οἰκτιρμῶν μνεία. ἀναλάβωμεν παιδείαν, ἐφ' ᾗ οὐδεὶς ὀφείλει ἀγανακτεῖν, ἀγαπητοί. ἡ νουθέτησις, ἣν ποιούμεθα εἰς ἀλλήλους, καλή ἐστιν καὶ ὑπεράγαν ὠφέλιμος· κολλᾷ γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὕτως γάρ φησιν ὁ ἅγιος λόγος Παιδεύων ἐπαίλεγέν Με ὁ Κύ- 5 Ploc, καὶ τῷ θανάτῳ οὐ παρέδωκέν Με. Ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπά Κύριος παιδεύει, MacτιΓοῖ δὲ πάντα γἱὸν ἂν παραδέχεται Παιδεύσει Με γάρ, φησιν, δίκαιος ἐν ἐλέει καὶ ἐλέγξει Με, ἔλεος δὲ ἁμαρτωλῶν μὴ λιπανάτω ΤΗΝ ΚΕΦΑΛΗΝ ΜΟΥ. Καὶ πάλιν λέγει Μακάριος ἄνθρωπος ὃν ΗΛΕΓΞΕΝ ὁ Κύριος, NOY- Io θέτημα δὲ παντοκράτορος Μὴ ἀπαναίνου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀλγεῖν ποιεῖ, καὶ πάλιν ἀποκαθίσTHCIN ἔΠΑΙΣΕΝ, καὶ αἱ χείρες Αὐτοῦ ἰάσαντο. ἑξάκις ἐξ ἀναγκῶν ἐξελεῖταί σε, ἐν δὲ τῷ 1 οἰκτιρμῶν μνεία] οικτειρμωνμνια Α. οφιλει Α. νουθέτησις] νουθετησεισ Α. is supposed to refer to invocation of 1. ἀναλάβωμεν παιδείαν] ‘Let us receive correction': comp. Heb. xii. 7 εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε κ. τ. λ. 2. ἡ νουθέτησις] On the difference between νουθεσία (νουθέτησις) and παιδεία, see Trench N. T. Syn. Ist ser. § xxxii ; comp. Ephes. vi. 4. On the forms νουθεσία, νουθέτησις, see Lobeck Phryn. p. 512. 5. παιδεύων κ.τ.λ.] From the Lxx Ps. cxviii. 18 word for word. παιδείαν] παιδιαν Α. 8 ἔλεος] ελαιοσ A. 2 ὀφείλει] See below. 6. ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κ.τ.λ.] From LXX Prov. iii. 12 word for word, as NA ; but for παιδεύει B has ἐλέγχει. The Syro-Hexaplar text wavers, giving the equivalent to παιδεύει in the text and to ἐλέγχει in the margin. In Heb. xii. 6 it is quoted with παιδεύει as here: in Rev. iii. 19 both words are combined, ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ, ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω. Clem. Alex. Ped. I. 9 (p. 145) has παιδεύει, but his quotation is perhaps not independent of the Roman Clement. On the other hand Philo de Conj. Erud. grat. § 31 (1. p. 544) quotes it with ἐλέγχει. This, which corresponds with the Hebrew, was probably the original reading of the Lxx, and all the texts with παιδεύει may perhaps have been derived directly or indirectly from the quotation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 7. παιδεύσει κ.τ.λ.] From Ps. cxli. 5, word for word, if we read ἔλαιον. Our Ms however has ελαιοσ, i. e. ἔλεος (for so our scribe generally writes the word: see p. 25). On the other hand, ἑβδόμῳ οὐχ άψεταί coY κακόν· ἐν λιμῷ ῥύσεταί σε ἐκ θανά15 ΤΟΥ, ἐν πολέμῳ δὲ ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου λύσει ce ̇ καὶ ἀπὸ Μάστιρος ΓλώccHc cè κρύψει, καὶ οὐ Μή φοβηθήση κακών ἐπερχομένων· ἀδίκων καί ἀνόμων καταγελάσῃ, ἀπὸ δὲ θηρίων ἀγρίων ΟΥ̓ Μή φοβηθής. θήρες γὰρ ἄγριοι εἰΡΗΝΕΥ corcin coι· εἶτα Γνώση, ὅτι εἰpHNEYcei coy ὁ οἶκος· ἡ δὲ 20 Δίαιτα της CKHNĀC COY o? ΜΗ ἁμάρτη, Γνώση Δὲ ὅτι πολύ [τό σπέρμα cor], τὰ δὲ τέκνα coY ὥσπερ [τὸ παμβό]ΤΑΝΟΝ τοῦ ἀγροῇ ἐλεγCH [Δὲ ἐν τά]φῳ ὥσπερ είτος ώριμο[c κατά καιρόν θεριζόμενος, Η ὥς[περ θημω]νια άλωνος καθ' ώραν εγ[ΝΚΟΜι]εθεῖς. Βλέπετε, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι] 25 ὑπερασπισμός ἐστιν τ[οῖς παιδευ]ομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπό 14 οὐχ ἅψεται] ουκοψεται Α. the original reading of the LXX was unquestionably ἔλαιον ἔλαιον is the oil, ἔλαιος the olive-tree and therefore out of place here) as it is in NAB, and apparently in all existing MSS of the LXX, the Hebrew being ; but ἔλαιος (i. e. ἔλεος) might not unnaturally be substituted by some early transcriber on account of the preceding ἐν ἐλέει. It is therefore not improbable that Clement found this reading in his text of the LXX, so that I have not ventured to correct it. See another instance of the same error above, § 18 (note). 10. μακάριος κ.τ.λ.] From Lxx Job v. 17-26 as read in NB, with slight and unimportant differences. The text of A presents considerable variations, chiefly in adding clauses which are found in the Hebrew but wanting in NB. The points in which Clement's quotation agrees with A, as against ΝΒ (e.g. οὐχ ἅψεται for οὐ μὴ ἅψηται), are insignificant. 13. ἑξάκις κ.τ.λ.] For this Hebraism where two successive numbers are given to denote magnitude and in crease, see Prov. vi. 16 Hebr. (six, seven, as here); Micah v. 5, Eccles. xi. 2 (seven, eight); Exod. xx. 5, etc. (three four); Job xxxiii. 29 Hebr. (two, three). 16. κακών] The Lxx text prefixes ἀπό (NAB). 18. θῆρες γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] As in the vision of Hermas Vis. iv. 1, 2, where the wild beast is thus pacified. 19. ἡ δὲ δίαιτα] ‘the abode: see above § 39. The Hebrew is quite different. 21. τὸ παμβότανον] ‘the manifold herbage. It seems to be a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον till quite a late period. There is nothing in the Hebrew (209) to explain the adoption of so unusual a word. 22. ἐν τάφῳ] Α Hebraism for εἰς τάφον: see another instance on § 55 παρέδωκεν ἐν χειρί. 23. θημωνιά] Α word, it would appear, almost confined to the LXX, though Onuar is as old as Homer, Od. v. 368. 25. ὑπερασπισμός] ' protection', 2 Sam. xxii. 36, Ps. xviii. 35, Lam. iii. 64, [του· καὶ γὰρ] ἀγαθὸς ὢν παιδεύει ἀγαθὸς ὢν παιδε[ύει Θεός] εἰς τὸ νουθετ]ηθῆναι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς ὁσίας π[αι]δείας αὐτοῦ. LVII. Ὑμεῖς οὖν, οἱ τὴν καταβολὴν [τῆς] στάσεως ποιήσαντες, ὑποτά[γη]τε τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ παι[δεύ]θητε εἰς μετάνοιαν, κάμψαν[τες] τὰ γόνατα τῆς 5 καρδίας ὑμῶν· μάθετε ὑποτάσσεσθαι, ἀποθέμενοι τὴν ἀλαζόνα καὶ ὑπερήφανον τῆς γλώσσης ὑμῶν αὐθάδ[εια]ν· ἄμεινον γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῖν [ἐν] τῷ ποιμνίῳ τοῦ ι παιδεύει Θεός] There is not room in the lacuna for more letters than γειθς, if for so many (see Tisch. prol. xix). I have therefore read Θεός in place of ὁ Θεός, the reading of previous editors (following Wotton). 2 παιδείας] π. . διασ Α. Eccles. xxxi (xxxiv). 19. It does not occur in the New Testament. See the note on υπερασπιστής above, § 45. I. ἀγαθὸς ὤν] ‘of His kindness (as e.g. Ps. lxxiii. 1), corresponding to ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κ.τ.λ. above. LVII. 'And do you leaders of the schism submit to the elders, and ask pardon of God on your knees. It is far better that you should be of no account, so that the flock of Christ may have peace. Remember how sternly Wisdom rebukes the disobedient in the Book of Proverbs. She will laugh them to scorn when destruction cometh as a tempest. They mocked at her counsels before, and she will not hear them then.' 4. ὑποτ. τοῖς πρεσβ.] The same expression occurs, 1 Pet. v. 5. 5. κάμψαντες κ.τ.λ.] Compare the expression in the prayer of Manasses (Apost. Const. ii. 22) νῦν κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας. A strong oriental metaphor like 'girding the loins of the mind' (1 Pet. i. 13), or 'rendering the calves of the lips' (Hosea xiv. 2). στοῦ, either a subjective or an objective genitive, 'the hope which He holds out' or 'the hope which reposes in Him'. ΙΙ. ἡ πανάρετος σοφία] The Book of Proverbs, besides the title commonly prefixed to the LXX Version, Παροιμίαι or Παροιμίαι Σαλομώντος, is frequently quoted by early Christian writers as ἡ πανάρετος σοφία ' the Wisdom which comprises all virtues' (for πανάρετος comp. § 1); see esp. Euseb. H. E. iv. 22, where speaking of Hegesippus he says, οὐ μόνος δὲ οὗτος ἀλλὰ καὶ Εἰρηναῖος καὶ ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς πανάρετον σοφίαν τὰς Σολομῶνος παροιμίας ἐκάλουν. Sometimes it bears the name oopía simply; e.g. in Just. Mart. Dial. § 129 (p. 359 A), Melito in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, Clem. Alex. Protr. § 8 (pp. 67, 68), Ped. ii. 2 (p. 182 ἡ θεία σοφία), Strom. ii. 18 (p. 472), Orig. Hom. xiv in Gen. § 2 (II. p. 97), besides others quoted in Cotelier. It is a probable inference from Eusebius (ll. cc.) that both Melito and Hegesippus derived the name from Jewish sources, and this is borne out by the fact that the book is called 97, 'Wisdom', by rabbinical writers (see Fürst Kanon des Alten Testaments, Χριστοῦ μικροὺς καὶ ἐλλογίμους εὑρεθῆναι, ἢ καθ ̓ ὑτο περοχὴν δοκοῦντας ἐκριφῆναι ἐκ τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ. οὕτως γὰρ λέγει ἡ πανάρετος σοφία· Ἰδοὺ προнcoma[ {Μῖ]Ν ἐμῆς ΠΝΟῆς ῥÆCIN, Διδάξω [Δὲ ἡμᾶ] τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον· ἐπ[ειδὴ ἐκάλογλ] καὶ οὐχ ΥΠΗΚΟýca[τε, καὶ ἐξέτεινον λόγογ καὶ οὐ [προσείχετε], ἀλλὰ ἀκρογς ἐποιεῖτε ἐμὰς] Βογλὰς 15 τοῖς δὲ ἐπ[οῖς ἐλέγχοις] ἀπειθήσατε τοι[α[ΡΟΥΝ κατώ] τη ἡμετέρα ἀπωλεί[α ἐπιγελάσο]μαι, καταχωρούμαι δὲ [ Νίκα ἂν] ἔρχεται ἡμῖν ὄλεθρο[ς καὶ ὡς ἂν ἀ]φίκΗΤΑΙ ΥΜΙΝ άφνω 14 ἐποιεῖτε ἐμάς] Tisch. (prol. xix) says Rectius suppletur ιειτε τασ εμασ quam ιειτε εμασ'; but ιειται εμασ is better suited to the space than either, and εποιειτε would as likely as not be written εποιειται. This reading also accords with the LXX. 1868, p. 73 sq.). The personification of Wisdom in the opening would lead naturally to this designation; e.g. Iren. iv. 20. 3, v. 20. 1, Philo de Ebr. 8 (I. p. 362), though Philo himself quotes the book as παροιμίαι ib. § 20 (I. p. 369). Whether the epithet πανάρετος was first used by Clement and derived from him by later writers, or not, it is impossible to say. At the same time the title ή πανάρετος σοφία is given, not only to the canonical Book of Wisdom, but also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (Method. Symp. i. 3, ii. 7, noted by Hilgenfeld; Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. § 4, II. p. 162 ed. Petau; Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. vii, II. p. 638, Paris 1638; [Athanas.] Synops. § 45, II. Ρ. 132 F, τῆς σοφίας Σολομῶντος τῆς λεγομένης παναρέτου; and others: and its title in the list of books prefixed to A is σοφία ἡ πανάρετος), and to the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Euseb. Chron. Ol. cxxxvii 'quem vocant Panareton, Dem. Evang. viii. 2 p. 393 Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σειρὰχ ὁ τὴν καλουμένην πανάρετον σοφίαν συντάξας, Hieron. Prol. in Libr. Sal., ΙΧ. Ρ. 1293, etc.). Joannes Damasc. de Fid. Orth. iv. 17 (I. p. 284) says ἡ πανάρετος, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, thus including both these apocryphal books under the term, but excluding Proverbs which he has before mentioned as παροιμίαι; and so Jerome Praf. in Libr. Salom. (IX. p. 1293) ‘Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius ψευδεπίγραφος qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur'. Moreover the name of 'Wisdom' is occasionally given also to Ecclesiastes (Fürst l. c. p. 91) and to the Song of Songs (Fürst 1. c. p. 85, and Cotelier here). And still more generally the third group of the Old Testament writings, the ἁγιόγραφα or γραφεία, is sometimes called 'Wisdom' (Fürst 1.c. p. 55), because it comprises Proverbs and the allied books, as it is elsewhere called ψαλμοὶ or ὕμνοι (see above § 28) from another most important component element. [орвос, де] катастрофи омога к[атлігіі пари, н ὅταν ἔρχεται {ΜΕΝ θλίψις] καὶ πολιορκία. ἔσται τάρ, ὅταν ἐπι]καλέςησθέ με, ἐγὼ δὲ [οὐκ εἰca] kojcomαι ἡμῶν· ΖΗT[HCOYCI] ME KAkoi kai oỶɣ eỶ PH[COYCIN]· EMÍCHCan rap copian, [τὸν δὲ φό]ΒοΝ ΤΟΥ͂ Κυρίου οι προείλα[Ντο, οὐδὲ] Ηθελον 5 3 ἐπικαλέσησθε] επικαλεσησθαι Α. 2 ὅταν] οταρ Α. I read the MS Tроe‹λα. . ., as in the LXX, but Tisch. gives it πpooiλa..... The letters 8. πλησθήσονται] πλησθησον occur towards the end of the last line in a page, fol. 167 b. The margin is torn, so that a few letters have disappeared. There is not room however for many more than three letters, and probably the page ended with πλησθήσονται, so that a new subject would begin with the following page. All this the photograph shows clearly. It is now established beyond a doubt that one leaf, and one leaf only, of the MS has disappeared: see the introduction p. 23. The first leaf of this epistle (fol. 159) extends from the beginning to kaì σeμvòv.......§7; the second (fol. 160) from ...σews μŵv κανόνα § 7 to οὕτως κριθήσε[ται] § 13. These examples will show the average contents of a leaf. The preceding 57 chapters in fact have taken up nine leaves, so that nearly a tenth of the whole epistle is lost. This lacuna therefore gives ample room for the passages from Clement's epistle which are quoted in ancient writers but not found in the MS. These are now gathered together. (i) If there were no independent reason for inserting this fragment in our epistle, we might hesitate; for (1) I have shown above (§ 47) that ev τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ might mean the Second Epistle; and to the Second Epistle Ussher and others after him have referred it; (2) The 5 προείλαντο] suggestion of Cotelier (Jud. de Epist. II) that for καθώς φησιν we should read καί ὡς φησιν, or better καὶ Kalos pηow, would be very plausible. But Cotelier himself points out (1.c.) that the statement of the Pseudo-Justin is confirmed from another source. Irenæus (iii. 3. 3) describes this epistle of Clement as preserving the tradition recently received from the Apostles, annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem cœli et terræ, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Ægypti, qui collocutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit et prophetas miserit, qui ignem præparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus'. This description corresponds with the contents of our epistle, excepting the last clause which I have italicised; and the insertion of a statement so remarkable could not have been an accidental error on the part of Irenæus. Wotton indeed supposes that these words do not give the contents of Clement's epistle, but that Irenæus is describing in his own language the general substance of the Apostolic tradition. To this interpretation however the subjunctive præparaverit is fatal, for it shows that the narrative is oblique and that Irenæus is speaking in the words of another. It seems then that Clement towards the close of the epistle dwelt upon |