صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

τῶν ἀπεχθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλοῦτος πολλάκις μᾶλλον πενίας ἔθλιψε, καὶ ὑγεία πλέον ἠνίασε νόσου. καὶ καθόλου τῶν λυπηρῶν καὶ φευκτῶν πάντων ὑπόθεσις καὶ ὕλη ἡ τῶν ἀσπαστῶν καὶ κατ ̓ εὐχὴν περιβολὴ γίνεται.

[blocks in formation]

where it stands for ideal perfec-
tion. Περιβολὴ must mean the sur-
rounding or investiture with', and
so here the acquisition of'; comp.
Xen. Hell. vii. I. 40 (τῆς ἀρχῆς),
Polyb. xvi. 20. 9, Porphyr. Vit. Pyth.
54 τῇ τε τῶν φίλων περιβολῇ καὶ τῇ
τοῦ πλούτου δυνάμει, Aristid. Οr. 14. (1.
208) περιβολῇ τε ἀρχῆς καὶ ὄγκῳ πραγ-
μάτων ; and the translation “affluentia
(as if ὑπερβολή) appears to be wrong.

5

On some Clementine Fragments.

B

ESIDES the fragments which are distinctly quoted as belonging to the First or Second Epistle to the Corinthians or may with high probability be assigned to either, and which in this edition are printed in their proper places (pp. 167 sq., 210 sq.), other assumed quotations from Clementine Epistles have been included in the collections of previous editors, and will now deserve consideration.

I.

A passage has been already noticed (pp. 21, 124) as cited by Leontius and John Sacr. Rer. Lib. ii (Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. VII. p. 84), with the heading τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ἐκ τῆς θ' ἐπιστολῆς.

Ἵνα καὶ γενώμεθα βουληθέντος αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ὄντες πρὶν γενέσθαι, καὶ γενόμενοι ἀπολαύσωμεν τῶν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς γενομένων. διὰ τοῦτό ἐσμεν ἄνθρωποι καὶ φρόνησιν ἔχομεν καὶ λόγον, παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ λαβόντες.

The resemblance of these words to a passage in the genuine epistle has been pointed out already (see the note on § 38). I have hazarded the conjecture that for we should read € (see p. 21). In this case the five epistles in the collection referred to might have been (1) the Epistle to James, (2), (3) the Two Epistles to Virgins, (4), (5) the Two Epistles to the Corinthians, so that the fragment may have been taken from the lost end of our Second Epistle. A second hypothesis would be, that it is intended for the passage in the First Epistle (§ 38) which it resembles, especially as we are told (see above pp. 21, 109) that these

same writers just before have quoted a fragment from the First Epistle (§ 33) with very considerable variations from our existing text. But if so, the quotation is very loose indeed; and moreover the form of the heading seems to show that it was taken from a different epistle from the preceding passage. Another and very obvious alternative is that other spurious Clementine epistles were known to the ancients, which have not come down to us.

2.

Several quotations are included by preceding editors, which really belong to some recension of the Petro-Clementine writings (i. e. the Homilies or Recognitions with the letters prefixed). I have here placed them side by side with the parallel passages in these writings, that the resemblance may be seen.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This passage was first published by Jacobson from a Vienna MS (described in Nessel's Catalogue P. 2, p. 18). Its source was pointed out by Nolte Patrist. Miscell. in the Theolog. Quartalschr. XLI. p. 277 (1859).

Τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης.

Αὐτάρκης εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡ εἰς Θεὸν ἀνθρώπου ἀγάπη. εὐγνωμοσύνης γάρ ἐστι τὸ πρὸς τὸν τοῦ εἶναι ἡμᾶς αἴτιον ἀποσώζειν στοργήν, ὑφ ̓ ἧς καὶ εἰς δεύτερον καὶ ἀγήρω αἰῶνα διασωζόμεθα.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Ἐπείρασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ̓Αβραάμ, οὐκ ἀγνοῶν τίς ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα τοῖς μετὰ ταῦς τα δείξῃ καὶ μὴ κρύψῃ τὸν τοιοῦτον καὶ διεγείρῃ εἰς μίμησιν τῆς ἐκείνου πίστεως καὶ ὑπομονῆς, καὶ πείσῃ καὶ τέκνων στοργῆς ἀμελεῖν πρὸς ἐκπλήρωσιν θείου προστάγματος· ὅθεν ἔγγραφον περὶ αὐτοῦ ἱστορίαν γενέσθαι ᾠκονόμησεν.

JOANN. DAMASC. Sacr. Par. α. 49 (II. p. 752).

(ii)

Αὐτάρκης οὖν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡ εἰς Θεὸν ἀνθρώπων στόργη (§ 8). δι ̓ εὐγνωμοσύνην οὐ θελήσουσι κατὰ τοῦ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντος Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. (§ 4). τοσοῦτον ὁ Θεὸς ὑπὲρ πάντας εὐεργέτηκεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἵνα εἰς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τὸν εὐεργέτην ἀγαπήσας ὑπὸ αὐτῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰς δεύ τερον αἰῶνα διασωθῆναι δυ νηθῇ (§ 7).

Clem. Hom. iii. 7, 8.

ὁ Cίμων . . ἔφη ... τὸ δὲ πειράζειν, ὡς γέγραπται καὶ ἐπείρασεν Κριος τὸν Ἀβραάμ, κακοῦ καὶ τὸ τέλος τῆς ὑπομονῆς ἀγ νοοῦντος (§ 39).

...

καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ψεύ δός ἐστι τὸ γέγραφθαι κ.τ.λ. ... ἔτι μὴν καὶ εἰ ἐπείραζεν Κύριος τὸν Ἀβραάμ, ἵνα γνῷ εἰ ὑπομενεῖ (§ 43). ... τὰς ἀποδείξεις ἐγγράφους ἔχει παρασχεῖν (§ 10).

Clem. Hom. iii. 1o, 39, 43.

The source of the quotations is pointed out in part by Nolte 1. c. p. 276, though he has not put the case as strongly as he might have done. Hilgenfeld however twice denounces Nolte's reference as 'rash' (pp. 61, 90), and himself throws these fragments into the lacuna after § 57 of the First Epistle. Taking Hilgenfeld's text, I had without due consideration, yet not without misgiving, placed them there in my analysis of the genuine epistle (p. 8); but I am now convinced that this is wrong. The following facts will explain both the coincidences with and the variations from the extant text of the Homilies. (1) It seems quite clear that an orthodox recension of the Clementine writings was in common use when these collections of extracts were made. For instance Nicephorus (Hist. Eccl. iii. 18) hesitates about identifying the Clementines which were known to him, and which he describes as τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ εὐπαράδεκτα, with the Dialogue of Peter and Apion mentioned by Eusebius, because the latter is described as heretical in its tendencies; and a scholiast on Eusebius (H. E. iii. 38; see Valois' note) protests indignantly against this historian's depreciation of a work whose merits were well known to the orthodox (ὅσον τὸ ὄφελος, οἱ ὀρθοδόξως καὶ εἰλικρινῶς ἐντετυχηκότες σαφῶς ἴσασιν). Thus it is plain that these writers knew the Clementines only in their orthodox dress. On this subject see Schliemann Clement. p. 338 sq., Uhlhorn die Hom. u. Recogn. p. 51 sq. (2) The quotations show that this orthodox recension followed the Homilies rather than the Recognitions. (3) Nevertheless, where the Homilies are distinctly heretical, very considerable changes would be necessary. This is especially the case in the passage before us where St Peter maintains in reply to Simon Magus that all the parts of the Old Testament which use objectionable language in speaking of God, and among them the passage which represents Him as tempting Abraham, are spurious interpolations, and that it is the duty of the faithful to discriminate between the genuine and the counterfeit. This idea occurs again and again in the Homilies. The orthodox redactor therefore would have to remodel all such passages in the Homilies, answering the objections of Simon in a wholly different way so as to preserve the integrity of the Scriptures. (3) We have other evidence that he did so alter them. Thus in Clem. Hom. ii. 50 St Peter is made to say to Clement ὡμολογημένου ἡμῖν ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς πάντα προγινώσκει, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα τὰς λεγούσας αὐτὸν γραφὰς ἀγνοεῖν ψεύδεσθαι, τὰς δὲ γινώσκειν αὐτὸν λεγούσας ἀληθεύειν...εἰ οὖν τῶν γραφῶν ἃ μέν ἐστιν ἀληθῆ ἃ δὲ ψευδῆ, εὐλόγως ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν ἔλεγεν Γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι, ὡς τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς τινῶν μὲν δοκίμων ὄντων λόγων τινῶν δὲ κιβδήλων κ.τ.λ.; but the same passage (for a lengthy context shows it to be the same) is differently quoted

« السابقةمتابعة »