas irepl rrjs f\fvo~ecos 
rov 8iKaiov. 

Possibly a reminiscence of the language of Acts. 



/4 

POLYCARP 99 

(63) Pol. xii. 2. Acts 26 18 . 

det vobis sortem et partem K\fjpov eV roty f)yiao-p.fvois. 

inter sanctos SUOS, et nobis VO- 8 21 OVK eo-riv &lt;TOI pepls ovoe K\ijpos. 

biscum, et omnibus qui sunt 2 s dirb TTWTOS fdvovs TG&gt;V virb TOV 

sub caelo. ovpavov. 

There seems some possibility that Polycarp is here uncon 
sciously influenced by various expressions in Acts, though no 
certainty can be felt in regard to the matter, /xept? ovbt K\ijpos 
occurs in Deut. I2 12 , I4 26 28 ; while the order of these words 
in Acts and Deuteronomy is the same, Polycarp, if the Latin 
version can be trusted, adopted the opposite order. For the 
first clause quoted from Polycarp there is a further parallel 
in Col. I 12 (eis rr\v fjiepioa TOV K\.rjpov T&V ayCcav fv rw $a&gt;ri), which 
is, however, less close than the parallel in Acts : in connexion 
with the last clause, Col. I 23 (tv Trda-r] trio-si rp vtro TOV ovpavov} 
may also be noted, but the phrase omnibus qui sunt sub 
caelo is a very obvious one. 

Hebrews C 

(64) Pol. vi. 3. Heb. I2 28 . Ps. 2". 

SouAe{Jcra&gt;/iei&gt; avria e^w/zez -^apiv, 81 r/s SouXevcrare rai Qa fit 

p.(Ta &lt;o/3ov Koi Trdarjs \aTpevo) fj,ev evapeaTuiSTa (po^ca. 
(vXaftfias. Ka$cos avrbs Ge&lt;5 pe TO. ev\af3das Kal 
fvereiXaTO Kal ol euay- deovs. 
yeXtcra/ifj/oi fjnas mro- 
aroXot Kal ol TrpcxpfJTai 
ol TrpoKTjpvgavTfs rrjv 

f\fV&lt;TlV TOV KuplOll IJ/iWl . 

Though the reference seems to be a general one to the 
tenour of O. T. as well as the Gospel, yet the phrase may very 
possibly be coloured by Hebrews ; for evAa/3eta, which is not 
found in the parallel passage of Psalms, occurs in N. T. only 
in Hebrews, and Polycarp refers to ol evayyeAio-a/xeixn 



(65) Pol. xii. 2. Heb. 6 20 . 

et ipse sempiternus pontifex, apxifptvs yevopevos ds TOV alS&gt;i&gt;a. 
Dei filius. Heb. 7 3 . 

d(p(ap,oi&lt;j)iJ.evos 8e TW via) TOV Qeov. 

The occurrence of sempiternus pontifex and Dei filius in 
the same context, both in Polycarp and Hebrews, render it 
not improbable that Polycarp is directly dependent on Hebrews 

H 2 



ioo THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

here. If we may trust the prayer in Mart. Polyc. xiv as 
giving his actual "words (8ta TOV alajviov KCU tirovpaviov dp^iepe cos 
I/jcroC XpioTou dyaTTTjTou aov TratSo s), we may suppose that the 
idea was one which had a strong hold on his mind. The con 
ception of Christ as ap^iepevs occurs prominently in I Clement 
(see i Clement (21)) which, however, may also be dependent 
on Hebrews ; cf. Ignatius (75) ; but in none of these passages 
is there anything corresponding to sempiternus or to Dei 
flius. 

d 

(66) Pol. ix. i. Heb. 5". 

TrapaKoXS) ovv irdvras vp.ds Tret- iras yap 6 fiere^tav ydXaKTOS aireipos 

Qapxiiv T&lt;5 Xoyo&gt; TIJS 8iKaiocrvvr]t. \6yov 8iKaio&lt;rvvr]s. 

The phrase Aoyos SiKctiocrwrjs occurs only here in N. T. ; but 
the context is widely different from that of Polycarp. 

i John C 

(67) Pol. vii. i. i John 4 2 . 

Tras yap, ot av fj.fj o/xoAoyf; l^croOi irav Trvev/jLa o 6/xoXoyei irjcrovv 

\pi&lt;TTov ev ffapK\ f\rj\v6epai, dvri- Xptcrroi ev crapKi fXyXvdora tK TOV 
Xpioroj foriv. KOI os av fi.r) 6fJ.o\oyfi Qeov fcrrlv /cat nav Trvevfjui o ^ 
TO [JLapTvpiov TOV aravpov, CK TOV 6/noAoyeI (v. 1. Xvet) TOV Irjcrovv f&lt; 
StajSoXou e oriV. TOV Oeov OVK fo~Tiv. 

3 s 6 Trotcoj/ Trji* aftapTiav e&lt; TOV 
diaj36\ov fcrriv. 

Cf. 2 John 7 ort TroXXol ir\dvoi 

f^fjKBoV (Is TOV KOCTfJ.OV, Ot fJLTj 6/LtoXo- 

yovvres lr)o~ovv Xpio-Tov fp^6/j.fvov 
tv crapKi. OVTOS tcmv 6 TrXaVos *cat 6 



Notice especially 6/io\oyeu&gt; } tv (rapid eXTjXv^eyat, dyrixpicrro?, e/c 
TOV biajBoXov, which are all characteristic of 1 John throughout. 
The numerous coincidences of language render it probable that 
Polycarp either used i John or was personally acquainted with 
its author. [See also Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Docu 
ments, i. 30, notes 3 and 4 ; and in Hibbert Journal, ii. 805.] 

d 

(68) PoL i. i. i John 4 8 16 . 

Ta fjLLjj.iip.aTa TTJS d\r)6ovs dyaTrrjs. 6 Qebs dyaTrr) eo~riv. 

The expression of Polycarp has an Ignatian rather than 
a Johannine sound ; cf. for instance Ign. Magn. vii. i. 



POLYCARP 101 

D 

Colossians d 

(69) Pol. i. 2. Col. i e - 6 . 

These passages are parallel in thought, but except for the 
one word Kapirocpopet there is no verbal connexion between 
them. 

(70) Pol. x. i. Col. i 23 . 
See under i Corinthians (6). 

(71) Pol. xi. 2. Col. 3 5 . 
See under Ephesians (38). 

(72) Pol. xii. 2. Col. i 12 . 
See under Acts (63). 

GOSPELS. 
(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

UNCLASSED 

(73) Pol. v. 2. Mark 9 35 . Matt. 2O 28 . 

Kara TTJV aXrjdeiav TOV ft TIS 6e\ti irpStros o vios TOV dvdpaiTrov 

Kvpiov, os fytvero 8id- eivai, coral TTOVTUV e- OVK rj\6tv 8iaKovTj6rjvai 

KOVOS Trdvrcov. (r^arcy, Kai TTUVTCDV Sid- dXXa 6ta*coi/^crai. 

KOVOS. 

The sentence in Polycarp reads like a homiletic application 
of the saying in Mark, suggested by the mention of Sia/coz/oi on 
the one hand, and by the example of Christ, as the great fulfiller 
of His own precept, on the other. The actual words Tiavroav 
SIOKOUOS are only found in Mark, but the conception is applied 
to Christ in Matthew, and the application is so natural as to 
make it impossible to treat the passage as serious evidence for 
Polycarp s use of Mark. 

(74) Pol. xi. 2. Matt. i8 17 . 

* tanquam inter gentes. oacrnep 6 edviKos. 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(75) Pol. ii. 3. Matt. 7 1 . Luke 6 M . i Clem. xiii. i f. 

p,vTjp.ovfvovTfs $e fJ-Tj KpivfTf, iva pr) KOI fj.f] npivere, KOI pokicr-rci ftefunjfitvot 

S&gt;v ?jr(v 6 Kvpios Kpi6f)Tf ev wyap/ne- ov pf} Kpidf/Tf . . . a&gt; rmv \6y&lt;ovTov Kvpiov 

8i8do-Ka&gt;v fj.r) KplvtTt, Tpw /xerpeiTe, p-frprj- yap /zerpw fj.fTpei- Irjcrov, ovs f\d\T)(rv 

Iva /ni) KptdrJTf d(pi- 6r)o~fTai vp.lv. re, aVri/xerpij&jtrerat 8ido~Ka&gt;v nrtc/Kftav 

ere, *cal d0e$)j&lt;rerai 5* /xa/cdptot ot vp.lv. /cat p.aKpo6vp,tav ov- 



io2 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

vfuv fXectTf, "iva TTTO^OI TO&gt; Trvevp-art, 6 20 paicdpioi ol Teas yap elirev eXearf 

(XfrjdrjTf w /xfV/aa) on avrtcv early ^ TTTW^OI, on fyter/pa tfa eXerjdtjre, d(piere 

fjierpelre, dvTip,frpr]- /3acrtXei a TO&gt;Z&gt; ovpa- eo-rlv fj /3ao-tXeia roi) iva d(pf0fj vfj.1v ms 

6rjcrfTai vfi.lv" Kal on vcov. GeoO. TTOteirf, ourto jroiTjdtj- 

fjLtiicdpioi ol TTTCO^OI g 10 p-aKapioi ol 8e~ aerai vfjuv a&gt;s S/Sore, 

*cnl ol 8ia&gt;K.6fj.fvoi eve- 8iu&gt;y/j.e voi evtuev 81- OVTOJS 8o6r]crfTai vp.lv. 

Kfv 8iKaio&lt;rvvr)s, OTI KCUOO-VVTJS, ort avTa&gt;v ais Kpivere, OVTOIS Kpi- 

&lt;IVTG&gt;V ecrrlv f] /3a&lt;rt- f&lt;TT\v fj /SaatXei a TQ&gt;V 6f]crfO-6f as XP1~ 

Xet a TOV Qfov. ovpavcov. a-reveo-de, ovTu&gt;sxP r l~ 

vp.lv &lt;a 



p.(Tpr)8rjo~erai 
vp.lv. 

Polycarp assumes that a body of teaching, oral or written, 
similar to the Sermon on the Mount, was familiar to the 
Philippian Church. It is possible that his language, including 
the form of citation [cf. Acts (61)], may have been influenced 
by Clement. Polycarp does not, however, quote Clement 
directly, as he omits some of Clement s most characteristic 
phrases. In detail he agrees almost equally with Matthew 
and Luke, but not completely with either. Compare the dis 
cussion on i Clem. (55). 

(76) Pol. vi. i, 2. Matt. 6 12 . Luke n 4 . 

P.TJ ra^ecos nicTTfvovTfs /cat a(pes f]p-lv ra Kal atpes fjp-lv rat 

Kara Tivos,p.rj an-oro/noi ev o^etXjjjuara Jj/^v, o&gt;s ap-aprias f]p-a&gt;v, xal yap 

Kpiaei, eiftoTes OTI travres Kal r]p.fls d(pr]Kap.v rols avrol d(piep,ev rravrl 

o(pei\eTaiO-p.evdp.aprias. 6(pei\Tais r)p.c*&gt;v. 6(pei\ovri fjp.lv. 

tlovvo(6p*eaTovKvpiov Cf. 6 U &gt; 15 , i8 35 . 

iva Tjp.lv a&lt;pfi, o(pfi\op.V 
Kal fjp.els d&lt;pievat. 

The words 6eo /xe0a TOV Kvpiov evidently introduce a reference 
to the Lord s Prayer. But no quotation from the Lord s 
Prayer can be used as evidence for acquaintance with our 
Gospels, as there are clear signs of its early ecclesiastical use 
as current elsewhere (see e. g. Didache (n)). Possibly, the 
context here, emphasizing a large charity in judgement, points 
to the context of the Sermon on the Mount as colouring Poly- 
carp s thoughts (see Matt. 6 14 , 7 1 " 5 ). But even if Polycarp 
were inclined to treat the Lord s Prayer as belonging to the 
Sermon on the Mount, this would not necessarily imply a 
knowledge of our Matthew. 



POLYCARP 103 

(77) Pol. vii. 2. Matt.6 13 (=Luken 4 ). Mark 1 4 s8 . 

S(rjo-(aiv alrovp.(voi KOI fifj do-(v(yKTjs yprjyoptiTe Kal irpocr- 

Q(6v fjfjids (Is Trapao-^ov. (vx(o~6(, iva ^177 (\6rjre 

fjpds (Is 26 41 ypj]yop(iT( Kal (Is 7T(ipao-fj.6v TO p.(i&gt; 

7T(ipao~fj.6i&gt; } /cameos (nrev Trpoo~(vx(o~d(, iva f^ff irv(v/jLa irp6Qvp.ov, 17 8e 

6 K.vpios TO fj.(v TTixvfjia elo"(\dtjT( ds irapao fj.ov, "op^ d(r6(vr)s. 

irp66vp.ov, T) fie crdp TO p,(i&gt; nvfi^ia Trpodvfiov, 

do~0(vr]s. T) 8( o~ap dad(vf]s. 

For the quotation from the Lord s Prayer (Polycarp s words 
are identical with those of Matthew and Luke), see the note 
to the preceding passage. The quotation introduced by Kadus 
eiTrey 6 Kvpios agrees verbatim with Matthew and Mark, and 
appears in a very similar context to that in the Gospels. 
But this quotation might well be due to oral tradition ; or it 
might be from a document akin to our Gospels, though not 
necessarily those Gospels themselves. 

(78) Pol. xii. 3. Matt. 5 44 . Luke a 27 . 

orate etiam . . . dyandT( TOVS tx^povs dyairarf TOVS (x^povs 

pro persequentibuS vfj.5&gt;i&gt;, Kal Trpoo~(vx(0 d( vfj.u&gt;v, KO\&gt;S Troietre Totj 
VOS. inr(p TU&gt;V diwKovrcav fj.io ovo-ii vfids, (v\o- 

TOVS KaTapo&gt;p.(vovs 



Here again the language of Polycarp seems to be influenced 
by teaching like that of the Sermon on the Mount, but the 
passage affords no evidence for the use of either of our Gospels 
in its present form. 

(79) Pol. i. 3. Matt. 13". 

(Is r\v TroXXoi fnidvfJLOvcriV (l&lt;r(\6(lv. Luke IO 4 . 

There is no reason to suppose that the parallel here is more 
than accidental. 

(Ill) The Fourth Gospel. 
C 

(80) Pol. v. 2. C John 5 21 . 

\mta")(fTO r^uv (y(ipai fjuds &gt;o~7rfp yap 6 irarrjp tyetpei TOVS 

. V(KpOVS KO.I ftOOTTOlfl, OVTO&gt; Kal 6 VIOS 

ovs 6e\(i ^atonoid. 

5 2B 01 v(Kpol aKovo-ovrai TTJS (pcovrjs 
TOV vlov TOV Q(ov, Kal ol aKovaavTes 
fijcroirai. 

6 44 Kal eyo) dvao-TTio-Ci) OVTOV (V TJJ 



104 THE N.T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

No such promise is given in the Synoptic Gospels, whereas 
it is put plainly in John. The reference seems certainly to 
be to a Johannine tradition, though it need not necessarily be 
to our Fourth Gospel. 

UNCLASSED 

(81) Pol. xii. 3 John is 18 . 

ut fructuS vester manifestuS Iva vfifls virayrjre KOI Kapnov 

sit in Omnibus. (peprjTf, KOI 6 Kapnbs i/nwv pevfl- 

The sentence in Polycarp sounds like a reminiscence of 
i Tim. 4 15 , see (54) ; the only point of contact with John is 
in the word fructus, and this might be accounted for, e. g. by 
Gal. 5 22 , if BO natural an expression requires any assignable 
source. 

(IV) Apocryphal Gospels. 

The passages resembling the Sermon on the Mount, (75)-(78), 
have appeared to some to suggest a use by Polycarp of some 
non-canonical source ; but, in view of the inexactness of some 
of his other quotations, this inference does not seem to be 
justified. 

UNCLASSED 

(82) In vi. i the formula etSo res on introduces the words 
Travres o^eiXerai ea-p-fv a^aprias, which, in view of their style, 
are probably a quotation; there is, however, nothing to 
indicate the source from which the quotation (if such it be) is 
derived. 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 

INTRODUCTION. 

THE author of the Shepherd of Hermas nowhere supplies 
us with a direct quotation from the Old or New Testament, 
and we are therefore obliged to fall back upon allusions 
which always admit of some degree of doubt. He may 
sometimes be consciously borrowing ideas from N. T. writers 
when the reference is veiled by an intentional change of 
words; and sometimes he may use identical words, and 
yet have derived them from some other source, oral or 
written. In these circumstances it is clear that references 
which might reasonably be assumed if we knew that the 
author was familiar with our canonical books, cannot be used 
to establish his familiarity with them in opposition to critics 
who dispute it. The following arrangement of passages, 
therefore, does not represent what the editors may consider 
historically probable, but what they think may be reasonably 
deduced from a mere comparison of texts. 

EPISTLES, ACTS. 
B 

i Corinthians b 

(i) Mand. IV. iv. i, 2. i Cor. f 39 . 40 . 

Eav yvvri, . . . ^ 7ra\iv avrjp TIS eav 8e Koifj.r)6f) 6 dvrjp, fXfvdtpa 

koifj.rjdjj, Kai yap.r]crrj TIS e avTcov, earlv &lt;a deXei yap.r)6rji&gt;ai . . . 

p.r)Ti apapTavti 6 yafj,u&gt;v ; Ov)( afiap- ptcore pa fie lanv fav ovra) pfiv 

rdvei, (prjcriv tav 8f f(p eaurw pe ivy 8oKa&gt; 8e Kayo) Tlvtvfia Qeov 



TIS, TTfpiacroTfpav eavra Tip.T)v . . . VS. 28 (av 
TrfpiTfoiflTai Trpos rov Kvpiov eav fie 
/cat yap.r](rrj } ov\ afiaprdvfi. 

* 7a/7&lt;7j7s, Tisch., W. H. 



d 

(2) Sim. IX. xii. i. i Cor. io 4 . 

H Tre rpa . . . avrr) /cat TJ jrv\r) f/ 8e nfTpa rjv 6 Xptaros. 

6 vibs TOV Geov ear/. 

The resemblance here seems purely accidental, the rock 
being quite different in the two cases. 



106 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Eph. 4 30 . 

(U) \vneiTe TO Hvevpa TO 

TOV QfOV. 

5 18 19 7r\r)povo~de ev 



"Aytov 



Ephesians 
(3) Mand. X. ii. i, 2, 4, 5. 

17 \vnr) eKTpijSfi TO Trvevp.a TO ayiov 
Kal Trd\iv oxoffi . . . J/ XUTTJ; our?; 
elo"iropevTai els TOV avdputnov, KOI 
XuTrei TO 7rvevp.a TO ayiov KOL eKTpifiei 
avTO ... 17 fj.ev 8i\l/v\la. . . . fj 8e 

6v%O\ia XvTTfl TO TTVfV/Jia ...fJifj 

$XI/3e TO nv(i fj.a TO ayiov. 

See also iii. 2, and Mand. 
III. 4- 

In view of the originality and boldness of the phrase in 
Ephesians, it seems likely that Hernias is developing in his 
own way a phrase that has lodged in his mind. On the other 
hand, it is to be noticed that his conception of the Holy 
Spirit as essentially joyous might have led him up to the 
idea in a way suggested by the expression, grief enters and 
grieves. Nevertheless, this does not seem to explain fully so 
remarkable a phrase. 



(4) Sim. IX. xiii. 5. 

ot Trio~Tevo~avTes . . . eaovTai els ev 
TrvevfJia, Kal ev o-5&gt;/j,a, pta XP a T ^ &gt;v 
Ifjutri&V avTutv. *j ev nvtiifjia Kal ev 
o~S&gt;fjLa. XVli. 4 \afl6vres ovv TTJV 
cHppayloa [ = baptism] /xt ai/ (ppovrjaiv 
e&lt;T)(ov Kal eva vovv, Kal fj.iu marts avT&v 
eyevfTO Kal [/xt aj aycmr], XVlii. 4 
effTai f) fKK\r}&lt;rla TOV Qeov ev o~S)fj.a, 
fjiia (pp6vr)o~is, eis vovs, uia TTICTTIS, fj.ia 
Kal ToYe 6 vios TOV Qeov 
reTat . . . dTrei\r)(pa&gt;s TOV \aov 
avTov Kadapov. 



Eph. 4 3 ~ 6 . 

ev dyaTrrj . . . Ii/ o-a&gt;/xa KOI fv TLvevfJia, 

. ev /Ma f\Tri8i . . . els ~K.vpios, fJ.ia 
v ^aTTTio-fJia, el? Qeos. 

g25, 26 ^ Xpio-Tos TjyaTrria-f TTJV K- 
K\r)criav . . . lisa aitTr/v ayido-y Ka6a- 
pi&as. 

I 13 , 4 30 eo-(ppayi(rdr]Te. 



These passages have all the appearance of being imitated 
from Ephesians. It is the way of Hennas not to quote, but to 
take suggestions, and alter to suit his own purposes. 



(5) Mand. III. i. 

AXTj&mi/ dydna, Kal iraa-a d\rjdeia 
fK TOV 0-TOfj.aTos o~ov eK7Topeve(rda&gt;. 



Eph. 4 

XaXerre dXrjdeiav. 
crairpbs en TOV 
eKTTOpevecr6a&gt;. 



29 nds \6yos 
vp,a&gt;v fir/ 



Both the language and the sentiment are too common to 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 107 

afford evidence of borrowing. Cf. Matt. 4 4 cm vavrl prif. 



Eph. 2 20 . 

(irotKo8o/J.T]dfVT(S CTTt TOO 
&gt;V UTTOCTToXaiV KOL TTpO(pr)T&lt;al&gt;. 

4 11 12 aTToaroXovs . . . didaa-KaXovs 

. (IS OlKo8o/J.r]V. 



(6) Sim. IX. iv. 3. 

ovrot ndvTfs (p\T]()ri&lt;jav els TTJV 
oiKo8o/ji.T)v TOV TTvpyov iytvovro ovv 
crrol^oL Tfcrcrapes ev Tols 6(u(\iois TOV 
Trvpyov. XV. 4 ot 8e TpiaKovra nevre 
Trpcxprjrai . . . ot 8e TtcrcrapaKovra 
diro&lt;TTo\oi KOI SiSacrKaXot. 

There may be here a reminiscence of Ephesians, and indeed 
the whole figure of the tower may have been suggested by 
Eph. 2 10 - 22 . 

(7) Sim. IX. xvi. 2, 3. Eph. 2 1 . 

Iva a&gt;oTTOiri0ucni&gt; . . . irp\v yap, &lt;prjcrl, i/pas ovras veKpoiis rols 

0opeVat TOV ("vdpccnrov TO ovofj,a [TOV p.aai. 
vtovj row Qtov, vfxpos fo~Tiv, VS. 



Hebreivs 

(8) Vis. II. iii. 2. 

o-a&gt;Vi (re ro prj aTTOOTJjj ai 
Q(ov U&gt;VTOS. 

Vis. III. vii. 2. 

Ol (Is T(\OS dnOCTTUVTeS TOV 0OV 
TOV a)VTOS. 

(9) Sim. I. i, ii. 

oiSare, (pTjaiv, on fVt (vrjs KOTOI- 
Ketre vuels . , . TI yap TrdXis vfj,&gt;v 
fj.a&lt;pdv (ffTiv OTTO TTJS TrdXecos TOVTTJS 

. . . ; raura ovv 6 (Toifjidfav (Is 

TaVTTJV TT]V TTO\IV OV TTpOffSoKa (TTava- 

ds TT\V I8iav TrdXtr. 



c 

C 

Heb. 3 12 . 

aTro KapSi a irovrjpa aTTto-rt ar 

dirocrrfjvai dno Qtov a&gt;i/ror. 



Heb. ii 13 . 



lo dxov av Kaipov dvaKafj-^ai . . . 
16 f)Toifj.ao-(v yap avTols 7r6\iv. 



14 



I3 ov yap 



Side pevovvav 



Both the ideas and the words in these passages seem to 
indicate dependence. 



(10) Mand. IV. iii. i, 2. 

f/Kovo-a. . . . TTapd, Tiixav 8i8ao-Ka\a&gt;v, 
OTI (Ttpa fjLfTavoia OVK f&lt;m.v d p.f) 
(K(ivT], OT( (Is vda&gt;p KaT(^rjp.(v . . . 
Ka\a&gt;s fjKovaas ourw yap (X (t - 

Sim. IX. xxvi. 6. 

d8vvaroi&gt; yap eVrt crccidijvai TOV fj.e\- 
\ovra vvv dpv(io~6ai TOV Kvpiov. 



Heb. 6 4 ~. 

d8vvaTov yap TOVS anaf- (pa&gt;Tio~6(VTas 
, . TraXti/ dvaKaivi(iv (Is p.(Tdvoiav. 



io8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

The allusion to teachers, showing that the question was 
a subject of discussion, and the want of verbal correspondence, 
make the reference to Hebrews doubtful. 



James 
(n) Mand. IX. i. 

ClpOV OTTO CTfaVTOV TTJV 

Kai /j.rj8ev o\a&gt;s 
aiTTjo~ao~dai 
Trapd TOV Qeov. 2 p-r) 
8taXoyi bu ravra, dXX 
. . . atTov Trap avrov 
ddiffTCLKTcos. 4 e ai&gt; d8i- 
(rrd/KTO)? aiTrjo-rjs. 5 e al/ 
8f Siarrdcrrjs . . . ol yap 
8io~rdovTts els TOV 0edV, 
OVTOI elcriv ol 
*at ov8ev oXcos 



Jas. i 6 " 8 . 

ULTtLTU 8f fV 



Clem. Kom. I. xxiii. 3. 

f) ypafpf) avTrj, OTTOV 
Xeyei TaXainatpoi tlo~tv 
P.TJ yap oifo-0&lt;o 6 av0pa&gt;- 
iros eKelvos OTI Xij^eTai 
Tt Trapa TOV Kvpt ov, dvr)p KapSta in Clem. II. 
aKaTaa-TaTos ei&gt; xi. 2, where it IS 

rats 68ots avTov. quoted as 6 
TIKOS Xdyoy]. 

Did. iv. 4. 

pov farai T) ov. 

Barn. xix. 5. 



avTuv. There are 
several other refer 
ences to Si^uxi a in 
the same passage : 
see also Herm. (39). 

Sim. I. iii. 

a&lt;j)pov Ka\ i\ln&gt;xf KOI 
avdcone. 



Mand. IX. vi. 



Jas. 



ol Se oXoTeXetf OVTCS fv TTJ TTLo~Tfi TO SOK//LHOV vp.a&gt;v TTJS Trio-Teats KaT- 

TrdvTa aiTOVVTai. tpydftTai VTrop,ovrji&gt;. TJ 8e vrronovr) 

epyov TfXeiov ijftrm, "iva r/Te TeXetot 
icai 6Xo KX?pot. 

Mand. IX. i. Jas. i 5 . 

fir)8ev oXcus 8t^vxvo-T)s alTr)o-ao-6ai curti Trapd TOV 8i86vros Qeov 

Trapd TOV Qeov. 2 aiVov Trap* avTov 7r5 &lt; 7ll/ dir\S&gt;s Kal M overf^ 
[4 and 7, Trapa TOV Kvpt ov], 3 OVK 
eoTi yap 6 0e6s &lt;us ot avdpanroi ol 



Sim. IX. xxiv. i, 2. 

Ol TTKTTfVO aVTfS . . . TTaVTOTf dn\ol 

Ka\ SKUKOI, . . . Kal eVc rS&gt;v KOTTWV 
avratv Trairi dvdpana) 
dvovfi8ioTO)f Kal d 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 



109 



Jas. 5". 

y eariv 6 Kvpios nal 



Jas. i 17 . 

Tracra 86(Tis dyadf) Kal irav 8a&gt;pT)(j.a 
Te\eiov avo)6(v fern, Karapaivov dirb 
TOV irarpbg T&gt;V (pa&gt;Ta&gt;v. 3* 7 f) 8e 
avoodtv crcMpia wpSiTov pev tiyvrj fo~Tiv, 



Jas. 3 15 . 

OVK fCTTiv avTT) T) o~o&lt;pia a 
fvrj, dX\ cVt yctor, 



Mand. IX. ii. 

tToO . . . Kal yvaxrrj TTJV TroXusu- 
avTov. 

Mand. IX. xi. 

T] nioTis avtoOfv eo~Ti Trapa TOV 
Kvpt ov. 

Mand. XI. v. 

irdv yap TrvfVfj,a oVo Qeov 8o8ev 
. , . avcodev f&lt;mv. 8 TTpcoTov pev 6 
e%a)V TO 7rvfvfj.a TO avcodev Trpavg 

fOTTl KO.I TJCTV^lOS. 

Mand. IX. xi. 

Trapa TOV 8iaj36Xov. 

Mand. XI. vi. 

TO 8e TrvfvfM . . . AcaTa Tag firidv- 
fiiag . . . (Ttiyfiov CCTTI. xi TTfpt TOV 
TrvfVfWTog TOV tirtytiov. 

In the foregoing passages there is sufficient similarity of 
thought and language to suggest a literary connexion with 
James ; but some of the most striking expressions in James 
are absent from Hermas, and where the language is similar, 
the connexion of thought is sometimes quite different. The 
resemblance, therefore, is not sufficient to prove direct de 
pendence, and may perhaps be explained by the use of a 
common source, such as is actually quoted by Clement in 
regard to the Sfyvxoi. A Trpocp^rt/cos \oyoswas likely to be used 
by Hermas ; e. g. Eldad and Modat, cited below (16). 

(12) Sim. IX. xxiii. 2-4. 

OTTO Tutv (caTaXaXieoj/ eavTiav /xe/za- 
pao~p.fvoi fto~lv ev TTJ Triorei ... at 
KaTaXaXtat . . . Tats KaTaXaXials avTaiv 
. . . et 6 Geos . . . tXew? yivtTai, 
avBpamog . , . dvdp&lt;ana&gt; p.vrjo~iKaK(l cos 
8vvdfj.evos aVoXeVai fj o~&lt;ao~ai OVTOV ; 



Mand. XII. vi. 3. 



TOV TrvTa 
Kal oVoXeVat. 



8vvdfj.fvov 



Jas. 4 11 12 . 

\\rj\O}i&gt;, d8e\(poi. 
6 KaTaXaXoJv d8e\(pov . . . KaTaXaXfi 

VOfJLOV . . . t iS f(TTLV 6 VOfJ,o6fTrjS Kal 

KpiTrjs, 6 8vvd/j.(vos &lt;r&gt;crai Kal aTroXeVaf 
trii 8e TIS ft 6 Kpivow TOV 

Of. Matt. io 28 

TOV 8vvdfjL(vov Kal 
aTroXetrat. 



Here both the identity of expression and the resemblance 
in the context are strongly suggestive of literary dependence. 
It is possible that both writers used a common document ; 
but there is no evidence of this in the present case. 



vp.eis ocroi 

TT)V $X?\|/W TTjV 

1 Tr]V [leyahijv, ^ r ]\ 
KOI oo-oi OVK dpvfjo-ovrai TTJS 

TT)V fft)]* 



no THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

d 

(13) Vis. II. ii. 7. Jas. i 12 . Eev. 7 14 . 

dvfjp OS OI fp^OfJLfVOl fK TTJS 

TTfipao p.ov . . . ffXtyftos rfjs p.eyd\r]s. 

TOV o-Te(pavov Matt. io 22 and 24 1S . 

6 fie v7Top.fivas fls 
reXo?, OVTOS o~&lt;a6T)o~eTai. 

There is some verbal resemblance ; but the words are very 
common, the deviations are strongly marked, and the senti 
ment is quite different. 

(14) Vis. III. ix. 4-6. Jas. 5 1 4 . Lev. ip 13 . 

avTT) ovv rj dcrvv- ol 7rXovo"tot, . . . K\av- ov p.r] KOip.rjdrja f 

Kpao~ia j3Xa/3epa vp.1v o^are oXoXv^oi/Tes eirl Tais p.io~66s TOV p.ia-6 

TO"LS e%ovo-iv nal p.^ Ta\anr&lt;apiais vp,S&gt;v TOLS Trapa trot ecus irpai. 

p.fTa8i8ovo-iv Tols vaT- fTffp\op.fvais ... 6 Deut. 24 15 . 

povfjtfvois. /3Xe :rere TTJV p.io~dbs TOIV epyaTuiv . . . 



Kai at poai 

ot vo Tepovp.fvoi, KOI 6 TU&gt;V 6fpio~dvro)v fls ra 
o~Tvayp.bs avrcav dva- Sra Kvpiov 2aj3ao&gt;^ 



TTpbs TOV Kv- 



piov. 



TTVT]S . . 

crerai Kara aov npbs 
Kvpiov. 

PS. II 6 . 
TOV aTeva.yp.ov T&gt;V 

TTfVTjTOIV. 

Ps. if. 

f] Kpavyf] p.ov . . . 
(io~e\vo-fTai fls TO 3)Ta 
avTov. 

Cf. Enoch xciv. 
7-10. 

With a resemblance of sentiment and expression, the 
differences are considerable, and both may be explained from 
the O. T. 



(15) Mand. II. ii, iii. 

p.rj8fv6s KaraXdXet . . . 
irovrjpa fj KaraXaXid, 
aK.a.Ta(TTa.Tov oaip.6viov. 

V. ii. 7 d/caraoTaret 
ev Trdo-T] TTpd^ei avTov, 

Sim. VI. iii. 4, 5. 

TiuwpovvTat . . . aKa- 
rao-racrta . . . aKarao-ra- 
TovvTfs Tals /SovXais 
avTaiv. 



Jas. 4 11 . 

UTI fcaraXaXeire dX- 

3 8 TTJV fie yKuxro-av 
. . . aicaTao~TaTOV KaKov. 

1 8 aKardo-raros ev 
Trao-ais Tals 68ols UVTOV. 



Prov. 26 28 . 

o~TOp.a fie ao~Ttyov 



2O 18 p.T) dydira Kara- 



Wisd. i 11 . 



See also Ps. 49 20 , 
ioo 6 . 

Isa. 54". 
aKardcrraros ov irapt- 



See also Tobit 4 13 . 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS in 

The sentiment and the words are sufficiently common. 
AKaracrTdTov bai^oviov reminds one of James ; but with the 
change from Ka/coV, the connexion is too slight to be relied on. 

(16) Mand. III. i. Jas. 4". Test, of Twelve 

TO irvevfj-a o 6 Sebs tj SoKtiTe STI Ktvws Patriarchs, Simeon 4 

KaTcoKiaev ev TIJ o~apK.\ fj ypafprj \eyei; Trpbs ex 03 " i^vevp.a Qeov ev 
TavTy ... 6 Kvpioy 6 ev (pdovov eninodd TO irvev- avTu&gt;. Joseph IO K.V- 
cro\ KdToiKaiv. fjLa o KaT&lt;fKio~ev ev fjiuv ; P tos KaToiKrjtrei ev vfj.iv 

Mand. V. ii. 5-7. ; KarOLK " 6 . 

r , , , avTo&gt; KdToiKw. 13enj.6 

OV Kdl TO TTVeVLLd TO /,,,, 

K.vpios yap ev avTca 

aylOV KUTOlKei . . . KdTOl- * n r n ,* f ? 



. . . OV KdTOlKei. 

Sim. V. vi. 5, 7. 

TO irvevpa TO ayiov . . . 
KaTcpKiaev 6 Qeos els 
o-dpKa , . . ev rj KOTO)- 
KT)o~e TO Trvevfjid TO 
aytov . . . ev 77 TO Trvevp-a 
TO ayiov KaTaiKTjo ev. 

Though the parallels in the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs show that the idea of a Divine indwelling, ex 
pressed by the word KaTot/ceu&gt; is not unusual, nevertheless the 
words of Hermas are sufficiently close to those of James to 
indicate some kind of literary connexion ; but as the latter is 
avowedly quoting an unknown scripture, Hermas and he may 
be dependent on a common source, possibly Eldad and 
Modat, which is quoted in Vision II. iii. 4 Eyyus Kupios rols 
fTrttrrpecpo/jie ixHj, &&amp;gt;? yeypaTrrai kv rw EA8a5 Kal Mco8ar. We 
should note that the striking expression in James, -n-pos (p66vov 
(Twrodel, is wanting in Hermas. 

(17) Mand. XII. i. i. Jas. i 26 . Polycarp v. 3. 

p.io"f]o~eis TTJV Trovrjpav fiff xaXwaytoycoi xaXivaycuyovvres eav- 

Kal xa\iva- y\5&gt;o-crdv avTOv. TOVS dnb Travrbs KUKOV. 

3 SvvaTos %a\iva- 
yayyrjo-ai Kal o\ov TO 
cr&fjia. VS. * OTTOU . . . 

8e y\a)o~o~av ov8e\s 8v- 
vaTat . . . Sa/zacrtu. 

The metaphorical use of bridling is not uncommon, but 
the word is of rare occurrence. It is found, however, in 



THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Lucian, applied to ras T&V fjbov&v dpeas, which shows how 
unsafe it is to infer literary connexion from a mere re 
semblance of words and thought. Here, however, we must 
notice the presence of the ideas of willing and taming, which 
occur also in the context of James. 



(i8)Mand. XII. ii. 4. 

T) fTTldv/JLia . . . (f)(V- 

(rai dub trot). 

IV. 7 8id/3oXos JJLOVOV 



Jas. 4 7 . 

Se rm 8ia- 
/3oXo&gt;, KOI &lt;pfvfTai dip 



Tobit 6 18 . 



6rjTe ovv avrov, Kai &lt;pev- 
%Tai deft vfMcov. 

V. 2 fav ovv avTi- 

(TTadfJTf aVTOI, VlKT)6(ls 

&lt;pfvfTai d(p VJJ.03V. 
4 dv6fcrTr]Ka(riv avrm . . . 



P.OVIOV KOI (f&gt;evfTai. 

Test, of Twelve 
Patr., Simeon 3. 

anorpe^fi TO irovrjpbv 
nvfvp.a air avTov. 

Isachar 7. 

irav irvevfia TOV Be- 

Napht. 8. 
i&gt;. 6 &d/3oXoy favfrrai 

Qu) \) LtCOJ . 

i Pet. 5 9 . 

O) dvTl(TTT]Tf (TTfpfO\ Tfl 
TTtCTTft. 

The words and the thought in the above passages are 
sufficiently close to James to justify the conclusion that they 
are probably based on the Epistle. But a doubt is permissible 
because the words are few and in regular use, and the senti 
ment may have been common in Christian circles. 

(19) Sim. I. viii. Jas. i 27 . 

KCU 6p(pavovs e7rio~KfTTTfo~de. enlcrKfTrTfo~6ai. 6p(pavovs 

Hand. VIII. x. " 

VTTTjpfTflv, 6p&lt;pavovs Kai 



Vis. III. ix. 2. 
dXXijXows. 

The verbal resemblance in the first passage is striking; 
but eTrio-KeWeo-flai is a common word in this kind of con 
nexion, being very frequent in the LXX, and the union of 
orphans and widows as specially entitled to kindness is met 
with several times in the O. T. (see in the LXX Exod. 
32 22 ; Deut. io 18 ; Job 22 9 ; Ps. 93 6 , I45 9 ; Isa. i 17 , 9 17 ; Jer. 7 6 , 
22 3 ; Ezek. 23 7 ; Zech. 7 10 ). Moreover, the parallel passages in 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 113 

Hermas deviate much more widely from James. It is therefore 
impossible to feel confident that there is dependence. 

(20) Sim. II. v. Jas. 2 5 . 

6 fj.fi&gt; ir\ov&lt;rios e^ei xpynaTa TroXXd, 6 Qeos efXearo row TTTa^ov? . . . 

ra 8e irpbs TOV Kvptov Trrw^evet . . . n\ov&lt;riovs ev irivrfi. 
6 TTfvrjs riKovcrios ccmv ev TTJ eVrev^et, g 16 TroXti lo~\vti fierjcrt? SIKCU OV 

/cat bvvajuv fj.eyd\r)v l^ei f] evTtvis fvfpyovpfvr). 
avTOv jrapa ra&gt; 0e&lt;5. 

The idea of the poor man as richer in spiritual life is 
common to the two works ; but this is suggested also by 
Luke 6 20 , i a 21 , i6 19 ~ 31 ; 2 Cor. 6 10 , 8 9 . The idea of the power 
of prayer is differently connected and applied ; and there is 
no verbal resemblance that can suggest literary dependence. 

(21) Sim. VIII. vi. 4. Jas. 5 2 . 

&v ai pdftSoi r)pai Kai peftpancvai 6 TT\OVTOS vp.5)V cre&lt;rr)iTe, KOI ra 

VTTO crjjTos fvpf0Tjcrav,oiiToi flcriv ol dm- lp.dria vp.S&gt;v (TrjTo^putra yeyovev. 
(Trdrai . . . /cat /3\a(r(pr)iJ.r)cravT(S fv 2 7 OVK avrot (sc. 01 TrXoucriot) 

rats afj.apTiats avraiv TOV Hvpiov, en ^\a(r(f)r)fiov(Ti TO KO\OV ovopa TO tTTi- 

8e KOI fTraicr-xyvdivTfs TO ovofj.a Kvpiov K\r]8ev e(p vfj.as ; 

TO fTriK\r]6ev eV avTovs. See also i Pet. 4 18 (31). 

(22) The following passages may also be compared; but 
it is not necessary to present them, as the language which 
is used in common by the two writers is not sufficiently 
characteristic to require remark. The context is quite different, 
and the use of the same words or figures may be explained 
from the O. T., or from general literary usage. 

Vis. Li. 8, ii. i. Cf.Mand.IV.i.2. Jas. i 14 &gt; 15 . 

Mand. II. iv. Sim. II. vii. i 5 * 1T . 

Mand. XII. vi. 5. i 27 , 4 8 . 

Sim. VI. i. i. i 21 . 

Sim. VI. i. 2. Vis. IV. i. 8. 2 1 - *. 

Sim. VI. i. 6, ii. 4. 5 5 . 

Sim. VIII. ix. i. 2 14 . 

Sim. IX. xix. 2. 3 . ". 18 , 2 14 &gt; 17 20 . 

Sim. IX. xxi (especially 3). i" 18 , 2 7 . 

Sim. IX. xxvi. 7. 3 8 . 

Although the passages which point to dependence on James 
fail to reach, when taken one by one, a high degree of proba 
bility, yet collectively they present a fairly strong case, but 
we should be hardly justified in placing the Epistle higher 
than Class C. 



ii4 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Acts 
(23) Vis. IV. ii. 4. 

7Tt TOV Q(OV . . . TTpOS 

TOV Kvpiov, nicrTfvo~ag 

OTl 8l OvSfVOS 8vVT) 

6r)vai el p.r) 8ia 
fifyaXov KOI ev 

OVOfJLOTOS. 



0~U&gt;- 

TOV 



D 
d 

Acts 4 ia . 

ovbe yap ovofid eVrti* 
fTepov VTTO TOV ovpavov 
TO debofjifvov tv dvdpat- 
irois, tv w 8el cru&gt;6i]vai 



Isa. 24". 
TO oi/o/xa Kvpiov ev 

43 11 OVK fOTlV 
ffJ.OV (Ta&gt;a&gt;l&gt;. 



O Qeos, tv TO) ovApari 
&lt;rov crwow p.f. 

II 2 SSxrov fj.e, Kvptf. 

1 9 2 virfpacnri(rai crov 
TO ovop.a TOV Qfov. 

See also Ps. 32", 
78 9 , io5 8 , i23 8 , &c. 

It seems doubtful whether the Lord and the name refer 
to God or to Christ. In III. i. 9 and ii. i, where suffering 
for the sake of the name (in v. 2 the name of the Lord ) is 
alluded to, the name is most naturally understood as that of 
Christ. But in III. iv. 3 the name of God is expressly 
mentioned ; and in IV. i. 3 his great and glorious name 
seems most probably to refer to God. The same may be said 
of the almighty and glorious name in III. iii. 5. In 
III. vii. 3 Kvpios seems to be used of Christ. This ambiguity 
qualifies the first impression of resemblance. In any case the 
usage of the 0. T. may furnish a sufficient basis for the 
passage ; and even the negative form of the sentence, which 
particularly reminds us of Acts, has a parallel in Isa. 43". 
The context is totally different from that in Acts. 



(24) Mand. IV. iii. 4. 

K.ap$ioyvG&gt;&lt;TTr)s yap &&amp;gt;v 6 Kvpios. 



Acts i 24 . 

Kvpif, Kap8ioyv&lt;ao-Ta Tra 
I5 8 o Kapdioyvwo-Trjs 0edy 



The only appearance of dependence here is in the use of an 
uncommon word. But even if that word originated with the 
author of Acts, it may have passed into Christian use, so as 
to be familiar to many who had not read Acts. If we suppose 
a direct connexion, there is nothing to show on which side 
the priority lies. 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 



Rom. 8 2 . ". 



avTo TO irvfvpd 

dvfi virep aytav. 



Romans 

(25) Mand. X. ii. 5. 

prf dXIfie TO irvtvpa TO aytov TO tv 
troi KdTOiKovv, p.r)TroTt fVTtvr]Tdi [KQTCI 

J i i 

i Thessalonians 

(26) Vis. III. ix. 10. i Thess. 5 13 f- 

iraidfutTf ovv d\\r)\ovs KOI flprj- (IprjvfvfTf tv tdvrols ndpaKaXovp.tv 

VfvtTf tv aurotj. 8e vp.as, d8t\&lt;poi, vovOfTfcre TOVS 

drdKTOvs , . . 

These passages use the same phrase in rather similar 
contexts dealing with mutual exhortation. 



i Peter d 

(27) Vis. III. iii. 5. i Pet. 3 2 . n . 

f] fcojj vfj.a&gt;v 8ia vddTos (o~a&gt;6r) &lt;a\ tv f][i.tpais Naif, *tc 

81 vddTOS . . . crcofet /3a7rrj(r/Lia. 

The context is quite different, the reference to Noah and 
the ark being absent from Hermas. The idea of salvation 
through water springs directly from the practice of baptism, 
and would readily suggest the figure of founding the tower 



(2 8) Vis. IILxi. 3. 

OVK tiTfpi\lraT( tavTtoV 



i Pet. 5 7 . 



ira&lt;rav TI)J fj.tpip.vav 



Ps. 54" 

vplOV TT)V 



Tag p.(pip.vas firi TOV vp.&gt;v firipfyavres fjr p.pip.vdv (rov, /cat avros 



~K.vpt.ov. 

IV. ii. 4 

. . . OTl TT]V IMfptfJiVdV tTOU 

eVl TOV Qfbv 



dvrov [rbv Qfovj, OTI 
vTCf p.t\ei irepl vp.uv. 



5 firtpa-Tt TCIS 
as vp.a&gt;v tVt TOV 

KvplOV, Kdl dVTOS KdTOp- 
GoXTfl. dVTHS. 

The quotation seems taken independently from the Psalm ; 
for, though the latter part differs from the LXX, it differs 
more widely from Peter. The huge beast, introduced as a 
type of the great tribulation, might be suggested by the 
* roaring lion of Peter ; but the figure, as used by Hermas, is 
too obvious to require such an explanation. 

I a 



n6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



(29) Vis. IV. iii. 4. 

axTTTfp yap TO xpvcriov 8oKi/j.d^fTai 
8ta TOV Trvpos, . . . OVTWS Koi vp.ds 



i Pet. i 7 . 



TTJS TriO~Tf(O 

TOV 



8ia 



8e 



The words are not sufficiently close, and the comparison is 
far too obvious and common, to prove literary dependence. 



(30) Sim. IX. xii. 2,3. 

6 p.(v vlos TOV Qeov 
irdo~r)s TTJS KTicrtcos avrov 



to~Tiv 
TO&gt;V 



TTS 
(pavepos eyevfTO. 

* Not used in N. T. 



i Pet. i 20 

Xpicrrou 
vov p.fi&gt; rrpo 



8e 



Heb. i 2 . 

eV eV^arou [al. f&lt;T\d- 
&gt;! ] T&V fjfj.fpiav. 

i John 3 5 . 



Also 3 8 . 

I 2 f) a&gt;r) e&lt;pavfp&lt;a6ij. 

Col. i 15 . 

TTpCOTOTOKOS ndo~T]S KTl- 
(TfCDS. 



The antithesis which is here expressed reminds one of the 
Epistle ; but the thought is somewhat different, and the 
phraseology, as the parallels show, is not necessarily con 
nected with Peter. If we suppose that there is a literary 
connexion, we may observe that the doctrine is rather more 
developed in Hermas, and so may indicate that the de 
pendence is on that side. 



(3i) Sim. IX. xiv. 6. i Pet. 4 

OVK 7T(llO~yWOVTal TO 1 OflOl&lt; 

ovopa avTov (popdv. paTi Xpioroti . . . 

aAcoiKTwcri, . . . TO ovofM Xpiortafos, U.T) at 

(Trat(rxvvovTaiTovK.vpiov Vfo~6a&gt; } So^afeVo) Se 

avTcoj/. XXviii. 5&gt; ^ Qfbv ev TO&gt; ovopaTi 

ol Trd(T)(ovTfs fvfK.fi&gt; TOV TO). 

\(Te TOV Qeov, OTI d-iovs 
vp.as fjyTjvaro 6 Qebs Iva 
TOVTO TO ovn[j.a jSaora- 

Ktv TOV ovofj.aTos Kvpiou. 

VIII. VI. 4 eVat- 

cr\vvdevTfs TO ovop.a 

KvplOU TO fTTlK\T)0eV fV 

avTovs. See (2l). 



vo- 
ira- 



TOV 
TOV- 



Polycarp viii. 2. 

tav Trdo-^co/ifi 8ia TO 
ovofjud avTov, 8odo)fi.fv 
avTov. TOVTOV yap fjpiv 

81 (avTov. 

MarkS 38 ; Luke 9 2 . 

6s yap av (n 



Of. Acts 5": see 
(46). 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 117 

The probability that there is here a reminiscence of I Peter 
is confirmed by the parallel from Polycarp ; for the latter has 
just quoted i Peter, and that he still has the Epistle in mind 
is indicated by the last clause : see I Pet. 2 21 . But the 
citation is not sufficiently close to make us feel confident 
that there is direct literary dependence. 

(32) Sim. IX. xxix. i Pet. 2 . 2 . Matt. i8 3 . 

*s 3- dnodf/jifvoi ovv nacrav yevi]cr6f a&gt;s ra Traidia. 

a&gt;s vrjTria j3pf&lt;f&gt;r/ eicr/v, Kanlav . . . a&gt;s dpnyev vr/ra j QQJ- IA* 

ots ov8eu.ta KOKia dva- 8pf(bn. . , ,.. 

Q , , \ , ., Tri Kama vniriaCtTf. 

paivfi an TTJV Kapoiav . . . 

O&lt;7Ol OVV, KT\. 

The comparison is too obvious to require borrowing ; and 
if Hermas uses the (3pe&lt;pr) of i Peter, he fails to use the more 
striking d 



On the whole, then, the evidence seems to place i Peter on 
the border line between C and D. 



GOSPELS. 

Dr. C. Taylor has elaborated a striking argument in support 
of the thesis that Hermas based the Church upon four 
Gospels 1 . It is impossible to do justice to this in a meagre 
summary, and the reader ought to consult the work for 
himself. The important passages are the following : 

Vis. III. xiii. 3 on em av^fXLov eZSes Kadrffj^vrfv, la-^vpa fj 
fle cris on recrcrapas Tro Sas ex et T0 0"Vfi^Xto Kdl ltr\vp&S ecrrrj/cez/ 
Kai yap 6 KoV/^tos 8ta Tfa-trdpcav crrot^etcoi KpareTrat. 

Sim. IX. iv. 3 eyeVovro ovv trroixoi reVcrapes tv TOLS 0(fi\tois 
TOV irvpyov. XV. 4 01 /ixey Trpairoi [Xi^ot], &lt;pTj&lt;nX 01 Sexa ol eis TO 
^e/xeAia re^eip-e^ot, Trpcor/j yei ea* ol ei/coo-t ireWe 8eurepa yevea 
&vbpu&gt;v 8t/catcoy* ot 8e rptaKozrra Trevre TrpotyrJTaL TOV 0eou KCU 
8ia/coyoi airou* 01 8e reo-crapa/coira aTro crroAoi cat 8t8cicrKaAoi TOW 
KTjpvy/xaros TOU ulou rou 0eo5. 

Dr. Taylor finds the key to this allusion to the four 
elements in the well-known passage of Irenaeus 2 , in which 

1 The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels, 1892. 
a III. xi. 8, 9 Stieren ; n, 12 Harvey. 



u8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

he tries to prove that there must be neither more nor fewer 
than four Gospels. He connects the four a-Tolyoi in the 
foundation of the tower with the oroixeta. The four genera 
tions have their parallel in the four covenants of Irenaeus. 
The numbers of the stones in the four rows are 10, 25, 35, 
and 40 respectively, of which the decades are expressed in 
Greek by the initials of John, Cephas, Luke, and Matthew. 
St. Peter was the traditional authority for St. Mark s Gospel. 
The bench, with its four feet, represents the four Gospels 
united in the one Gospel. 

The argument is certainly plausible, and if we knew that 
Hermas had four and only four Gospels, the explanation of 
his imagery would be probable. But on the hypothesis that 
the Church had not yet definitely selected the Four Canonical 
Gospels, it may be that Hermas had other reasons for his use 
of the number four, and that nevertheless his use of that 
number may have helped to guide the decision of the Church, 
and to furnish Irenaeus with arguments. It is curious that 
Irenaeus, though referring to four regions of the world and 
four catholic winds, makes no mention of elements even when 
he speaks of the world as compounded and fitted together. 
Moreover, the mere correspondence of numbers is not to be 
depended upon. Thus twelve mountains represent the twelve 
tribes or nations of the world. The twelve virgins at the 
gates of the tower, of whom four were more glorious than 
the rest, do not stand for Apostles and Evangelists, but for 
the virtues, of which the first four are faith, temperance, 
power, and long-suffering. Dr. Taylor, however, makes them 
represent the Holy Spirit as distributed to the twelve 
Apostles. While we fully recognize the value of Dr. Taylor s 
interpretations, we cannot place much confidence in them as 
an independent proof of the use of our four Gospels by 
Hermas. 

Dr. Taylor supports his principal argument by pointing out 
several apparent allusions to special features in our Gospels ; 
but here again, though the references are probable on the 
assumption that Hermas had our Gospels, they are not of 
a kind to prove that he had them to any one who is disposed 
to deny their currency at that time. 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 119 

(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 
C 

Matthew C 

(33) Mand. XII. i. 2. Matt 22 11 . 

TOVS JJ.T) exovras evSu/m TT)S fniQv- ei8ev e /m ai&gt;6panrov OVK fv 

plus TIJS dyadrjs. fvdvfia ydfjiov. 

Sim. IX. xiii. 2. 12 s 

j&gt; n &gt; * c /j- &gt; 13 e *c/3aXcT6 

avapwTTOs ov ovvarai fvpfuqvcu et? 

r^ )3u(rtXeiaj/ rou 8eov, eav /ujj avrai 
[at napOfvoi = a-yta Trvevfjiara, or 
dwa/ieiy TOW vtoi) TOV Geov] avrov 
evSixTfoai TO fv8vna avroiv. 

This might have been suggested by the parable of the 
marriage feast ; but the resemblance is not very close. 

(34) Sim. III. iii. Matt. i 3 80 . 

eV T&lt;5 alu&gt;vi TOVTCO ov &lt;f)aivovTai afpfTf crvvav^dvfO dai a[j.(f)oTpa 

ovre 01 diKatoi ovTf ol dpapTcoXoi, ^XP 1 TO ^ 6fp"rpov . . . crvXXe crre 

dXXa ndvrft o/zoiot daw. Trpwroi/ Ta idvia . . . vlrov avva- 

IV. 2 6 yap alcw 6 epxopfvos ydytrt. 
Btpos fffrl rots Si/catW, rots fie djuap- I0 nvpl KaraKaifrai. 

4 a&gt;s ^i)Xa /caTOKau- 58 6 8f dypos eanv 6 



V. V. 2 6 dypos 6 Kocrp.os OVTOS 

fOTlV. 

This might certainly have been suggested by the parable 
of the tares, the general idea being similar, and the last-quoted 
words being almost identical. It is the custom of Hermas to 
transform ideas of which he avails himself, and adapt them 
to his own composition. 

(35) Sim. V. vi. 4. Matt. 2 8 18 . 

fov(riav iraarav Xa/3&lt;ui&gt; Trapa TOV eftodr) /JLOI Trdtra fov&lt;ria. 

Trarpos avTov. II 27 irdvra fj.oi napfdodr) vnb TOV 

irarpos p.ov. 

The words are sufficiently related to suggest dependence, 
but are too few to admit of a confident inference. 

d 

(36) Vis. III. ix. 8. Matt. 5 35 . 

7rapa TOW /3aatXea)s TOV /xeyaXou. TOV p.eyd\ov jSao^iXews. 

The expression is a fairly common one (see Ps. 46 3 , 47 3 , 
94 3 ; also Tobit I3 15 ), and the context is quite different. 



120 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(37) Mand. XI. xvi. Matt. 7 15 - 16 . 

8oKL[j.a^f ovv O.TTO T&V fpymv KOI ro&gt;v ^/fv8onpo(pr)Tcav . . . OTTO T&gt;V 

TTJS fwJJs TOV avdpamov TOV \eyovra Kapnfov avT&v fTriyvo)&lt;Tfo~df avTovs. 
tavTov KVfVfLOTOCpopov eivai. 

The resemblance here is solely in the sentiment, and that 
is not sufficiently characteristic to be of weight apart from 
verbal coincidence. 

Mark C 

(38) Mand. IV. ii. i. Mark 6 62 . 

ov (TWIG) ovbev, KOI TJ Kapdia p.ov ovyap crvvfjKav . . . d\X r\v 17 Kapdui 

irfrra&gt;p(OTai. avT&v Kna&gt;pa&gt;p.evr] [see also 8 17 ]. 

The combination of words is confined to Mark, where it 
occurs twice, and the verbal agreement is sufficient to suggest 
dependence. It is as if Hermas said, I am like those men 
who are reproached in the Gospel. Nevertheless, we cannot, 
on the strength of this single passage, assign a very high 
degree of probability to the use of Mark by Hermas. See 
also (43) and the references in (46), which exclude Matthew, 
as that Gospel does not use eT 



Luke D 

(39) Mand. IX. viii. Luke iS 1 . 

(TV ovv fj.T] 8id\inT)s alrov/jievos . . . irpbs TO 8elv TravroTf 

(av 8e eKKa.Krjo~r)s. avrovs Kai fj.r] tyKaKfiv fal. CK-Ji 

This connexion of ideas is confined to Luke in the N. T., 
and the expression is sufficiently close to suggest dependence. 
The last word is used by Paul, 2, Cor. 4 1 . 16 ; Gal. 6 9 ; Eph. 3 13 ; 
2 Thess. 3 13 , but not in reference to prayer, as it is in 2 Clem. 
ii. 2. See also (u). 

(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 

(40) Vis. III. vi. 5. Matt. is 20 - 21 . 

fJ.tv frump, e^owes 8f KOI 6 TOV \dyov aKovutv Kai tvdvs (KTO. 

TOV alatvos TOVTOV. OTUV ^apaj Xa/x/Saz/wi OVTOV . . . yevo^Levr/t 

i^u, Sia TOV TT\OVTOV avTuv df Ohfyeus . . . o-Kav8aXifTai. 
Kai Sia Tas irpay^areLas airapvovvTat, Mark 4 18 19 

TOV K.vpiov aiiTotv. , , \ , , , , 

m 01 (is TOS aKavoas crnetpofifvoi . . . 

Oim. 1A. XX. 1,2. a [ fj.fpifj.vai TOV alwvos Kai 17 dndTT) TOV 

ol p.V Tpi@o\oi daw ol TrXovcrtot, TT\OVTOV /cat al Trepl TCI XotTra li 
at df aKavdai ol ev Tals TrpaypaTtlais . . . o~vfjinviyovo-iv TOV \6yov. 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 121 



rals TTOiKiXair e /i7re&lt;up/xeVoi . . . irviyo- Luke 8 14 . 

/ifvot VJTO T&V irpagtvv avrS&gt;v. ^^ ^^yo^ai. 

See also xxi. 3. 

The resemblance here may very well indicate acquaintance 
with the parable of the sower, though it is impossible to 
connect this acquaintance with a particular Gospel. 

(41) Vis. IV. ii. 6. Matt. 26 24 ; Marki4 21 . i Clem. xlvi. 8. 

oval TO"IS . . . irapaKov- KaXbv rjv avrw, fl OVK el-rrfv yap Oval reo 

(raotiv alpfTtaTfpov TJV tytwr^drj 6 avOpatiros avBpunra) fKeivio KO\OV 
avTols TO p.r] yevvrjSfjvai. fKflvos. ?" a^TcS fl OVK fyevvrjOrj. 

This might certainly be borrowed from the Synoptic 
saying, the change being no greater than we may expect 
when there is no express quotation. The quotation in 
Clement (56) proves that the saying was known in Rome, but 
does not attach it to a particular Gospel. 

(42) Mand. IV. i. i. Matt. 5 28 . 

P.T) dvafiaivrno o~ov eVJ Tt]v KapSiav was 6 /3XVa&gt;i&gt; yvvaiKa Trpos TO finBv- 

Trepl yvvaiKos dXXorpias. /^^crat avr^j fj8rj ipoixtvcrtv UVTTJV tv 

TTJ Kapbia CIVTOV. 

Mand. IV. i. 6. Matt. 19" ; Mark 10". 

fav 8e aTroXvtra? rr\v yvvatKa eTfpav os av ano\\i&lt;rT) TTJV yvvatKa OVTOV, fl 

yap.r](TTi, KOI O.VTOS /xot^arat. p.i] eVl nopveia [Mk. om. J, KCU yap-Tjcrj) 

aXXrjv, fj.oixa.Tai [Mk. add. eV aurTjv]. 

The first of these passages is similar in sentiment, though 
not in words, to Matthew. The second resembles the Gospels 
both in thought and language. It goes beyond i Cor. 7 10 &gt; n , 
and, with Mark, omits the qualification in Matthew. Paul s 
reference shows there was a Christian doctrine on the 
subject apart from a written Gospel ; but the words here are 
so much closer to the Gospels than are Paul s that we may 
reasonably infer some kind of literary dependence. At all 
events, the passages indicate acquaintance with the Synoptic 
tradition. 

(43) Sim. IX. xx. 2. Matt. iQ 28 . 

ot 7r\ov(Tioi . . . 8v(TKO\a&gt;s fl&eXev- SwKoXwf irXovo-tos [Tisch. ir\. 

els TT)V ftacriXtiav TOU Qtov. fiucr.J elff\fvo-fTai els TTJV fiacri\tiai&gt; 

TO&gt;V ovpava&gt;v. Mark I O 23 TTWJ Suovco- 
Xcoy 01 TO. ^pijjuara e^ovTes fls TTJV /3ao"t- 
\ffav TOV Qfov elo~(\(vo~ovTat. Luke 

1 8 24 nearly the same as Mark. 
We can hardly doubt that this is a quotation. 



122 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Matt. 2 1 33 ; Mark 12 ; Luke 20 . 

[Mk. f v 7rapo/3oXats l 
[Mk. 4fiir. 



(44) Sim. V. ii. i. 

TTJV Trapa/Bo\r)v. 2 f(pvTfvcrev a/i7re- 
Xcoi/a . . . $ov\ov . . . TrapeKaXeVaro 
avTov . . . erj\0e 8e 6 dea TTOTrjs . . . 
fls TTJV dnoo T]fJiiav. g /iera xpovov rj\6fv Matt. 25 U . 

o 8to-7rdTTjs TOV SovXou. Y ^^X^* avTov eicdhecrfv . . . 8ov\ovs [Lk. ip 13 ]. 

O"vyK\r)pov6fjiOi&gt; rw utw /xov Trot^crat. 19 /iera 8e TroXui %p6vov ep^tTai 

6 Kvpios ran/ SovXcoi/. 

Mark i2 7 ; Luke 20". 

6 K\TJpOVOfJ.OS [6 Dlds]. 

This may possibly have been suggested by the Gospels ; 
and the whole parable seems framed on the model of the 
evangelical parables. 



(45) Sim. IX. xxix. i, 2, 3. 

o&gt;s vrjTTia @pe(pri . . . ol TOIOVTOI . . . 
K.aroutT](rov&lt;riv ev rfj /3aa"iXei a TOV 
Qfov . . . TrdvTa yap ra PpefpT] ev$od 
fcrri irapa r&lt;5 Gew Kal irpS&gt;ra Trap 



Matt. i8 3 . 

eav p-rj . . . yevrjade cos TO. TratS/a, 
oil ptij io-e\6r]Te fls TTJV /SacriXetaj/ T&gt;V 

9 ** 10 e 1 \ ~ 

ovpavatv. 01 ayyt\ot OVTCOV . . . 

jSXeVotKrt ro Trpovanrov TOV Trarpdy 
/iiov. 4 6 p-fifav ev TTJ ^acriXei a T&V 

See also xxxi. 3 felices vos ovpav&v. 19"; Mark io u T&gt;V yap 

iudicio Omnes . . . quicumque TOIOVTUV eo-T\v f) jSacrtXeta TOJV ovpav&gt;v 

estis innocentes sicut infantes, [Mark TOV GeoC]. Cf. Matt. 2O 27 
quoniam pars vestra bona est npS&gt;Tos. 
et honorata apud Deum. 

It is not improbable that this is derived from some such 
saying as we find in the Gospels. 
(46) Sim. VIII. vi. 4. Mark 8 s8 ; Luke p 26 . 

fnaicrxwOevTfs TO ovofia Kvpiov, 6s yap ai&gt; Trai&lt;r^vv6^ pe KOI TOVS 

Sim. IX. xiv. 6. ep-ovs \6yovs. 



on OVK enaia-xvvovTat, TO ovonaavTQv 
(popflv. 

Sim. IX. xxi. 3. 

TO ovop.a fTraKT^vvovrai TOV Kvpiov. 



Comp. (31)- 



(Ill) The Fourth Gospel. 
D 

John d 

(47) Vis. II. ii. 8. John ii 25 , i 4 6 . 

TOVS dpi/rjo-apevovs TOV Eyeo ei/u ... 17 &lt;t&gt;rj. 
Kvpiov avTati 
pio-0ai dnb TTJS 



Col. 3 4 . 



Matt. io 33 . 

ocrrts 8 av dpvrjcrrjTai 
d&gt;- 



OVTOV 
Kay&lt;a. Also Luke I 2 9 , 

somewhat varied. 



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 123 

The only connexion is in the word o&gt;?7, and it is by no 
means certain that it refers to Christ in Hermas ; in any case, 
the verse in Colossians is sufficient to show that the expres 
sion need not be borrowed from John. The sentiment of the 
passage is closer to the Synoptics. 

(48) Sim. V. vi. 3. John io 18 . 

8ovs avTols TUV vop.ov ov ?Xa/3e Trapa ravrrjv rrjv tvro\ffi&gt; eXaftov Trapa 

TOV TraTpbs avTov. TOV Trarpos p.ov. Cf. I2 49 , I4 31 , I5 10 . 

The identity of expression may be accidental, for it is 
sufficiently explained by the context. 

(49) Sim. IX. xii. i. John io 7 . 9 . 

17 TTV\T) 6 vlbs TOV Qtov tort. 5 eyo&gt; et/u f/ 6vpa. VS. ll dm TOVTO 

fls TTJV /3a&lt;riX(tov TOV Qeov aXXws 1 p.e 6 TraTrjp d-yarra. 

tl(Tf\6t1v ov 8vvaTai avdpamos ft p.r) 1 4* ovdels ep\tTai irpos TOV traTepa, 

8ia TOV ovofiaTos TOV vlov OVTOV TOV el p,f) fit e /xoO. 
T]yaTrT)/j.vov VTT avTov. 6 fj 8e irv\r] 
o vibs TOV Qeov ecrriV avrr) p.ia eiVoSds 
eort Trpbs TOV Kvpiov. aXXws ovv ov8f\s 
eureXeucreTat Trpbs avrbv ft p.fj fita TOU 
vlov avTov. 

The figure of a gate admitting to the tower which repre 
sents the Church is a natural one, and need not be borrowed. 
Nevertheless, the passage has a Johannine colouring ; but 
whether this is sufficient to prove a literary connexion may 
be reasonably questioned. Such sentiments must have spread 
among Christians apart from direct literary influence. 

(50) Sim. IX. xv. 3. John 3 3 ~ 5 . 

ravra TO. ovo/uara [of various ov SvvaTai idciv T^V /3a&lt;rtXcuu TOV 

Vices] 6 (pop&gt;v TOV Qtov 8ov\os TIJV Qtov . . . ov Svvarai (lcre\6eiv (if TTJV 
I3ao~i\ttav fj.fv o\lsfTai TOV Qeov, fls jSacriXftav TOV Qeov. 



The two expressions remind one of the passage in John ; 
but in the latter they are synonymous, whereas in Hermas 
they are contrasted. The idea of entering into the kingdom 
of God is too common to be an indication of any particular 
passage ; and the idea of seeing it, though not so frequently 
expressed, occurs in Mark 9 1 , with the parallel in Luke 9 27 , 
and the notion of seeing it without entering it is suggested by 
Matthew a6 64 , with the parallel in Mark I4 62 , where the word 
is used. See also Luke 2i 27 . 



II CLEMENT 

INTRODUCTION. 

PHOTIUS (Biblioth. Cod. 126) says of 2 Clement, prjra TWO. ws 
onto TT/S Ofias ypatyrjs tvi(jovTa Trapetcrdyei, 5&gt;v ov5 f] Trpwr?] d-TnjA- 
Aa/cro irai/TeAcS?. A case of such alien scripture quotation 
common to i and 2 Clement is that found most fully in 
2 Clem. xi. 2-4 (i Clem, xxiii. 3 f.) Ae yet yap KOI 6 TrpocpryriKos 
Aoyos, TaAa^Trwpoi eitny ol btyvxoi, /crA. The prophetic dis 
course in question may or may not be Eldad and Modat : 
but at any rate it shows that our homilist s quotations of 
divinely authoritative words are not controlled by any strict 
canonical idea, even in relation to O. T. writings. Yet we 
must beware of mistaking free citations for verbal quotations 
from unknown Gospels. For what follows the words Aeyet i] 
ypcKpr; ev r&lt; Iee/a?jA, in vi. 8, is in fact a free paraphrase ; and 
he is apt to use &lt;rj&lt;nV with words which merely give the 
effect of a passage (e. g. xii. 6 with allusion to xii. 2 ; cf. vii. 6 
where words of Isa. 66 24 are adapted). In v. 2, however, he 
certainly cites a non-canonical Gospel with Aeyet 6 Kuptos, as 
also in viii. 5, with the addition ei&gt; rw evayyeAtw. 

In xiv. 2 our author appeals, for teaching about the Church, 
to The Books (ra /3t/3Aia + prophetarum, Syriac) and the 
Apostles. Thus, on the one hand, he co-ordinates the apostolic 
writings with the O. T. as to authority ; but, on the other, he 
does not include them under the same term, the Books, i. e. 
his Bible. Whether, again, he reckons Gospel narratives 
under the Apostles must be held doubtful, in view of his 
free use of at least one apocryphal Gospel, possibly that 
According to (the) Egyptians which he can hardly have 
believed Apostolic in origin (assuming that he cites it at 
all). This suggests that he thought only of the sayings of the 
Lord in such narratives as the authoritative element ; just as he 
refers (xiii. 3) to the Oracles of God on the lips of Christians, 
and cites the substance of words found in Luke 6 32 35 , as 
embodying a divine oracle (Aeyet 6 0eos). Here God is con- 



II CLEMENT 125 

ceived as speaking in Christ, who elsewhere is Himself cited 
as the authority behind the Gospel, e. g. For the Lord saith 
in the Gospel (viii. 5)? where an Evangelic source distinct 
from any of our Gospels seems to be cited. All this prevents 
any very strict inference from the fact that words found in 
Matt. 9 13 , Mark 2 17 (cf. Luke 5 32 ) are cited (ii. 4), after an 
O. T. passage, with /cat erepa Se ypa&lt;/&gt;r) Ae ya. Thus the book 
in question is a scripture primarily because of what it 
embodies, viz. part of the Gospel spoken by the Lord ; and 
elsewhere he can quote with equal deference matter certainly 
not found in any of our Gospels. Indeed, all the facts would 
be fairly satisfied by the hypothesis that our homilist quotes 
throughout from a single Evangelic source, if we were at 
liberty to imagine it a sort of combined recension of two or 
more of our Synoptists, embodying such additions as made it 
correspond more completely to the notion of Christ s Gospel 
prevalent in the non- Jewish part of the Alexandrine Church. 
In that case it would be an earlier local type of harmony l 
than Tatian s Diatessaron, which so largely superseded our 
Gospels, even at a later date, among Syriac-speaking Christians. 
As regards the N.T. Epistles, the phrase The Books and the 
Apostles prepares us to find pretty free use of them, even 
though they are not formally quoted. 

EPISTLES. 

C 

Hebrews c 

(1) 2 Clem. xi. 6. Heb. io 23 . 

tncrrbs yap eoriv 6 f7rayyei\afjLfvos. Trtoros yap 6 eVayyeiAa/Lifi Of. 

The context of the two passages is similar, referring to the 
need of hope in the presence of grounds for doubt. 

d 

(2) 2 Clem. i. 6. Heb. 12*. 

a7To6(fj.(loi fKflvo t irfpiKfl/j.(da TOVOVTOV t\ovrfs TrfpiKtlnevov fjiJ.lv 

vtCpos rfj avTov 6i\T)&lt;j-ei. vecpos papTvpuv, oyKov airoOf 



1 On such a view we should of course have to treat the phenomena pointing 
to Clement s use of any of our Synoptists as evidence of indirect or second 
hand use so pushing back the origin of such a Gospel to a period prior 
to that of the immediate source. 



126 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

Although the thought of these two passages is so different, 
it seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to resist 
the conclusion that the language of 2 Clement is unconsciously 
influenced by that of Hebrews. 

The following points of similarity may be added, though they 
cannot be classed, 
(a) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. Heb. i3 18 . 

TTpoo-fvxr] . . . fK KaXfjs o-vvfidfj- 7rpo&lt;rtvxe(r8f TTfpl T]fj.S&gt;v TTfi66fjL(0u 

ata&gt;s. yap on xa\r)v &lt;nnni&r)O iv f%ofj,fv. 

The expression KaAr) arvve 187/0-19 does not occur elsewhere in 
N.T. 

(6) xx. 2 has a general similarity with Heb. io 32 - 39 ; and the 
expression Qeov &VTOS occurs in 2 Clem. xx. 2, and Heb. io 31 
(cf. ?*). 

i Corinthians d 

(3) 2 Clem. ix. 3. i Cor. 6 19 . 

Set ovv f)p.ds u&gt;s vaov Qeov (f&gt;v\do - TI OVK oiSare ort ro cra&gt;p.a vfj,S&gt;v vaos 

(rav rf)v crdpKa. TOV tv vp.lv A.yiov ILvevfj.a.T6s tariv, 

ov fX erf 7r Qtov ; 

i Cor. 3 16 . 

OVK oiSare ort vaos Qeov ecrrf . . . 

Cf. Eph. 2 20 - 22 . 

The phrase in 2 Clement has the same meaning as that of 
i Cor. 6 19 , and it is very possible that it is derived from 
St. Paul ; but the conception had probably become a common 
place among Christians, and we cannot assert a necessary 
dependence upon any particular passage. 

UNCLASSED 

(4) 2 Clem. vii. i. i Cor. 9 24 25 . 

The metaphor of the games is very common in ancient 
literature. Cf. Lightfoot, ad loc. 

(5) 2 Clem. xi. 7, xiv. 5. i Cor. 2 9 . 
See note on the passage in relation to i Clem. (14). 

EpTiesians d 

(6) 2 Clem. xiv. 2. Eph. i 22 . 

ova otopai df v/jids dyvotlv OTI Kal avrov f8u&gt;Ke Kt(f)a\r)V virep 

eKK\r](r ia fcotra crw/xa tori XptaroO rrdvra rfj fKK\r]cria, fjris tcrrl TO crw/xa 

(Xeyei yap 17 ypctfpr) EartHtf&lt;rtV 6 8ebs avrov, TO TrXijpw/na rou TO TTUVTU tv 

TOV avOpanov apcrfv Kal 6fj\V TO jrdo-i ir\r)povpevov. 



II CLEMENT 127 

6 Xpterrdy, TO 6rj\v rj Eph. 5 23 - 

fKK\r)&lt;Tia), Kai on TO. /3i/3Xi a /cat ot Sn dvr^p earn Ke(pa\fj rfjs yvvaii(6s, 

aTTo oroXot rffv fKK\T)0-iav ov viiv tlvai fe Ka \ Xptoror Ke0aXij TTJS eKK\r]- 

dXXa ava&gt;6fv [(^acriVJ. aias KT\. 

Eph. i 4 . 

na6u&gt;s ff\eaTO r ]fj.as fV avr(f irpb 

K.aTaj3o\TJS KOCTfJLOV. 

We have to notice here : 

1. The treatment of the Church as the body of Christ. 

2. The comparison of the union of Christ and the Church to 
the union of man and woman. 

3. The conception of the Church as pre-existing, which 
possibly corresponds in some degree with St. Paul s concep 
tion of the election before the foundation of the world. 

UNCLASSED 

(7) 2 Clem. xix. 2. Eph. 4 18 . 

fffKOTi(Tp.e6a rrjv Sidvoiav. Cf. (17) 

(8) 2 Clem. xiii. i. Eph. 6 6 . 

Cf. Col. 3 22 . 



ovv 



James d 

(9) 2 Clem. vi. 3, 5. Jas. 4 4 . 

eo~Ttv 8e OVTOS 6 ala&gt;v KOI 6 fjLf\\a&gt;i&gt; OVK oiSare OTI rj (pi\ia TOV 

8vo f^dpoi . . . ov 8vvdp.(6a ovv TU&gt;V e^dpa TOV Qtov fo~Tiv ; 05 av 
8vo (pi Xoi fivai Set 8e f]/j.as TOVTO&gt; flov\T)df) (pi\os tivai TOV 

There is a similarity of feeling between these passages, but 
no verbal parallel, except in the occurrence of (/nAoi and &lt;iAi a. 

(10) 2 Clem. xv. i. Jas. 5 16 . 

pno~6os yap OVK f&Tiv piKpos ir\ava&gt;- ev^ecr^e vrrep aXX^Xcov, onroof ladrJTf. 

fj.fvr)v -^fvx^v KO\ dno\\vp.ei&gt;Tjv OTTO- TroXi/ tcr^vei 8er)o~is 8iKaiov tvepyov- 
OTpf^fai tls TO &lt;ra&gt;6r]vai. P* vr )- 

(n) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. Jas. 5 20 . 

Kpd(To~(dv vrjfTTfia Trpocreu^^?, e\frj- 6 eVtOTpe^ay d^iaprwXoi/ fK ir\dvr]s 

p.oavvr] 8e djjLCpOTfpatv dydmj Se 68ov avTOV craxm ^vxfjv fK davaTov, 

Ka\vTTTfi TrXrjdos dp.apriS&gt;v Trpocrevp^ij &gt;cat KaXv^et 7rXij$os dp.apTiS&gt;v. 
8e fK KaXfjs (rvvetSTjufajs 1 fK Oavdrov 

pVfTOl. 

The occurrence in 2 Clement of so many points similar to 
those in Jas. 5 16 &gt; 20 is worthy of notice, although none of the 
resemblances may be very striking in themselves. 



128 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

(12) 2 Clem. xx. 2-4. Jas. 5 7 . " 10 . 

irurrrvtOfUV ovv, d8f\(po\ KOI dSeX- /iaKpo&i/^o-are GUI , dSeX^xn , ecof 

0ai 0eoO U&gt;VTOS rrttpav d0Xovp.fv, TTJS irapovcrias TOV Kvpiov. I8ov, 6 

Kal yvp.va6p.fda TO&gt; vvv /3i &&amp;gt; Iva rw ytcopyos ifAr^tnu rbv rifjiiov Kaprrbv 

fj.fX\ovri &lt;TTf(pava)da&gt;fifv. ov8fls ra&gt;v rrjs yrjs, fJ.aKpo6vp.Stv eV avTW, ecu? 

8iKaia&gt;v raxyv napnbv eXajSev, dX\ Xa^&gt;/ vtrov Trpwi /ioi/ Kal o^fLp.ov. 

eVSe^fTai avrov. el yap TOV p.icr6oi&gt; fj.aKpo6vp.r](raTf Kal vp.f1s . . . UTTO- 

T&gt;V 8iKaia&gt;v 6 6fos trvvrofjiais drrefii Sou, Secy/xa Xd^ere, &lt;25cX0ot, r^y KOKO- 

ei)6ta)s fj.nopiav r) &lt;rKovp.fi&gt; Kal ov nadfias Kal rrjs p.aKpodvp.ias rovs 

6foo-f@fi.av. Trpo(pfjTas. 

There is a general similarity between these passages in the 
spirit of their teaching, but these parallels, like the others 
cited with passages in James, are insufficient to give positive 
evidence in favour of literary dependence. 

i Peter d 

(13) 2 Clem. xiv. 2. i Pet. i 20 . 

f(pai&gt;fpd&gt;6r] 8e f-rr (r\aT(ov ratv (pavtpwdfvros 8f eV eV^drou TU&gt;V 

fjp.fpS&gt;v Iva Tjp.as craxrrj. \p6va&gt;v 81 vp.as. 

Cf. also a-Trb rijs e/CKXrjo-ta? rrjs &lt;i&gt;rjs and eK/cXr/o-ta ^Sxra (occurring 
in the same section of 2 Clement) with Xidoi favTes (i Pet. 2 4 ). 

(14) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. i Pet. 4". 

dydm] 8e KaXvnTfi. TrXrjdos ap,apTia&gt;v. dydnri KaXvnTfi 7T\r)6os dfiapricav. 

See note on i Clement (48). 

UNCLA.SSED 



(15) 2 Clem. i. 8. Eom. 4". 

fKa\f(7fv yap f)p.ds OVK ovras KO\ KO\OVVTOS TO. pr) ovra u&gt;s ovra. 

rj6f\r]o-fv fK p.rj OVTOS tivai rjuds. 

The correspondence is superficial, and the phrase in some 
sense is not uncommon. Cf. Lightfoot, ad loc. 

(16) 2 Clem. viii. 2. Koni. g n . 

The metaphor of the clay and the potter is used by Jeremiah 
(i8 4ff -), and it would therefore be unsafe to assert the depen 
dence of 2 Clement on Romans. 

(17) 2 Clem. xix. 2. Rom. i 21 . 

TTJV 8idvoiav. Ka\ tcrKoriffdr] 17 do-vveros ai/rav 

Kap8ia. 

Eph. 4 18 . 

rfj 8tavoiq. 



II CLEMENT 129 

The phrase is parallel to that of Romans and Ephesians, 
but closer to the latter. Cf. (7). 

1 Timothy 

(18) 2 Clem. xx. 5. i Tim. i 17 . 

There is considerable resemblance between these doxologies, 
but it seems to us impossible to lay much stress upon this, 
as it is very possible that they are both based upon liturgical 
forms. 

(19) 2 Clem. xv. i. i Tim. 4". 

Cf. Jas. 5 19 20 (n). 

2 Peter 

(20) 2 Clem. xvi. 3. 

fie on epxtrat fjdr] fj 
TTJS Kpiafcos as K\lf3avos Kai6- 
s, Kol TaKT]&lt;rovTai rivts rSav ovpa- 
v$&gt;v, KOI rrdaa tj yrj o&gt;s fid\t/3os firl 

TTVpl TTJKOfJifVOS, KOI TOTt (f)avf)(TtTai 

ra Kpv&lt;pia KOI (pavepa epya TWV dv- 



Mai. 4 1 I8ov f/fitpa tpXfTcu Kaiofj.fvr) vs K\[^avos. 
Isa. 34* raKrjaovrat navai al Swa^tis T&v ovpavcov. 

This affords parallels to 2 Pet. 3 5 ~ 7 &gt; 10 ; notice also the 
variant evpe07]0-ercu in 2 Pet. 3, which is near to ^cu^o-ercu 
in 2 Clem. xvi. 3. 

[Lightfoot thinks the agreement of 2 Clem. xi. 2 with 
2 Pet. i 19 in 6 Trpo^rjTuds Aoyos, and with 2 8 in fjpe 
s, worthy of notice.] 



Jude 
(21) 2 Clem. xx. 4. Jude 6 . 

8ta TOUTO 6eia Kpiffis e/3Xa^i/ dyye Xovj re TOVS pr) TrjpfjO-avras 

irvfvfJLa p.f] tv SiKatov, KOI fftdpvixv TTJV (avriav dpx^v . . . ds Kplviv 
Secr/iol?. p,eyd\rjs rjfitpas Sfcr/iols ai8iois V7r6 

6&lt;pOV T(TT)pT]KfV. 

These passages seem parallel, but it is to be remembered 
that the interpretation of 2 Clem. xx. 4 is very doubtful, that 
the variant Seo-jmos (C) is found for Seo-^ois (S, considerably 
weakening the parallel), and that changes of the text have 
also been proposed. 



130 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

GOSPELS. 
(I) The Synoptic Gospels. 

C 

Matthew c 

(22) 2 Clem. v. 5, vi. 7 Matt. n w f-, 25* * 

(viii. 4). 

f] 8e eVrayyeXt a TOV Xptoroi) ntydXrj Sevre irpos (J-f, . . . Kayw dvajravcru) 

KOi daVfJLaOTT) f(TTll&gt;, KOI [ + f], C] CLVCL- Vp.ds apaTf TOV vyOV (J.OV e(f&gt; Vflds, 

Travo-is TT/S (j.fX\ovo~r)s /SacrtXe/as KOI . . . KOI evprjcrfTe dvamavaiv rais 
a&gt;f)S ala&gt;viov, ^v^als vfj.a&gt;i&gt;. 

noiovvTfs yap TO 6f\rjna TOV f(j) ocrov OVK cVot^crarc . . . Kai 

XpicTTOt) fvprja-ofjifv dvajravcriv fl 8e dirf\fvcrovTai ovroi els KoXatriv aluviov, 
/iijye, oiiSei* fjpds pvtTfTai (K. TTJS of fie St /caioi els farjv aluviov. 
alcaviov KoXdcncos, eav irapaKov&lt;r&lt;t&gt;iJifv 
ra&gt;v evTO\a&gt;v avrov. 

ras fvro\as TOV Kvpi ou (pv\davTes 
\T)\ls6nfda farjv alo&gt;viov. 

Matthew alone has (i) Christ s promise of rest to those who 
do His will such persons finding rest ; (2) the warning as to 
Ko Aao-ts alvvios (only here in N. T.) for those who do not His 
commands, as set forth in the Judgement Scene, while the prize 
is rj (juAAouo-a) /3acnAeia and OTJ cuomos. Hence it is hard to 
escape the impression that our homilist is using this Gospel 
directly or indirectly. 

d 

(23) 2 Clem. iii. 2. Matt. io ss (Luke i2 8 ). 

\tyfi Se KOI auToV TOP o/ioAoyij- rras ovv oorty 6p.o\oyf)o~ei ev e/iot 

(ravTa fit [eVa&gt;7rtoi&gt; TO&gt;J/ dvdptaTrtov, (p-TrpofrQev T&gt;V dvdpanrav, 6p.o\oyr)cr&lt;i&gt; 

Om. Syr.J, o^toXoyTjo-w avTov ev&iriov Kayta fv O.VT& ffarpoadev TOV iraTpos 

TOV naTpos fju&gt;v. fiov TOV tv ovpavols. 

Clement s quotation is nearer Matthew than Luke (who has 
6 vibs TOV av9puTTOV . . . fp.TTpo(rdfv T&gt;V dyyeXtoz; TOV 0eoS). But 
even retaining cva-mov KT\. (Matthew and Luke have e/ATrpoo-fley 
/crX.), Clement s wording is sufficiently different to suggest 
the direct use of another source altogether, whether oral or 
written. See the next note. 

(24) 2 Clem. iv. 2. Matt. f 1 . 

Xeyei ydp Ov nds 6 \tyoov /xot, ot&gt; TTCLS 6 \tya&gt;v fioi, Kvpie, K.vpi(, 

Kvpifj Kvpie, cra&gt;6r)o~tTai, d\\ 6 TTOICOV tt&lt;rf\(vo~eTai els TTJV fiaaiXeiav TO&gt;V 
TTJV ^(.naioavvrjv. ovpavatv, dXX 6 TTOMV TO 6f\r]ij.a TOV 

irarpos p.ov TOV tv ovpavols. 



II CLEMENT 131 



may simply echo ov yap TOVTO o-wcm ^/xa?, just 
before (cf. iii. 3, also i. i, 4, ii. 2, 4, 7), especially as Matthew s 
phrase is rather Jewish ; and biKaioa-vvrjv may be a paraphrase 
to suit the context, which has Christ s will directly in view 
(cf. xi. 7, xix. 3 for Clement s use of the phrase). Or the 
quotation may have stood in this form in the same source from 
which iv. 5, v. 2-4 seem to come, the subject being akin. 
Or, again, it may come from oral tradition. 

(25) 2 Clem. vi. 9. Matt. 22" f - 

r)p.fls, tav [ir] TT]pr)cr(0fJLfi&gt; TO jSaTrrt- ... 6 /3a&lt;rtAfvs . . . Xe yei avraJ, 

crp.a dyvov KOI apiavTov, iroiq ircrroi- Eratpe, TTO&gt;S ficrrfi.d(s &Se ftfj f^oav 
6f)(Tfi flcrt\(vor6/j.(6a (Is TO /3acn Xeioi&gt; fv8vfj,a ydpov ; 
TOV GeoC ; . . . (av pr) (vpf6u&gt;fj.fv (pya 
f \ovTfg outa KU\ 8iKaia ; 

Here resemblance turns on the meaning of rb /3a&lt;ri A.eiov. It 
is true that it can mean kingdom, but rather in the abstract 
sense of sovereignty/ as in xvii. 5 Ibovres TO /3a&lt;nAeioy TOV 
Koa-pov ev r&lt;p Irja-ov a sense which ill suits the contrast here, 
where it is a matter of entering into TO /Uao-i Aecov with 
assurance. Elsewhere /3a&lt;nA.ea is used of the Kingdom men 
hope to enter, see xi. 7 et&lt;njo|uef ets TT\V /3ao-tXeiay O.VTOV. Hence 
/Sao-tAeiof may well have the usual sense of royal palace, 
and so allude to the situation in Matthew s parable of the 
Wedding Garment, here represented by the baptismal gar 
ment kept pure by a holy life (e/oya fx oVTS " ta ^ Si /ccua), 
cf. Acta Barnabae, ia TO vbvp.a ejcetvo, OTrep eony a^OapTov eis 
Toy al&va. 

UNCLASSED 

(26) 2 Clem. xvii. i. Matt. 28 19 f- 

et yap eWoXay t^ofjifv [iva, Syr.J iropfvdfvres ovv [ladrjTfvcraTf Trdvra 

KOI TOVTO Tvpaffffofifv (-a^iei/, Syr.), TO (8vij, fianTifavTfs ai/Tovs els TO 
dno T&gt;I&gt; c(Sa&gt;Xu&gt;p dnocmav /cat Karrj- ovofia TOV iraTpos KT\. . . . , fitfia- 

XIJ/, KT\. (TKOVTfS O.VTOVS TTjpflv irdvTd OCTO 

fVfT(i\dp.riv vfj.1v. 

Just a possible allusion, in view of the reference to missionary 
evTo\ds : yet OTTO TU&gt;V ei8wAcoy (moa-nav /cat K.a.Tr]y^lv rather recalls 
the gist of the Kerygma Petri. 

E 2 



1 32 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 

D 

Luke d 

(27) 2 Clem. ii. 5, 7. Luke ip 10 . 

TOVTO Xeyet, on 8fl TOVS diro\- ^# e yap o vlbs TOV avdpanov 

Xvftevovs o-a&gt;eiv . . . OVT&S Kal 6 &Tr)crai Kal a-Sxrai TO dnoXa&gt;X6s. 
Xprr6f T)0e\T)cr(v &lt;ra&gt;&lt;rai TO. dnoX- 
Xvfjifva, Kal fcraxTtv TroXXovs, eX6u&gt;v 
Kal KoXeo-as rjfJ,as 17877 aTroXXvfievovs. 

Here, in spite of certain echoes (e. g. f \6&lt;bv KOI KoXeo-as) of 
ii. 4, discussed below (30), there might be good reason to suspect 
allusion to the passage in Luke, but for the fact that Clement 
certainly uses at least one non- canonical Gospel. 

(28) 2 Clem. xiii. 4. Luke 6 32 &gt; SB . Didache i. 3. 

orav yap dKovaaxnv Kal ei dyairare TOVS Troia yap X^P ls &gt; * av 

Trap T)p,(H&gt;v on Xeyet 6 dyanStyras vpas, iroia dyanarf TOVS dyairS&gt;v- 

0eds, Ov X"P lr Vfuv el vfj.1v X^P ts e a " rt / Tag vpas ; . . . v/netf 8e 

dyanaTf TOVS dyairatvTas TrXfjv dyairarf TOVS e^- dyana/rf TOVS fturavmu 

vfjLas, dXXa X"P IS Vfiiv 6povs vp.&gt;v . . . Kal eorai vfj.ds, Kal ov% f(Tt 

el dyanaTf TOVS exdpovs 6 [uo-dbs vp.S&gt;v TTO\VS. e^Qp&v. 
Kal TOVS fjucrovvras vfids. 

No sure argument for the use of Luke can be based on this 
passage. It departs considerably from Luke s wording ; while 
it is simply as one of God s oracles (ra Aoyta TOV 0eo&gt;) found 
on Christian lips that it is cited. The addition of KOL TOVS 
v/xas finds parallels in Did. i. 3 and Justin, Apol. i. 15 
TOVS /xio-oCiras vjuas. Such a variant for TOVS f^Opovs 
would arise naturally in common use as a more exact anti 
thesis to dyaTrare. Possibly, however, 2 Clement quotes the 
whole saying as known to him in an apocryphal Gospel. 

UNCLASSED 

(29) 2 Clem. viii. 5. Luke i6 lof . 

Xe y yap 6 Kvpios (v ro&gt; vayy(\iq&gt; 6 TTIO-TOS ev eXa^icrrw KOI fv TroXXaJ 

Ei ro piKpov OVK tTTiprjaaTe, TO p.fya Trtaros eari ... ft ovi&gt; ev T&lt;f ddiKq 

TIS vfj.lv 8&lt;ao-fi Xe ya) yap vfuv OTI papwd irio~Tol OVK lytvfddf, TO 

6 7rio~Tbs fv f\a\i&lt;rr(O Kal iv TroXXw dXyOtvbv TIS Vfuv TTtorei/cret ; 

TTtOTOf (OTIP. 

Iren. Adv. Haer. ii. 34, 3 Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis 
exsistentibus in eum : Si in modico fideles nonfuistis, quod magnum 
est quis dabit vobis ? significans quoniam qui in modica temporal! 
vita ingrati exstiterunt ei qui earn praestitit, iuste non percipient 
ab eo in saeculum saeculi longitudinem dierum. 

Cf. Hippol. Refut. X. 33 vnaKove r^j TrcjroirjKOTi. Kal fifj avTiftaivt vvv, iva 
fvpedds Kal TO fJ.fya rrio~TtvdTJvai 8vvrj6fjs. 



II CLEMENT 133 

While the latter part of Clement s citation of Christ s words 
in the Gospel agrees exactly with the beginning of the 
passage in Luke, its former part differs so widely that it is 
best to regard the whole as quoted from another source 
altogether. For Irenaeus, followed by Hippolytus, discoun 
tenances the idea that the deviation of form is accidental (or 
represents a glossing of Matt. 25 21 23 ). That Irenaeus is 
not quoting Luke i6 n seems clear from the way in which 
he introduces the words, viz. Dominus dicebat ingratis ex- 
sistentibus in eum, which (a) does not suit Luke s context 
[rather that of Matt. 25 14 ~ 30 ], while (6) dicebat is not his 
usual phrase in citing a definite passage in our Gospels, but 
points rather to some logion handed down as characteristic of 
his attitude to a class of hearers. Thus, whatever the exact 
relation of the saying in our two witnesses, they point to its 
currency outside our Gospels ; and if we may argue from the 
divergence in form OVK errjpT/ o-are (which must stand, in view 
of what follows) and fideles Twn fuistis it was not confined 
to one circle before Irenaeus s day. Cf. (31), which relates to 
the same context in Luke (i6 13 ), also (34). 



(II) The Synoptic Tradition. 
(30) 2 Clem. ii. 4. Matt. 9" ; Mark 2" 

KOI eTtpa 8e ypacfifi Xe-yei art OUK (Luke 5 ) 

rjKGov KaXecrai Sucaiovs, dXXd &p.ap- ov (yap, Matt.) rj\6ov KoXecrai 

Si/cat ov?, dXXa d/iaprwXouy. 

Cf. Barn. V. 9 Iva Sft|?? on OVK rjK6fV KaXevai Siicaiovs, dXXo d/ 



The parallelism with our two first Synoptics (Luke has OVK 
c\ri\vda . . . ei? ptTavoiav) is exact ; and Clement, unlike 
Barnabas, cites it as a scripture. But what the Gospel 
writing referred to may be, is a question complicated by 
Clement s known use of some source distinct from our 
Gospels ; see Introduction ad fin. 

(31) 2 Clem. vi. i f. Luke i6 ls ; Matt. i6 26 . 

\eyti 8e 6 Kvpios Qvbds olKerrjs Verbally as Luke 1 6 13 ; Matt. 

8v&lt;ri Kvpiois 8ov\fvfiV eav 6 24 lacks 
KOI Qf&lt;p SouXeueiy KOI 



j 34 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



f]fitv eortV. TI Nearer Matt. i6 28 (cf. Mark 
yap TO ocpfXos, fdv TIS TOV Koo-pov 8 16 ) than Luke p 25 ; neither 

o\ov Kep8fi&lt;rr], TTJV 8e tyvxn v fw w ^ ; has TI ro o&lt;pe\os ; 



It looks as if Clement knew both Matthew and Luke, or a 
document based on them (cf. Introd. ad fin.). 

(32) 2 Clem. ix. u. Luke 8 al . 

Kal yap fiTTtv 6 Kvpios A.8e\(poi W rr )p M OI) Ka a8e\(poi fiov OVTOI 

fj.ov OVTOL tier iv, ol iroiovvrfs TO 6f\rma do~iv ol TOV \6yov TOV 6eov aKovovrfs 

TOW JTOTpOS pOV. KOI nOMVVTff. 

Matt. i2 49 f- (Mark 3 s5 ). 



toU, Tj /J.r)TT)p fJLOV KO. OI 

pov OCTTIS yap av TTOITJO-T) TO 6e\rjua 
TOV irarpos fJ-ov TOV fv ovpavois, avTos 
fiov a.8f\(p6s, KT\. 

EpiphaniuS, Haer. XXX. 14 OUTOI fl&lt;nv ol a8f\&lt;poi pov xa\ f] prj-nip, ol 
iroiovvTfS TO. QfKr^iaTa TOV -rrarpos uov. 

Clem. Alex. Ed. Proph. 2O ayet ovv tls fXtvdeplav TTJV TOV rraTpbs 
&lt;rvyic\T)pov6iJiovs vlovs Kal fyiXovs AfieXc^ot fiov yap, (prjo-lv 6 Kvpios, Kal 
o~vyK\r]pov6[j,oi ol TTOtovvTfS TO 6f\T)[jLa TOV iraTpos fiov. 

Here we seem to have a fusion of the structure of Luke 
with the phrasing of Matthew. Yet the resemblance between 
2, Clement and the Eel. Proph. suggests that these both 
knew the saying in the same form, whether written or in 
traditional use. Epiphanius seems to be citing the Ebionite 
Gospel, or our Gospels loosely in his own words. See also (35). 

(33) 2 Clem. iii. 4 (cf. 5). Mark i2 so , cf. Matt. 22 s7 ; Luke 

e 0X77? Kap8ias Kal e oX^s TTJS *O 

Siavoias. 

1 A reference ultimately to Dent. 6 5 ; but as both words 
biavoias and /capStas do not seem to occur in that passage in 
any one text of the LXX, we must suppose that the writer 
had in mind the saying rather as it is quoted in the Gospels, 
especially Mark xii. 30 e oA.?j? TTJS ttapbias a-ov . . . KCU e O ATJS 
TTJS biavoias &lt;rov . . . (comp. Matt. 23 37 ; Luke io 27 ). So 
Lightfoot ad loc. Yet Mark may follow a current LXX text. 
The same may be said of Clement s deviation from Cod. B of 
the LXX in the quotation from Isa. 39 13 which immediately 
follows. This appears in a form found also in i Clem. xv. 2 
and closely related to NAQ of the LXX. See p. 62. 



II CLEMENT 



(Ill) Apocryphal Gospels. 
(34) 2 Clem. iv. 5. Luke i3 27 . 

8ia TOVTO . . . fintv 6 Kvptos Kai epet, Aeyw vfjuv, OVK 0180 Tro&tv 

[ Iijarovs, Syr., cf. V. 4j Ear rJTe eore dnoarTrjTf drr ffiov TrdvTfs f pydVat 

H(T ffiov arvVTjyfjLfvoi tv TO&gt; Ko\7ra&gt; fiov, dStKias. 
Kai fir/ iroirJTf Tas eVroXds fiov, dno- Mntt r 23 

|3aAa&gt; vfids Kai fp&gt; vfiiv, vndyfTf aTT* . , ~ 

&gt;-&gt;&&amp;lt;- //) &gt;/ Kai TOTf ou.o\oyncru&gt; avTois OTI 

ffjiov, OVK oioavfi.as irotlfv fVTf, tpyaTai ^ , - , - , 

***" eyvoav vfias aTro^copeiTf a?r 



avo/j.ias. 

f/jiov oi (pya^6p.fvoi Tf/v dvofj.Lav, 



Ps. 6 9 d7roo-T7^T cm tpov trdvTfs ol pya6fj.fvoi TTJV dvofj.iav. 
Justin, Apol. i. l6 &lt;a\ TOTS epw aurots* dTro^wpftTe an- ep.ov, epydVai 
TTJS dvofjiias, cf. Dittl* *]6 Kai tpo&gt; avrols dva%(opflTf air* ffiov. 

The points in common with Luke, vfj.lv, OVK o!8a . . . -rroOev 
core , epydrat, point to knowledge of the saying in his form 
rather than Matthew s. Nor need the setting be different from 
Luke s, as would be the case if its imagery were that of sheep 
and their shepherd, as in Isa. 4O 11 . This, indeed, would suit 
the thought of the whole section iii. 2 (or iv. 2) v. 4. But 
another interpretation of o-uinjy^ei oi is possible, which would 
make it continue the imagery of Luke I3 27 
flvto-niov (TOV, KT\. Yet compare (29), fa }). 

A \ J7/? \*J*- / 

(35) 2 Clem. v. 2-4. Luke io s ; Matt. io 16 . 

Aeyet yap 6 Kvpioj, EfTfcrdf as I8ov, tycn aTrocrTf\\a&gt; 

dpvia tv fifcrto \VKUIV dnoKpidfls 8f apvas (7rpo /3ara, Matt.) 
6 HfTpos avT(2 Aeyti* Euv ovv 8ia- \VK(OV. 
cnrapda&gt;(rii&gt; oi \VKOI TO dpvia; tmev -r i T 2 4 f. 

6 l^o oOs TO) ncTpw* MTJ (pofifiadcoo av 

Ta dpvia TOVS \VKOVS ^Ta TO drro- W &lt;HM^&lt;r diro T&gt;V dr, 

6avtlv avTd- Kai vpfls ^ (pofclaBe r &lt;* a Kal * fTa TaCra /" 
TO^ dnoKTfvvovras vats Kal p.Tj8f V * ?"*&&amp;lt; f* 1&lt;r&lt;H &gt; 
vfilv ovvafifvovs TTOHIV, dXAa (po^o-0f T v ^ era a ""- ^ov&lt;riav t X &lt;&gt; 
TOV fifTa TO dnodavflv vpas f^vTa VP^W fls rr l v J^vav. 
fovcriav ^V\T)S Kal crd&gt;fiaTos, TOV Matt. IO 28 . 

/3aXeI./ tls yetwav nvpos. Ka j ^ $0^6^ (d7r6) ...Tr)v8f^v- 

XTJV fiT) 8vvafjLfva&gt;v diroKTfivaC (poflrjdrjTe 
8f fiaXXov TOV 8vvd/j.(vov Kal tyvxf]v 
Kal o~a&gt;[j,a a7roXeo~ai eV yfevvrj. 

Justin, A.p6l. i. 19 ^T] (pofif ta-de TOVS dvaipovvTas vfids Kal /uera ravra pf) 
SvvafLfvovs TI noiTjaai, tint, (po^Tjd-rjTf 8f TOV p.(Ta TO dnodavtiv 8vvdfjifvov Kal 
TJSVXTJV Kal cro&gt;p,a fis yievvav ffifiaXftv. 

Here the phenomena of 2 Clem. (34), (29) recur, viz. closer 
verbal resemblance (in the parts common) to Luke than to 



136 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



Matthew, though the reference to VX*J K0 ^ &lt;M a i g found only 
in Matthew where moreover both passages occur in the same 
discourse. The like is true of Justin s citation, which also 
shows the change of construction from (f)o/3rj6rjr a-no to 
&lt;po/3e6o-0e with accusative. All this points to the use by 
Clement of a source fusing the forms found in Luke and 
Matthew (as Justin does), and adding fresh matter, in the 
form of question and answer, tending to connect two logia 
not thus connected even in Matthew, where they are in the 
same address. In this same source (ut vid.) the idea of 
Christ s lambs is perhaps also introduced to give a context 
to another logion (see above). [Whether this source be 
identical with that used in xii. a, which was probably the 
Gospel according to the Egyptians, may be considered an open 
question. Its character corresponds more nearly to what we 
know of the Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus, than to that 
Gospel as usually conceived. But it is quite likely that the 
Egyptian Gospel embodied much matter from earlier Gospels, 
including the Oxyrhynchus Sayings or Gospel (? cited by 
Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 9. 45 as the local Gospel Kar E/3pcuW) ; 
in which case the Gospel according to the Egyptians may be 
the one source cited by a Clem, throughout. J. V. B.] 

(36) 2 Clem. xii. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 13, 92. 

(7r(pa&gt;Ti)6(ls yap avrbs 6 Kvpios dia TOVTO rot, 6 KacrcnavSs (j&gt;T)0~i, 

viro TWOS, ifOTf T}d avTov f) ^acriXfia, Trvvdavo/jLevris T?)S 2aXa&gt;/xj;j Trore yvu&gt;- 
fiTTfv Orav eorat TCI dvo ev, KOI TO crdrjcrfTai. TO jrepl S)v j^ pero, f(j)i] 6 
fa&gt; cbj TO fcrui, Kal TO apo-fv pera Trjs Kvpios "Orai/ TO TTJS ala")(yvris evSvpa 
6r]\tias OVTC apcrev ovTf GfjXv. iraTrjo~r]T( Kal OTav yevrjTcu TO. 8vo ev, 

KOI TO appfv fjifTa. Trjs BrjKeias ovTf 

appev ovTf 6f]i\v. 

Clem. Alex, vouches that what Cassian cites occurs in the 
Gospel KOT AlyvTTTLovs, and it looks as if 2 Clement quotes 
from the same passage. Only a Clement omits its opening 
clause, as not to his purpose (perhaps as liable to Encratite 
exegesis) ; while Cassian omits the third clause, KCU TO e&lt;o o&gt;s 
TO to-co, as not to his purpose. 



137 






Barnabas. 


Didache. 


I Clement. 


J 

*-! 

03 

& 
I i 


Polycarp. 


Hermas. 


2 Clement. 


Author 
affording 
first 
marked 
trace. 


Two 
Ways. 


Rest. 


Synoptic Tra- ) 
dition \ 
Matthew 
Mark 
Luke 
John 
Acts 

Romans 

I Corinthians 
2 Corinthians 
Galatians 

Ephesians 

Philippians 
Colossians 
I Thessalonians 
2 Thessalonians 
I Timothy 
2 Timothy 
Titus 
Philemon 

Hebrews 

James 
I Peter 
2 Peter 
i John 
2 John 
3 John 
Jude 
Apocalypse 


+ 
D 


? 


+ 
C?[D] 


+ 


+ 

B 
D? 
D 
B 
D 

C 

A 
C? 
C 

B 

C 
D 
D? 
D? 
C 
C 
C 
T&gt;? 


+ 

c 

C 
B 

A 
B 
B 

B 

B 
D 

B 
B 
B 


+ 

C 
C 
D 
D 
D 

D 
B 

B 
D 


+ 

C* 

D* 

? 
D 

D 

9 


( Barnabas 
( Didache 
Didache 
Hermas 
Didache 
Ignatius 
i Clement 
( Barnabas 
( i Clement 
i Clement 
Polycarp 
Ignatius 
( Barnabas 
( Ignatius 
Ignatius 
? Barnabas 
? Hermas 
Polycarp 
Ignatius 
Ignatius 
i Clement 

( Barnabas 
( i Clement 
Hermas 
Polycarp 

Polycarp 
? i Clement 


9 
9 

B 

D 
D 

C 
D 


D? 
D? 


D[D] 
? 

D 


o" 

A 

A 
D 
D 

D 

D 
D 










D 
D 
D 


... 


... 


D 

c 


C 


9 


... 


A 


D 


C 


C 

C 
D 


C 

D 
D 

? 


D 


... 


[D] 


D 


D 


A 


... 


... 


... 


D 


... 


C 


... 


















? 


? 












9 


... 


D 

















9 = &lt; Unclassed, or to qualify the value of the letter which it follows. 
[ ] = Did. i. 3~ii. i, not witnessed to by other early documents. 
* To be taken in connexion with the suggestion on p. 123, note, that 
the apocryphal source known to 2 Clement itself used Matt, and Luke. 



i 3 8 



TABLE II 

The following classification is not in all cases to be taken 
strictly, but in the light of the qualifications indicated in the 
body of the work itself. References to Synoptic Tradition 
have been omitted altogether, as not seeming to admit of any 
such classification. 



Barnabas. 



Didache. 



I Clement. 



Ignatius. 



Polycarp. 



Hernias. 



2 Clement. 



B Rom. 

C Eph. Heb. 

D Matt, i Cor. 2 Cor. Col. I Tim. 2 Tim. Titus, I Pet. 

Unclassed : Luke, John, Apoc. 

(i) Two Ways : D ? Acts, Rom. 

Unclassed : Heb. Jude. 
(ii) Rest : B Synop. Trad. 

C? Matthew. 

D Luke, i Cor. i Pet. 

Unclassed : John. 

A Rom. i Cor. Heb. 

C Acts, Titus. 

D 2 Cor. Gal. Phil. Col. I Tim. I Pet. I John, Apoc. 

A i Cor. 

B Matt. John, Eph. 

C Rom. 2 Cor. (?), Gal. Phil, i Tim. 2 Tim. Titus. 

D 



Mark(?), Luke, Acts, Col. 
Philem. (?), Heb. I Pet. 



Thess. (?), 2 Thess. (?), 



A i Cor. i Pet. 

B Rom. 2 Cor. Gal. Eph. Phil. 2 Thess. I Tim. 2 Tim. 

C John, Acts, Heb. i John. 

D Col. 

B i Cor. Eph. 

C Matt. Mark, Heb. Jas. 

D Luke, John, Acts, Rom. I Thess. I Pet. 

C Matt. Heb. 

D Luke, i Cor. Eph. Jas. I Pet. 

Unclassed: Rom. i Tim. 2 Pet. Jude. 



INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES EXAMINED 



ATTHEW 


Page 


MATTHEW 


Page 


MARK 


Page 


3 7 


81 


20 28 . 


101 


I4 27 . 


20 


3 15 


76 


2I 33 . 


122 


I 4 38 . 


103 


5 s 


26 


22 11,12,1S ^ 


119, 131 


I 4 61f 


21 


5 7 


58 


22 14 . 


. 18 


I 5 17 


21 


5 13 


81 


22 19 . 


78 


i5 24 . 


20 


5 26 


34 


22 37 . 


134 






c28 


121 


22 37-39 


26 


LUKE 




5 35 


119 


22 41 45 


21 


5 8 


19 


5 39-42 


35 


23 34 f 


20 


5 32 . 


J 9) J 33 


5 44 


34,!03 


24 10-13 


S 2 


5 40 . 


32 


5&lt; 7 


34 


2 4 13 . 


no 


6 27 . 


34) 103 


65,9-lS 


28 


24 24 . 


S 2 


527-33 


34 


6 12 . 


. IO2 


24 s " f 


S 2 


6 29 , so 


35 


6 16 . 


28 


2 4 42 . 


31? 3 2 


6 31,36 


58 


6 24 . 


133 


2 5 14 - 


122 


6 32 , 35 




7 1 


101 


25 45f 


130 


6 s6 . 


. 58, loi 


7 12 


26 


26 7 . 


78 


544 _ 


80 


7 16 


32 


26 24 . 


. 6l, 121 


8 5 . 


62 


? 16,16 


I2O 


26 S1 . 


20 


8 14 _ 


121 


7 ai 


13 


26 63f 


21 


8 21 _ 


134 


7 23 . . 


135 


2 7 14 . 


17 


9 23 . 


134 


8 17 . 


77 


27 28 . 


21 


9 26 &lt; 


. 80, Il6, 122 


9 11 , 13 . 


19 


2 7 35 . 


20 


IO S . 


135 


9 13 . . 




27 52 . 


78 


IO S . 


30 


g50 


81 


28 18 . 


119 


IO 24 . 


103 


I0 8 . 


135 


28 19f 


I3 1 


IO 27 . 


134 


I0 10 . 


30 






II 4 . 


102, 103 


I0 16 . 


77, 135 


MARK 




II 49 f 


20 


I0 22 . 


no 


2 16f f 


19 


I2 8 . 


13 


I0 28 . 


109 


2 17 . . 


133 


I2 35 _ 


32 


I0 32 . 


130 


3 28 . - 


29 


i3 27 - 


135 


I0 33 . 


122 


3 35 . . 


134 


I 4 34 . 


81 


I0 40 . 


77) 7 8 


4 3 


62 


l6 10f 


132 


IO 41 . 


78 


4 18,M . 


120 


i6 13 . 


133 


II 28 * 


130 


6 52 . 


120 


I7 1 


61 


12**. 


134 


7 6 


62 


18* . 


120 


I2 S1 . 


29 


8 16 . 


134 


i9 10 . 


IS 2 


I2 33 . 


80 


8 38 


79, 116, 122 


ig 13 . 


122 


i 3 8 


62 


9 35 


IOI 


20 9 . 


122 


i3 17 


103 


9 42 . 


61 


20 14 . 


T22 


I 3 20 21 . 


120 


9 43 . 


79 


20, 42 


21 


158 . 


62 


9 60 


81 


aaiT-19 


3 


i5 13 . 


76 


IO 11 . 


121 


22 C9f 


21 


i6 26 . 


81, 133 


I2 1 . 


122 


237-12 


79 


i8 3 . 


117, 122 


I2 3-37 


21 


23 s *. 


2O 


i8 17 . 


101 


I2 7 . 


122 


2 4 39 . 


79 


i8 19 , 20 . 


77 


I2 30 . 


134 






I 9 9 


121 


I2 37 . 


21 


JOHN 




i9 12 . 


77 


I3 13 


S 2 


s 3 - 5 . 


123 


ig 23 . 


121 


I 4 21 . - 


121 


3 8 


82 



140 



INDEX I 



JOHN 


Page 


i CORINTHIANS 


Page 


GALATIANS 


Page 


3 14 f 


23 


3 15 


126 


2 2 . 


92,94 


4 10 u 


81 


3 16 4, 


ii) 15,65 


2 9 . 


52 


5 21 


103 


4 1 . . 


65 


2 21 . 


7 1 


6 3S . 


82 


4 4 . 


65 


3 1 


5 2 


6 51 . 


22 


5 7 


65 


4 21 ff 


15 


6 58 . 


22 


6 2 . 


85 


4 26 . 


92 


828, 29 


82 


6 9 . 


64,85 


5 11 


7 1 


IO 7 , 9 


123 


61 . 


64 


5 U . 


90,92 


IO 18 . 


123 


6 15 . 


39,66 


5 17 


. 88, 92 


II 26 . 


122 


6 19 . 


. 15,126 


5 21 


70 


I2 8 . 


82 


7 10 . . 


67 


6 7 . 


92 


i3 20 


82 


7 29 - . 


66 


6 14 . 




I 4 6 


122 


~S9 ( 40 


105 






i5 16 
I9 34 . 


IO4 
23 


8 10 . . 
9 15 . . 

9 ll 


. 85 
66 
. 42, 126 


EPHESIANS 

i s f . 
.4 


67 


ACTS 






126 


i . . 

T 4 6 


127 


i 24 . 


114 


9 27 . . 


65 


I . 




i 25 


73 
98 


to 4 . 

I0 16,17 


105 

66 


I . 
I 22 . 


53 
126 


4 12 . 


114 


IO 24 . 


44 


2 1 
2 


107 


4 32 . . 


25 


IO 33 . 


44 


. 
08 




5 41 . . 


116 


I2 8 , 9 . 


42 


2 . 
2 10, 21 f 


92 


7 52 


98 


I2 12 . 


. 40, 67 


2 15 , 


4 
68 


IO 41 . 
IO 42 . 


73 
98 


I2 U . 


40 

40 


2 18 . 

a 2 " 


68 


I3 22 

jc20, 29 


48 
26 


I2 26 . ! 


86 
41 


2 20-32 


. 68, 107 
. 68, 126 


20 35 . ! 
26 18 . 


. 50,98 
50,99 


I3 1S 
I4 10 . 


85 

85 


3 9 7 . 


4 
68 


EOMANS 
I 3 , 4 
I 21 . 


70 
. 39, 128 


I4 20 . 

I5 ^ 


117 
86 
65 


3 
4 s - . 
4 s - 6 . 

^ 


4 
68 
106 
40,53 


j-29 32 
4 3, 10 f 


37 
3 


i5 23 
i5 28 


. 41,44 
86 


4 18 

,22ff 


53 

39, 127, 128 


4 17 . . 


. 3, 128 


I ^*^&gt; *^ 


41 


4 

.24 


4 


6 1 . 
6 4 . 


38 
69 


i5 45 47 . 
i5 58 . 


67 
. 66,86 


4 

4 25 


. 40, 1 06 


8 26, 27 

9 5 

9 7-13 

9 21 


38 
4 
128 


i6 17 . 
i6 18 . 
i6 22 . 


44 
66 
27 


4 SO .* 

4 s2 . 
5 1 


93 
106 
89 
68 


ii 33 . 


44 


2 CORINTHIANS 




5 16 

09 


6 


I2 4 . 


39 


3 2 - - 

18 


91 


5 23 
5 25 


127 
67 


I2 17 ". 

15". 


25 
91 
70 


3 
4 U 

5 10 . . 


. 70, 91 
11,89,91 


6 s . 

613-17 


127 
68 






5 17 . 


4 






i CORINTHIANS 




6 7 . 


90 


PHILIPPIANS 




i 7 . 


66 


6 16 . 


70 


i" . 


53,95 


i 10 . 


66 


8" . 


9 1 


2 3 , 8 . 




jll-13 


40 


9 8 




2 10 . 


94 


jl8, 20 


64 


9 12 . 


44 


2 16 . 


94 


I 24 , 30 


67 


ii 9 . 


44, 70 


2 17 . 


7i,94 


2 9 . 


. 42, 126 


J.J23 27 


52 


2 30 


44 


a 10 . 


. 44,66 


12" . ! 


70 


3 U 


42 


2 14 . 


66 






3 15 . 




3 1 


. 11,65 


GALATIANS 




3 18 


94 


3 2 


65 


i 1 . 


70,89 


3 21 


94 



INDEX I 



141 



PHILIPPIANS 


Page 


2 TIMOTHY 


Page 


HEBREWS 


Page 


4 13 . . 


7i 


i 10 . 


13 


i3 12 . 


. 6,9 


4 1S - 


54 


i 16 . 


72 


I3 18 


126 






2 3 . 


72 






COLOSSIANS 




a" . 


97 


JAMES 




I 5 . 6 . 


IOI 


2 n . 


5 1 


i 4 . 6 . 


108 


I 7 . 


74 


a 25 


97 


j6-8 ^ 


108 


I 9 . 


. 54 


3 6 


72 


I 12 . 


no 


I 12 . 


. 54, loi 


3 17 


5 1 


I 17 . 


109 


I 13 . 


54 


4 1 


14 


I 26 . 


in 


I 15 . 


116 


4 6 - 


73 


I 27 . 


112 


I 16 . 


. 12, 74 


4 10 


97 


a 5 . 


113 


I 18 . 


74 






3 15 


109 


i 23 . . 74 
i 24 . 


, 86, loi 

44 


TITUS 




4 4 
4 


I2 7 
III 


i 26 . 


74 


i 2 


14 


4 7 . 


112 


2l . 


54 


i 7 . 


73 


4 11 - 


109, no 


a 2 . 


74 


i 14 . 


73 


4 12 


109 


a" . 


89 


2 4 5 . 


50 


5 1 


no 




74 


2 14 . 


. 14, 89 


5 2 


113 


3 4 


122 


3 1 


5 1 


5 4 


1 10 


3 5 


. 93, ioi 


3 5ff - 


14 


5 7 8 - 


128 




12 


3 9 


73 


5 10 


128 


3 22 . . 


127 






5 11 


109 


4 7 


74 






5 16 


127 






PHILEMON 




5 20 . 


. 56, 127 


i THESSALONIANS 




20 


75 


i PETER 




a 4 . . 


74 










cl3 f 

o 


"5 


HEBREWS 




l ; 


57 
9.57 


5 17 


74 


i 


6,44745, "6 


i 7 . 


116 






2 5-9 ^ 


7 


i 8 . 


86 


a THESSALONIANS 




2 9 . 


6,7 




14 


i* . 


95 


a 18 . 


47 


i 12 . 


88 


3 s 


75 


3 1 


47 


i 13 . 


. . 87 


315 



95 


3 2 


. . 46 


i 17 . 


ii 






3 12 - 


107 


jl8, 19 


55 


i TIMOTHY 




4 1 


8 


I 20 . 


. 13, 116, 128 


i 1 . 


96 


41-" 


10 


I 21 . 


. 87,89 


i 3 - 6 . 




4 12 - 


48 


2 1 , 3 . 


115 


i 12 . 


72 


5 13 


100 


2 6 8 _ 


15 


i 13 . 


72 


6 1 . 


9 


2 9 . 


57 


j!6f f 


12 


6 4 - 6 . 


107 


a" . 


33,88 


I 17 . 


547 I2 9 


6 18 . 


48 


a" . 


. . 87 


a 1 . 


96 


6 20 . 


99 


a 17 . 


57 


2 8 . 


55 


7 3 


99 


a 21 . 


86 


3 5 


97 


7 7 


75 


2 !J5 


. 76,88 


3" 


96 


7 19 


75 


3 8 


. . 89 


3 16 


13 


-22, 23, 2C 


75 


3 9 


88 


4 15 


97 


g !3 ff t 


10 


3 13 


89 


4 16 


129 


I0 23 . 


. 48, 125 


3,0,21 


115 


5 5 


96 


IO 24 . 


8 


4 7 


88 


5 18 


30 


IO 32-39 


126 


4 8 


. 56, 128 


5 34f . . 


15 


II 11 . 


. . 48 


4 1S 


75 


6 2 . 


72 


II 13 . 


107 


4 14-16 


116 


6 7 . 


95 


1 1 3 7,39 


47 


4 16 


113,116 


6 10 . 


95 


la 1 . 


47, 125 


4 19 


57 






ia 2 . 


6 


5 2 


76 


2 TIMOTHY 




I2 6,7,8 


. . 48 


5 B 


55, 76 


i 3 . 


73 


ia 24 . 


9 


5 7 - 


115 


i 5 . 


98 


I2 28 m 


99 


5 9 


.57,112 



142 



INDEX I 



2 PETER 


Page 


2 JOHN 


3 8 . 


15 


7 


i JOHN 






4 2 . 


15 


JUDE 


4 18 - 


57 


22 f 



Page 


APOCALYPSE 


Page 


15 


i 7 ) 1S 


16 




7 U 


no 




2I B . 


16 




22 10 . 


17 


25 


22 12 . 


17,58 



II 

INDEX TO PASSAGES OF THE APOSTOLIC 
FATHERS EXAMINED 



BARNABAS 


Page 


BARNABAS 


Page 


CLEMENT OF ROME 


Page 


i. 3, 4, 6 . 


14 


xvi. 8 


4,5 


xiii. i 


58 


ii. i . 


6 


xvi. 9 


7 


XV. 2 


62 


iii. 6 . 


6 


xxi. a 


10 


xvii. i 


47 


iv. 9, 10 


8 


xxi. 3 


17 


xvii. 5 


46 


iv. ii ff 


II 


xxi. 7 


IO 


xviii. i 


48 


iv. 12 


15 


xxi. 9 


16 


xix. 2 


47 


iv. 13 


8 






xxi. i 


53 


iv. 14 


18 


DlDACHE 




xxi. 9 


48 


V. I . 


. 9, 22 






xxiv. i 


41 






i. 2 . 


26 






v. 5 . 


14 






xxiv. 4 


41, 51 


v. 6 . 




i. 3 . 


34 


xxiv. 5 


41, 62 


v. 7 . 
v. 9 . 


J 4 

12, I 9 


i. 4 . 
i. 4-6 


33 

35 


xxvii. i, 2 
xxix. i 


48 

55 


V. 10 ff 


16 


i. 5 . 


34 


xxx. i, a . 


55 


V. II, 12 . 


20 


ii. 7 . 


25 


xxxiii. i . 


38 






iii. 7 . 


26 






vi. 2-4 


15 


i 
iv. i . 




xxxiv. 3 


58 


vi. 3 . 


. 22 




" 


xxxiv. 8 . 


42 






iv. 8 . 


2 5 






vi. 6 . 


20 






xxxv. 5,6. 


37 






v. a . 


25 






vi. 7 . 


14 


vii. i 


2 7 


xxxvi. i . 


47 


vi. n 


4,20 


viii. i . . 


28 


xxxvi. 2 . 39, 


5 1 , 52 


VI.I2ff 


12 


ix. 2 . 


3 


xxxvi. 2-5 


44 


vi. 13 


16 


x. 6 . 


2 7 


xxxvii. 3 . 


44 


vi. 17-19 . 


7 


xi. 7 . 


29 


xxxvii. 5 . 


40 


vi. 19 


9 


xiii. i 




xxxviii. i . 


39,40 


vii. 3 . 
vii. 9 
vii. ii 


17 
. 16, 21 

21 


xvi. i 
xvi. 3-5 . 


3i 
32 


xxxviii. a . 
xl. i . 
xlvi. 6 


44 
44 
53 


viii. i ff . 


10 


xvi. 6 


S 2 


xlvi. 7 


39, 61 


viii. 5 


22 






xlvi. 7, 8 . 


61 


ix. a . 


22 


CLEMENT OF ROME 




xlvii. i 


40 


xi. i ff 


23 


Introduction 


57 


xlvii. i, 2 . 


54 


xi. 10 


22 


i. 3 


50 


xlviii. 5 


42 


xii. 7 


",23 


ii. i . 


50,52 


xlviii. 6 . 


44 


xii. 10 


21 


ii. a . 


57 


xlix. 5 . 41, 


5&gt;57 


xiii. a, 3 . 


4 


ii. 4 . 


54, 57 


1.3 


57 


xiii. 7 


3 


ii. 7 . 


5 1 


1. 6, 7 


39 


xiv. 4 


10 


iii. 4 . 


53 


Ii. 5 . . 


39 


xiv. 4-6 


IO 


v. i, 5 


42 


Ivi. 4 


48 


xiv. 5 


7, 14 


V. 2 . 


52 


lix. a . 50, 


54,57 


XV. . 


IO 


v. 5, 6 


52 


lix. 3 


53 


xv. 4 


15 


vii. 2, 4 . 


55 


Ixi. 2 


54 



INDEX II 



143 



IGNATIUS 


Page 


IGNATIUS 


Page 


Page 


Eph. i. i . 


68 


Philad. 


iii. i . 76 


SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 




ii. i . 


72, 74 


iv. i . 


66 


Mand. III. i 106, 


in 


ii. a . 


.66,75 


vi. 3 . 


7 


IV. i. i, 6,. 


121 


ii. 3 


66 


vii. i . 


. 66, 82 


IV. ii. i . 


1 2O 


iv. 2 . 


66 


viii. a 


7 1 


IV. iii. i, 2 


I0 7 


v. a . 


63, 77, 82 


ix. i . 


75, 83 


IV. iii. 4 . 


II 4 


v. 3 . 


76 


Smyrn. 


i. i . 68, 70 


IV. iv. i, 2 


J 05 


vi. i . 


77, 82 


i. 2 . 


64, 74, 79 


V. ii. 5-7 . 


III 


viii. 2 


. 66, 69 


iii. a 


79 


V. ii. 7 . no, 


III 


ix. i . 


. 66, 68 


iii. 3 


73 


VIII. 10 . 


112 


X. I . 


74 


iv. a 


. 71, 72 


IX. i 


1 08 


X. 2 . 


66, 74 


vi. i . 


77 


IX. 2 


109 


xi. i . 


81 


X. 2 . 


72, 79, 80 


IX. 6 


1 08 


xiv. i 


7 1 


xi. 3 


71 


IX. 8 


1 2O 


xiv. 2 


80 


Smyrn. 


Inscrip. 66 


IX. ii 


log 


XV. I . 


63 


Polyc. i 


. 2 . . 68 


X. ii. i, 2, 4, 5 . 


1 06 


xv. 3. 


65, 70 


i- 2, 3 


77 


X. ii. 5 . 106, 


"5 


xvi. i 


64, 70, 79 


ii. a . 


77 


XL 5, 6 . . 


109 


xvii. i 


. 78,82 


iv. 3 . 


72 


XII. i. i . 


III 


xvii. 2 


67, 74 


V. I . 


67 


XII. i. 2 . 


II 9 


xviii. i 


64, 71 


vi. i . 


73 


XII. ii. 4 . 


112 


xix. . 


68 


vi. a . 


. 68, 72 


XII. iv. 7 . 


112 


xix. a 


74 






XII. vi. 3 


109 


xix. 3 


. 69 


POLYCARP 


Sim. I. i. a 


107 


XX. I . 


67, 68, 71 


i. i . 


94, 100 


I. 3 . 


1 08 


Eph. Inscript 


67, 70 


i. 2 . 


98, ioi 


I. 8 . 


na 


Magn. iii. a 


75 


i- 3 


86,88,92,103 


II. 5 . . 


113 


V. I . 


73 


ii. i . 


86, 87, 94, 98 


III. 3 


119 


v. a . 


. 78 


ii. a . 


. 88, 91 


IV. 2 


119 


vii. i . 


82 


ii. 3 


98, ioi 


V. ii. i . 


122 


viii. i 


7 1 , 73 


iii. 2 


85, 91, 94 


V. v. a . 


119 


viii. a 


82 


iii. 3 


85, 90, 92 


V. vi. 3 . 


123 


ix. 3 . 


78 


iv. i . 


. 90, 95 


V. vi. 4 . 


II 9 


x. a . 


. 63, 81 


iv. 3. 


. 86, 96 


V. vi. 5, 7 


III 


x. 3 . 


65 


V. I . 


. 91, 92 


VI. iii. 4 , 5 


IIO 


xii. i . 


63 


v. a . 


89, 95, 96, 


VIII. vi. 4 113, 


116, 


xiii. i 


63 




97, ioi, 103 




122 


Trail, ii. 3 . 


65 


v. 3 


. . 85, 88 


IX. iv. 3 . 107, 


117 


V. I . 


65 


vi. i . 


. 88, 89, 102 


IX. xii. i . 105, 


123 


v. a . 


74 


vi. a . 


. 89, 91, IO2 


IX. xii. 2, 3 


116 


vi. i 


67 


vi. 3. 


89, 98, 99 


IX. xiii. 2 


119 


vii. a 


73 


vii. i 


IOO 


IX. xiii. 5 


1 06 


viii. 2 


63 


vii. a 


88, 103 


IX. xiv. 6 . 1 1 6, 


122 


ix. a . 


70 


viii. i 


. . 96 


IX. xv. 3 . 


123 


X. I . 




ix. i 


IOO 


IX. xvi. 2, 3 


IO7 


xi. i . 


76 


ix. a . 


90, 92, 94, 97 


IX. XX. I, 2 


120 


xi. a. 


67 


X. I . 


. 86, 90, ioi 


IX. XX. 2 . I2O, 


iai 


xii. 3 


65 


x. a . 


87 


IX. xxi. 3. 


122 


Rom. ii. i . 


74 


xi. 2 . 


85, 97, ioi 


IX. xxiii. 2-4 . 


109 


ii. a . 


73 


xi. 3. 


9i, 95 


IX. xxiv, i, 2 . 


108 


ii. and iv. 


71 


xi. 4 . 


. 85, 86, 88, 


IX. xxvi. 6 


107 


iv. 3 . 


65 




95, 97 


IX. xxix. i, 2, 3 


122 


V. I . 


65, 76 


xii. i 


. 93, 98 


Vis. II. ii. 7 


IIO 


vi. i . 


. 66, 81 


xii. a 


85, 89, 


II. ii. 8 . 


123 


vii. a 


7i, 81 




99, 101 


II. iii. a . 


IO7 


vii. 3 


82 


xii. 3 


94, 96, 97, 


III. iii. 5 . 


"5 


ix. 2 . 


65, 72 




103, 104 


III. vi. 5 . 


1 2O 


ix. 3 . 


78 






III. vii. 2 


107 


x. 3 . 


75 


SHEPHERD OF HERJIAS 


III. ix. 2 . 


112 


Philad. i. i . 


. 70, 71 


Mand. 


II. 2, 3 . no 


III. ix. 4-6 


IIO 



144 



INDEX II 





Page 


II CLEMENT 


SHEPHERD OF HEEMAS 


iii. 4 


Vis. III. ix. 8 


. 119 


iv. 2 . 


III. ix. 10 


"5 


iv. 5. 


III. xi. 3 . 


"5 


v. 2-4 


III. xiii. 3 


117 


v. 5 


IV. ii. 4 . 


"4&gt; "5 


vi. i f 


IV. ii. 6 . 


121 


vi. 3, 5 


IV. iii. 4 . 


116 


vi. 7 . 






vi. 9 . 


II CLEMENT 




vii. i 


i. 6 . 


125 


viii. 2 


i. 8 . 


128 


viii. 4 


ii. 4 . 


J 33 


viii. 5 


" 5&gt; 7 


i3 2 


ix.3. 


iii. 2 


13 


ix. ii 



Page 


II CLEMENT 


Page 


!34 


xi. 6. 


. 125 


130 


xi. 7. 


126 


r 35 


xii. 2 


I3 6 


!35 


xiii. i 


127 


130 


xiii. 4 


i3 2 


133 


xiv. 2 


126, 128 


127 


xiv. 5 


126 


130 


XV. I 


127, 129 


131 


xvi. 3 


129 


126 


xvi. 4 


126, 127, 128 


128 


xvii. i 


131 


130 


xix. 2 


127, 128 


132 


xx. 2-4 


128 


126 


xx. 4, 5 


129 


134 







Oxford : Printed at the Clarendon Press by HORACE HART, M.A. 



SELECT LIST 



STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS 



PRINTED AT 



THE CLARENDON PRESS, OXFORD. 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC. . page i 
FATHERS OP THE CHURCH, ETC. 4 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ETC. 



ENGLISH THEOLOGY 
LITURGIOLOGY 



page 6 



1. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC. 



HEBREW, etc. Notes on the 
Text of the Book of Genesis. By 
G. J. Spurrcll, M.A. Second Edition. 
Crown 8vo. I2S. 6d. 

Notes on the Hebrew 

Text of the Books of Kings. By C. F. 
Burnoy, M.A. Svo. 14.9. nd. 

Notes on the Hebrew 



Text of the Books of Samuel. By S. R. 
Driver, D.D. 8vo. 143. 

Treatise on the use of 

the Tenses in Hebreiv. By S. R. Driver, 
D.D. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 
7s. 6d. 

The Psalms in Hebrew 



10 ithout points. Stiff covers, 2s. 

A Commentary on the 



Book of Proverbs. Attributed to Abra 
ham Ibn Ezra. Edited from a MS. 
in the Bodleian Library by S. R. 
Driver, D.D. Crown Svo, paper 
covers, 35. 6d. 

Ecclesiasticus (xxxix. 15- 

xlix. n). The Original Hebrew, 
with Early Versions and English 
Translation, &c. Edited by A. E. 
Cowley, M.A., and Ad. Neubauer, 
M.A. 4to. i os. 6d. net. 

Translated from 



the Original Hebrew, with a Fac 
simile. Crown 8vo, stiff covers, is.6d. 

Facsimiles of the 



Fragments hitherto recovered of 
the Book of Ecclesiasticus in 
Hebrew. 60 leaves. Collotype. 
In a Cloth Box. il. is. net. (Pub 
lished jointly by the Oxford and 
Cambridge University Presses.) 



The Book of Tobit. 

A Chaldee Text, from a unique MS. 
in the Bodleian Library ; with other 
Rabbinical Texts, English Transla 
tions, and the Itala. Edited by Ad. 
Neubauer, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

A Hebreiv and English 

Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an 
Appendix containing the Biblical 
Aramaic, based on the Thesaurus 
and Lexicon of Gesenius, by Francis 
Brown, D.D., S. R. Driver, D.D., 
and C. A. Briggs, D.D. 

Parts I XI. Small 4to. zs. 6d. 
each. 

Gesenius Hebrew Gram 
mar. As Edited and Enlarged by 
E. Kautxsch. Translated from the 
Twenty-fifth German Edition by 
the late Rev. G. W. Collins, M.A. 
The Translation revised and ad 
justed to the Twenty-sixth Edition 
by A. E. Cowley, M. A. 8vo. 2 is. 

Hebrew Accentuation of 

Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. By William 
Wickes, D.D. 8vo. 55. 

Hebrew Prose Accentu 
ation. By the same Author. 8vo. 
i os. 6d. 

The Book of Hebrew 

Roots, by Abu 1-Walid Marwan ibn 
Janah, otherwise called Rabbi 
Yonah. Now first edited, with an 
appendix, by Ad. Neubauer. 4to. 
2l. 75. 6d. 



Oxford: Clarendon Press. London: HENRY FROWDE, Amen Corner, B.C. 



D. TOOO. 



HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



ETHIOPIC. The Book of 
Enoch. Translated from Dillmann s 
Ethiopia Text (emended and re 
vised), and edited by R. II. Charles, 
M.A. 8vo. i6s. 

GREEK. A Concordance to 

the Septuagint and the other Greek Ver 
sions of the Old Testament, including the 
Apocryphal Books. By the late Edwin 
Hatch, M.A., and H. A. Redpath, 
M.A. In six Parts, imperial 4to, 
2 is. each. 

Supplement to the above, 

Fasc. I. Containing a Concordance 
to the Proper Names occurring in 
the Septuagint. By H. A. Red- 
path, M.A. Imperial /fto. i6s. 

Essays in Biblical Greek. 

By Edwin Hatch, M.A., D.D. 8vo. 
i os. 6d. 

Origenis Hexaplorum 

quae supersunt ; sire, Veterum Interpre- 
tum Graecorum in totum Veins Testa 
mentum Fragmenta. Edidit Fridericus 
Field, A.M. 2 vols. 4to. 5?. 53. 

NEW TESTAMENT. Novum 

Testamentum Graece. Antiquissimo- 
rum Codicum Textus in ordine 
parallelo dispositi. Accedit collatio 
Codicis Sinaitici. Edidit E. H. Han- 
sell, S.T.B. Tomi III. 8vo. 245. 

Novum Testamentum 

Graece. Accedunt parallela S. Scrip- 
turae loca, etc. Edidit Carolus 
Lloyd, S.T.P.R. i8mo. 35. 

On writing-paper, with wide 
margin, 75. 6d. 

Appendices ad Novum 

Testamentum Stephanicum, jam inde 
a Millii temporibus Oxoiiiensium 
manibus tritum ; curante Gulmo. 
Sanday, A.M., S.T.P., LL.D. I. Col 
latio textusWestcottio-Hortiani(jure 
permi sso) cum textu Stephanico anni 
MDL. II. Delectus lectionum notatu 
dignissimarum. III. Lectiones 
quaedam ex codicibus versionum 
Memphiticae Armeniacae Aethio- 
picae fusius illustratae. Extra fcap. 
8vo, cloth, 35. 6d. 



GREEK. Novum Testamen 
tum Graece jitxta Exemplar M illianmn . 
iSmo. 2s. 6d. On writing-paper, 
with wide margin, 75. 6d. 

The Greek Testament, 

with the Readings adopted by the 
Revisers of the Authorised Ver 
sion, and Marginal References 

(1) 8vo. Second Edition. IDS. del. 

(2) Fcap. 8vo. New Edition. 43. 6d. 

Also, on India Paper, cloth, 6s., 
and in leather bindings . 

(3) The same, on writing-paper, 
with wide margin, 155. 

The Parallel New Testa 



ment, Greek and English; being the 
Authorised Version, 1611 ; the Re 
vised Version, 1881 ; and the Greek 
Text followed in the Revised Ver 
sion. 8vo. I2s. 6d. 



Outlines of Textual Criti- 

dsm applied to the New Testament. By 
C. E. Hammond, M.A. Sixth Edition 
Revised. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

A Greek Testament Pri 



mer. An Easy Grammar and Read 
ing Book for the use of Students 
beginning Greek. By E. Miller, 
M.A. Second Edition. Extra fcap. 
Svo, 2s. ; cloth, 3s. 6d. 

Horae Synopticae. Con 
tributions to the study of the 
Synoptic Problem. By the Rev. 
Sir John C. Hawkins, Bart., M.A. 
Svo. 73. 6d. 

LATIN. Libri Psalmorum 

Versio antiqua Latino, , cum Paraphrasi 
Anglo-Saxonica. Edidit B. Thorpe, 
F.A.S. Svo. IDS. 6d. 

Old-Latin Biblical 

Texts : No. I. Edited with Intro 
duction and Appendices by John 
Wordsworth, D.D. Small 4to, stiff 
covers, 6s. 

Old-Latin Biblical 



Texts : No. II. Edited by John Words 
worth , D. D. , W. Sanday, M. A. , I). D. , 
and H. J. White, M.A. Small 4to, 
stiff covers, 2 is. 



Oxford: Clarendon Press. London: HENRY FBOWDE, Amen Corner, E.C. 



HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



LATIN. Old-Latin Biblical 

Texts : No. III. Edited (under the 
direction of the Bishop of Salisbury), 
by II. J. White, M.A. Small 4to, stiff 
covers, 1 2s. 6d. 

Old-Latin Biblical 

Texts: No. IV. Portions of the Acts, 
of the Epistle of St. James, and of 
the First Epistle of St. Peter, from 
the Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now 
numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial 
Library at Vienna. Edited by H. 
J. White, M.A. 5*. 

Nouum Testamentum Domini 
Nostri lesu Christ! Latine, se- 
cundum Editionem S. Hieronymi. 
Ad Codicum Manuscriptorum fidem 
recensuit lohannes Wordsworth, 
S.T.P., Episcopus Sarisburiensis. 
In operis societatem adsumto 
Henrico luliano White, A.M. 4-to. 
Pars I, buckram, 2l. izs. 6d. 

Also separately 

Fasc. I, i2s. 6d. Fasc. II, s. 6d. 
., Ill, i2s.6rf. ,, IV, IDS. 6d. 
Ease. V, i os. 6cL 

A Binding case for the fire Fasciculi in 

Pars I is issued at 35. 
Part II, Fasc. I, 123. 6d. 

OLD-FRENCH. Libri Psal- \ 
morum Versio antiqua Gallica e Cod. ms. 
in Bill. Bodleiana adserrato, una cum 
Versions Afetrica aliisque Monumentis 
jjercetuslis. Nunc primum descripsit 
et edidit Franciscus Michel, Phil. 
Doc. Svo. I os. 6d. 

ENGLISH. The Books of 

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and 
the Song of Solomon. According to the 
Wy cliffiteVersion of Hereford and Pur cey. 
With Introduction and Glossary 
by W. W. Skeat, Litt. D. 35. 6d. 

The New Testament. Ac 
cording to the same Version. 6s. 

The Holy Bible, 

Revised Version*. 

Cheap Editions for School Use. 

Revised Bible. Pearl 161110, cloth 
boards, lod. 

Revised New Testament. Non 
pareil 321110, 3rf.; Brevier 161110, 
6d. ; Long Primer Svo, 9^. 

* The Kevised Version i* the joint property ol the 
Universities of Oxlcrd and Cambridge. 



ENGLISH. The Oxford Bible 

for Teachers, containing the Holy 
Scriptures, together with a new, en 
larged, andillustrated edition of the 
Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible, 
comprising Introductions to the 
several Books, the History and Anti 
quities of the Jews, the results of 
Modern Discoveries, and the Natural 
History of Palestine, with copious 
Tables, Concordance and Indices, 
and a series of Maps. Prices 
in various sizes and bindings from 
3*. to 505. 

Helps to the Study of the 

Bible, taken from the Oxford Bible for 
Teachers. New, Enlarged, and Illus 
trated Edition. 

Pearl i6mo, stiff covers, is. net. 

Nonpareil Svo, cloth boards, 2s.6d. 

Large Type edition, long primer 
Svo, cloth boards, 55. 

The Parallel Psalter: 



being the Prayer-book Version of 
the Psalms and a New Version 
arranged on opposite pages. With 
an Introduction and Glossaries by 
S. R. Driver, D.D. Fcap. Svo. 6s. 

The Psalter, or Psalms 



of David, and certain Canticles, with a 
Translation and Exposition in Eng 
lish, by Richard Rolle of Hampolc. 
Edited by H. R. Bramley, M.A. 
With an Introduction and Glos 
sary. Demy Svo. il. is. 

Studio, Biblica et Eccle- 

siastica. Essays in Biblical and 
Patristic Criticism, and kindred 
subjects. By Members of the Uni 
versity of Oxford. Svo. 

Vol.1, i os. 6d. Vol.11. I2s. 6d. 

Vol. III. 1 6s. Vol. IV. i2s. 6d. 

Vol.V, Pt. I. 3s.6d. Vol.V,Pt.II. 

35. 6d. Vol. V, Part III. zs. 6d. 

Vol. V, Pt. IV. 45. 6rf. 

The Book of Wisdom : 

the Greek Text, the Latin Vul 
gate, and the Authorised English 
Version ; with an Introduction, 
Critical Apparatus, and a Com 
mentary. By W. J. Deane, M.A. 
4to. I2s. 6d. 



Also at EDINBUHOU, GLASGOW, and NEW YOKK. 



FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. 



2. FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, ETC. 



St. Athanasius : Orations 

against the Arians. With an account 
of his Life by William Bright, D.D. 
Crown 8vo. 95. 

Historical Writings, ac 
cording to the Benedictine Text. With 
an Introduction by W. Bright, D. D. 
Crown Svo. los. 6d. 

St. Augustine : Select Anti- 
Pelagian Treatises, and the Acts of the 
Second Council of Orange. With an 
Introduction by William Bright, 
D.D. Crown Svo. 95. 

St. Basil: The Book of St. 

Basil on the Holy Spirit. A Revised 
Text, with Notes and Introduction 
by C. F. H. Johnston, M.A. Crown 
Svo. ys. 6d. 

Canons of the First Four 

General Councils of Nicaea, Constanti 
nople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. With 
Notes by W. Bright, D.D. Second 
Edition. Crown Svo. 75. 6d. 

Catenae Graecorum Patrum 

in Novum Testamentum. Edidit J. A. 
Cramer, S.T.P. Tomi VIII. Svo. 

2l. 8s. net. 

dementis Alexandrini Opera, 

ex recensione Guil. Dindorfii. Tomi IV. 
Svo. 3?. net. 

Cyrilli ArcJdepiscopi Alexan 
drini in .XII Prophetas. Edidit P. E. 
Pusey, A.M. Tomi II. Svo. 2l. 2s. 

in D. Joannis Evan 
gelium. Accedunt Fragmenta Varia 
iiecnon Tractatus ad Tibcrium Dia- 
conum Duo. Edidit post Aubertum 
P. E. Pusey, A.M. Tomi III. Svo. 

2l. 55. 

Commentarii in Lucae 

Evangelium quae supersunt Sijriace. E 
mss. apud Mus. Britan. edidit E. 
Payne Smith, A.M. 4to. iZ. 2s. 



Cyrilli Commentarii in Lucae 

Evangelium quae supersunt Syriace. 
Translated by R. Payne Smith, 
M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 145. 

Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Epi- 

scopi Edesseni, Balaei, aliorumque Opera 
Selecta. E Codd. Syriacis mss. in 
Museo Britannico et Bibliotheca 
Bodleiana asservatis primus edidit 
J. J. Overbeck. Svo. iZ. is. 

Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae 

Praeparationis Libri XV. Ad Codd. 
mss. denuo collates recensuit An- 
glice nunc primum reddidit notis 
et indicibus instruxit E. H.Gifford, 
S.T.P. Tomi IV. Svo. 5?. 55. net. 
(Translation only, 2 vols., 253. net.) 

- Evangelicae Praepara 



Libri XV. Ad Codd. mss. re- 
censuitT. Gaisford, S.T.P. Tomi IV. 
Svo. il. i os. 

- Evangelicae Demonstra- 

tionis Libri X. Recensuit T. Gaisford, 
S.T.P. Tomi II. Svo. 153. 

- contra Hieroclem et 

Marccllum Libri. Recensuit T. Gais 
ford, S.T.P. Svo. 7s. 

Eusebius Ecclesiastical His 
tory, according to the text of Burton, 
with an Introduction by W. Bright, 
D.D. Crown Svo. Ss. 6d. 

Evagrii Historia Ecclesiastica, 

ex recensione H. Valesii. Svo. 43. 

Irenaeus : The Third Book of 

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, against 
Heresies. With short Notes and a 
Glossary by H. Deane, B.D. Crown 
Svo. 55. 6d. 

Patrum Apostolicorum, 8. de 

mentis Romani, S. lynatii, S. Polycarpi, 
quae supersunt. Edidit Guil. Jacobson, 
S.T.P.R. Tomi II. Svo. iZ. is. 



Oxford : Clarendon Press. London : HE.NBY FROWJJE, Amen Corner, E. C. 



ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 



Philo. About the Contem 
plative Life ; or, the Fourth Book of the 
Treatise concerning Virtues. Critically 
edited, with a defenceof its genuine 
ness. By Fred. C. Conybeare, M.A. 
8vo. 143. 

Reliquiae Sacrae secundi ter- 

tiique saeculi. Recensuit M. J. Routh, 
S.T.P. Tomi V. 8vo. il. 55. 

Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum 

Opuscula. Recensuit M. J. Routh, 
S.T.P. Tomi II. 8vo. los. 

Socrates Ecclesiastical His 
tory, according to the Text of Hussey, 
with an Introduction by William 
Bright, D.D. Crown Svo. 7s. del. 



Sozomeni Historia Ecclesi- 

astica. Edidit R. Hussey, S.T.B. 
Tomi III. Svo. 155. 

Tertulliani Apologeticus ad- 

rersus Gentespro Christ ianis. Edited, 
with Introduction and Notes, by 
T. Herbert Bindley, B.D. Crown 
Svo. 6s. 

de Praescriptione 

Haereticonim : ad Marlyras : ad Scapu- 
lam. Edited, with Introduction and 
Notes, by T. Herbert Bindley, B.D. 
Crown Svo. 6s. 

Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae His- 

toriae Libri V. Recensuit T. Gaisford, 
S.T.P. Svo. 75. 6d. 



3. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ETC. 



Adamnani Vita 8. Columbae. 

Edited, with Introduction, Notes, 
and Glossary, by J. T. Fowler, M.A., 
D.C.L. Crown Svo, half-bound, 
Ss. 6d. net. 

The same, tog-ether with 
Translation. 95. 6d. net. 

Baedae Historia Ecclesiastica. 

A New Edition. Edited, with Intro 
duction, English Notes, &c., by C. 
Plummer, M.A. 2 vols. Crown 
Svo. 2 is. net. 

Bedford (W.K.R.). The Blazon 

of Episcopacy. Being the Arms borne 
by, or attributed to, the Arch 
bishops and Bishops of England 
and Wales. With an Ordinary of 
the Coats described and of other 
Episcopal Arms. Second Edition, 
Revised and Enlarged. With One 
Thousand Illustrations. Sm. 4to, 
buckram, 315. 6d. net. 

Bigg. The Christ ianPlatonists 

of Alexandria. By Charles Bigg, D.D. 
Svo. lo.s. 6d. 
Bingham s Antiquities of the 

Christian Church, and other Works. 10 
vols. Svo. 3/. 35. 
Bright. Chapters of Early 

English Church History. By W. Bright, 
D.D. Third Edition. Svo. 12s. 



Burnet s History of the Refor 
mation of the Church of England. A 
new Edition, by N. Pocock, M.A. 
7 vols. Svo. i?. los. 

Cardwell s Documentary An 
nals of the Reformed Church of England ; 
being a Collection of Injunctions, 
Declarations, Orders, Articles of 
Inquiry, &c. from 1546 to 1716. 
2 vols. Svo. 1 8s. 

Carleton. The Part of Rheiins 

in the Making of the English Bible. By 
J.G. Carleton, D.D. Svo. gs.6d.net. 

Conybeare. The Key of Truth. 

A Manual of the Paulician Church 
of Armenia. The Armenian Text, 
edited and translated with illus 
trative Documents and Introduc- 
. tion by F. C. Conybeare, M.A. Svo. 
155. net. 

Councils and Ecclesiastical 

Documents relating to Great Britain and 
Ireland. Edited, after Spelman and 
Wilkins, by A. W. Haddan, B.D., 
and W. Stubbs, D.D. Vols. I and 
III. Medium Svo, each iZ. is. 
Vol. II, Part I. Med. Svo, IDS. 6d. 
Vol. II, Part II. Church of Ireland ; 
Memorials of St. Patrick. Stiff 
covers, 35. 6d. 



Also at EDINBUKGII, GLASGOW, and NEW YOIIK. 



ENGLISH THEOLOGY. 



Fuller s Church History of 

Britain. Edited by J. S. Brewer, 
M.A. 6 vols. 8vo. il, I2s.6d.net. 

Gee. The Elizabethan Clergy 

anil the Settlement of Religion, 1558- 
1564. By Henry Gee, B.D., F.S.A. 
With Illustrative Documents and 
Lists. Svo. i os. 6d. net. 

Gibson s Sy nodus Anglicana. 

Edited by E.Cardwell, D.D. Svo. 6s. 

Hamilton s (Archbishop John] 

Catechism, 1552. Edited, with In 
troduction and Glossary, by Thomas 
Graves Law. With a Preface by 
the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 
Demy Svo. 1 2s. 6d. 

Horstman. Nova Legenda 

Angliae ; As collected by John of 
Tynemouth, John Capgrave, and 
others, and first printed, with 
New Lives, by Wynkyn de Worde, 
1516. Now re-edited, with fresh 
material from MS. and printed 
sources by Carl Horstman, Ph.D. 
2 vols. Svo. i/. 1 6s. net. 

John, Bishop ofEphesus. The 

Third Part of his Ecclesiastical History. 
fin Syriac.] Now first edited by 
William Cureton, M.A. 4to. il. I2s. 

The same, translated by 

R. Payne Smith, M.A. Svo. ics. 

Le Neve s Fasti Ecclesiae 

Anglicanae. Corrected and continued 
from 1715 to 1853 by T. Duffus 
Hardy. 3 vols. Svo. il. los. net. 

Noelli (A.) Catechismus sive 

prima institutio disciplinaque Pietatis 
Christianas Latine explicata. Editio 
nova cura Guil. Jacobson, A.M. Svo. 
5. 6d. 



Ommanney. A Critical Dis 
sertation on the Athanasian Creed. 
By G. D. W. Ommanney, M.A. 
Svo. 1 6s. 

Eecords of the Reformation. 

The Divorce, 1527-1533. Mostly now 
for the first time printed from MSS. 
in the British Museum and other 
Libraries. Collected and arranged 
by N. Pocock, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 
il. 1 6s. 

Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- 

ticarum. The Reformation of Eccle 
siastical Laws, as attempted in the 
reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, 
and Elizabeth. Edited by E. Card- 
well, D.D. Svo. 6s. 6d. 

Rogers. Baptism and Chris 
tian Archaeology. By Clement F. 
Rogers, M.A. With many Illus 
trations. Svo. (Offprint of Studia 
Biblica, Vol. V, Part IV.) Cloth, 
5.5. net. 

Shirley. Some Account of the 

Church in the Apostolic Age. By W.W. 
Shirley, D.D. Second Edition. Fcap. 
Svo. 35. 6rf. 

Stubbs. Registrum Sacrum 

Anglicanum. An attempt to exhibit 
the course of Episcopal Succession 
in England. By W. Stubbs, D.D. 
Small 4to. Second Edition. IDS. 6d. 

Turner. Ecclesiae Occiden- 

talis Monumcnta luris Antiquissima : 
Canonum et Conciliorum Grae- 
corum Interpretationes Latinae. 
Edidit Cuthbertus Hamilton 
Turner, A.M. 4to, stiff covers. 
Fasc. I, pars. I, ics. 6d. Fasc. I, 
pars. II, sis. 



4. ENGLISH THEOLOGY. 



Bradley. Lectures on the 

Book of Job. By George Granville 
Bradley, D.D., Dean of Westmin 
ster. Crown Svo. 75. 6d. 

Lectures on Ecclesiaxtes. 

By the same. Second Edition. Crown 
Svo. 5s. 6d. 



Bull s Works, witli Nelson s 

Life. Edited by E. Burton, D.D. 
S vols. Svo. 2l. 93. 



Burnet s Exposition of the 
XXXIX Articles. Svo. 75. 



Oxford : Clarendon Press. London : HENEY FHOWDK, Amen Corner, E.G. 



ENGLISH THEOLOGY. 



Butler s Works. Divided into 

Sections; with Sectional Headings ; 
an Index to each volume ; and some 
occasional Notes ; also Prefatory 
Matter. Edited by the Right Hon. 
W. E. Gladstone. 2 vols. Medium j 
Svo. 14.";. each. 

Cranmer s Works. Collected 

and arranged by H. Jcnkyns, M.A., 
Fellow of Oriel College. 4 vols. 
Svo. il. IDS. 

Enchiridion Theologicum 

Anti-Romanum. 

Vol. I. Jeremy Taylor s Dissua 
sive from Popery, and Treatise 
on the Real Presence. Svo. 8s. 

Vol. II. Barrow on the Suprem 
acy of the Pope, with his Dis 
course on the Unity of the 
Church. Svo. 7s. 6d. 

Vol. III. Tracts selected from 
Wake, Patrick, Stillingfleet, 
Clagett, and others. Svo. us. 

Greswell s Harmonia Evan- 

gelica. Fifth Edition. Svo. 95. 6rf. 

Hall s Works. Edited by P. \ 
"Wynter, D.D. 10 vols. Svo. 3/. 35. 

Heurtley. Harmonia Sym- . 

bolica : Creeds of the Western Church. 
By C. Heurtley, D.D. Svo. 6s. 6d. 

Homilies appointed to be read 

in Churches. Edited by J. Griffiths, 
D.D. Svo. 75-. 6d. 

Hooker. An Introduction to 

the Fifth Book of Hooker s Treatise of 
the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. By 
F. Paget, D.D. Medium Svo. 75. 6rf. 

Works, with his Life 

by Walton, arranged by John Keble, 
M.A. Seventh Edition. Revised by 
R. W. Church, M.A., Dean of St. 
Paul s, and F. Paget, D.D. 3 vols. 
medium Svo. il. i6s. 
For the convenience of purchasers, Vol. II 
of this edition (Ecclesiastical Polity, 
Book V}, is sold separately, price Tivelve 
Shillings. 

Hooker. The Text as arranged 
by J. Keble, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. us. 



Jackson s (Dr. Thorn as) Works. 

1 2 vols. Svo. 3 7. 6s. 

Jewel s Works. Edited by R. 

W. Jelf, D.D. S vols. Svo. i7. los. 

Martineau. A Study of Re 
ligion : its Sources and Contents. By 
James Martineau, D.D. Second Edi 
tion. 2 vols. Crown Svo. 155. 

Patrick s Theological Works. 
9 vols. Svo. il. is. 

Pearson s Exposition of the 

Greed. Revised and corrected by 
E. Burton, D.D. Sixth Edition. Svo. 

1 os. Gd. 

Minor Theological Works. 

Edited with a Memoir, by Edward 
Churton, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. los. 

Sanday. The Sacred Sites of 

the Gospels. By W. Sanday, D.D. 
With many Illustrations, including 
drawings of the Temple by Paul 
Waterhouse. Svo. 135. 6d. net. 

Sanderson s Works. Edited by 

W. Jacobson,D.D. 6 vols. Svo. il. los. 

Stillingfleet s Origines Sacrae. 

2 vols. Svo. 95. 

Rational Account of the 

Grounds of Protestant lielig ion ; being 
a vindication of Archbishop Laud s 
Relation of a Conference, &c. 2 
vols. Svo. i os. 

Taylor. The Oxyrhynchus 

Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels. By 
the Rev. Charles Taylor, D.D. Svo, 
paper covers, 2s. 6d. net. 

Wall s History of Infant Bap 
tism. Edited by H. Cotton, D.C.L. 
2 vols. Svo. i/. is. 

Waterland s Works, with Life, 

by Bp. Van Mildert. A new Edition, 
with copious Indexes. 6 vols. Svo. 
2l. us. 

Revieiv of the Doctrine 

of the Eucharist, with a Preface by 
the late Bishop of London. Crown 
Svo. 6s. 6d. 



Also at EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, and NEW YORK. 



LITURGIOLOGY. 



Wheatly s Illustration of the 

Book of Common Prayer. Svo. 55. 

Wyclif. A Catalogue of the 

Original Works of John Wyclif. By 
W. W. Shirley, D.D. 8vo. 35. 6d. 



Wyclif. Select English Works. 

By T. Arnold, M.A. 3 vols. 8vo. 



il. is. net. 



Trialogus. With the 



Supplement now first edited. 
Gotthard Lechler. Svo. 7s. 



By 



5. LITURGIOLOGY. 



Cardwell s Two Books of Com 
mon Prayer, set forth by authority 
in the Keign of King Edward VI, 
compared with each other. Third 
Edition.- Svo. 7. 

History of Conferences 

on the Book of Common Prayer from 
1551 to 1690. Svo. 7.5. 6d. 

The Gelasian Sacramentary. 

Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ec- 
clesiae. Edited, with Introduction, 
Critical Notes, and Appendix, by 
H. A. Wilson, M.A. Medium Svo. 
1 8s. 

Liturgies, Eastern and 

"Western. Edited, with Introduc 
tions and Appendices, by F. E. 
Brightman, M.A., on the Basis of 
the former Work by C. E. Ham 
mond, M.A. 

Vol. I. Eastern Liturgies. Demy 
Svo. il. is. 

The Administration of the 

Sacrament and other Rites of the 
Armenian Church, together with 
the Greek Rites of Baptism and 
Epiphany ; edited from the oldest 
MSS., by F. C. Conybeare, M.A., 
and The East Syrian Epiphany 
Rites, translated by A. J. Maclean, 
D.D. Svo. In the press. 



Helps to the Study of the 

Book of Common Prayer : Being 
a Companion to Church Worship. 
By the Very Rev. W. R. Stephens, 
B.D., Dean of Winchester. Crown 
Svo. 2s. 6d. net ; also in leather 
bindings. 

Leofric Missal, The, as used 

in the Cathedral of Exeter during 
the Episcopate of its first Bishop, 
A.D. 1050-1072 ; together with some 
Account of the Red Book of Derby, 
the Missal of Robert of Jumieges, 
&c. Edited, with Introduction and 
Notes, by F.E. Warren, B.D., F.S.A. 
4to, half-morocco, il. 155. 

Maskell. Ancient Liturgy of 

the Church of England, according to 
the uses of Sarum, York, Hereford, 
and Bangor, and the Roman Liturgy 
arranged in parallel columns, with 
preface and notes. By W. Maskell, 
M.A. Third Edition. Svo. 155. 

Monumenta Ritualia 

Ecclesiae Anglicanae. The occasional 
Offices of the Church of England 
according to the old use of Salisbury, 
the Prymer in English, and other 
prayers and forms, with disserta 
tions and notes. Second Edition. 
3 vols. Svo. 2Z. los. 

Warren. The Liturgy and 

Ritual of the Celtic Church. By F. E. 
Warren, B.D. Svo. 145. 



OXFORD 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 

LONDON: HENRY FROWDE 

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.G. 

EDINBURGH: 12 FREDERICK STREET; GLASGOW: 104 WEST GEORGE STREET; 

NEW YORK: 91 & 93 FIFTH AVENUE. 



DATE DUE