New Testament i Nap 00 Ox for Ich

7/29/2019 New Testament i Nap 00 Ox for Ich

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-testament-i-nap-00-ox-for-ich 1/170









THE

NEW TESTAMENT IN THEAPOSTOLIC FATHERS

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 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

ERRATA

Page 51, line n,/or passage read Epistle

54,

60,

73,

80,

81,

81,

83,

137,

read (49)

15, insert Polycarp before (75)

32, for Symrn. read Smyrn.

24, omit Luke 926

;as also

2, for fy read f)

7, this sentence should follow on (97)

4 from bottom, for (93) read (92)

a from bottom, for 123 read 125

N.T. in Apostolic Fathert.

there can be no reasonable doubt, either because theyare

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 uponit. Under each author the books of the New Testament are



01



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 NewTestament. 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 mayclaim 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

appearedtoo 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 arecomments, calling

attention tospecial 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.

Hermas : J. Drummond, M.A., LL.D.. Principal ofManchester

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

DIDACHE34

I CLEMENT37

IGNATIUS63

POLYCARP 84

HERMAS. I05

II CLEMENT . . .

I24

TABLES OF RESULTS i37

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

approximatesto 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

greatlyabout the words of his author. Even when

precededby 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. Trepas ye

rot Aeyct avrols V ra) Aevreporo/at'o), Kcu biaO^cro/JLaL irpos rbv \aov

TOVTOV ra 6iKaia>/xara fj.ov 'a sentence which, though it has all

the notes of a strictquotation, proves

to be a meresummary

of Deut. 41-23

.' The following comparison of Exod. 331" 3 and

Barn. vi. 8 may give some measure of the freedom 3for which

we must allow in considering possible N. T. citations or

echoes.

Exodus. Barnabas.

KG! flnev Kvptoy irpos Mo>v(TTJvf I8ov, ra5e Xeyei Kupto? 6 0eoV

Ilopevov dvafirjOt fVTfiiGev a~v KOI 6 EtaeA$are els ri]V yrjv rr^v dyadf)v y r)V

Xaos crov . . . is TTJV yr\v v\v &ôcra a>fj.oo'V Kvpios ra> 'A/3paa/z KOI 'l&aaK

T& *A/3paa/M *cai 'itraa/c KOI *Ia/ca>^,/cat 'laKcb/3, Kal

KaTo.KkrjpovofjLrja'aTe

\eya)V . . . Kal eiaaga) o-e fls yrjv CLVTTJV, yrjv pcovpav yd\a /cat /i\t.

peov&av -yaXa Kaip.f\t.

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

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

2Comp. vi. i, where he substitutes the correct gloss r<j>

irauSl Kvpiov in

the phrase lyyiaATu poi, in Isa. 50" ;and xii. 9, where he boldly adds o vlbs

TOV &fov erf (ax&TOJV rwv fjfJLfpav to Exod. 17".3

Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 31 if.,reckons 16 exact, 23 slightly

variant, and 47 variant citations of the 0. T.

CARLTLE B



2 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. 722f- + Zech. 7

10,

817;

iv. 7 = Deut 3428 + 3i

18;iv. 8 = Exod. 32

7 + Deut. 912

;

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 :Xe'yet, with 6 0eo's or 6 KU/HOS,

i] ypa.<t>r\,6

Tr/oo^TJrry?, expressed or understood;or again with the

name of the prophet in question, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel,

and even Enoch;

or most fully Xe'yei KvpLos (6 0eo?) tv ru>

TT/Kx^rjrr/, opifei (Kvpios) ez> aAXo> Trpo^TJTij \tyovn. Synonymous

for Xe'yei are cure, eXdXrjcre, ez/eret'Xaro. Similarly ye'ypaTrrai,

used even in citing Enoch (iv. 3, xvi.6),

and yeypa/ujueVrj?

eVroXrjy (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 Xe'yet 5e Kvpios, 'I8ov, TCQI& ra lo-âra a>? ra Trpwra

(see Didascalia Apost. ed. Hauler, 75'

Ecce facio prima

sicut novissima et novissima sicut prima': cf. Apoc. 215

'16ov,

Katzâ Troito Trazrra, Hipp, in Dan. 437

tcrovrai yap ra a-\ara ws

raTrp&To): also to vii. 4, where rt ovv Aeyet *v rw Trpo^rrj is

followed by words not found in any other extant writing,

though our author has Lev. i67ff - in mind in the context.

Here the citation seems too definite(ei>

r<5-Trpo^TJrr/ coming

in betweenyey/oa/uijue'z^s tvToXijs and 7r<3? ovv cêretXaro) 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 bythe

analogouscase in xi. 9 f., see below (40). So in ii. 10 Owia rw

KU/H<J>

j, 607x1] ev<t&tas rw KV/HG> Kapbia bod(ov(ra rbv

avrriv, Barnabas has been quoting certain O. T.

prophets, and continues in a way which suggests that he has

his mind on them still, j]\uv ovv OVTWS Xeyet. But while the

opening words are substantially those of Ps. 5i17

(0wia ra>

ewTJT/evfxa (rwrerpi/x/uteVoi;, Kapbiav o~vvTTpLfJiiJ.vr]v > KrX.J,

the

whole quotation actually comes from the Apocalypse of Adam

(cf.Iren. iv. 17. z).

Thus confusion of memory may explain



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 3

the case in which y^ypa-nrat 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 dependence1

. 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. 4S-10

f-

(

17

f-)

TL olv Xf'yeiTO> A/3paa/i, ore /zoVoy rl yap f) ypcxpr) Xe'yet;

mo-Tfvaras fredrj els 8iKaio<rvvr)v ; 'idov dc 'AjSpaa/zra> 0f, KCU f\oyl<rOi)

TeOeiicd (re, A/3paa/u, irarepa c6va>v rwv avraJ (Is SiKaioovvrjv . . . ira>s avv

TTicrTfvovTcov 6V aKpoftvorias TO)Kvplti) fXoyiffdr} j . . . OVK ev

TTfpiTOp,fjaXX'

(GL, 6fo>NC). (V dicpo(3v<TTia'

. . . els TO elvai avrov

narepa Travratv r>v iriOTevovrav 81*

LXX. Gen. I56

<al c-n-tVreva-ez; 'A/3pa/x TO> 0ew, Kat

et? bLKaioavvriv.

I74f *

Kat y(, Iboi)77 Sia^Kr] /aov /xera (rou* Kat ctrr/ -Trarrjp

7rX?]0ot>s 0v&V Kat ov KXT7^7](rerat ert ro ovopd vov 'A/Spa/x, aAA'

eorat 'Appaafj, r6 ovoâ crov' on Trarepa TroXXaii; 0v>v r0eiKa ere.

In our author's memory the 0. 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 waswritten 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 worshiprealized in and

throughChrist. 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, n). J. V. B.

B 2



THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

conflated with the comments in Rom. 4; for the phrase r&v

TTicrTfvovTtov bi cLKpo/Bva-Tias (by no means an obvious one),

especially as qualifying t6vG>v in Barnabas, can hardly be

explained otherwise.

(2) Barn. xiii. 2-3. Rom. 9T~18

.

aKOvo~aTe ovv ireplTOV Xaov rt ov5* ort elo~l o~nepp.a 'A/3pad/z,

Xe-y f) ypa(frr]' . . . Avo e0vrj cv TTJ TTUVTCS TKva, dXX"Ei/'lo-aaK K\r)6r)o-cTai

yao~Tpi o~ov . . . Kai 6 [tfifov dov\evo~fi o~oi (rneppa . . . eppfjdrj avTrj on 6

aio-0dv0-0ai o0etXerf . . .

err rvatv

OVTOST}

(KfWOS.

8ov\evo~ei ra> e'Xdo'oroi'i

ort [j.eia)v 6 \abs -yeyparrrat, Tbv 'laKa)/3 ^ya7n;o-a, rov

Ho~av eui

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 ff.

II fTTfl ovv ava-

f)i*as fvrfj

ra>v dpapriStv

rjp.as a\\ov

TVTTOV, as 7rai8ia)V f\fiv

TTJV ^VXTJV, O)s av drjdva-

7T\d(ro'ovTOs avrovf)p.as.

. . . devrepav 7T\d(riv

CTT*ecr^drcuj/ CTroirjo'ev'

Xeyt 8e Kvpios' 'iSou,

Troto) TO. ecrâra <&s TO.

Comp. xvi. 8 Xa-

Va(f>c<riv

rS>v

KOI (\iri<rav-

(Is TO ovofjLa Kvpiov

KO.IVOL, TrdXiv

KTl(6fJLVOl

(continued below).

14 t'5e ovv,

Eph. 2

c

c

10, 21 f.

t22ff.

2 Cor. 517

,i Cor.

avTOV yap e'oyzei> 2 Cor. 5 17 woreKTlO-6fVTS V fV XplOTW, KCUI'j) KTI(TIS'

Xptoro) I^crou. ra dpâia22 ff*

. . . TOV 7ra\aibv av

flpwirov . . .,dvavcov-

o~0ai de rai Trvcv/jiaTi TOV

iov, yeyove Kaivd(cf.

Gal. 615

).

TOV Kaivbv avflpconov TOV

Kara Qebv KTto-0VTa(cf.

216

).

Cf. Col. 39 f- 3w*-

rbv traXaibv

. . .,

KOL

ev8vo~dfj.voiTOV vcov

TOV dvaKaivovpcvov fls

ctriyvtoo-ivKOT elicova

TOV KTiaavTos avTov.

KCLTOtKirjCraiTOV




o~apKivas

avTos fv crapxl

<f)avepov<T0aina

. . . \eyei' 'l8ou, \eyct Xptorov 8ia TT}S TrioTecos

Kvptos, ee\> TOVTMV ... ev rats Kapdiais vp.>v.

Tas \i6ivas /capSi'asxat

221 f-

(Xp. '1770-.)ev



15 vaos -yap aytos,

i pov, TO) Kupt'ep

r6

TTJS Kapas.

Comp. xvi. 8(con-

tinued)-10 816 cV To>

I Cor 316f- OVK. ocdarc

OTI vaos Geou tore, Kat

TO Trvev/xa TO Qeov oiKel

ev vfj.lv ;

6 yap vaos TOV Qeov

ayios e'ortj/, ogives eo~T

vp.els.

6>s 6 Qeos KaToiKel ev

Tjfj.lv'irats ;

6 Xdyos

auToC T^S TTtcnrecos,. . .

atros evrjp.lv Trpocprj-

Tevuv, OVTOS evfjfjuv

KCLTOiKteV . . . TOVTO eOTlV

TTvevpaTiKos vaos oLKo8o-

fj.ovp.evosTW Kvpiw (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. 517

(and of Gal. 615) gives the phrases a

ratherspecific

reference;while

dependenceon

Ephesiansex-

plains both Barnabas's passages. (2) Ephesians has /carotKT/rrjptoz;

in close conjunction with vabv ayioz>, as well as KaroiKi/o-cu T&V

Xpivrbv . . . . v rats KapStats vn&v (not God, as in 2, Cor. 516

)

the idea from which Barnabas starts(e/xeAAez/

. . . h fiiuv

KaroiKtiv) and the notion of the spiritual temple as in process

of building (cf.Barn. xvi. 10). (3) The mystical idea of

Christindwelling

theSaints,

or theChurch,

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 TrX^pcofxa of -Christ (Eph. i23

).

This latter thought may even determine the strange turn

Barnabas gives to the words of Ps. 4i3

,viz. cv TLVL o$0?}-

(TO/XCUTO) KVptO) TO) 060)

fJLOVKOL Sofa<r07J<70/U

Kat6(p077<Tojui(H

TO*-Trpoo-wTTO)

TOV

0eo),as if the

Son werebodied forth in the Church and so fulfilled as to His glory



THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHEKS

(cf. Eph. I18

ri's 6 TrAoCros rrjs bor)$ rfjs KXripovopias CLVTOV \v

rots aytots),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'.

T]fJifp5)VOVV OVO~O)V 7TOVT]pS)V

KOI OTl atT)fJLfpO.l TTOVTjpai elo~W.

avTov TOV evfpyovvros f\oiTOS TTJV Kara TOV apôvra TTJS eôvcrias TOV

eôwiav. aepos, TOV TrvfvfMaros TOV vvv fvcp-

yovvros fv Tols viols TTJS diretfatas.

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 de/oiou TTVCVUCLTOS TOV BeAtap, cf.

Secrets of Enoch, xxix. 5. Moreover in Ephesians it is the

aerial power or spirit (collectively), not its ruler, to which

tvcpyttv belongs.

(5)Barn. iii. 6. Eph. i

4"'.

6 fiaKp66vfJios 7rpo/3Xe\â? as tv Ka0a>s e'eXearorjp.as

ev OVTM irpb

dicepcuocrvvT)7rio~Tvo~ei 6 \aos ov TJTOI- KaTaô\rjs Kocrpov . .

., 7rpoopio~as

fj.a<TV fv TW fjya7rrjp.V(0 OVTOV, irpoe- rjpas fls vioOfariav 8ta 'lô-oi) Xptorou

<j>avfp<>)vev rjfuv ircpl irdvruv. els avrov . ..,

fls enaivov dogrjs TTJS

XapiTos O.VTOV, f)S

rwrjya7TT)p.V(o.

Here the resemblances, turning on irpofiXtyas andfj

h r< fiyaTTrjuevv, seem really striking. They can only partly

be paralleled from Jewish Apocalyptic1

, 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. 5ff. (xiv. 4, xvi. 9). Heb. i 2ff-,

29ff-

(i22

, i312

).

5 ei 6 Kvpios VTrepfivev iraBtiv I2 2

vnepeivf VTavpov.

irepl TTJS fax^s ^JMWJ/, &v navros TOV 1 312

?ô> TIJS 7rv\r)s eirafa.

1 E. g. 4 Ezra 6s8 '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.




KvptOS, 0) CITTCV 6 QeOg OTTO

ijs Kocrp.ov, Ilotifcrcopfj/ KT\.

. . . Trcoff ovv VTre/jLeivev vnb %fipbs

y, K.vpie,

6 avTos 8e, ivaKaTapyf]o~fl

TOV

6a.va.Tov KOI Tr/vfK veKpa>v u.vdo~Tao~iv

8fij) (on (V o~apK\ edei OVTOV (pavepa)-

Orjvai), vnefj,fivfv}Iva, rots irarpdo'iv

TTJV fTTayye\iav aTrofiw, KT\.

XIV. 4 ^** Was vnopcivas.

XVI. 9 avrbs cv f]piv KaroiK&v,

rots ra> Oavdradedov\a>(j.fvois t

KT\.

I, 6. g. cri /ca

rrjv yrjv edefAcXiaxras,

29roy Se (3pa%v n Trap* a

f]\aTTO)fj.vov fiXenofjifv, 'irjvovv, did ro

7rddrjp.aTOV Oavdrov . . . OTTW? . . .

vnep TTOVTOS yevcrrjTat Qavdrov.

14eVei oyi/ ra TratSi'a MicoivwvrjKfv

atuciTos /tat crapKos, fat avrbs napa-

n\r](rio)s /nereoê TCOV avT&)j/, iva dta

TO{) OavdrovKarapyr]<rr]

rbv TO/cparos

TOV Oavdrov . . .

16ov yap 8r]irov ayyeAcov fT

<30etAf Kara navra rots

5

(>) KOI aTToAAa^?; TOVTOVS,

O(roi 0o/3a> Bavdrov did TTOVTOS TOV

f)v evoôi ^crav

Apart from the actual phrasing of Iva K.arapyr\a-ri ....

which recalls also 2 Tim. i10

(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. 25~9

(see

below), as well as the similar use of the same O. T. quotation,

Ps. 2 123

,in Barn. vi. 16 and Heb. 2

12

(though the wording

differs). Further, Heb. 99 13 39

may well suggest Barnabas's

Iva rots TraTpaaiv TT\V titayytXiav a7ro8(j>.

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

5~9.

fl ovv ovyiverai

TOVTO vvv, apa rjfjuv7ro85>v UVTOV

(gC. dv6pa>nov). . . vvv

ftprjKfv Trdre* OTOV Kal avTol TeAeo- 8f OVTTO) 6pS>p.fv avT<o TO. irdvra viro-

6cofj.fi> K\r)pov6fj.oi TTJS 8ia6r)KT)s Kvpiov TfTO.yp.fva' TOV oe . . . J

Cf. XIV.5 f(pavfp<*>0rj

Se(sc.

6

Kvptos) "iva KaKflvoi (the Jews)TcXeiwBaHTiv TOIS &p,apTrjfjiao~iv /cat

f)ti.els8ld TOV K\T)pOVOIJ.OVVTOS 8lO.6f]KT)V

Kupt'ov 'lr)o~ov \dj3aifjiev.

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(oz> ItfrjKe K.\j]pov6ôv

,Heb. i 2

,cf. Barn, xiv) shall reach its consummation (the




of the type, x. n fin.);and elsewhere the idea that all

this was the rationale of the Divine Heritor's own '

manifesta-

tion'

andespecially

Hissufferings

: 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.

gii,i8

} î, 9-n) }on which Jesus has already entered (xv. 9).

This idea of &\Xos KOO-JUO? (xv. 8) was a current Jewish one 1

,

but seems to come to Barnabas through Hebrews with its

OLKOV^VT] jxe'AAovo-a (ii. 5)and a i<*>v ptXkav (vi. 5). Further the

prominence of the ideas in K\rjpov6fjLOL TTJS StaflrJKrjy Kvptov and

6ta TOV KXrjpovofjLOvvTos oLa6rjKrjv Kvpiov 'Irjcrov seems to point to

Hebrews, which contains more on these lines than all the rest

of the N. T. :

e.g.Heb. I

2bv cdr]KV KX^povopov TTCLVTUV (cf.

I4

),Barn. iv. 3 tva Ta\vvr) 6

rjyaTrrjfJitvos CLVTOV Kal em TTJZJ

K\r]povofjiiav fjrj ;

Heb. 7

22

Kpchrovos biaOrjKrjs yiyovtv

'Irjo-ovs (/jie(nVr]s,86

, 915

,I224

),Barn. iv. 8 Iva, q TOV

fjitvov 'Ir)crov (SiaflrJKr;) Iv/carao-âyta-^r/ ds r-qv Kapbiav

(cf.xiii.

l),xiv. 5 os etj TOVTO riroiâa-Br], tva avros <pavcis . . .

8ia#Tjrai kv riîv biaOri^rjv Xoyco ;Heb. 617 rot? KXrypozôjutots rrjs

916

OTTCOS . . . Tyv eTrayyeXlav2

\afi<A<riv ot

lavtov K\r;poz;ojutas, Barn. xiii. 6 r6v \abv TOVTOV . . .

TTJS bLa6r)Kr]s KXr]pov6fJLOv9 xiv. 4 amos 6e Kvptos fjfuv Zb(DKV (rr)y

fiia0riKi)v)ets \abv KXripovopCas. Indeed Heb. 9

11"15 seems to

underlie Barnabas's whole soteriology : cf. (n).

d

(8) Barn. iv. 9-10, 13. Heb. 41

,io24

f.

Sto Trpoo-e^Q/iei/ Iv rat? fVârais <po!3r]6>iJ.v ovvp-rj TTOTC, /carn-

fjfj.fpa.is'ovdfv yap ax^fXô-et rjfjias \fnrop,evTjs firayyeXias el(Tf\6f1v els

6 Tras XP VOS r^s C00^5 f]p>v, eav p,rj rr\v Kardnavcriv O.VTOV, Sony ns f

vvv . ..,

ws TrpfTTfi viols GeoO, ai/n- vp,S)V v<TTfpr)Kvai.

a-Ta>p.fv . . . Mr) KaO* eavrovs fvdvvovTfS IO24 ^*KaTavofopev aXX^Xovs els

a>s ^fir; dcdiKatatfjievoi, aXX'7rapo^va-fJ.ov dyaTrrjs

*ai KaX&vfpy<t>v}

TO avrb(rvv(px6fjivoi o~vvr)TflT p,r) eyKaTaXftirovres Trjv fma"ovaya)yr]v

t TOV Kowfj crv^tpovros . . . eavToiv, KaOvs cdos TKTIV, aXXa yrapa-

1

Dalman, The Words ofJesus, 177 f.

8'Erra77Ata very frequent in Hebrews, also in Barn. v. 6, vi. 17, xv. 7,

xvi.

9 (conjoinedwith K\fjais, cf. iv.

14).Observe too the similar use of

T(\ftos (iv. 3, ii, v. n, viii. i, xiii. 7), T(\CIOVV(vi. 19, xiv. 5), to express the

final or absolute stage of a thing.




13 Ivap,T]-rr()T fTrava.7rav6p.evoi as KoXovvTes, Kal Tocrovr< p,a\\ov 6<ra>

K\r]Tol rriKa6vTrvu(T(0iJ.fv rats dpapTiats /SXeVfre yyiovo~av rrjv qpepav.

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. Heb. i22

*, is12

(i Pet. i2

).

fts TOVTO yap vTrep-fivev6 Kuptos Kal aifj-an pavTi&nov Kpfirrov

rrapadovvai rrjv o~dpica els Karacpdopdv, \a\ovvri irapa TOV *A/3eX.iva Trj a<f)fcrfi T&V dp.apTia>v dyvio~6)- I3

12 ô Ka * 'Irjcrovs, Ivaayidcrij

fj.fVjo fcrriv ev rto

alfjiaTiTOV pavTi- 8ta TOV Idiov ai/xaros TOV Xadv, e^to TTJS

o-fJuiTos avTOvl

. yeypajTTai yap Trepl irvXrjs erraOf.

avTov(Isa. 53

5'7

). . . Cf. I

s

Kadapio-pbv TO>V dp.apTi>v

iroujo-dpfvos, also 915

.

I Pet. I2

K\KTols irapemdr)-

p,ois . . . cv dyiaoyiw TIvevpaTos, els

VTTOKOTJV KOI pavTia-fJLov alfj-aros 'l^trov

Xptaroi).

Here as regards i Pet. i2

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'

TT)

afjLapri&v (see also viii. IfaarrCfeiv .... TOV XaoV, Iva

fab T&V afjLapTL&v ;cf. Heb. i 3

,211

, Q22

,io18

),achieved by

blood of sprinkling (i3llf

',cf. 9

13'

19 al,io22

),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).

(10) Barn. vi. 19. Heb. 61.

oTav Kal avTolTC\ft(o6)p.V K\rjpo-

erri

TTJV TfXftdr^ra (pepotpLfda.

TTJS 8ia6r)Kr)s Kvplov ycveaflai. Cf. 1 228

irvevâtn 8iKaia>v

The idea of reAcio'rrjs underlying these passages is similar,

and is one highly characteristic of Hebrews;see a

10Sia TraOrj-

JUUTCOI; reAetwo-at, 59

, 728

vlov (Is TOV alG>va rereAeicojaeVor, 99

,IO1

*14

,

1 140

. It corresponds to biKaitoOijvat. in Barn. iv. io, xv. 7.

1 v. 1. \v Ty pavTiafMTi O.VTOV TOV aifjuiTos, C, cf. Lat.'

sparsione sanguinisillius.'



io THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(n) Barn. viii. iff., xiv. 4-6. Heb. Q

13

^, 3**'

rlva 8e SoKflre TVTTOV eivai, ort d yap TO alp.a Tpdyvv KOI ravpatv

TO> 'lo-pa^X 7rpocr(pepfiv Kal <nro$bs Sa/xdXecoy . . . pavriôvaav . . . Kal ovTtoS pavrl&tv TO. ... dytdei . . . nova p.d\\ov TO alua

Ka0' eva TOV \aov, iva dyvi- TOV Xpiorrou . . . KaBapici TTJV trvvfl-

UTTO TU>V dp.apTiwv ... 6p.6(r\os drjcrtv vpwv dnb VfKpcov epywv . . .

6 'irjffovs f(TTiv . . . 01pavTiôvres

5Kal 8ia TOVTO fttadfjKrjs Kaivfjs

iraides ol vayye\io'dp,vot, fjfuv TTJV /neair^s1

foriV, OTTWS, Bavdrov ytvo-

afpcaiv T<av dyxaprtaivKal TOV dyvicrpbu [tfvov els dito\\jTpu>cnv TGOV eVl

TTJ

rrjs Kapdias. TrpatTrj o~ia6f)Kr) 7rapa/3acrfa)J>, TTJV eVay-

xiv. 5"~^ <pavepo)0r} fie,Iva . . . ye\iav Xa/Scocrii' ot KeK\rjfj.evoi Trjs

fjfifly did TOV K\rjpovofjiovvTos 8ia6r)Kr)v aiwviov K\rjpovofj.ias.

Kvpiov 'irjcrov Xa/Satyiei/, 6s els TOVTO Cf. 1 224

&iadr)Kr)s veas fieaiTT]

f]Toifj.do~6r)Iva OVTOS (paveis . . . 8td- 'irjcrov.

6r)Tat evfjp-lv 8iaOr}Kr)v Xdyo. $

5* Kal Moxr^s p,ev Trtaros

1 ev oXa>

xiv. 4. Mo)V(77yy 6fpdno)v &>v eXa/3fv}TO) ouca> avTov (SG, TOV Qenv\ as

avTOS 8f 6 Kvpios yp-tv edtoKev els Xaov OfpdirtoV . . . Xpioros 8e a>s vlbs eVi

Kkripovo^laS) dt fjp.ds vrropfivas. TOV OIKOV OVTOV' ov OIKOS e<rp.(v

fotis.

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

6paTTcv in all his action (quite another turn being given to

the idea 'servant of God* than that in Exod. i431 , Num.is

8,Joshua i

2

).The probability of dependence on Hebrews

is moreover increased by a like emphasis on the Rest of God

(see below).

(12) Barn. xv. Heb. 41- 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.

Tore /caX<Ss

KaTcmavoiJievoi dytao-o/ueiâvr^. . . avrol 8iKaia>0eWej Kal a7roXa/3oWes

TJ]V CTrayyeXtav . . . avrol aytao-0eWes irp&rov, from the treatment

of o-a/3/3ano-/xos rw Xaw TOV 0ou in Heb. 4, e.g.lof

. See

further (7).

[Barn.i.

8,iv.

9 a,xxi.

2, 7 and Heb. I2

22>

18 f

', presentsome similarities in the writer's attitude to his readers.]



THE EPISTLE OF BAKNABAS n

On the whole, then, the passages severally marked as d

deem to amount cumulatively to c, as suggesting that Hebrews

influenced Barnabas's thinking and language in various ways.Even Barnabas's kv o-ap/d fyavtpovvQai and its relation to Christ's

Passion has its parallel in Heb. 926

is aderrja-LV aâprCas 5ta TTJS

avrov 7re(/)ai>epa>Tcu, read in the light of 214

, 57

*

rfjs crapes avrov, and IO20.

D

1 Corinthians

d(13) Barn. iv. n. i Cor. 3

1.16 18 ff-

Xeyet yap fj ypa(f>r}'Oval ol (rvve- OVK r)$vvr)6r)v \a\rjo~ai Vfuv a>s

TOI favTois KU\ fvdtjrtov eavrwv eTrioriJ- irvevpariKols' . . . OVK oTSare ort

fjLOves. yevwfJifda rtvfvp.ariK.oL, yeva- vaos Qfov fare . . . fi TIS fio/ctta~o(f)bs

peda vaos TtXetos r<5 fey.*Ivai eV vp.lv . . . /uwpos ycveaQv,

iva yevrjTai <ro(f)6s. . . yeypairrai

ydp (Job 51S

;Ps. 94

11

).

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 TrzêvjutartKo?that obedience to God's frroAal

as a whole which he goes on to demand, the opposite of

drowsing in sins ; so that in fact it is the same as dyado?

in 13.

2 Corinthians d

(14) Barn. iv. n f. 2 Cor. 510

(i Pet. i17

).

fjL\T5>p.ev TOV (frofiovTov Qcov TOVS yap rrdvras fjâs <ai>epo>0J}i/at

. . .

C

O Kuptos a7rpo(TQ)7roXi7/iz7rra)ff&el fîrpoffBfV TOV jSq/zaros TOV

npivel TOV Koo-fJioV e/caoros icadvs Xptoroi), Iva Aco/iicn/rai MaVTOf ra

cTToir](TV Ko/iictrafeav

fi dyados, fj

ota TOV(rcb/xaroy, irpos

dZnpugev,

eiT

ftiKaiovvvT] avTov nporjyfjO'fTaiavTov' dya66v}

eiT (f)av\ov. cldoTes ovv TOV

edv y novrjpos,6 pio-6bs TTJS irovrjpias <f>d(3ov

TOV Kvpiov dvQpmirovs ireiOouev.

ffjLTTpoffdfvavTov. I Pet. I

17KCU fl TTaWpa e'TTi-

Ka\flo~.6t TOV aTrpofrcoTroXijTrrtos Kpl-

vovra KOTa TO ftdorov (pyov, fv

<^>dj3<. . . dvao~Tpd(f)T]Tf.

Against the obvious resemblance in word and idea to

2 Corinthians mustbe set the reference to a man's

recompensebecoming patent before his eyes (cf.

Isa. 588

,cited in iii. 4),




which rather suggests some other source, possibly known to

both. This view gains some support from i Pet. I17

,which

affords a close parallel to Barnabas's 6 Kvpios a-7rpoo-a>7roA.?j/u'nTa>j

i, a sentiment echoed in Rom. 211

ov yap eo-rt TTPOO-COTTO-

napa r<3 0eo>. It is to be noted, too, that in the context

of all these writersc

fear'

of God is present (as in a similar

passage in Hipp, irepl Trj? o-uzn-eAeias, 39).

Colossians d

(15) Barn. vi. xaf. Col. s9 *-

a>S \eyei T< via' Uoirjvwuev KO.TdireK^vo-dfJievoi TOV naXaibv av6pa>-

eiKova Kal Kad'o/iot'oxrii/ f)fjia)V

TOV nov a~vv rais 7rpdeo~ivavTOv

}Kal

avBp&nov . . . Aeurepai/ 7r\dcriv eVeV8ii(ra/oiei/04

TOV veov TOV dva.Ka.ivov-

co~xdT<ov erroirio-fV \eyct 8e Kvpios' ficvov els eniyvoxnv KUT fiicova TOV

v, TTOtS) TO, ctrâra as TO. Trpwra. KTicravros avTOV.

The common reference to renewal K.OT CIKOVCL can count for

little in view of the different contextual ideas:

see also (3).

(16) Barn. xii. 7. Col.

fXels ndXtv Kal ev TOVTOLS(sc.

TO TrdvTO, di avTov /cat els avTov

the Brazen Serpent) TTJV 86av curio-raC KOI avrds eVrt irpb TrdvTtav

TOV'irjo-ov,

OTI fvavT<p

irdvTa, Kal fls Kal TO. irdvTa fv aur<3 o~vvffTi]K.

avTov.

It is to be observed that the scope of the words common to

the two is in Barnabas much narrower, viz. typological, ort

Travra 6TTCLTTIP (fravepol Tiept TOV vlov 'Ir/o-oS, 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. i15f-

TOVS I8iovs dnooToXovs . . . ovras TTIOTOS 6 \6yos . ..,on Xptoros

VTTfp

Ttdaav

dpapriav di/o/jwrepovy,

iva'Irjcrovs rjKOev

els TOVKoo-pov d/uap-

dfiitf OTI OVK rf\6ev Ka\eo~ai dtKaiovs ra>Xovs o-wcrai S>v irp&Tos elpi eya>'

aXXa a/*apra>Xous. dXXa fita TOVTOT)\ef)6r)v,

iva ev ep.ol

TrptBTO) ev&eir)Tai 'l?7<rovff Xptoros TTJV

aivaaav

The relation of Barnabas's OVK fj\0ov, xrX., to our Synoptics

is discussed under(31). But the application of this prin-

ciple to Apostles in particular, as palmary proof (ei>5eiis)of

the Saviour's grace a bold idea is so parallel to i Tim. i15f>

as to suggest that the latter prompted Barnabas's thought.




(18) Barn. v. 6. i Tim. 316

.

on fv 0-apnl edfi avrov <pavfpa>- 6fJLO\oyovnev(os fj,eya e'crrt TOTT/S

asp.vo~Tr)piov

os

cv vapid . . .

I Tim. 316

certainly affords the most striking N. T. parallel

to the recurring phrase in Barnabas. But as it is itself prob-

ably quoting a currentliturgical form, literary dependence

cannot be pressed either way : see also (19).

2, Timothy d

(19) Barn. v. 6. 2 Tim. i10

.

avros 8f, ivaKarapyrjo-r) rbv 6ava-

(x<*Plv TT)V . .

.) (pavepwfcio-av 8e

TOV KalTr)V fK vfKpuv dvdoTcuTiv dei^Tj vvv dio. TTJs fTTXpaveias TOV a-aynjpos

on. ev(rapid ieSet avrbv

(pavfpvQrjvai fjfjL&v Xpiorov 'l?/cro(5, Karapyrjcravros

vrrefj.eiVVtp,ev TOV Bavarov ^coriVavros 5e

a>r)V

Kai d(p0apo~iav 8ia TOV cvayyeXiov.

Comp. I Tim. 316

6s e(pavepo>6rj

VQ-apKl.

i Pet. i20

.

(pavepwdevTos df err' eVxarou T>V

\p6vo)v 81r)fj.a.s TOVS 81 O.VTOV TTIOTOVS

els Qebv TOV cycipavTa avTov e<vficpwv.

In both ^ Timothy and i Peter we have the conjunction of

two ideas

prominentin Barn. v. 6. The

degreeof

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 tv vapid (pavt-

povaOai in Barnabas, its frequency (see vi. 7, 9, 14, xii. 10, cf.

xiv. 5) calls for special notice. Its occurrence in i Tim. 316

,

in what looks like a rhythmical hymn (Eph. 519 f -

;Col. 3

16 f

-)

orliturgical form, implies

that the idea of the incarnationas

a 'manifestation

'

(e7ri$az>eia)of a Divine Saviour was fairly

general (see Heb. 57

, 926

,cf. i Pet. i

20;

2 Tim. i10

;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.

i10

isstriking, and suggests literary connexion, unless here

also the same holds as is probable in tv crap/d




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

fl ovv 6 vibs TOV Qcov, &v Kvpio? 8iafj.apTvpop.ai ev&niov TOV Qfov

Ka\ fieX\o>v Kpiveiv ^cavras KOI vwpovs, /cat XpioTOu 'Irjcrov TOV p.e\\ovTos Kpi-

Tra6tv, KT\. veiv <bvTas Kal ve<povs.

Here in both cases a common formula of Christain faith

seems to be cited; cf. i Pet. 45

;Acts io42

; Polyc. ad Phil.

ii. i;

2, Clem. i. I.

Titus d

(21) Barn. i. 3, 4, 6. Titus a5

*?-,i2

.

a\r]8)s /3Xe7ro> *v vîiv fKKexvpevov ea-oxrev rjfias ftta. XourpoO TroXty-

OTTO roO 7rXou(riou TTJS Tf^yr/s Kuptou yevecrias KCU ava.K.aiv<ao~fQ)$ Hvvp.aTo$

irvcviia e</>' {i/naj . . . eXiridt u>r]S CLVTOV ayiov}ofi e^\ffv e(p* 77/10?

^C fVeXTr/Stj

. . . a>r]S (\7ris, &px*l^*^

Kal T\os TTtarecoy T}fia>v.iva

K\rjpov6fj.oi

I2 tV e\7ri8i fafjs

Theparallelism

of

languageis 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 eX.Tu8i fcof/s aiirov a phrase char-

acteristic of Titus (here, and in i2

CTT' eXTrtSt feoTJj atctWou, 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

cir' eA.7u8irrys morcus

avrov.

(22) Barn. xiv. 5f. Titus 2 ".

6s els TOVTOTjToifjidaBr), Iva CLVTOS os eSoxtei/ favrbv virep rjp,S)vt

Iva

rajfjdr) deâTraitrjêvas T][J,>V Xvrpaxr^rai ^/ua? 0776 Trdcrrjs dvopias

npa6e8o/uj/ap <alKaOapi(rij

eaurw \aov ncpiovcriov,

vTpaxrdfjifvos r)\G)Trjv Ka\S)V epya>v.

K TOV (TKO-

TOVS TOifj.a(rai eauTW \abv ayiov.

Cf. V.7

avT s eaurai TOJ/ Xaov TOV

Kaivbv CToip,d(t)v.

Here the idea of Christ preparing for Himself a special

people, by redeeming it from avo^ta, is present in both writings

in rather similar language, and so far strengthens the pre-

sumption created by (31).

i Peter d

(23) Barn.v.

5, 6,vi.

7.i Pet. i

10 f-

TTCOS ovv vnep.ivfv VTTO x lP s 7reP* V cromypuw egeftTrjo-av Kal

dv6po)7ra>v naBiiv ; p-ddere. oiirpo- e^pevwyaai/ 7rpo^)^rat

ofTrepi T^J fts




<pr)Tai,air avrov exovres TTJV âpt", vâs x^PlTOS irpofprjTcvcravTes, epev-

tis avrov (Trpo(pr]Tvo'av. avros fie Iva vwvrfs fls rivarj

irdiov Kaipov cdrjXov

Karapyrjcrr} TOV Bavarov KOI rrjv e TO ev avTciis Hvevfta Xptcrroi), npop.ap-

vcKpuv dvdo-Tao-iv Sei'^fl, OTI tv (rap/a rvpopfvov ra fls Xpio-Tov Tra6r^mra

fdei avrov<pav(p<t)6rjvat, virc/Mtvcy, Iva KOI ras p-fra raOra doas.

KOI TOif narpdaiv rf]v cirayyc\iav

CXTToSo), KT\.

Cf. vi. Y fv (T(ipK\ovv avrov p.e\\ov-

TOS <J)avfpov(T0ai KOITrdfr^fii/, irpoefya-

vepadr) TO nddos. Cf. vii. 7 ,xii. 8, 1 0.

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 theparallels);

but (2) is noteworthy.

(24) Barn. vi. 2-4. i Pet. 26~8

.

Km TrdXivXe'-yft

oirpo<pr)TTjs [Isa.

flton TTfpie^ft fvypacpfj^ 'iSov,

5O8 f* has been quoted^, eVfi a)? Ti8r]fj.i

cv 2to>j/ \idov aKpoyuviaiov

\i0os l(rxvpbs erfOr) els (rvvrpiprjv' KT\. (Isa. 28 16).

'iSov, e>/3aXw /crX. (Isa. 2816

).

Though Barnabas and i Peter cite the same passage

from Isaiah (with textual variation) and Psalm n822, they

use them rather differently, as is shown by Barnabas' s ts

(rvvTpipj'iv, probably suggested by Isa. 815KCU

Comp. Rom. 933

for the idea of Jesus as 6 Ai0os TOV

fxaros of Isa. 2816.

Other seeming parallels have been treated in other con-

nexions: i Pet. i2 under

(9),i17 under (14),

i20 under (19).

Considered, but set aside.

i Cor. 316f

-,cf. 619

;see

(3).

Gal.

4

21 ff *

;Barn, xiii

(whereIsaac's

sons,

notAbraham's,

are the types).

i Tim. 524f

;Barn. iv. 12.

1 Pet. 38 cannot be cited as affecting Barn. xv. 4 avros b4

/mot jmaprvpe? 'I8ov, fjnepa Kvpiov (v.1. o-rjjuepov rjfjipa) eorat a>s

XiAta err] ;for such exegesis of Ps. 90* seems to have become

a commonplace of Judaism(cf.

Charles's note on The Book of

theSecrets

of Enoch,xxxiii.

i, 2).

i John 42

,cf. 2, John 7

,cannot be treated as influencing



1 6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Barn. v. 10 f. tfXOcv tv aapKt, especially in view of what is said

under (19): see also (41).

The greeting in Barn. xxi. 9 recalls several N. T.epistles.

C

O KvpLos rfjs b6n$ (see i Cor. 28

;James 2

1,also Acts 7

26 0e6?

rrjs Sofrj?, cf. Ps. 283

)KOL iida-rjs ^dpLTos finds its most striking

parallel in I Pet. 510

6 5e @eo? Tido-rjs xdpiros, 6 KaAeVas v/mas

els rr)v altoVLOv avTov boav v X/ncrro). But the similar thought

in 2 Cor. i3

suggests that here too it is a common fund

that is being drawn on by all; while the fzera TOV Truev/xaro?

VIJL&V, found also in Gal. 618;Phil. 4

23;Philem. 25

, may be

a recognized epistolary phrase.

UNCLASSED

Apocalypse

(25) Barn. vi. 13. Apoc. 2i5

.

Xe'yei& Kvpios' 'l5ov, TTOIW ra Kal elncv 6 Ka6r]^fvos cm. T<5

eo-âra a>? ra rrpStra. Gpovto, 'l8ou, Kaiva iroiS) irdvra.

Isa. 4319

Z5ove'-yo)

Trotw Kaiva a vvv di/areXet.

That Barnabas, at least, cites an apocryphal source is made

highly probable by the Didascalia (ed. Hauler, p. 75), 'Nam id

dictum est, Ecce facio prima sicut novissima et novissima

sicut prima.'

(26) Barn. vii. 9. Apoc. i7 13

.

fTTfi^r) o^rovrai avrov ToreTTJ f)p.pa tSou, epêrai /iera rtoi/ veêXav,

TOVTroSrjpr) eôi/ra TOV KOKKIVOV irepl Kal oêrai avrov iras 6(f)6a\p.6sj Kal

TTJV adpKa Kal epovviv' Qi>x OVTOS olrivfs avrov êKevrrjarav . . .

evTiv ov Trore fjêls eoravpwo-a/xei/ . . . KCU emcrTptyas fldov . . . o/notoi/

KaTaKfVTT)(ravTes . . . ; vi<o avOpamov, evdfdv/jievov noSrjpr) . . .

The main reference in Barnabas is certainly to the situa-

tion described in our Gospels ;see

(37). Moreover common

knowledge of Zech. i2

10

(Heb. and LXX cod. F) and the refer-ence seen in it by early Christians

(cf. John I937

Kal TraAti; Irepa

ypac^T) Xeyei, "O\l/ovTai els ovefe/ceWrjo-az;)

will serve to explain

other features common to our two passages. But the sub-

stantival use of vobripri, found in the N. T. only in Apoc. i13

,

might suggest that Barnabas's language was unconsciously

influenced by this passage also. Yet see Ecclus. 27s

KOI

Mvo-rj avro (TO bCnaiou) ws TroSrjpr; OOY]$, a passage which also

implies that TroSrjpr/? was a word of dignified associations, fitting

it for Barnabas's purpose.




(27) Barn. xxi. 3. Apoc. 2210 12

.

fyyvs 6 Kvpios /cat 6 picrObs a VTO. 6 Katpbs yap eyyvs earcv . . . Idov

fpôpat Ta%y KOI 6 picrOos [MOV psr c/

LXX Isa. 4010 Ibov Kvpioy, Kvpios (om. K?<

N*AQF)

l(r)(yos epxerai . . . Ibov 6 (j.LO'dbs avrov /uer' 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, eyyi/s yap ^ ^juepa KT\. Comp. I Clem, xxxiv. 3

TrpoAe'yet yap THJ.LV' 'Ibov 6 Kvpios, /cat 6 /Luo-0os avrov irpd -Trpoo-toirov

O.VTOV, KrA., 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 f the eighth day,' cvfj

KOL 6 'Irjo-ovs dre'emj e/c venp&v KOI

<az;epft>0ets avtfirj fls 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

(<âz/epo)^cts),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 (seei 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 indications1. It

tells specially against the view that any Gospel whose authority

counted for so little, would be cited with ws yeypoTirat (29).

Matthew

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

dXXa KCU (TTavpwOels rori'ro oe f&axav avra> ntelv olvov /urra ôX^r

Kal xoXfl. pepiyfj.(vov.

Ps. 6822Kal j-bwKCLV ci? TO

jSpai/xd /mow \o\^Vy Kal els rj)v fttyav

JJLOV tTtQTKTaV)U 8oS.

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 w. V2

,of that chapter.'

CABLYLK 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&LV,

ofos). Further Barnabas must have in view the Synopticincident in Matt. s;

48; Marki5

36; (John I9

29f>),not that of

Matt. 2734

,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 2^

n;Barn. vii. 9

(govOeuelv): see further under John *.

(29) Barn. iv. 14. Matt. 22".

faorc, o>$- yeypanrai, TroXXoi yap flvi K\TJTOI, oXiyoi &K\T)TOl } oXiyoi de K\fKTOl

Here we may set aside the idea of direct dependence on

4 Ezra 8 3TroAAol /xez> fKrio-drja-av, oXiyoi be o-o>0?jo-ozmu (or Greek to

that effect). But taken along with io57 <rv yap /otafcapio? et vTrep

TToXAouy, KOL K.GLT ovoâ K\riQr]s Trapa TW *T\^^(rr&) KaO<*)$ KCLI oXiyoi,

this passage points to a familiar maxim, akin to Barnabas's

quotation, as lying behind both 83 and io57. In 8 3

it would

naturally be adapted to its context, which speaks of God's

creative action, cf. 81 * 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. 2o16 in some copies (CDN Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. Orig.).

There, too, Syr. Sin. and Pesh. omit the yap found in Matt. 32U

,

as if it were no part of the familiar maxim. Where it was*

written'

we cannot now say. But o>s yeypairrai in Barnabas

by no means excludes an apocryphal work;witness Aeyet yap

77 ypa<pri, of Enoch in xvi. 5 (cf.vi. 13). So in xii. i an

apocryphal dictum, somewhat akin to 4 Ezra 55,is cited with

optfet v aAXw Trpoc/^rrj. Of course the improbability of &>s

yeypa-Trrat being used to cite one of our Gospels (a narrative,

1

Compare Sanday, Qospds 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.'




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 58.

oTf derovs

IbiovsoTrooroXovy ?fX&

airt/iov, on avqp dpap-

TOVS fjLfXXovras KTjpvcraeiv TO evay- ro)\6s dpi, Kvptt.

yf\tov ai>Tov eeXearo, ovras

Peter's exclamation might possibly contribute, like i Tim.

I 16f-,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 532

).

ore 6 TOVS I8iovs airoo-r6\ovs TOVS e'\fyov rols fiaQijTcus avrov, Atari

p,f\\ovras KTjpvo'O'civTO fuayyeXioi/ (

Tl) ptTa T>V T(\av)v KOI

afjiap-

OVTOV ec\fgaTO, OVTCLS imep irao-av TO>\O>V f<r6itt . . . ; 6 5 a/cova-as clnfv

dfiapriav dvofj.a>Tpovs, iva dfi^rj on ... ou(yap) rf\6ov KaXecrai dt/catovr

OVK rjK&fv KaXecrat SiKaiovs dXXa dXXa

d/xapTtoXouy,Tore

f(f)avcpa)O-fv

flvai viov

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 et? pcrAvoiav), as well as by the general impression which

they convey. That the saying, in a more or less detached

form, was a familiar Aoyos among Christians, is both likely

and is implied by I Tim. I15

TTIOTOS 6 Xoyoj /cat Trdays airobo\rjs

afioj, on Xptoro? 'Iijcrovs rjhOcv et? rov KOO-JJLOV a/xaprcoAous craio-at

(see further under (17)): compare the way Barnabas con-

tinues, et yap fxr) rjÔcv v aapKi, 7r<2s av cr<&6rjcrav ol frvOpviroi

jSAeTToz^re? 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




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

(Luke 1 1

OVKOVV 6 vlos TOV Qeov els TOVTO ev 8ta TOVTO, idov, ey&> aTrooreXXo)

o-ap/a qXtfei/, tva TO reXetov raw a/zap- Trpoy i//Lia? npocprjTas . . . O7ra>y

Ttaw dvaKe(pa\aia)0-T) Tols diugao-iv ev</>" v/j.as irav at/ia diKaiov

flavdrq*TOVS npocpfjTas OVTOV. OVKOVV enl

TTJS yrfS . . .

els TOVTO

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

plication.

(33) Barn. v. 12. Matt. 26";Mark i4

27.

\eyei yap6 Qeos

TT\V irXrjyfjv TTJS yeypairTat yap, Haraô)TOV

iroipeva

o-apicbs avTov on e^ avT&V OTOV /catdiacrKOpirio-Orjo-eTai

raTrpd/Sara TTJS

iraTal-o~iv TOV noifj.eva favTO)v)

rdre

aTToXelrat ra TrpdjSara T^

Cod. A ofLXX has all the textual agreements here presented.

As the application in Barnabas (on ef 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. 27s5

;Mark i5

24

;

Luke 2384

.

The casting of lots on Christ's garments is common to all

our Gospels (including John I924

).Barnabas quotes Ps. 21 for

it and further Messianic touches.

(35) Barn. vi. u.

eirel ovv avaKaivi(ras f]p.asev TTJ a<peo~ei T&V ap.apTi)V eTroirjcrev ff^tas a\\ov

Tinrov, a)s iraidicov eêtv TTJV ^/VXTJV,a>s av

8rj dvaTrXdo-ffovros UVTOV

Is the clause &>s naibiMV tyjtiv rrjv tyvyjiv due 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. aêre

ra TTaibLa . . . T&V yap rotovrcoi; eorrtz>77 /SacriAei'a TOV 0eo (Mark

io14;Luke i816

,cf. Matt. I9

14

),which gains special emphasis

in Mark and Luke by the added words, 'Aprjv Xeyo> vplv, bs kav

^v paaiXtiav TOV &ov a>s iraibiov, ov /x^ eto-eA.^?/ et's

(cf.also

Matt.i8 3

).

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




(37) Barn. vii. 9. Matt. 2728

;Mark 15".

. . . eVetfij} otyovTai avTov Tore

TTJ rjpepa TOVirodrjpij eôvra TOV

KOKKtVOV TTpl TTjV adpKCt, KOIpOVO~lV,

OvX OVTOS c<mv ov irore fais eWavpa>- M.Sitt. 2 663 f-

;Mark 1 4

61 f-

;

0-ap.ev fgovQevT]crcu>T(s KOI KaraKevrf]- Luke22 69f>

cravTfs Kal efJLTTTvo-avTes ; d\r]dS)s OVTOS

r)V 6 Tore Xeyoop eavrbv mov 6eoO

flvat.

As to the incident of the' red robe,' it forms part of the

Synoptictradition

(seealso John

I9

2

):

the

agreementbe-

tween Barnabas and Matthew in the use of KOKKIVOS (Mark

TToptyvpav, John l^dnov nop^vpovv) is due to Barnabas's reference

to rd eptoy ro KOKKIVOVjust above. As to the assertion of Divine

Sonship, the reference to the Synoptic incident at the hearing

before the Sanhedrin is manifest;

note the Tore and the

implicit reference to the prophecy of a regal Return (Matt.

3664,

||).

Thedescriptive participles tgovOevrjo-avTfs (=eja7rat-

faz;res: see Matt, a;29

'31 41

;Mark I5

20 31;Luke 2263

, S336

,in

the light ofLuke S311

), KaraKezTTJo-azres, e^nrwain-es, refer simply

to the type of occurrence seen in Matt. 3728 ~ 30

;Mark I5

17~20,

prior to the crucifixion and so without reference to John

see

(38) Barn. vii. n.

OVTO), (f)r)(riv (sc. 6 'Irjcrovs), ol Q&ovrts /ae tbtiv KOI a^/aa-dai p.ov

rfjs /SadiAetas, ocptfaovo-iv OXifiovrts Kal TraOovrts Xafielv /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. i624, ||.

For

'He means,' see x.3ff., 7 f., xi. u, cf. vi. 9, xi. 8.

(39) Barn. xii. 10. Matt. 2241~45

;Mark i2

86~87

;

67T61 OVV fJL\\OV(TlV XeyflV OTl 6 JjUKG 2O .

Xpioros vlos <TTIV Aavid, avTos irpo- TWOS vl6s eVrt ; \eyovcriv ai>T&,

(f)r)Ti>ei A., 0o]3ov/ifj/oj /cat (rvviav Tov Aaftid. Xeyet avTols, Tlcas ovv

TTJV TT\dvr]v TO>V apapTQ>\>v' Ewrei/ 6 Aa/3t8 eV IIj/ev/zaTt xvptov O.VTOV KaXel,

Kvpioy . . . Kai TraXtvXe-yft ovrcay

Xeycoi/,EtTrev 6 Kvpios . . . vno-

'Htraias (45/ *^ iras A. \eyct Karoo1TUXV irodav crov; el ovv A. /eaXft

Kvpiov Kal mov ov Xey. CLVTOV Kvpiov, TT&S vlos avrov

Luke (Mark




Here the use of Ps. no1is quite parallel, down to the

application which concludes the argument. TextuallyBarnabas

agrees with the LXX (Alexandrine : B deest) in 7707706 toy,

where Matthew and Mark (BD) have

(Ill) The Fourth Gospel.

UNCLASSED

(40) Barn. vi. 3. John 651

,cf.

58.

fira rl Xeyei ;Kat 6? fXnicret eV edv TIS

<f>a~yrjetc TOVTOV TOV aprov,

avrov ^trerai fis TOP al&va. ^crerai els rov alcova.

V. 1. o iricrrfvav fls, cf. LXX.Isa. 2816

KOI 6 ni(rTva)v (eV

ov pr) Ka.Tat<rxvv6f}.

Barn. viii. 5 ^rt $ rd t-piov em rd v\ov ; OTLrj ftaa-i\La

*Irj(TOU TT\ vAo>, KOI OTl OL \TTloVT$ 677* CLVTOV rj<rOVT(U 19 TOV

al&va.

ix. 2 ris f<rnv 6 QiKvv C^"at *** r v at&wa5Ps. 33

136 0\<av

xi. IO Kal 69 hv fyayri If avT&v(sc. bMponr)* tfivtTai els TOV alS>va

(as from a 'prophet' influenced by Ezek. 471~12

), interpreted

in II as meaning 6s av axovo-r/ TOVTMV \a\ovpevuv [the words

connected with Baptism] Kat Trtoreva-rj, fô-erat ct? TOV al&va.

Compare Gen. 322

Kal vvv ^TI TTOTC . . . Ad^rj TOV fvA.ov TTJS

fcD^J Kat ^>ayr/, Kat f?jo-eTat et? r6z; atwva.

Apoc. 27 rw vtKcovrt 8(6o-co avT<3 <âyetv K rou fvXou TT/S fa>^j . . .

222

v\ov fco^j TTOIOVI; KapTroi/s SwSeKa, also 34> 19.

Barnabas is clearly haunted by the phrase (ô-erat t? TOV

ata>i;a, which he uses to gloss other phrases of the LXX in

vi. 3, ix. 2, (xi. 10). But whether he got it from Gen. 322

,

the Psalms of Solomon, xiv. 2, or rather from the apocryphal

'prophet' seemingly cited in xi. 9-11 (as his use of it in

connexion with vAor, especially in xi. 6f. and 10, rather

suggests : cf. Apoc. 27

, &c.), or again from current Christian

usage (see Ecclus. 3726

,cf. Wisd. 5

15

),is obscure. In

any

case

he seems independent of John;

for he makes no allusion to

Jesus as 6 frpTos TT/S



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS23

(41) Barn. xi. iif.,

8. John ip34

.

eefU\Tj<TCV ro>

Kvptoj KOI egrjXdev alp.a Kalv8<op.

irpo<pavcpS>o~at ncpl TOV v8aTos KOI

TTfpl TOV o-Tavpov (then quota-

tions, especially Ps. i3"6

). . . <u-

o~6dvfO~6f irons TO vdap KOI TOV arravpov

cn\ TO avTo &pio~v' TOVTO yap Aeyet,

fjtaKdpioi of rt TOV VTavpbv ATTI-

<ravTs KaT@r)o-av fls TOvficop, ort TOV

fMfv fuo-66v Xeyet'

fv Kaipw aurov* . . .

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 v\ov and vbara in Ps. I. Indeed the treatment

of the Blood and the Water in John I934

,i John 5

6~86

\6(*>v 61' vbaros Kal afyzaroj, is so different that, had Barnabas

known the Johanninewritings, 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, adloc.).

On the whole, in spite of their affinities in 'the deeper

order ofconceptions,'

to which Keim inparticular

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 wordsof Life a

modeof

thought visiblealso 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 thought 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 . . . rijs SiSa^s (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 as fKfXfvcrfv 6 Kvptos cv rutt>ayyeXi'o> avrov . . .

Cf. XV. 3, 4.

(2) Did. ix. 5 tiprjKev6 Kvpios . . .

3. In the Eschatological section.

(i) Did. xvi. 7 o>s eppMr) . . .

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

(i) Did. i. 6f'lprjrai . . . [introducing the saying 'iSpwo-aTo) 17

f\cr)p,o(rvvT)crov els ras xclpds <rov, fJ.fXPls

&v yv&S rivi S$", 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.

DActs d

(1) Did. iv. 8. Acts 432

.

avyKoivcovrjo-fis 8e Travra. T<5 aSeX<o> ov8e fls TI T&V VTrapxovrtoV auT<5

<rov Kal OVKepels i8ta dvai. eXcyev i8toi> clvai, dXX'

rfVavrols

anavra Koivd.

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. Kom. 12*.

ou KoXXufjLevoi dyadw. airovrvyovvrcs TOirovrjpov,

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 dependenceon either side.

UNCLASSED

Hebrews

(3) Did. iv. i. Heb. is7.

roC \a\ovi>Tos aroi TOV \6yov rov p.vr)p,ovruTfT>V

r)yovfj.va>v vp.>v, ot-

0oCiiVT)<r6r)(rr) VVKTOS Kal

fjfiepas. rives \d\r)(rav vfuv TOV \6yov TOV 0eov.

There is some similarity of thought, but the distinctive

f)yovfj.va>v

is not inDidache,

and thephrase

AaAaz; TOV\6yov

TOV 0eoC is a natural one.

Jude

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

ovp.i(rr)<rfis irdvra avQpanov [oXXa Text very uncertain.

ovs fJifv t:\fygfis, irepl 8e $>vrrpoo--

fvll) m - Lat.J,

ovs 8e dyairrjaeis vnep

TTJV ^fvxr]v crov.

See Lev. 1 917 f. for wording of

Did.




GOSPELS.


UNOLASSED

(5) Did. iii.7,

cf. Matt. 55

(due to Ps. 36").


(6)Did. i. 2. Matt. 22 37~89

.

irpwrov dycnrf)(ris rbv Qtbv rbvdyaTrrjo-tis Kvpiov rbv Qeov vov tv 0X17

iroirjo-avTa <re, dcvrepov rbv irXrjviov rfj Kapftiq <rov . . . avrr] ecrrivf) /uryaXr;

crov G)S (Tfavrov. KOLTrpoaTT) evro\f). devrepa

Se6/j.ota

avrrj, dycnrf)(rcisrbv ir\r)<riov vov as

(Tfavrov : cf. Mark i229f-

Here there ia juxtaposition of the two principles associated

in the Gospels and with like emphasis on their order;but the

addition rov noiria-avra o-e suggests direct Jewish influence.

See Ecclus. 730

,and cf.

(5).

(7)

Did. i. 2. Matt.7

12.

irdvTO. 8t ocra eavdcXrjo-flS fir) yive- ndvra ovv ocra eav 6e\r)T Iva

a&al o-ot, Kal av aXXo)firj

iroici. <nv \)\uv 01 av^pcoTrot, OVTWS

iroieiTf avrols(cf.

Luke 631

).

Tohit 415

.

6 p,Kre1s} fu]8cvl iroirio-rjs.

Acts is20

'29

.

KOI ocra ii QcXfre eavrols

(-a)) p,Tjnoiflrf. C. D min.

pauc. syr111 c> * 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,

4 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 ocra tav fleXô^s /otr)

KrA., instead of o juto-eis (found also in Greek, attributede.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, alteri 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, VTI-XV.

There are no certain quotations or allusions to the Old

Testament or to any other documents which can serve asa standard of accuracy in quotation, save the free quotation

from Mai. illff -

in xiv.3, where KCU \p6v<* (added to h iravrl

roV(i>)finds a parallel in the Targum ad loc.

EPISTLES.

Di Corinthians d

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

K.

fj.apav d8d. fj.apav d6d.

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, et rts OVK (TTIV

, fj.TavoLT(). In I Corinthians, t TLS ov </uAei rbv Kvpiov,

GOSPELS.

(I) The Synoptic Gospels.

C

Matthew C

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

$a7TTicraTe fls TO ovopa TOV irarpos (3airTiovTfs avrovs fls T^ ovofjui TOV

KOI TOV vlov Kai TOV dyiov irvfvfjidTos. iraTpbs Kal TOV vlov KOI TOV Aytov

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.KOI yap TTfpl

TOVTOV tlprjKfV 6 Kvptos, fi^ 8o>re TO ayiov rots KVCTI.

pf)Soire TO ayiov TOIS Kvai.

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.




(n) Did. viii. if. Matt. 616

.

at 8e vrjo-Telai vpfov p,r)fo~TG><rav p.cra orav 8e

vr)o-Tevr)T p,fj yivevQe, cos ol

T&V vTTOKpiT&v' vr)<TTvov<ri yap 8ev-vnoKpiTai,

crKvQpmroi d<paviovo-t yapTepa o-a/3aro>i> Kal Trepirrr)' vp.els 5e ra

Trpoo-oi-rra avra>v}OTTCOP <pavuo-i Tols

vr)o~Tevo-aT rcrpdda Kal irapao-Kevrjv. dvQpanois vrjo-Tevovres. dpfjv \eya> vp.lv

2 p.r)8e irpoo-evxfo-de &S ol vnoKpiTai, onaTreôucri TOV purdbv avTotv' av de

aXX' o)s Ke\evo-ev 6 Kvpios ev TW vrjcrTCvav aXetât <rov rrjv /ceâX^ Kal

i>ayy\iv6 iv rw

ovpai/aJ, dyia- Matt. 65 9~ 13

.

<rOf)To> TO ovopd o-ov,e\0eTQ>

r) KOI oravTrpoo-ev^ô-ê OVK <Teo*6t

jSacrtXcia o-ov, yevrjOrjTQ)TO QeXrjpd o~ov a>s ol

VTTOKptTai . . . ovruf ovv Trpoaev-

a)S cv

ovpavtoKal eVt

yqs'TOV

apTov ^f(7<9evpels' iraTfp fjfj-wv 6 ev Tols ovpa-

r)p.S>vTOV eniovo-iov 86s fjfuv o-f]p.epov, vols, dyiao-OrjTQ) TO ovop.d aov, eX&'rto

f)

Kal a(pfs fjp.lv TTJV ofpeiXrjv fjfJiwv, as /3a<riXei'a aov, ycvrjtirjTu TO 6f\rjpA aov

Kal fjpcls d<pifjLV Tols 6(f>fi\fTais a>y fv ovpava KalcTrlyfjs' Tovaprov r]^wv

Tjp.S>v, Kalp.f) fio-eveyKys f)p.as fls TOV emovviov

Sbsfjfjuv crrjiJiepovâlafas

Treipao-^bv aXXa pvo-ai 17/105 OTTO TOVrjp.lv

rd oêtX^nra fjpwv, u>s Kalf)p.fls

Trovijpov'OTI o-ov fCTTiv

f) dvvapis Kald(prjKap.V Tols 6(pci\eTais f)p.S>v,

Kal/AT)

rjdda els TOVS alS)vas.

flo-cvcyKys fjp.ds fls 7ripao~p.bvaXXa

pvo-ai r)p.ds OTTO roO novrjpov.

Matt. v. 5 om. syr8111

. d^Ka^v'] dîo^v DELAn2

al., dQientv NcGKMSUn*

codd. recent. irovrjpov] add. OTI aov fffTiv-f)

ftaoiXeia Kal77 Svvafjus KOI

-f)56a (is

TOVS aiuivas' apty. codd. recent.;add. OTI ffov kcfTiv

17 ftaffiXeia KOI1786a els TOVS

aiwvas- d^v. syrcur

(syr8ln

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 evr<jj vayyeA.to). There

is also a superficial point of connexion with Matt. 65,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-noKpiraL

(a class of Jews) and the tQviK.oi, while the Didache makes no

mention of (OviKoi. It must however be remembered that the

text of Matthew is doubtful on this point, as B syrcur read

vKOKpiTat instead of tdvinoi 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 vTro/cpirai 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 o#ro> irpo^vxÔc,

and in its verbal similarity. There are no divergences from

Matt. 69 ff>

except in four points :

(1)r< ovpavu> foT rots ovpavois.

(2) o$eiA.TJj> for d<eiA.?7/zara.

(3) d(/>iejuei> for a^KafjifV.

(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 (a) 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 wholequotation

seems to comedirectly

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

weakenthe

probabilitythat the Lord's

Prayeris a direct

quotation from our Matthew.

(12) Did. xi. 7.Matt. 1 2

81.

7rao-a yap dp.apTia dê^trerat, turn;naaa dâpria KOI /SXacr^/ua a<e~

8e17 dpapTta OVK afadfjaerat. 6r)<rTai rols

dv6pa>7rois, 17<$ TOV

HvcufjLdTos /3Xa<r(T;juia OVK dfadrja-crai.

Mark 328

.

TTavra dfaOrjo-fTai rots mots T&V dv-

6pa>7ra)v TO. dfjLapTr)fj.ara ) KOI at /3Xa<r-

(f)rjp.iaioara av

P\a<r<j)i>]iJ.r)(ra><Tiv'os 8*

bvj3\a(r<pr)fj.r)0-r)

els TO Hvc0/za roÂytov,

OVK f\(i afacriv els TOV ala>va, aXX'

fvo%6s eo-Tiv aluviov dfiapTr)p.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.




(13) Did. xiii. i. Matt. io10.

Tras SeirpocprjrrjS aXrjQivos, GeXatv agios yap 6

fpydrrjs TIJS rpofpfjs avrov.

Ka6r)<rdai irpos tyzay,ai6s eari TTJS Luke IO

7.

TfKXfrrp auroC, auravras &dd<TKa\os aîos yap 6 epydrrjs TOV fjLKr6ov avrov.

d\T)0iv6s evTtv agios Kal avros &(mp Tim 18

6 lpydTr,S TV Tpotfs afrou. ^ 6 .^^ ,fl

_The verbal coincidence is exact, and is made the more

noticeable by the fact that in Luke and i Timothy rpoQrjs is

replaced by nurOov. 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.

D

Luke d

(14) Did.ix. 2. Luke 2 2"~19

.

irpa>Tov ireplTOV

iroTijpiov.<a\ &cdp,evo$ Trorrjpiov ti>xapio"rf)O'as

eiTTf, \a/3ere rovro (cat Sta/zepiVare fir

cavrovs . . . Kal Aa/3a>i/ aprov KT\.

The B. V. goes on to give an account of another TTOT-TIPLOV.

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 beexplained

by any literary dependence, but rather by a common traditional

usage.


(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 evayyeXtoi^, which apparently

means the Message itself rather than any special record.

Thus we have in xi. 3 the phrase Kara TOdo'y/za TOV evay-

yeXtou. Here the closest point of connexion in the context

is to be found in xi. 4 frcis Se aTrooToAoj p^6jjivos irpos v/uaj

Sex^ô) ws Kvpios, which suggests Matt, io40,but can scarcely

be regarded as a quotation; see also (12) for xi. 7. So in

viii. 2, the tense exeXevo-e^ supports the view that the evay-

yeXiov 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 o>? *X T *v T$ svayyeA&p (TOV Kvpiov ?7/A<3z>),in

xv.3, 4, has any other sense.


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, virep TTJS ayLas ajuTreAou Aa/3tS TOV iraibos crov.

This must refer primarily at least to the Church regarded

as the Messianickingdom, and

not to Christpersonally

(which is excluded by eyvtopLvas 6ia'Iâ-oi;).

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. 8o14 15,The vine-

shoot which 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 estfontiet viti.' It is relative to this mystical idea of the Church that

the Cup is to be understood (cf. -nrev/uaruo? TTOTOS in x.3).

The resemblance to John 15* rests on little more than the

figure of the vine for the Messianic Kingdom.

(17) Did. ix. 3 tvyja.pivToviJ.iv <roi . . . vTrep rrjs (/OTJJ KOL yv<ao~(i>s

rjs eyvtopio-as fjfuv Sia 'Iqa-ov TOV Traibos (TOV. Cf. John I73

.

(18) Did. x. 3 THUV be exaptVco 7rz>evjuumKr)i> Tpocfrrjv Kal TTOTOV

KatO>T)J;

alwviov 5ta TOV vaibos crov. Cf. John 645~65

.

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 CHAPTEE.

GOSPELS.

The Synoptic Tradition.

(19) Did. xvi. i. Matt. 2 442

. ".

yprjyopeiTf vjrep TJ}? farjs vp.a>v'ol

yprjyopclre ovv, OTI OVK oi'Sare TTOI'O

\VXVQI vp.S)V fir) (rfifaOijTWffav Kal ol ypfpq. 6 Kvpios vfji>v epêrai . . . Kal

6<r<pvs vp.)v fir)(K\veo-6(iMrav

tdXXa v/iety yiveade troipot' on $ &pq ov




yivetrde eroijLtoi*ov yap oifiare

TTJV &pav fioKeire 6 vibs TOV dvdp&Trov ep

ev j 6 Kvpios fjpav fpxfrat. Cf. 2 513

.

Luke I235

.

eo-Tcoo-av 17x001; al 6cr(pves irepiefacr-

fj-evat Kai of \v%voi Kaio/Jievoi. Cf. I 240

.

Matt. 2442

êpa] <%>aLFKO al. pier, lat-vet. syr

8*11pesh. Tatar -

Orig. Ath.

There is a marked parallel to Luke 1 235

,where alone

and \VXVOL occur in the same combination;but it is in Matt.

that y/oTjyopetre goes with OVK oibare voiq ^/xe'pa [wpa] 6

ep\T<u,and with

r]^pav ovbt TTJZJ &pav in 25

13.

(20) Did. xvi. 3-5. Matt. 2 410-18

.

fv yap rais eV^tirats fîtpais 7T\r)0vv- Kai rore (TKav8aXi<r8r)<TovTai TroXXoi,

6t]<rovTai ol-^ffvdoTrpofp^Tai Kai oi(f)0o- Ka\ a\\r)\ovs rrapaStoo-ovo-t, Kai

p.ia-fj-

pcis Kai<rrpa(pf)o-ovTai

ra irpoftara els vovviv dXX^Xous' Kai TroXXoi \lffv8o-

\VKOVS Kaifj dydirr) <rrpa<pr)<rcTai. els 7rpo(pr)Tai eyepOrjo-ovrai Kai 7rXavr)(rov<ri

(jLitros. avavov<Tr)syapTr)sdvop.iasni(n]- TTO\\OVS' Kai dia TO 7r\r)dvvdijvai TTJV

o-ovo-iv aXXijXovs Kai dt&govo-i Kai napa- dvopiav tyvyyo~(Tai f) dyaTrr] T>V TroX-

S&xrovo-t, Kat rdre (pavô-frai, 6 KOO-JMO- \S>V 6 8e VTropfivas els re\os OVTOS

TrXdvos a>s vibs 0eoG KatTroiija-fi o-Jj/nela o-co^crerai. Cf. Matt, y

15

, 2424 and

ical repara, Kairj yrj irapabo6r)o-frai els Mark I3

13.

avrov Kai iroiô-et dOefiira a

t yeyovev e alatvos' Tore fjet

fjKTto-is T&V dv6po>7ro)v els rrjv irvpaxriv

TTJS doKipaaias Kai o-Kav$a\io-6r]<TovTai

TroXXot KOI aTroXoOi/rat 01 fieinropeL-

vavres ev 777 Trtoret avrav

vrr1

avrov TOV

There are several points of connexion with Matt. 2410~13

,

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 Koa-ôirXdvos /crA.. and to VTT avrov TOV KaraOtiaras, parallels

to which are rather to be found in AscensioIsaiae,

iv. a ff.

(21)^Did. xvi. 6. Matt. 2 4

3 f-

Kai Tore(pavijo~eTai ra

o-r)fj.eia -rrjs Kai rdre (01/77(rerai TO (rrjueiov TOV

d\T)0eias' Trp&rov (rrjueiov eWerdVecos ev vlov TOV dvOpanov ev rai ovpava . . . Kai

ovpavu, eira o-^/ietoi/ (pavrjs o-d\7riyyos, aTroareXei TOVS dyyeXovs OVTOV

Kai TO TpiTOV dvdo~Tao-is veKpatv. adXiriyyos (pcovrjs

The parallelism is insufficient to warrant any sure inference.

The scheme in the Didache is rather that of i Thess. 414~16

,

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. Cf. too theo-TJjuara r/oto-o-a

of the Sibylline

Oracles, ii. 188(potato., a-aAmyf,

<W<rracris, cf. iv.

1736.),

and

the description of the irapova-ia in the Ascensio Isaiae,

chap. iv. For heavenly portents, cf. Josephus's account of

signs before the war;and for the meaning of eKTreVao-u, cf.

Sib. Orac. viii. 302 and Isa. 6*f (in which Barnabas sees

a reference to the Crucifixion). Apparently this idea was

a more specific form given to'

the sign of the Son of Man,'

whichoriginally 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 2 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

peculiarto

Luke,cf.

(19):but

(3)cannot be said to

proveits 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".

T&V o-apKiK&v Koi (TdîariKwv dircxevOai T>V crapKiK&v

The text of the Didache, as it stands, recalls i Pet. a11

.

The sentiment, however, is a natural one, and it is worth

noticing that the conjunction of a-âTiK&v and o-apKLK&v seems

rather tautologous, and that ow/xartfcaw has been replaced in

A. C. vii. i by KOOTXIKWI>. For the possibility that

CABLTLE D




originally stood alone, cf. 4 Mace. I32 T&V 8e Mdv/uudi* at jueV eto-t

\l/vxiKal at 8e o-to/xartKat. If this suggestion be right, o-apfciKow

would be a later gloss derived fromI

Peter and dueto the

same feeling as that which led to the substitution of

KOVHIK&V in A. C. vii. i (possibly from Titus s12

).The context

suggests that Didache has in view tiuQvpicu. that wrong one's

neighbour, as in Matt. 527-30

.


DMatthew

(23) Did. i. 5- Matt. 526

-

OVK cc\v<TTai fKeWfV pe\pi$ ov ov prj eêXdrjs cKfWev ecos dv drro-

a7ro8&> TOV eoâ-rov KodpdvTTjV.das rov eo-âroi/ KoftpdvTrjv. Cf. Luke

I 259

,which has Xenrbv dirodus.

The wording of the Didache is closer to Matthew than it is

toLuke, especially

in the use ofKobpavr^v

and not AeTrroV

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.


(25) Did. i. 3. Matt. 5"-47

.

TOVS KarapafJicvovs vfj.lv dyanarf TOVS CX&POVS

rep rcoi/e^^poii/u/îwv, irpocri>xfO'0 vnep rS

vrj(TTevT beVTTfp

TWV ftioxovTtovvfjids. . . . fdv yap dya7rf)(rr)Te TOVS dya-

Troia yap X^Pls *av dyandre TOVS Trfovras vfids, Tiva fj.io~6bv eêre ;

dyan&vTas vp,ds ; ov^l KOI TO. edvrj TO Kal ol Te\a>vai TO avTo 7roiovo~i K.T\.

avTO TTOiovo'iv ; vpels 5e dyajraTe TOVS T K. A27 33

fjLio~ovvTUs VfjuisKa\ oi>x ffT

evdpov.,

ayarra.T TOVS ex

TTOietrt Tols fjno-ovo-iv vp.as, v\oyciTe

TOVS KaTaptofj-fVovs vfjuv, Trpoo-evxfo-tif

vnep TO>V tnr]pa6vTa)V vp.ds . . . Kal

el dyanciTf TOVS dyaTT&vras vfids,iroia

vfuv xupis *o~Ti; . . . Kal yap ol dp.ap-

rcoXol TO avTO TTOIOVO-I.

In Matt, post fx^Povs vfjiwv add. (v\oyfiT TOVS KaTapuftevovs v/zas DLKn c f h

pesh et mss.vss.

pp. recen. ante Kal irpoacvx- add./ca\u>s iroifire

TOVSI) lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen. ante SIOJKOVTOJV add.

vnds Kal D lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen.



THE DIDACHE 35

It seems impossible to decide whether the occurrence of

Matthaean and Lucan features, e. g. nota x< tj(cf- Luke 632

)

and TO.

tdvr) (cf.

Matt.5

47

),

be due(i)

to ablending

of the two

Gospels, (2)or to the knowledge of another Greek source

nearer to the Ao'yia, 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

emphasison

fasting,which seems to be

representedas

a climax, is in keeping with a tendency discernible in later

Jewish literature(cf.

Tobit I28

)and which assumes promi-

nence in 2 Clement i64,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, o^x efere ZyQpov 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. 539~42

.

(i)fdv TIS (roi 5o> pa7rio>ia ft? rr]v ocrrts <re paTriei els rr]V detai> <rov

fai-iav criayoVa, or/M^rO*aura) Kal rrjv aiayova, (rrptyov aurai Kal rrjv aXXrjv'

aXXrjv Kal ear) rcXeios. (2)cav dyya- KOI TO> QeKovrl trot KptBijvai

KOI TOV

p(vo"fl(re TIS fJLiXiov ev, VTraye per îTotvd o~ov Xa/3etv a(j)es

avra Kal TO

O.VTOV 8wo. ^3)fav

aprj TIS TO t/xartdf IpaTiov' Kal OVTIS o~e dyyapeixrei p,i\iov

crou,86s aura) Kal TOV

îTcova. (4êav ei/

} vnayf pCTavTOV 8uo* TO> aiTOviri

\df3r) TIS OTTO o-oO TOcToi', fir) aTratTft, (re Si'Sov, Kal TOV BeXovTa OTTO o-ov

oi'Sc yap 8vvao-ai. (5)Trai/ri ro) Sai/et'aaaât ^17 mrooTpac^s.

aiTovvri (76 didov Kal(j.f)

aTrat'ret.j

-,

g29so

TO) TVTTTOVTL (T TT TT)V

Kal TTJV aXXrjv' Kal OTTO TOV

aipovros (TOV TO lp.aTiov Kal TOV îTa>va

p.f) KQ)\vo~r)S' Travrl alTovvTi o~f S/Sov,

Kai arro TOV atpovrosTO (ra

p.t)airaiTft.

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 (accordingto the reconstruction made by Zahn in

1 But notice in this connexion the quite early addition in Mark p29

of *at

to irpoatvxfi,which is found in syr*

in and almost all late authorities.

D 2




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 /cat eo-r/

reXeios and ovbe yap bvvao-at, 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 fromthe 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.1 24.

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 yey/oa-nrai, TO

EPISTLES, ACTS, AND APOCALYPSE.

A

Romans a

(i) Clem. xxxv. 5, 6. . Eom. i29"32

.

aTTOppfyavrfs d(f>favr>v irdcrav ircTr\r)pa>iJivovs 770077 aSt/c/a, irovr)-

ddiKiav /cataj/o/Lu'ai>, TrAeopeîai/, epeis, plq, 7rXeoi>eia, Ka/a'a, pea-rovs <0oi/ov,

KaKOTjdeias re KCII SOKOVS, îdvpicr/JLOvs ^di/ov, eptSoy, SoXov, /ca/cor/êtay,

re KOI KaraXaAtas, OeocrTvyiav, vneprj- îBvpiards, /caraXaXouy, 0eoorvyets,

<f>aviav re KOI d\aovelav, Kfvo8oiav vfipiords, virfpr)<pdvovs,

re /cat d(f>i\ofviav. efavpcras KCIK&V, yovevviv




ravra yap ol irpaacrovrcs (TTvyr)- do-vverovs, do-vvQerovs, do-ropyovf,

rol rw 0ew i>7rdpxovo-iv' ov \iovov 8edvcXeypovas, olrives TO

diKaia3fj.arov

ol TTpdo-o-ovrcs avrd, dXXa feat ot <rvv- Qcovcmyvovrfs,

on ra roiavraTrpda-

vooKovvTcs avTols. aovTcs agiot Bodroveltriv, ov p.6vov

avraTTOIOVO-IV, dXXa /cat

An examination of thispassage makes it practically certain

that Clement is influenced by the recollection of the passagein the Epistle to the Romans. This judgement is founded

upon1. The remarkable coincidence of the vices which are

mentioned: this seems too detailed to have occurred bychance.

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

.

ri ovv Troirjo-ancv, dSeXôi ; dpyr)- ri ovv cpovpev ; cmpevwpcv rfj

crwiiev OTTO TTJS dyadonouas KOI ey- Apapria, Ivaf) x^Pls i&fovdcrg ; f.if)

icaraXiTrcofieJ/ TTJV dya7rr)V ; p,T}6an5)s yevoiro.

TOVTO cdo-ai 6 decnroTrjs e(j) fjpLiv yc

yevrjdfjvai,dXXa

o~TTvo~fJiv ficra

KTVias Kal TTpodvfJ-ias ndv cpyov

dyaObv ei

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

bythis is

very

muchstrengthened

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. g5.

eg O.VTOV

('icwccu/S)

6 Kvptos 'Irjaovs e a>i/ (rwvirarfpav)

6 Xpioros TO

TO Kara crapta. Kara <rdpKa.

It seems probable that the sentence in Clement was



CLEMENT OF ROME 39

suggested by that in Romans. The phrase r6 Kara adpua is

not a very obvious one.

(4)Clem. 1.

6, 7.

yfypairrai yap' Ma-

ai

Eom.4'-'.

ai dvofjiiai, KOI S)v

Ka\v<p@r)o~av ai dfuip-

Ttai'fj.(iKiipio$ dvrjp u>

ovfirj \oyio"r)Tai Kvpios

dfiapTiav. 6 p.aKapio-p,os

OVV OVTOS Tl TT)V TTfpl-

To/zjji/ ; TJKal tirl TTJV

aKpofSvo-riav ;

Ps.31(32)*-*.

fj.aKapioi GW d<pe6T)(rav

aidvofjiiai,

Kal &v fire-

KoXixpdrja'av ai dfiapriai.

fiaKapios dvfjp ov ov/z/j

\oyio~rjrai Kuptos apap-

riaVj ovde fcrriv ev roJ

avrov doKos.

vofjiai Ka

\v<>dr]O'av aia/itaprtat*

paxdpios dvrjp<a ov pr]

Aoyt'o-T/rai Kvpios dpap-

TUIV, ovde e'oT> ev rw

oro/Ltart avrov doXos.

OVTOS 6 naKapio'fj.os fye-

J/6TO CTTt TOVS K\f\ey-

fJifVOVS V7TO TOV GcoO

did'irjcrov XpioroC TOW

Kvpiov >7/Licoi/.

It is clear that Clement intends to quote the Psalm; he

introduces the quotation with the word ye'ypaTrrcu, 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 oSroy 6 jmaKapto-/xo? suggest strongly that

he was influenced by his recollection of the same words in the

Romans.

d

(5) Clem, xxxvi. 2.

8idvoia Kai

Kap8ia.

Rom. i21

.

f)dcrvveros avrStv

Clem. li. 5. Eph. 418

-

TO.S do~vveTovs Kapdias . eo'KOTio'fievoi 777 8iavola.

The phrases in Clement may have been suggested by the

Romans, but there is a similar phrase in Eph. 418

: see(37).

(6) Clem, xxxviii. i.

(ro>e(T$a> ovvf)p.a>v o\ov TO

<ra>/j.a

ev Xpiaroi 'irjo'ov,Kal viroTawfcrBo)

Kao~ros TO) 7r\rjo~iov avTov.

Clem. xlvi. 7.

ivari 8ie\Kop.ev Kal 8iacnra>fJ.fv TO

f/eXf; TOU XptoroC Kal arrao~idofjLCv

irpos TOfftufjia

TO iStoj/.

Rom. 12*.

yap ev evl

TO. 8e

TTJV avTrjv f\fl

TroXAot evffS>fj.d eo~p.ev (V

i Cor. 615

.

TroXXa

iravra. ov

OVTCHS of

TO. crcoâra

fo~Tiv.

vfj.(ov XptoroO




i Cor. i212

.

KaOdfrcp yap TO crapa ei> e'ori, KOI

fieXr) TroXXa eêt, irdvra de TO./ze'Xi;

TOV <ro>paTos TroXXa ovra tv cori

aaj/iaj OVTO) Kal 6 Xpiaros.

Eph. 44.

Ip o-co/ia Kal li> Trvevpa.

Eph. 4".

oneo~fj.V dXXqXaji/

Eph. 530

.

6nfJLeXij <TfjLi>

TOV

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. i212 ff-

Xd/3o>juej/ TO a-Stpa fjfjiwv' rj KC(pa\r) KaQaTTfp yap TO aS)p.a cv eoTt, Kat

5iâ TO>V iro8)v ovdev eo-Ttv, OVTCDS (teXr) TroXXa eêt, Trdwa 8e TO. pfXrj

ovSe ot n68fs Si'â TTJS Kf<pa\rjs'TO. TOV

o-a>/Liaros TroXXa 6Wa fv cVrt

de fXaîora p.f\rj TOV o-upaTOs fjp&v o-w/ia, ora> xai 6 Xptaros . . .

dvay<ala Kal eu^pjyora flaw 6'Xo) TO>u

at yap TO a-co/za OUK eaTtj/ fv

cra)fjLaTi'dXXa Trdi^ra o-UfTTJ/ei Kal vrro-

p.f\os, dXXa TroXXa . . .

Ta-yi; fjiia XP^rai *& T o"&>C O"ât oXoi/2l

ov SvvaTai 8e 66(j)6a\fjios

TOva>fj.a. flnelv TTJ Xft

pt> Xpei'ai/crov OVK ?^co'

I. n ^d\ivf) K(pa\rj Tots Troai,

Xpfiavovv jftSa,

\oV TOo{>K ' aXXa

T

a^rov, art&s Kal Pa *PX"* >* cori.

TW xapicrpaTt avrov.

Cf. i Clem. xlvi. 7 and i Cor. 615.

It would appear to be certain that Clement is here in-

fluenced by the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Themetaphor 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. i11"13

.

di/aXdj3eTe TTJV firia'ToXfjv TOV p,a- fdrj\o)0rj yap p.oi Trcpl vp.5)v, aoVX-

Kapiov IlauXov TOU UTTOoroXov. 2 TI (poi /ôv,VTTO T>V XXdr/y, OTI

eptSes*fv

7rpS)Tov vfj.lv v dpxy TOV fvayye\iov vpiv clo~i. Xeya> Se TOVTO, OTI IxaoToy

3 eV d\Tj0eias irvfvp.a- ip>v Xeyei, 'Eyca ptv flp.i ILavXov,



CLEMENT OF ROME 41

Tinas eVeoTetXfi/ vp.lv ircplCO.VTOV re

'Eye!)8e

*A7roAXo>^ *Eya>

/cat K7<pa re Kal 'A7roXXa>, Sia TO KOI *Eyoo 8e XptoroC.

roYf irpoo-K\io-fis vpas

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 secondletter. 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. i^.dydirr) irdvra dvcxfrat, irdvra fiaKpo- r) dydirr) p.aKpo6vp.fl} xprjo-reuerar

Ovfjiel* ovdev ftdvavvov evdydrrrj t rj dyaTrrj ov 7X0!' 17 dydirrj

ov

ovdevvnpr)<pavov' dydnrj cr^t'cr/ua OVK TrepTrfpevcrai, ov (pva-iovrai, OVK dcrxr)-

fxe*5 ayaTn; ovo-rao-td^ft, dydnr] ndvra

fj.ovcl,ov ^Tfi ra eavrfjs, ov rrap-

Trotfi eV opovoiq" ovWrat, ov Xoyiêrai TO KOKOV, ov

rrvra oreyfi, iravra

trdvTa f\iricit

iravra viro-

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, i520

.

6 wv\ 8e Xpioros cyrjyepTcuK.

filv VKpS)Vt dirapxf) T&V KCKOip.r)p.evo>v.

Trjv p.e\\ov(rav dvdo~rao~iv O~o~dai} qs

TTJV dirapx^v fVoiô-aroTOV

Kvptovt

lr)o~ovv KvfK.pa>v ai/ao-T^cray, aTrap^ Xpioro?.

This would appear to be almost certainly a reminiscence.

The word aTrapx^j used in this sense of our Lord, in reference

to the resurrection, seems to make this plain.

(n) Clem. xxiv. 4, 5.i Cor. i5

86 37.

\dfia>iJ.fv TOVS tcapTTOvs'6 anopos a<ppuv, av 6

o-Treipfisov faonoiei-

TTtoS Kal riva rpoirov yivfTai ; e^Xdev rat, cav prj dnoOdvy' /cat 6 arreipfis,

6o~ircipa>v

Kal e/3aXev eiy TTJV yfjvov TO

o~S>p,aTO

yfvr)o-6jj.cvov o~7Tft,pcis




Ka<rrov TO>V<r7rep/idra>i>*

driva TTC-

(rovra els TTJV yrjv rjpaKal

yvfjiva

eir* CK TTJS SiaXua-ecos17

TTJS -rrpovoiasTOV dearrrorov

dvi(rrr)crw avrd, KOI ex roC evos TrXei

dXXd yvp-vbv KOKKOV, ei Tiôt, (rirov, fj

TWOS T>V XOITTCOI/' 6 de Qfbs

aura>o-a>/ua KaQvs f)6e\r)o-f, KOI

T&V

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.

fJTGi TIS TTtOTOr, JjfrcO dwdTOS

i Cor. i28

.9

.

G>fjifv yap 8id TOV TIvevpaTOS St'So-

TCU Xdyoy o-o(pia?,aXXa> e Xdyo?

yva>o-a>s KOTO. TO avTO TIvev/jLa, eVepco

TTIO-TIS (V TW avToi

\6y<ov } fJTa> dyvbs fv epyois.

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 THOTI?, yi'wo-t? Aoyo'j

yixoo-ecos, o-ofpos v biaKp{(TL \6ya>v Aoyos (rotyias. In view of

this it would seem probable that we have here a reminiscence

of St. Paul's words.

(13) Clem. v. i, 5.

. . (3pa@elov.

i Cor. 924

.

on 01 V ora

irvTes p.cv

\ap.(3dvei TOftpafielov ;

ia) rpe-

fls de

(14) Clem, xxxiv. 8.

Xeyei ydp* *6(p6d\/j,bs

Cf; Phil. 31*.

i Cor. 29.

dXXd Ka6o)s yeypajrrai,

OVK elbfv Kal ovs OVK *A 6(pda\fjt.bs OVK eiSe,

Isa. 6 44.

dirb TOV altovos OVK

ovfie 01 o-

T)KOVO~(v)Ka e

rrov OVKjoo~a

T]TOlfJ.aO~V TOiS VTTOfJie- OVK

vovo-iv'

KOI OVS OVK T)KOVO~, Kal

firlKapSiav dvflpairov

ty, ocra f)Toip.a-

o~ev 6 0e6$ TOIS dyan5>-

o~w avTOV.

ir\r]V o-ov, KOI TO epya

CTOU a 7TOIT]0-IS TOIS V7TO-

/txeVovo-ti/aeoi/. Cf.6^19

eVt TTJV Kapdiav.1

Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert &.2

Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert

6 Kvpios.3Constant, reads dyairuaiv, and Syr. supports this

;Lat. reads

sustinentibus, with Alexand.

The passages in Clement and i Corinthians are almost



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, ets TO f/ero'xous rjâs yevtvQai

T&V jueyaAeoz/ /cal evboûw e7rayyeA.i<3z> 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 numberof 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, T 8; 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.Resell also points out that St. Jerome, (70mm. 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, Comm. on Matt.

xxvii. 9, says that the phrase occurs'

in nullo regulari libro/

but'

in secretis Eliae prophetae.' The Testamentum 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




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

yiypaiiTai).

(15) Clem, xxxvii. 3.

aXX' fKao-ros ev ra> tSi'a) rayârt.

i Cor. i 523

.

fKdCTTOS $ (V T<5 l8tO)TayfKZTl

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. 2f

6 8e TTTCOÔS evâpioreira) ra>

on edwKev avTai 81 ovdva.7r\r)po)6fi

avTOV TO v

i Cor. i617

.

e eVt rfj irapov(Tia

i QoprovvaTov KOI 'AâtKoO, on TO

OVTOI d

Phil. 2S0

.

irapaô\evcrdp.fvos ry faxy, iva dva-

ir\r)p<b(rr)TO vfiatv vore/J^/za TTJS npos

Cf. also 2 Cor. 9", n 9

,and

Col. i24

.

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

7rpo8f)\(cvovv

rjp.lvovratv TOVTODV, TO yap livtvâ ivdvra epevva, Kal TO

Kal eyncKVÔTCS els TO. ^ddrj TTJS Of'tas &d6rj TOV 0eov.

Bom. ii33

.

ddos TT\OVTOV KOI<To<pias

KOI

Oeov.

(18) Clem, xlviii. 6.

Cf. Phil. a4

.

i Cor. io

24'33

.

Hebrews a

(19) Clem, xxxvi. 2-5. Heb. i.

dia TOVTOV('lijo-ov XptoToO) r)0\r)- 7roXufiepo>y Kal iroXvTporrws TraXai I

(rev 6 SfcrTroTTjs TTJS dBavaTovyva>o~ea)s 6 Oebs \a\f)o~as Tols Trarpdcriv

ev Tols

r)p.ds yevo~ao~6ai'

os &>v

aTrauyaoyta TIJS 7rpo<pf)Tais

eVeo~\aTov

rSav

r)p.fp>v

TOV- 2

fj.eya\a)O~vvrjS avrov, TOCTOUTG) fj.eia>v TO>V e\d\Tjo~fv rjplv ev vim, ov eBrjKe

eo~T\v dyye\a>v ocrtodia<f>opd)Tepov K\r}povop.ov ndvTOiV

tdi ov Kal e.



CLEMENT OF ROME 45

ovo/j-a KKT)povij.TjKev . yeypamat

yap OVTUS' *O Troieoi/ TOVS dyyeXovs

avTov Trvev/j-aTa Kal TOVS XeiTovpyovs

avTov Tivpos <pX6ya. e/rt 8e raj vt5avTov ourcoy e'iTrev 6

decriroTrjs' Yldy

/xou 6t (rv, eya) o~T)p.epov yeyevvrjKa ae'

(nrrjo'cu Trap' efiov KOI a>cra> croi edvrj

TTJV K\rjpovop.lavo~ov al TTJV Kardcrxf-

<riv <rov ra Tre'para TTJS yrjs.KCU

iraXiv \eyei Trpos avrov' Kddov CK

deîwv /AOfj eats av 6u> TOVS %6povs

aOV VTTOTTodlOV TO)V 7Tod)V (TOV.

TO>V

TOVS altovas' os &v aTravyacr/ia TTJS 3

5d^s Kal xapaKTrjp TTJS

CIUTOV, (frepwv re TO. Trdvra r

TTJS 8vvd/j.0)s avrou, Ka6apio-p.o

dpapTi&v TrotrjcrdfjicvosendQicrfv ev

TTJS HfyciXao-vvrjs fv v^Xotff, TOO-OVTW 4

KpeiTTtav yevofMfvosT>V dyye\a>v oo~(o

dia(pop<aTpov Trap* O.VTOVS KK\rjpov6-

p.r]KV ovop.a. TLVI yap fine Trore TWV 5

dyyeXtov, Ytds [JLOVet crv, tya) crrîepov

~f ; Kai 7raA/, *Eya> eoro/iat

6is TraTfpa, Kal avros lorat /not

ety vtov; oraz/ 5e TraXtv elo~aydyrj TOV 6

TTpWTOTOKOV CIS TTJV OlKOVfJLVTJV \fyl,

Kalirpoo~Kvvr]a'dTa)o~av

avrw irdvTfs

ayyfXot Qcov. Kat Trpop fj.ev TOVS*]

dyyeXovs Aeyei,

C

O Troifov TOVS dyyeXovs

avTov TTvevfjiaTa, Kal TOVS \eiTovpyovs

OVTOV Trvpbs (f>\6ya' npos 8e TOV vlov, 8

*O Qpovos <rov, 6 Qf6st

fls TOV ata>i/a

ToO ataJroy, /cair) pd(3bos TTJS cvQvTrjTos

pajSSos TTJS /3ao-iAei'as aov' r]ydirr)o~as 9

8iKaioo*vvr)v, Kal tpMnpa* dvoplav'

dta TOVTO expio-e (re 6 0edy, o Qf6s crov,

eXaiov ayaAAtao"(Bs Trapa rous

/car apây, Kvpte, IO

/cat fpya TO>I>

flalv ol ovpavoi' avroi 1 1

o~v 8e dtap-eveis' Kal

Trdvrcs Q)S lfj.aTiov TraAaKoôroKrat, Kal 1 2

o)o~el 7rept/3dAaioi/ eAtêty avTovs, a>y

t/iartov, Kal aAAay^crovrai'av 6

avroy el,fcal ra

TTJ<rou OVAC exAftyovcrt. 1 3

Trpoy TtVa Se Tail/ dyyeAcoi/ ctpr)K TTOTC,

Kddov K dfgtSiv fjiov, eats av Oat TOVS

o~ov

<rov ; xl irdvres elo~l \ciTOVpyiKa 1 4

els diaKOviav

ta rovy

Trjpiav ;

Ps. 27

,

8utoy

<cal Sdxro) (rot e^

ou et <rv, e'ya> 0-fjp.fpov yfyevvrjKa (re. aiTr)o~ai trap e'/xov,

TTJV K\rjpovopiav <rov}

Kal TTJV /carao-êeriV crov TO. Trepara

Ps. 103 (104)* 6 TTOI>V TOVS dyyeXovs avTOV TrvevpaTa, Kal TOVS

\eiTovpyovs avTov irvp (p\eyov2

.

Ps. 109 (lio)1Ka6ov eK 8fi>v

(JLOVetos av 6a> TOVS e'^^pouy

o~ov vjro-

1C. reads KeK\rjpov6fjir}itev ovoâ.

2 A* read irvpfo <f>\eya.




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. i3

,and then

Heb. i4

, omitting the intervening words, and with the follow-

ing changes. Clement reads fxeyaAcoo-wrjs for So'frjj, juct&oy en-rti;

for KpeiTTwv ytvopevos : he omits Trap' avrovs, and in the best

texts transposes KK\ripov6^r]Kv and ovoâ. The substitution of

(jLya\u>crvvri for 8ofa 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 yeypaiTTai,

Ps. IO44

,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 LXXin one particular. Clement reads wpos <Ao'ya, while the

LXX reads itvp (frXeyov (Aa nvpos 0Aeya).

3.Clement then quotes Ps. 2

7 and 8,while in Heb. i

5

only

Ps. 27

is quoted.

4. Clement then quotes Ps. no1

,which is quoted in

Heb. i13

.

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. I044

,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. 32. Num. i2

7.

Ma>iJ(Tr)$ TTKTTOS fV 'irjVOVV, TTKTTOV OVTO. 6depUTTtOV fJLOV

oXwrep

OIKO> avroC e- TO> iroirjo-avri avroi/, a>y Mwvo-rjs' eV oXw raj

K\r]6r). Kal M.(oarrjf ev oAa> r<5 OIKCO /MOV TTIOTOS eoriv.

OIKCp dVTOV.

The passage might be based on Num. is7,but the



CLEMENT OF HOME 47

substitution of avrov for pov suggests the influence of the

Hebrews.

Cf. Clem, xliii. i and Heb. 35 .

(21) Clem, xxxvi. i. Heb. 218

, s1.

'irjcrovv Xpioro'i', TOV dp\iepea T&V ev o> yap TrcTrovdev avros ira-

TTpoo-fpopwv fjiJ-tov,TOV 7rpoo-TaTr)V KOI paaOfis, dvvarai rot? ircipaop.fvois

porjdbv TTJS do-Qfveias fjn<av. ôrjdfja-ai . . . Karavorjo-arf TOV diro-

CTTO\OV Kal apîfpea TTJS opoKoyias

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. n 37,

89.

yvo>p.f6a KaKeivuv OITIVCS ireptri\doi>fv /i^Xeoraiff, fit alyfiois

tvalyeiois

KOI p,rj\a)Tais 8ep[juio~iv i v&Tfpovp.evoi, 0\if36fj.voi,

avKijpixro-ovTes TTJV \ev<riv KaKovxovp.(voi . . . KOL ovrot Trdvrfs,

TOV Xpiorou' \fya)fj.vde 'HXiav KOI papTvprjdfVTcs dia TTJS Triarewy, ov<

'EXto-ate, ert fie Kal'iffcicirjX, TOVS fHOftimtttn TTJV eirayyeXtav.

7rpo<pT)Tas, irpbs TOVTOLS KOI TOVS/Lie-

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 rrCerence to Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel points in

this direction.

(23) Clem. xix. 2. Heb. I21

.

7roAX ovv Koi p.yd\a>v KCU ev- Toiyapovv KOIrjfiels,

TOO~OVTOV

86a)V /J.Tl\r)(p6TS TTpdÔ)V OTTOl/d- fÔVTCS TTfplKfifJlfVOV fjjJ.lv Ve<J)OS p-

ftpdnapfv enl TOV e^ dp%r)s Trapa- Tvpav, oyKov anodepevoi irdvTa Kal

8f8op.evov f)/juv TTJS flpfjvrjs o~Korrov, evTrepioraroj/ a/xapriavdi

Kal aTeviaoifjifv els TOV iraTe'paKal

rpe^co/iei'TOV TrpOKfluevov fjfuv dya>va,

KTIO-TTJV TOV avfjiTravTOS Kocr/iou, /cat d<pop)VTCs fls TOV TTJS Trt'oretos dp\rj-

Tals [Jiya\07rp7ro-i Kal VTTfpftaXXov- yov Kal reXeteor^p 'irjo-ovv.

(rats- avTov oapeais TTJS eiprjvrjs Vfp-

yeo-iais TC Ko\\rj6a)fj.v.




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. 412

.

epevvr)Tr)S yap ea-Tiv fvvoi&v KOI g&v yap 6 \6yos TOV 0eou, /cat

v6vjjif)o-f(i)v'ov

17 TTI/OJ)auroi) ev

rjp.lv cvepyfjs . . . *ai KpiTiicbs (vdvp-f/aeoiv

eoriV, Ka\ OTOV Qe\rj dve\el avTrjv. Kai evvoiavKapdias.

It seems possible that we have here a reminiscence of the

Hebrews, but it must be noticed :

1. We have epewrjr?}? instead of/cpiriKo's.

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. io23

.

TavTj) ovvTTJ \7ri8i npoo'o'eo'e- irio~Tb$ yap 6

eirayyi\dfj.cvos>

Tals tVayyeXtais /cat T Stxaia) ev Heb. 1 1 .

TolsKpijj.ao~iv. end TTIO~TOV

fjyfja-aTOTOV eVay-

(26) Clem, xxvii. 2. Heb. 618

.

ovdfv yap ddvvaTov irapa T& 6c ev ols dSvvaTov tyevo-ao-Qai Qeov.

el prjTO

\lfevo-ao-dai.

(27) Clem. Ivi. 4. Heb. 12*. Prov. 312

.

ov yap dyana Kvptos ov yap dyaTra Kvpios ov yap dyatrq Kvpios

TratSeufi, pao-riyoi 8eiraidevei, paortyoi 8e eXeyêt

1

/iaortyot 8e

irdpTa vlov ovirapa*

iravra vlov ov rrapa- irdvra vlov ov napa-

Seêrai.

1 NA read

c

Acts

(28) Clem, xviii. i. Acts i322

.

Tt 8e ctirafJifv 67Ti rwfjiepapTVprj- rjyfipe TOV Aa/StS avTols els /3ao"tXea,

Hfvco Aavi8 y npbs ov earev 6 Qeos' w <cat (lireiJ.apTvprja'as, lEvpov Aa/3iS

TLvpov avdpa Kara TTJV Kap&iav pov, TOV TOV 'lO~o~ai) avSpa Kara Trjv

AaviS TOV TOV 'lecro-ai' ev e'Xect napSlav fiov, os iroir/o'eiirdvra TO.

avrov.



CLEMENT OF KOME 49

Ps. 88 (89)21

. i Sam. is14

.

evpov Aav8 TOV dov\6i> /nov, eV /cat(rjTrjo-ft Kvpioy cavra) avdpa>7rov

(\fil

dyt'a) expura avTov. Kara rfjv Kapdiav avrov.

1 B* e\fa> (R ?

It is to be noticed in the passages that :

j. 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-at, which are not read either in the Psalm or in

i Samuel.

3.Clement and Acts agree in reading avbpa, Ps. 8821

reads

bovXov, and i Sam. 1314 reads avOpuTrov.

There are, however, certain differences between Clement

and the Acts :

1. Clement finishes the quotation with the words h eAeei

lxPt(ra o-vrovy agreeing with the Psalm.

2. Acts concludes the quotation with 6s 7rot?}o-et Tiavra ra 0eArj-

(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. I3U

.

The phenomena of the passages are thus somewhat com-

plicated ;the conclusion to which we incline is that Clement

intended to quote Ps. 8821this 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 1322

. 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 'leo-o-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




and in the Acts without requiring any direct dependence of

the one upon the other.

(29) Clem. ii. i. Acts 2O35

.

irdvTfS Tf Ta7Tivo(ppovetT fjuyo'fv fj,vr)fiovveiv TC TG>V \6yav TOV

d\a(ovv6fj.voi, vTrorao-aropcvoi p,d\\ov Kvpiov 'irjcrov, on avToseiTre,

Maa-

77 virordo-o-ovTfs, fjdtov 8i86vrcsT) piov eWt /iaXXov didovai

17 Xa/ijSai/eu'.

\ap.f3dvovTes, rois e(po8iois TOV Gcov

dpKOVfj.evoi.

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.

i. St. Paul is quoting an otherwise unrecorded saying of

our Lord's, which may have been known to Clement simply

as asaying

of our Lord current

amongChristian men.

a. 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 2618

.

(KaX((T6l> fads OTTO (TKOTOVS IS (p)S. fTTHTTptyai OTTO (TKOTOVS fLS S.

Cf. Col. I13 and i Peter

3

9

,

under (42) and (49).

Titus C

(31) Clem. i. 3. Titus 24 6

.

yvvaigiv re ev d/xw/iw KOI vtpvfj lva<ra><ppovifa<ri ras veas <pi\dv-

Koi dyvfj o-vvciSfjo-fi Trdvra eVi/ifXeti/ gpouy eii/at, (piXorcKvovs, croxfrpovas,

Trapijyye'XXere, o-repyovaras KadrjKovras dyvds, oiKovpyovs2

, dyaGds, VTTO-

TOVS avdpat favratv' ev re ra KO.VOVIrao-o-opfvas TOIJ Idiots dvdpdanv, iva

Trjs viroTayrjS VTrapôvo-a? rd Kara TOVpf]

6 \6yos TOV Geov /3Xao-0^Tai'OIKOV

o-c/xi/eos oltovpyelvl

e'Si8acr/Tf,

irdw o-Q><ppovovo~as.

1L. regere ;

S. curam gerentes ;C. (e rasura) oiKovpttv.

a ND oitcovpovs.

The passage in Clement contains a number of phrases

which correspond with those of Titus.

dyvds.

aTfpyovcras KadrjKovrajs TOVS avdpas

<pi\dv8povs.





52 THE 1ST. 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 fxrjSe

KaTOTTTpiaaiiJLrjvV aAA&> nvl rrjv vr\v ibiav 77

v orol TO> 0ea>. 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. ii23~27

.

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, enrajct? Seoyxa (popeVaj, is

obviously not derived from the Epistle.

Galatians d

(35) Clem. ii. i. Gal. 31

. Deut. 2866.

KOI TO. 7ra6r)fj.aTa avrov ols KCLT o(f)8aXfJiOvsKal eorai

TJ far) <rov

rfv 77/30 d(j)6aXiJ.5)V vfia>v. 'fyvovs Xpioros ?rpo- Kpcuapevr) drrevavri ro>v

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. 29.

The word OTTV\OL 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. 418

.

These passages have already been considered in connexion

with Rom. i21

,see

(5).

It should be observed that Clement's

biavoia corresponds with Ephesians e

,W. & H.

ecrKOTcojuiôc) rfj btavotq.



CLEMENT OF KOME 53

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

f) ovx\ eva Beov exopev Kal eva ev o~>fjM KOI ev Ilvevpa, KaOws KOI

Xpio~Tov Kal ev irvevp,a rr)s x^PLTOS eK\f)dr)TC ev fj-ta e\iri8i rfjs K\f)O-ea>s

TO eKxvOev e(p' fjfj.as ; KCUfj.ia K\rjo~ts rj^SiV, els Kvpios, /uta Trtcrrts',

ev /3a-

ev Xpttrra); TTTtor/za, els Qebs KOI Trarrjp Travraiv,

6 eVt TrdvTOiv KOI 8ia navTav KOI ev

. evl de exao-ro)f)fj,)V e860rj fj

Kara TO p.Tpov TTJS dapeas TOV

It is noticeable that there is not only a general resemblance

between these two passages, but a close correspondence in

phraseClem. Eph.

1. eva Qeov. I. els Qeos.

2. eva XpiOToi/. 2. els Kvpios.

3.ev

irvfvfjia TTJS xt*PlTOS TO e>K~ 3-*v Hvcv/ua and ev\ 8e e<d(TTto

(f> f]p.as. f)[J,>v e866r) f) x^P15 KaT<* Top-

rijs dnpeas TOV Xptorov.

4. (j,ia K\TJO-ISev

Xpt<rro>. 4. K\r)Qr)T ev fua e\ni8i

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

thusseems

impossibleto establish

any dependenceof Clement

upon Ephesians.

(39) Clem. lix. 3. Eph. i18

.

avotgas TOVS 6(p6a\p,ovs TTJS KapSias 7re(f>a>Tio~p.evovsrovs o<p8dhp.ovs Trjs

vfjiwv. Kapdias vp,)V.

Cf. Clem, xxxvL 2.

The phrase is noticeable, and it should be observed that the

preceding sentences in Clement have considerable affinity

with Eph. i4-6

' 17.

Philippians d

(40) Clem. iii. 4. Phil. i27

.

p.T]8e . . . 7ropevfo~6ai p.rj8eTroXi-

fj.6vov dio>s TOV evayyeXiov TOV

Teveo~6ai KOTO, TO Ka6rJKov ro> Xprrw. XptoTou iroXiTeveo-de.

Clem. xxi. i.

eav p.r) dîasavTov iro\iTevop,evoi ...

A possible reminiscence, but the metaphorical use of the




phrases of citizenship in connexion with the moral and

spiritual life was probably common.

(41) Clem, xlvii. i,2. Phil. 4

15.

*Ai/aXd/3ere rrjV f7ri<rro\r)V TOV /ia- otSare de KOI vpels &i\iirirT)<rioion

Kapiov IlavXov TOV aTrooToXou. ri ev ap%fj TOV evayyf\iov, ore ej-rjXdov

irp>Tov vp.lv cv dpxfjTov cvayyeXtov OTTO Mancdovias.

eypa^cv ;

The phrase ev &p\fj, &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 provethat Clement takes the phrase from Philippians.

Colossians d

(42) Clem. lix. 2. Col. i12

'1S

.

dt ov ei(d\0-(v fjpas diro CTKOTOVS evxapicrTovvrcs rw irarp\ TO> iKava>-

fis (pS>s,dirb dyvaxrias els cfriyvaxnv travri f]p.as els TTJV p-fpida TOV K\r)pov

ovoparosavrov. T>V

dyiuvcv ro>

<pa>ri'os

ppv<raTOfifias

K TTJS fov(rias TOV <TKOTOVS, KOI

peTo~TT]<Tev fls Tr]V ftcuriKciav TOV vlov

Trjs aydnrjs O.VTOV.

Cf. also Col. i9

.

IVa 7T\r]p<i)6fJT TTjV eTTiyVOdO'lVTOV

avTov ev7rdo~rj o~o(piq ...

The metaphor of transference from darkness to light is

worth observing, but it is also found in Acts a618

andi Peter s

9,see (30) and

(48).

We cannot, therefore, assert that Clement is dependent

upon Colossians.

UNCLASSED

(43) Clem. ii. 4. Col. 21.

dywvTIV

vpfiv f)p,cpas

re KOI WK.TOS 6e\a>

yap vpdscldevcu,

ff\iKOv

vTrep 7rdo*r)s TTJS ddeXfporrjTos dyS>va fâ) inrep vp&v

i Timothy d

(44) Clem. Ixi. 2. i Tim. i17

.

(TV ydp, Seo-Troraeirovpdvif, jSacrtXeC rw 6e /SacriXei T>V aivvav,

T&v aia>vo)V.dopdro), /LIOJ/W

6e . . .

The phrase is striking, but Dr. Lightfoot has pointed out

in his notes on the passage, that it is probably based upon



CLEMENT OF ROME55

Jewish liturgical forms, and the phrase itself occurs in Tobit

i36 10

,and in Apoc. i5

3

(N and C read ataz/ou;; NCA and B

read

UNCLASSED

(45) Clem. xxix. i. i Tim. 28.

7rpooreX$&)/i> ovv coro> ev oo-ioTrjri eiraipovras 6o~iovs

^VX*JS> ayvas Kal dfiLavrovs x 'Pas opyrjs Kal

dia\oyio~p.ov.

atpovTes itpbs avTov.

The phrase appears to be used bymany

writers. Cf.

Dr. Lightfoot's note.

i Peter d

(46) Clem. vii. 2, 4. i Pet. i18

.w

.

dib dnoXiTroifJifv TUS Kfvas Kal elboTes OTI ov<pdaprols } dpyvpiqt fi

fiaTaias ippovTio'as, Kal eXdafiev CTTI ^pvaio), e'Xvrpeo^J/re CKTT)S uaratap

TOV evK\rj Kal o-cpvov T^P rrapadoo-fas vfji<avdvao~Tpo<pris7raTp07rapao'6Tovt d\\a

rjp)V Kavova, . , . drei/iVa)/iev els TOrt/ii'o) at/iart

at/xa TOV XpioTOU Kal yvS)p.V o>s O~TIV

Tifuov T&) ^f6> TO) Trarpi airoi), OTI 8ta

riji' fjucTepav a-coTrjpiav Kxv0ev irai/Ti

TO; Koo-fio) fifTavoias X^Plv

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 amongall Christians.

(47) Clem. xxx. i,2. i Pet. 2

1

, 55

.

'Ayiov ovv pepls vTrdpxovres trotr}- diro6ep.(voi. ovv irdaav KUKLUV Kal

crapfv TO. TOV dyiao-pov Trdvra, (pev- irdvra 86\ov Kal viroKpiaeis Kal (p66vovs

yovres KaraXaXtas, piapas TC Kal Kal irdo~as KaraXaXtay a>s dpTiyevvrfra

dvdyvovs o-vp,TT\OKas, peOas re KalPpf<pi]

TO \oyi<bv ado\ov yd\a iwro8r)-

vea>Tepio~p.ovs

Kal

/38eXvKras fniOvnias,(rare.

pvo-epav poixdav fio'fXvKTrjv virepr}-I Pet. 5

5Tl fo?

VTrfprj-

<paviav. Qebs yap, <pr)o~iv, VTreprjfpdvois (pdvois dvTiTdo~o~fTai}

Taireivols df

8e didcocriv 8t'6a)cri âpti/.

Cf. Jas. 468ib

Xeyei,6 Qcbs KT\.

Prov. 334

.

Thecorrespondence

of

thoughtwith i Peter is

interesting,but the last words are probably quoted from Prov. 3

34,and




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. 520

.

dydirr)KaXvTTTCi TrXfj- dydirr) KaXwrei

TrX)}-6 cirurrptyas d/iap-

605 dpapnatv. 609 dp.apTiS)vt ra>X6i> fie TrAav^f 68ov

Prov. io12 LXX. Prov. io12

,Heb.

ro^\ ^Xf, /<

.._.., ,. vavarov, Kat KaXvyeivdrras fe rovS M But love covereth ~

& &Vf

<pi\oveiKovvrasKaXvnrfi all transgressions.

(piXia.

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. E,esch (Agrapha, p. 248) has argued that this phrase

was originally a saying of our Lord, and brings forward the

following parallels.

Didasc. ii. 3.

on Ac-yet Kuptos* ayarn; KaXuTTTei irXrjdos dfiapnatv.

Clem. Alex. Paedagog. iii. 12.

vaipr)V

KOITrepl dydnrjs' dydirr], <pr)<ri,

KaAuTrreinXrjBos dfWpTi&V

KalTrepl

TroAtTflas' aTTofioTe TO. KaiVapoj KatVapi KOI TO. TOV 0ov ra> Bern.

2 Clem. xvi. 4.

dydirr]de /caXwrrei n\rj6os dpapriav.

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. i1

- *.

There are some parallel phrases, but they are not sufficiently

important or distinctive to require special discussion.

(51) Clem. ii. 2. i Pet. 419

.

dyaQonouav. ev dyaQvrrouq.

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}? dSfXÔTTJTOS. TT)V dSfXÔTTJTtt.

i Pet. 59

-

The word occurs in the N. T. only in i Peter;it is found

in the LXX of i Mace. I210 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 418

.

v 177 dyaTrrj (Tc\fi<a6r)<Tav uavres ol 6 de<f)o(3ovfj.evos ov rercXeiWat eV

fK\KTO\ TOV GeoO. TT) dyaTTfl.

Clem. 1. 3.

dXX* ot evdydirrj

TeX<o0eW . . .

There is a verbal similarity between the first passage in

Clement and that in John, but the meaning is different;the




meaning in the second passage may perhaps be the same as

in John.

Apocalypse

(54) Clem, xxxiv. 3.

TrpoXeyfi yap rjfj.1v'

idov 6K-vpios, Kal 6

p.io~66s avrov irpb Trpocr-

o>7rov avrov, tmodovvac

fKaorco Kara TO epyov

avrov.

d

Apoc. 22 12. Isa. 4o

10.

i8ov, epxopai ra^v, fSov Kvptos, KvptosKal 6 p.io-66s p,ov per jxera tcr^vcs epêrat . . .

e/zov, drroSoDi/at eKacrroo I8ov 6 p.io-0os avrovficr*

6>S TO fpyOV <TT\V OVTOV. dVTOV, KOt TO pyOV VdV-

TlOV dVTOV.

Isa. 62 11.

iSow 6 a 01

Trapayeyovcv e^coj/TOV

eavTovpio-doir, KOI TO

fpyov avrovirpb irpov-

COTTOV avroiJ.

Prov. 2412

.

*ai 6 rrXao-ay irvoyv

Trao-iv avTos otSej/ 7ran-a,

6s aTTodidaxriv e/<aoTo>

<cara ra 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

mayhave been made in some

earlier Apocalyptic work. Cf. Barnabas (27).

GOSPELS.

The Synoptic Tradition.

(55) Clem. xiii. i f.

fJLCfJLVT]fJLVOl

TOV

'irjo-ov, ovs \d\r)o-ev

di$do~KQ>v fmeiKfiav Kal

fJMKpo6vp.iav. ovrcop yap

I fiTrev' 'EXeare Iva c\fr)-

% BrjTfj d(pieT Iva d(p0fj

^ VfUV 0)S Troteire, ovreo

A TroiTjQfjo'fTai vp.lv' ei)s

dldoTf, OVTQ35 SoQrjfffTai

5 vpiv' a>s KpivT )ovrcos

Matt. 57

,&c.

' on avrot

o-ovrai.

62

Kal a(f)s fj

ra 6(j)i\rjiJ,aTa f)/J-)i>,cos

Kalr)p.ls a(pr)Kafj,cv rots

61*

eai* yap dcpiJTf

rols dv6pu)7rois TO. Trapa-

Trrco/iara avrcoy, d(pr)o~ei

Kal vpZv 6iraTrjp vpGtv 6

Luke 631

.36-38

.

6 31 Kal Ka6a>

Iva 7ToiS)o-iv vp.lv ol av

<9pco7roi,Kal v/xeis Troieire

avrots6/xot'cos.

6s6

yivecrfa olxrip-

fjioves,Kadas 6

rraTr/p

i>/j.u>v oiKTtpucov eVrt.

Kalp.rj KpivcTe Kal ov

p-rj

KpiOiJTf ;Kal

p.rjKara"

Si/caêre, Kal ovp,rj

Kara-

8iKao-6rjTe' aTroXvere, /cat



CLEMENT OF ROME 59

OTVfo-0, ovras XP*)-

ho~Tev6r)O~CTai vplv

**S

1Lat. omits the clause.

2Lat. reads remetietur.

ovpdvios, cav Sp.rj d(pr)T

TOIS dv6pO>7TOlS TO. TTdpa-

7rT<bp.aTa avTwv,ouSe 6

Trarrjp vp,5)v d<pr)(rciTO.

TTapanTwpjiTa vp.S)v.

Y1

p*i Kpivere, tva

p.f) Kpi6f)T' ev G) yap Kpi-

P.UTL Kpivcre Kpi6r)(rc(r6f,

KOI evcp /Lierpo) perpelre

Tai vp.lv.

Trdvra ovv ocra

vplv'

Ka\6v,

p.erpov

o~c-

p.vov}doao'ovo'iv els rov

KO\TTOV vp.a>v. w yap

p,TpelTc, dvri-

Clem. Alex.

Stromata, ii. 18, 91.

f\(aTf,(f)T)cr'iv6 Kvpios,

Iva \r)6f)TC' d<pi(Tf, "iva

d<pe6fj vplv' a)? Troieire,

OVTO>S 7TOlT)6fl<T(Tai Vp.lv'

o>s didore OVTCOS dodrj-

o~fraivp.lv' coy /cptVere,

OVTO>S Kidrjo-fo-Qc' a>s

)OVTCOS XP1!"

vp.lv' <a p.f-

oriv vp.lv ol

OVTO> KOI vp.fls

avrols' OVTOS yap c<rriv

6i/d/ios

/cat olTTpofprjrai.

Polycarp ii. 3.

p.VT]p.OVVOVTS df S)V

firrev 6 Kvpios SiSdV/ceoi'

p.f) Kp'iVfTf Ivap.f) Kpl6f)Tf'

d(pier, KOI d(p(6r)o~CTai

vplv' eXeare, Ival

Vp.v.

Didasc. ii. 21.

65os 8eflpfjvrjs eortv

6O~(OTT]p f]p)V [*Ir)O~OVS 6

XptOTOj],OS KOU flTTfV'

afperc Ka\d<pf6r)O~fTai

vplv' [Si'Sore/cat 8o6rj-

creratvplv]

2.

aSyr. Lat. omit SiSore

Lat. et.

vp.v.

Didasc. ii. 42.

on \cyei 6 Kvpios' w Kpip,an Kpt-

Koi a>s

Macarius Aegypt., Horn

xxxvii. 3.

fVcreiXaro, afare Kal

vplv.

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. 57

.

The passage numbered 2 has no proper parallel in St.

Matthew, but is near Luke aTroAvere, &c.

No. 3 has no proper parallel in our Gospels, but may be

compared with Matt. 712 and Luke 631

.

No. 4 has no parallel in Matthew, but is very near Luke 6 38,

only Clement has o>s and ovrco?, while Luke has K<U.




No. 5 is parallel to Matt. 71 and Luke 637

,but Clement has

w? and otfro)?, while Matthew hasJUTJ

and Iva w /cpitfTJre,and

Luke /u?i and KCU ov /XT/ Kpi0r/re.

No. 6 has no parallel in either Gospel.

No. 7 is parallel to Matt. 71 and Luke 636

,but Matthew

has tv & for o>, and Luke inserts yap after o>, and reads a

H. 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 /ecu aêtfr/o-ercu instead of

Ivaa^fOff.

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 avroi,

and reads dm/xerpTô-crai 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 o>? and ovrco?.

Didasc. ii. 42.

No. 5 occurs in the form of Matthew, while the clause KCU

is Kara6iKaere, &c., is parallel to Luke.

Macarius, Horn, xxxvii.3.

No. 2 reads as Polycarp.

III. To sum up these phenomenaNo. 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. Eom.

It must also be observed thatexcept 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. 2624

.

Mark 14". Luke 17''2.

/ >** ouai 8e ra> dv- OTI 6 p.cv vlos TOV *A.Vv8cKTOv C<TTI

fjLVT]o~dr)TeTWV Xo- 6pd>7ra>

fKcivat 81 ov dvOpanrov VTrdyei,KCL- TOV TO. aKavdaXa

pf)

y&v 'irjcrov TOV Kt>- 6 vlos TOV dvdpanov 6a>s . yfypcnrrai ireplf\delv'

irXrjv ovai $i

piov Tjp,S)v' Trapafiidorcu'KaXbv OVTOV' oval 8e TO> dv- ov epyerm. \vo~i-

etjrev yap' Oval r^v avrai,ci OVK eyev- 6pwir(p fKcivtp,

81 ov reAet auro) ei \i6os

ra> ai/0pa>7ra>fKfiva* vr\&r\

6 avdparros e- 6 vlos TOV dvBpuirov fj.v\tKos TrcpiitfiTtu.

KO\OV rjvaurai ct pr/ Kflvos. irapao'idoTai'

KO.\OVirepl

TOV rpd^jyXov

rjdr), r)eva TO>V l8

6^. qv avrw, ft OVK cycv O.VTOV, KOI fppnrTai

os'

frv ffKav8a- wi&n avdpaiiros Ki- els TTJV âXatraav,

TJV XiVn eva TO>V ut- vos* n *va o~Kavda\i<ry




auTO) ircpireQrivai fj.ii- icp>v TOVTO>V T&V g42

. rwv fuicp&p TOVTWV

\ov Kal KaraTrovTi- Tricrrcvovrvv flse/*t, Ka\ os av (rKav a. eva.

aQ^vai els

rj]

V 6d- (rvpfapfi OUT, "va

Xacrtrai/, rjeva rav

avratVat1. auro, KCU Karanov-

ov TO aK<iv8a\ov fp-

i, Clem. Alex.,

Syr., Lat.

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.

fr)\6cv 6 (

Matt. 13' ;Mark 4' ;

Luke 8\

fgr)\6cv 6

(58) Clem. xv. 2.

Xeyei yap irovjOVTOS

6 \aos TOIS \t\c<riv pe

Tt/Ma, f)8e Kapdia avrS)v

iroppu aTrea-Tiv air* fpov.

Matt. i5

8

.

ircpl Vfj.S>v

\eyuv, 6 \abs OVTOS TOIS

êt'Xfo-i /Lie Ti/xa, 17&

Kapdia avr>v

d-rr

the

Isa. 2 9

13

.

Kal eiircv Kvptos, ey-

yi&i p.oi 6 \abs O$TOS

cv r o-To/iari avTov, Kal

cv TOIS ^

fj. }

iroppa) CTT*

Mark 7e.

Practically

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. s34

.

yfypairTai yap' 'Yncpr)(pdvois 6 Kvpios v7Tpr)(pdvois aWirao-creTat.

QfOS aVTirdo-O-eTai.

This quotation is discussed below (76). Ignatius deviates

from the order of the words, besides substituting 0eos for

Kvpios-

(&) Eph. xv. i. Ps. 33*.

flTTfV KOI CyfVfTO. 17TV KOI yVVT)dr](TaV.

Here eyeVero is a better translation of the original than

tytwriOrio-av; but we need not suppose that Ignatius had

access to the Hebrew text.

(c) Magn.x.

3.Isa. 66

18.

<a> iraa-a y\S>o'O~a iricrrcv(ra(ra els avvayaytlv irdvra TO, edvr) /cat ray

Qtov(rvvrjxdrj. yXaxraas.

A loose reference.

(d) Magn. xii. i. Prov. 18".

6 St/eaioy eavrou Karyyopos.Slicaiof eavrov

Karrjyopos.

Ignatius here follows the LXX. The Hebrew gives quite

a different sense:ethe first man is

uprightin his

suit;his

neighbour then cometh and searcheth him out'

(Lightfoot).

(e) Magn. xiii. i. Ps. i3.

iva irdvra ocra iroiflre Kareuo5o>- trdvfa o<ra &v irotfj Kartvo8o>-

(/) Trail, viii. 2. Isa. 52".

ovai yap 6Y ov eVi /mraioVrjn TO oXoXvêre* ra8e X'y 6Kvpios,

ovopd pov ciri nvatv /3Xao-0;/irai.5t' vp.as 8ia travros TO ovop.d p-ov

/3Xatr<^)^/xeiratcv TOIS (dveo'iv.

The words are also quoted indirectly by St. Paul (Rom. a24

).




Polycarp (Phil. x. 3) quotes them similarly to Ignatius, and so

do the Apostolical Constitutions in two places. Both these

last are

probably borrowing directlyfrom

Ignatius.

(g) Smyrn. i. 2. Isa. 4922

,62 10

.

Iva aprj o~vcrcrT)povfls TOVS al&vas.

Cf. also Isa. 526

. LXX has alptiv cnWrj/uoy.

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.

i Corinthians b(i) Eph. xvi. i. i Cor. 6

9.10

.

fjirj ir\ava(T0e, d8e\<poi fiov' otp,f)

7r\ava<r6e' OVTTropvoi, . . .

oiKo<pd6poi /SacriXeiai/ GeoO ov K\r/po- ovre poiôi . . . jSaaiXetav Qcov K\TJ-

vop.r)<rov(nv. povoprja-ovtri.

Cf. also Philad. iii Mr) TiXavavQe, abeXôt juou" et rtj a-\tovTL

aKoXouêt, /3ao-t\etaz; Oeov ov KA^povoêt. These passages also

resemble Gal. 521

(43), where 8ix"ra(n/cu an(^ aipta-eis are

mentioned(cf. a-yji&vTi in Philad.

iii). o6Ko$0o'poi in Ignatius

probably means 'seducers,' especially JUUHX<H: if, however, we

understand the 'house' to be the Church (so Hilgenfeld), we

may also compare i Cor. 317

et ns TOV vabv TOV 0eou<j>$fipfi,

TOVTOV 6 0eoy.

(2) Eph. xviii. i. i Cor. i18 20

.

oravpoO, o eort crKavdaXov rols 6 Xdyos yap TOV (rravpov rols fiev

ajriaTovo-iv, fjpivde

(reor^pia KOI far) aTroXXvpfvois pcopia eariv, roty' de

aiavios. irov cro<pos ; TTOV (TvfrjrrjTris ; tro)ofj.vois Tjfuv dvvap.is Qfov eariv . . .

TTOVK.av)(r)(ri.s

TO>VXeyo/iei/coi/

(rvvTO)V TTOV ao<pos ; TTOVypafj-fiarevs ; irov

(rvr]TT)Trjs TOV alwvos TOVTOV ;

St. Paul's words(TTOU o-oôy, &c.) are a paraphrase of Isa.

3318

;cf. also IQ

11

sq. That Ignatius is quoting St. Paul is

made more certain by the echo of i Cor. i18

in the precedingsentence. The phrase o-KavbaXov TOV aravpov occurs Gal. 5

11

(44).



IGNATIUS65

(3) Magn. x.^ i Cor. 57

.

virepQfvQe ovv rfjv KCIKTJV {vpTjv eKKaddparf ryv ira\aiav{vprjv, tva

TTJV ira\aia>6('icrav Kalfvogio-ao-av,

KOIiyre

veov(pvpapa.

fj.cTaj3d\f(rd' els veavv(jr)v} os o~rw

'Ir)o~ovs Xpiordy.

A free quotation ;but there can be little doubt that Ignatius

had this passage in his mind.

(4) Eom. v. i. i Cor. 4*.

dXX* ov irapd TOVTO dediKatcopat. dXX' OVK ev roura>8e8iKaio>/Liat.

Ignatius quotes from

memory;

there is no difference in

meaning between vapa TOVTO and ev TOVTV.

(5) Kom. ix. 2. i Cor. i58~10

.

e-ycb yap aio-^vi/o/uai e| avrS>v ctrâTov 8e iravTav, oxrTrepei r<5

\eyco-0ai' ov& yap agios flfJii,&>v fKTp&p,aTi, &(p6r) teapot. eyo> yap . . .

eo-âTos avT&v KOIe/<T/)a)fia,

aXX* OVKcl[j.l IKUVOS KaXflcrdat a7rd(rroXos

r)\er]p.ai TISeivatj rjv Qcov

(iriTV%a>. . . . âptn de Qeovflfii

oei/nt.

c

(6) Eph. xv. 3. i Cor. 316

.

Travra ovviroi5)p,ev, o>s avrov tv vaos Qeov core, /cat to Hvfvpa frov

rjfuv KaroiKovvroS) Iva 2>p.V avrov Geov ot/cet tv vpiv.

vaoi Kai avTos fvfjp-lv Qeos.

Cf. also i Cor. 619 and Cor. 610 . See( 39). 2ahn without

reason compares Apoc. si 3.

(7) Trail, ii. 3. i Cor. 41.

Sti 3e Ka\ TOVS diaKOvovs ovrat OVTCOSfjfJias Xo-ytêo-ô) avdpmiros,

fA,vo~Tr]pia)v 'irjcrov Xptoroi) Kara irdvra as vTrrjpcTas XptaroO /cat oinovofiovs

rponov na<Tiv dpeo-Kciv. fivo-TT)pia>v Qfov.

Cf. also I Cor. lo33yo> navTa TTCLO-IV dpecrKO).

(8)Trail, v. i. i Cor. 3*'

a.

(pofiovpai fj.rj vrjTTioisovvtv vplv o>s vrjntois fv Xptory . . . OVTTO)

j8Xd/37i/ TrapadS). yap rjo'vvao-de.

In the next sentence ov Svi^dcWes xvpfoaiis

suggested bythe same passage.

(9) Trail, xii. 3. i Cor. 927

.

Iva pr] dSd/cifio? fvp(6a>. firjTrais . . . euros dSd/a/uos yevafiai.

The idea of a race seems to be present in Ignatius as well

as in St. Paul.

(10) Kom. iv. 3. i Cor. f\

direXevdepos 'lâov Xptorou. oVeXeu&pos Kvptov.

Cf. also i Cor. 91

.



66 THE K T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(u) Rom. vi. i. i Cor. p15

.

Ka\6vfjioi

dirodave'iv 8iaf

lr)o~ovv KaXov yap poi fjiSXXov dirodavclv

Xpicrrof (v. 1. fis Xpurrov 'lr)o~ovv) y rj 77TO Kav^jj/ud fiov ovdfls Kevaxrei.

fta(ri\Viv T&V irepdrav rfjs yrjs.

(12) Philad. iv. i. i Cor. io16

,

17.

fiia yap o~ap TOV Kvpiov fip.S>vTO

irorrjpiov . . . ov^\ Koivatvia fcrriv

'lT)<rov Xpicrrov,Kal ev

iroTTjpiovfls TOV m/iaros TOU Xpi<rrov ; rov aprov

tvuxTiv ToO ai/zaros avrov. ov K\S)fjicv} ouî Koivuvia TOV a-eo/âros

TOV XptOTOV <TTIV ;OTl flS apTOS, tV

croi)fj.aol TroXXot

<rfj.ev.

(13)Philad. vii. i. i Cor. 2

10.

TOTTVfVfjia

. . . Ta KpVTrra f\ey%ei. TO yap Trvevfjui irdvra epevva.

Cf. also i Cor. I425 and Eph. 5

12 13.

(14) Smyrn. Inscrip. i Cor. i7

.

dwoTepf)T(d ovarj TTOVTOS \apl- &O~T vp,as pfj

p.rjo'evl \apio-nari.

(15) Eph. ii. 2. i Cor. i618

.

Kara irdvra fie dvfiravo~ev.

(16) Eph. ii. 3.i Cor. i

10.

In both passages the idea of unity is prominent.

(17) Eph. iv. 2. i Cor. 615

.

/ueAij oVTat, &C.

Cf. also Trail, xi. 2, OVTCLS pe\rj CLVTOV, and with these compare

Rom. I24

>5 and Eph. 5

30.

(18) Eph. viii. 2. i Cor. 214

.

oi Q-apKiKoi, &C.

The resemblance is closer to Rom. 85>8

. See below (35).

(19) Eph. ix. i. i Cor. 310-17

.

CDS oiTfs \i6oi vaov, &C.

Cf, also Eph. !Z20 f

,and possibly i Pet. 2

5.

(20) Eph. x. 2 and xx. i. i Cor. i568

.

Cf. also Col. i23

, (64) a possible allusion.

(21) Eph. xi. i. i Cor.

to~xaTOi Kaipoi, &0.There is probably no reference to i John i

18.



IGNATIUS 67

(22) Eph. xvii. 2. i Cor. i24

>30

.

dia ri . . . 6 Kvpios.

(23) Eph. xx. i. i Cor. i545 47

.

TOV Kmvbv avOpanrov.

See below on Eph. s16

, 424

(2,8).

(24) Trail, vi. i. i Cor. 710

.

OVKya>

dXX'77 dydirri, &c.

(25) Trail, xi. 2. i Cor. 12".

ovras pe\Tj avTov.

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. Inscripi Eph. i8

ff.

rfj fv\oyrjn(VT)tv

pryttifi,GfoO fv\oyr]Tog 6 0eo? KOI

irarfjp ... 6

TTdTpbs TT\r^pa>^,ari) rfj 7rpoa>picrp.vrj (v\oyr)(ras TjfJ-asfv

ira.(rrj v\oyiq . . .

Trpb altovav fivat Sia iravrbs fls 86av KaQios e^fXeâro rjpas . . . irpbKara-

Trapd/j,ovov aTpcnrov, j^rto/zewyKOI

(3o\f]s KOCTÎOV,flvat

rjfj-af. . .

dp,a>fjiovs

cK\f\(y[J.fvr]fv ndQfi

d\r]6ivcptv 6c\r)- . . . irpoopivas KOTO, rrjv cvftoKiav TOV

pan rov Trarpbs KOI'lijorov Xpiarov 6f\rjfJLaros . . , 8ia TOV aifiaroy OVTOV

TOV GeoO^/ACOV, TTJ eKfcX^tTta TTJ ... ToG

TrXj/po)/zaTOS TO>V Kaipatv . . .

aio/iaKapi'<TTa> TJJ ovarj tv 'E0o-a), irpoopio-QfVTcs . . . Kara TTJV ftovXyv

TrXftora ev 'lô-oG Xptora) *cal ev TOV êX^/iaTos OVTOV . . . is TO tlvai

dp.u>p.(o XaP9' Xa^Peiv 'fifJLas

(Is firatvov do^rjs avrou.

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. 525

.

irapdyy\\ . . . dyairdv Tag o~vp.- dyaTrart TOS yvvaiKas, Kadus Kai

jSi'ous, ws 6 Kvpios Trjv fKK\r)o~iav. 6 Xpioros r)ydnr)o~ TTJV <KK\r)o-lav.

Cf. also (29).

F 2




c

(28) Eph. xx. i. Eph. 215 and 4

24.

rbv Katvbv avflpanov *Ir)O~ovv Kaivbv avOpwrov.

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. I545

6 btvrcpos avOpwos.

(29) Smyrn. i. i. Eph. 216

.

ev fv\ O-&HO.TI TTJS KK\r)arias avrov. ev tv\ (ro>/iart.

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. i23 and Col. i

18.

(30) Polyc. i. 2. Eph. 42

.

irdvTcw dvf%ov lvaycarrj. dv\6fifvoi d\\T]\a)v (V

dyaTTTj.

This correspondence is strengthened by the preceding words

in Ignatius, TTJS e^wo-ewj fypovnfa rjs ovfev CL^LVOV, which should

be compared with the following verse in Ephesians, o-7rov5a-

OVTCS Tr)plv TT\V kvdrrjra TOV Trrevjutaros.

d(31) Eph. i. i. Eph. 5

1.

fJH/JujTai ovres 0eou.

Cf. also Eph. x.3, /xijutrjrat

TOV Kvptov, where the context is

the same (forgiveness of injuries, &c.).

(32) Eph. ix. i. Eph. 220-22

.

This may well be accounted for by i Cor. 310~17

;see

(19).

Compare also Col. 37 and i Pet. a

5.

(33) Eph. xix. Eph. 39

.

iras ovv ffpavepadr) rois alaxriv. risrj oiKovopia TOV /ivoTTjpi'ov

TOV

dnb TO>V

iva

Cf. also Col. i26

(66).

(34) Polyc. vi. 2. Eph. 613~17

.

as o?rXa, &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-VWUO-TCU. TIav\ov TOV fjyia-

,a phrase which reminds us of St. Paul's frequent use of

for the Gospel dispensation in this Epistle (Eph. I9

,

3.*, 532

,619

).The words of Ignatius (Eph. xii) h vAry

eTTiaroATj doubtless mean '

in every lettei,' 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.

Eomans C

(35) Eph. viii. 2. Bom. 86.8

.

of vapKiKoira TrvevfmriKa 7rpd(T-

of-yap

Kara crapKa ovres TO. rrjs

a-fiv ov dvvavrai ovdf of irvevfuiTiKol . <rapKos <j)povov<riv,of de KOTO. Trvfvpa

TO, o~apKiKa,ra irvevparas . . . of Se ev vapid ovrfs

0ea) dpfcrat ov

This passage may be from i Cor. a14

(18), but the resem-

blance to Eom.85

>8is rather closer : cf. also Gal.

5

16 17.

Theuse of the word <rapf in an ethical sense is Pauline

;in Ignatius

it generally has an anti-docetic force.

(36) Eph. xix. 3. Eom. 6*.

Ka&rjpeiTOTraXata /Saa-tXeta, 0eov iva qpeig fv KaivorrjTt a>rjs irepi-

dv6pu>Trivo3S <f>avfpovp.vovfls Kaiv6-

iraTrjO'O)fj.jf,

rrjra dtdiov farjf.

The phrase Kaivorris fw^s (=< the new state which is life')

is probably from St. Paul.




(37) Smyrn. i. i. Rom. is 4

.

K yfvovs AauelS Kara trapxa, ircpi rov viou aurov, roi) ycvopevov

vibv Qeov KaradeXrjpa

KO\ bvvaynv. f<

oTrep/LiarosAa/3iS Kara

0-ap/ca,

roC

opHrOevros viov Qeov iv Sufa/xet Kara

TTi/ev/ia dyitixrvvrjs.

Cf. also Eph. xviii. 2 CKo-Tre/o/xaros /xez; AauetS -rn/evjuaros

6e dyiov.

d

(38) Eph. Inscript. Rom. i529

.

ev\ayias.

2, Corinthians d

(39) Eph. xv. 3. 2 Cor. 616

.

v eV ^Tv KaroixoOwo?, tva ^fiy y^p vabs Bfov ea-pev favros.vrov

S>fjLv vaol Kal avros fvfjfuv 6cos.

The resemblance here is close, but may besufficiently

accounted for by i Cor. 316

>27 and 619

: see(6).

(40) Trail, ix. 2. 2 Cor. 414

.

fytlpavTos, &C.

*

Apparently a reminiscence'

(Lightfoot).

(41) Philad. vi. 3. 2 Cor. i12

,n 9

,i2

16. Cf. 2

5.

fvâpto-rS rep0fO)

JJLOVon fvcrvv-

f&TJTOS lfJilfV

VfJLlV,Kal OVK ^t TIS

KavxfiaavQai . . . artffidprja-d

nvat

&C.

A cumulative case, which isslightly strengthened by Kauxî-

o-ao-tfai; cf. Kavxwu % Cor. n 10. Cf. also i Thess. 2

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. i1.

ov enicTKOTrovfyva>v OVK

d<p' eavrou OVK airdv6pa>7ra>v ovde 81 dv6pu>-

ovde didv6pa)Tra)v. TTOV.

d

(43) Eph. xvi. i. Gal. 5

pao-iXeiav . . . K\r)povow<rov(riv. O 'i ra rotavra

TrpdWovres Pa<n\ciav060V OUK\T)pOVOp.TJ(TOV(riV.

See above (i) on i Cor. 6 9>10

.



IGNATIUS 71

(44) Eph. xviii. i.

vravpov o farri <rKav8a\ov.

(45) Trail, x. i.

daipfav diro6vf)<TKO).

(46) Eom. vii. 2.

6 epos fpa)s eVravpooTcu.

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".

cncavdaXov rov oravpov.

Gal. 2".

apa Xpioros dcopeav aT

Gal. 614

.

e/xot Koo-pos earavpa>rai Kaya> T&

Philippians

(47) Smyrn. iv. 2.

irdvra vnopeva* OVTOV/ie

evftvva-

fJLOVVTOS.

Cf.

Eph.6^ .

! Tim . X

(48) Smyrn. xi. 3.

ovres TeXeia Kal(ppoveiTf.

irdvra

Phil. 413

.

uo> fv TO>

ftf.

Phil. 315

.

o<7ot otiv reXetot, rovro <ppov>pev.

(49) Kom. ii and iv.

<rirov8i(rdr)vai and 6v<ria.

Cf. also 2 Tim. 46

(59).

(50) Philad. i. i.

ove Kara K.evo5oiav.

Philad. viii. 2.

/^r;Sei//car' eplBeiav . . . aXXa Kara

Phil. 217

.

Phil. 28

*.

Kar cpidiav prjde Kara icevo-

&oiav . . . eV

i Timothy

(51) Eph. xiv. i.

v Ki-VTUi reXos 8e aydirrf,

gi

i Tim. i3"5

.

Iva jrapayyctXys rial pr)

VÛ*OIKO-

yfveaXoyiats aTrepavroif airives

Magn. VIQ. I.

rals ertpoSoîats

rois iraXaiols dj/coêXeVti/

ov<TiVi

yap p.Xp*>vvv Kara 'lovSat-

^ oltovopiav

TT)VfV 7T10T. TO T^Xof T^ff

TrapayyeXias eorii' ayaTrq K Kadapas

Kapftias Kal o-vvci8r)<Tfa>s dyadrjs *cai

irivTfcos dwTTOKpirov.

0-fj.ov




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

TTto-ns and ending withaydirrj.)

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. 62.

SovXovy KOI 8ov\as fir) virfprj(pdvfi' pfj KaratypoveiTOMrav, ondXXa

p.r)8eavroi <uo-iou0-0axrai>, aXX* elanv' dXXa p.d\\ov

els ddav Qeov K\eov dovXeveroxrav.

d

(53) Rom. ix. 2. i Tim. i13

.

dXX'r)\cr)fj.ai

TIS clvai eav Qcov dXXarjXerjfyv,

on dyvo>v fi

Of. above, on i Cor. 7

25

, i5

9

,

10

(5).

(54) Smyrn. iv. 2. i Tim. ila

.

avTOv fie v8vvap.oiivTOs TOV reXciov

dv6po>TTOV yevofievov.

Cf. also 2 Tim, 21 and 4

17.

2 Timothy C

(55) Eph.ii. i, 2 Tim. i

16.

Kara iravra pe aveiravvfv, a>s Kai fiw)/ eXfoy 6 Kvpios T 'Ovrj<ri<j)6pov

avrbv 6 iraTrjp 'Irjo-ov XptoroO ova- OIKO>* on iro\\dias pe dvfyvge, KO\

TTJV aXvo-tV fiou OVK

Smyrn. x. 2.

vp.S>vTO irvevfjui /xov,

KOL ra favfjid p.ov a OVK . . . firr)<r\vv-

These twopassages

seem to be reminiscences of the same

context in 2 Timothy. The following words in Smyrn. x

resemble Mark 838 and Luke 926

: see (90).

(56) Polyc. vi. 2. 2 Tim. 23.

o>crrpaTevevBc.

Iva ro> orrpaToXoyrja-avri dpea-ij.

d

(57) EPn- xvii' J

/Ll^ alxfJioXccTLvrj vp.as.

Cf. also Kom. 723

.



IGNATIUS 73

(58) Trail, vii. 2. 2 Tim i3.

KaQapos fVTiv 777 o-weifiqcret. fv KaQapq (nvfiftrjo-fi.

(59) Eom. ii. 2. 2 Tim. 46.

/LIT)TrXeoi/

napdcr^rjcrde TOV cnrovSt-77877 (nrfvftofjLcu,

adfjvai Qfto.

Cf. Phil. s17.

The reminiscences of 2 Timothy, as of i Timothy, are

tolerably clear. Both Epistles are nearly in Class B.

Titus C

(60) Magn. viii. i. Titus i14

.

fir)irXavavQe rats Tfpo8oiaig /zTjSe /i^ Trpoo~exovTes 'lovSat/cots pv

fjnidevpacriv TOIS na\aiols avoxfrfKeffivicat eWoXaty avOptoirvv.

ov&iV el yap fJ-fXP1 v^v Kar" 'Iv8at-

Titus 39

truoi/ ^wuei/, ouoXovovuev Yaptv un

fiX770Vat./xa)â[J 8e fo"F

. . . Trepuorao-o' ejtrl -yap dva><})\cls

KOI /xaratot.

See (51) on i Tim. i4

. The word awfaXris and the reference

to'

Judaism'

occur in Titus and not in I Timothy.

d

(61) Polyc. vi. i. Titus i7.

GfoO olKovofj.01. coy Gcov otKOi/d/xov.

See (7) for i Cor. 41 ;cf. i Pet. 410 .

The evidence in the case of Titus is weaker than in that of

i Timothy or 2 Timothy.

D

Acts d

(62) Magn. v. i t Acts i25

.

eicacrros els TOV Idiov TOTTOV /leXXet afi fjs irapcfir) 'lov&as TropevQfjvai

X<>pfW'e*S v TOTTOV TOV tdlOV.

These phenomena must be taken along with those in relation

to Luke's Gospel.

(63) Symrn. iii. 3. j^.ciaio41

.

fjifTO.8e TTJV dvdo~Taffiv o~vvf(f)ayv crvv<f)dyop.v Kal crvvfTriopfv aura

avrols Koi (rvvfmev. /MT^ TO dvao~Tfjvai CLVTOV fKvatpStv.

These look like allusions; but the words are common and

obvious ones, and may be only the result of coincidence.




Colossians d

(63*) Eph. ii. i. Col. i7

, 47

.

TOV (rvvdovXov.

Cf. Magn. 2 ;Philad. 4 ;

and see Lightfoot's note on Col. 47

.

(64) Eph. x. 2. Col. i23

.

edpaioi rff Triorei.

See on i Cor. i558

(20).

(65) Eph. xvii. 2. Col. 22.

Qcov yvaxriv.

In the passage of Colossians, St. Paul, according to the best

reading, identifies'

the knowledge of God'

with*

Christ.'

(66) Eph. xix. 2. Col. i26

.

ira>s ovv ftpavepudij rois aieoati/;

Cf. also Eph. 39

(33).

(67) Trail, v. 2. Col. i16

.

opara KOI dopara. TO. opara KOI ra dopara.

(68) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. 2M

.

Ka6r]\a>fj,vovs lv TW oravpw. irpoo~r)\G><rasavrb TW oravpw.

The metaphor is the same, but the application is different.

(69) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. i18

.

Cf. onEph.

216

(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. 517

.

d&aXeiVreoff irpoo-evxccrQe. 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 dia\ei7rros occurs in Polyc. i,but

there also it is suspect.

(71) Eom. ii. i. i Thess. 2*.

ov 6e\a> vp.ds ai/tfpwTrapeaTejjtrai, ov% a>s dvQpwTrois dpea-Kovres,aXXa

aXXa Geo). 0e<5.

The evidence that Ignatius knew i Thessalonians is almost

nil.



IGNATIUS 75

2 Thessalonians d

(72) Eom. x. 3. 2 Thess. 3".

VVTTOfJLOvf) 'irjCTOV XptOTOV. CIS TTjV VTTOpOvfjV TOV XplOTOU.

Philemon d

(73) Eph. ii. 2. Philem. 20.

ovaijJLrjv vft&v. vai, a8X<e, eya> o-ov owu/wj" eV

Inspite

of the fact that the

nameOiiesimus occurs in this

sentence of Ignatius, the allusion is very doubtful. The

Pauline phrase dvaifjirjv occurs in this sense several times in

Ignatius.

Hebrews d

(74) Magn. iii. 2. Heb. 413

.

ro 5e TOLOVTOV ov Trpbs (rdpica 6 iravra 8e yvp.va KOL TCTpaxrj\i(rpfva

Xo'yoy, aXXa Trpbs Qebv TOV TO. Kpixfria rois o^âX/txois auroO Trpbs ov rjp.iv 6

cidoTa.\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 Ao'yos [rjfj.lv eon] irpos

(75) Philad. ix. i. Heb. 77,19,22,23,26

KaXot icat oticpels' Kpelo~arov

8e 6

apftifpevs 6 TreTTio'Tevp.evos ra ayia T>V

dyi'cov,6s p.6vos Trenia'TfVTai TO. Kpimra

TOV QfOV.

Lightfoot also compares Heb. a17

, 31

, 414

, 55

'10

,620

, 726

,

8 1, 9

11. He adds: 'The reference (in 6 TreTrtdrev/xôs, &c.) is

to the special privilege of the High Priest (Heb. 97""12

,

io198<1-)

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 Borne, 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).




i Peter d

(76) Eph. v. 3. i Pet. 55

.

ycypairrai yap' 'YirepTjtydvois 6 Qfos 6 Qebs V7repr)(pdvois

aj/rirdo-o-ercu.

The quotation is from Prov. 334

. The words are quoted not

only in i Peter, but in James 46 and in Clement of Rome (47).

In all alike 0e6s or d 0eo's takes the place of the Ktf/nos of the

LXX ;but Ignatius alone puts virep^dvoLs first in the

sentence.

(77) Rom. v. i. i Pet. 226, 5*.

The connexion of Trot/x?}^ with ITTÔ-KOTTOJ is considered by

Lightfoot to present( a close parallel

'

with i Peter;but the

resemblance must not be pressed. See also (19).

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, xi. i. Matt. i513

.

OVTOI yap OVK elartv (pvTeia irarpos. nava (pvreia fjvOVK ecpvrfvo-ev 6

Philad. iii. i.7raTW) /iov Pavlos> fKpi&tifa.

aiffxeaOe TO>V KaKa>v (Soravav,

a&rtvas ov ye&pyei 'Tiycrovs Xptoroy,

dia TOp.ri

fivat avrovs (pvreiav irarpos.

(79) Smyrn. if i. Matt. 315

.

@f!3a7rTi<rp,vov VTTO 'ludvvov Ivo. ovTto yap irpeirov<rrlv

rîiv 77X17-

7T\r)pG)6f)Tracra SiKaioovvr) VTT avrov. paxrat iraa-av SiKaioo-vvqv.

Matthew alone of the Evangelists gives this motive for our

Lord's Baptism.' The use of the phrase -7rA.r;p.

TTO.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> TidOet rd vbap

perhaps strengthens the case.

(80) Smyrn. vi. i. Matt. igiz

.

6%a)p5)v ^copfiTco. 6 dvvdficvos ^(opeiv

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. io16.

(f>p6vifjios yivovcof 6

o(f)isev

naa'iv, yivftrOeovv

(ppovipoi asol

o<pfisKal dnepaios eicraet cos

f) Trepicrrepd.Kal aKepaioi cos at

irepio~Tcpai.

This sentence is wanting in the parallel passage of

Luke (io3

).

c

(82) Eph. v. 2. Matt. 1 819

>20

.

ei yap evbs KOI devrepov Trpotrcu^^ eav Svo vp>v (rv/i^cowjo-coo-ij/eVl

To<rai>TT)v Icrxvv eêt. Trjs yfjs. . .

yevrjo-eraiavrots. ov

yapfieri 8vo

rj rpels avi^yfievoi els TO

fj.ov oj/o/ia, e/cetelp.1

ev/ne(rco OVT&V.

Here Ignatius's tvbs Kal btvrtpov = bvolv. The reference

is clearly to the saying recorded in Matthew 'probably a

well-known saying'

of Christ (Zahn). Cf. also James 516

.

(83) Eph. vi. i. Matt. io40.

irdvra yap ov 7refjLirci 6 olKodco~ir6Tr)s 6 8eô/i/os {//xas e/n Several, KO\

fls lo'iav oiKovopiav, ovrcos 5eifjfids

6e/xe de^6fj.evos fie^6Tat

rbv aTrooTfi-

avTov de^ffrdatj cos avrbv rbv7Tfj.\lfavra. \avrd

/ze.

It is possible that Ignatius may also be alluding to the

parable narrated in Matt. 2i 33sq<(where otKoSeo-rroYr;? occurs,

not in Mark or Luke). There is also a resemblance to

John I320

(see below (102)), which is perhaps as close as

the resemblance to Matthew (John uses TT^TTCLV). Luke io

16

is much less similar in language than either.

(84) Polyc. i. 2, 3. Matt. 817

.

Trdvras j3aorae cos Kai at 6 Kvpios avrbs ras do-Qevcias

. . . ndvratv ras vovovs /Saora^f, cos /cat ras vovovs eftd

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 a/iaprtas




Kat irepi rj^&v obvvarai. Ignatius, however, translates

the Hebrew correctly, and thepossibility that he is using

a translation other than the

LXX cannot be excluded.

d

(85) Eph. xvii. i. Matt. 267.

dia TOVTO pvpov eXapev eVi TTJS 7Tpoa^\6ev avTa>yvvrj . . . KOI

Kf$a\f)S 6 Kvptos, Ivairver) Ty liofaplq Kareêei/ eVl

TTJS Kc(})a\^s avTov dva-

d<j)6apo-iav. iceipcvov.

Cf. also

Mark I4

3ff

-; John ia

8ff-. If there is literary

dependence on any of our Gospels, the preference must be

given to Matthew rather than Mark, who has KCLT^M amov

r$? K(f)a\fj$, 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.

wtrTrep yap eWi vop.ia-p.aTa 8uo, &C.

(87) Magn. ix. 3. Matt. 2f2

.

irapwv fjyeipev OVTOVS.

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(rjycLpev) them either to paradise or heaven. Cf.

also Philad. ix;and I Pet. 3

19, 4

6for 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. io40.41

.

els ovop.a 'lr)(rov Xpiarrov.

The phrase et? ovopa, 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.

els TOirvp

TO

The phrase, though in quite a different context, occurs in

Matt. 312 and Luke 3

17.

(90) Smyrn. x. 2. Mark 888

.

ov&c vfias fTraio~xvvdf)O'Tai rj Tc\ia

TTIVTIS, 'irjcrovs Xpiords.

Cf. also Luke 926

(93), and see (55).

Scarcely anything can be built on these very doubtful

allusions.

Luke d

(91) Smyrn. i. 2. Luke 237~12

.

d\r)6S)s eVl HOVTIOV IliXarou Kal

'HpcoSou rerpapôv Ka6r)\a>fj.evov vnfp

r)p.<ovfv

crapfci.

The part taken by Herod is mentioned by Luke alone in

the Canonical writings'

(Lightfoot).

(92) Smyrn. iii. 2. Luke 2439

.

Kal ore npos TOVS Trepi Ilerpoi/ \^?;Xa(pi7(rare p,c Kal tdcTf, OTI TTVCV-

rjXdev, etyr)avTois' Aa/3ere, ^T]\a(f>f}(ra- /xa <rdpKa Kal otrrea OVK

Tep.c,

Kal iSere on OVKet/ii daipoviov e/ze

Eusebius (H. E. iii. 36) says of this passage of Ignatius, OVK

otd' oiToOev prjroi? crvyKe'xprjrai.Jerome (Vir. III. 2) says that

it is

takenfrom the

'

evangelium quod appellatursecundum

Hebraeos,' which he had lately translated into Greek and




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 ((7omm. in Isai. xviii.

praef.) he repeats his statement that'

incorporale 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

anyother

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-

sideringthe carelessness of

Ignatiusin

quotation,it is

strangethat 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 9a6

.

Ov6e v/uas 7rcu<rxvz/0rjo-erai . . . 'Iri<rovs Xpicrros. Cf. Luke 926

;

as also Mark 838,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).


^

(94) Eph. xiv. 2. Matt. i23s

.

(fravepbv TO devdpov dno TOV Kapnov e* yap TOV Kapirov TO devdpov

aVTOV.yiVQ>O*KfTai.

Luke 6".

fKcurrov yap Sevdpov K TOV Idiov

Kapirov

The words have the look of a current saying of Christ.



IGNATIUS

(95) Eph. xi.

i.^

TJV yap TTJV fie\\ovcrav opyrjv <f)o(3rj- ycvvfjp.aTa eîoVcoi/, ris

0)Ufv} f) rrjv

cvecrrSxrav

X^P

IV

oy

a<n"*l~ vySv (pvyelv airb rrjs p.e\\ovcrrjs opyrjs ;

(rupev. Luke 37

(the same words).

(96) Magn. x. 2. Matt. 513

;Mark 9

60

;Luke

aXicrdrJTe eV avra. I 4

The mention of the 'kingdoms of the world' may be a

reminiscence of the narrative of the Temptation in Matt. 48

;

Luke 45

.

(97) Kom. vi. i. Matt. i626 .

ov8fv pf Q}(pf\r}o-ei . . . TOVTOV. Also in Mark and Luke.

This is at best a very doubtful allusion.


B

John b(98) Kom. vii. 2. John 4

10>u

.

OVK tVTIV fV eflOt TTVp (f)L\6v\OV}O~V OV

f}Tr}(TaS OVTOV, Kal f8(i)KV av

vdwp 8e >v Kal \a\ovv Ve/x.ot,

trot vficop5>v . . . TO v8cop

oeyo>

doxrca

(ra>6ev p.oi \tyov' AeOpo irpbs rbv avrw ycvr)<TTaiev avrw

Trrjyr)vi

narepa. dXXofieVov fls

Lightfoot's assertion that'the whole passage is inspired by

the FourthGospel'

seems to bejustified, especially

in view of

John 423

KOL yap 6 Tranjp TOLOVTOVS frjret TOVS TTpoo-KWovvras avrov.

Besides the close parallel quoted above, Tpotyr) <}>6opa$ just below

is probably suggested by John 627TY\V f3p&<nv rrjv ôXXv^vrjv,

and aprov 0eot5 by John 633;cf. also 7

38. If we adopt the read-

ing fav CL\\OIJLVOV from the interpolator's text, we have another

striking parallel with John 414

:Tnjyr) vbaros &VTOS occurs in

Justin, Dial. 69. On theother side

(againstthe 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 aya-nr] aÔapros as 'the

blood of Christ,' in John. Moreover, the passagein

Johnspeaks of present advantage, Ignatius of future reward. This




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 TTvevfjia ov TrXavarai, curb Qeov TO Trvevpa OTTOV 6e\ci Trvei, KCU rfjv

ov' oldfv yap irodev epêrai KCU TTOV (pwvrjv avTov aKoveis, dXX* OVK oldas

virdyei,KOI ra KpvrrTa cXtyxfi. notiev epxerai KOI irov

urrayet.

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. Kpvnra eAe'yx" has nothing

correspondingto it in the

discourse to Nicodemus. Thephrase iroOev tp\tT(u recurs John 8U and I John a

11,in a

different connexion. John 814

(ot8a voOcv r\XQov KOL nov vTrdyw)

is in some ways nearer to Ignatius than 38. Both passages

may have been floating in his mind.

C

(100) Magn. vii. i. John 8

28'29

.

&CT7Tp OVV 6 KvplOS O.VV TOV 7TO- 077* efJLdVTOV TTOlS) OV&CV, oXXo

rpos ovSeveiroiTja-fv, . . . ovras

firjds Ka6a>s edidoê fie6 Traryp, ravra

s, &C. XuAco. KOI 6 ireâs pe per e/uov

Magn. viii. 2.*"

x

^ <ee

'

P P vov>

Tt T"

r,T

'

\ T \ / . > apeoro at>ro> iroi> TraVrore.

[_Irjo-ovs XpicrrojJ

Kara navra fvrjpc-

T<57re/Aâi/rt avrov.

This parallel is muchstrengthened by

the double remini-

scence.

d

(101) Eph. v. 2 andKom. 7s. John 6

33.

apros TOV 0eov. aproy roO 6eot5.

(102) Eph. vi. i. John is20

.

irdvra

yapov

7re/x7ret,

&C.

See above on Matt. io40 (83).

(103) Eph. xvii. i. John i2 ff.

p.vpov cXaftev, &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 (^ 5e ofcia eirArjpw^Tj, &c.) ; but this can

hardly be pressed: see (85). Similarly, TOV apôvros TOV



IGNATIUS 83

al&vos TOVTOV need not imply knowledge of John i6n,for

St. Paul (i Cor. 26 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 io9.

avros &v 6vpa TOV irarpos.

Cf. also John i46 and Apoc. 3

8. 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 856. Besides the word 6vpa, compare Ignatius's

la-pxovT(u and crarfjpos with John's eiWAflrj and o-wflTJo-ereu.

But the metaphor of the Door occurs also in Hermas;and in

John io9 there is no reference to 'drawing' to the Father,

nor to the Old Testament saints(as

in Ignatius's next line).

John I46 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 ofthe

Gospel.If

theyformed 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 ofthe 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 ike

Hebrews.



THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP

INTRODUCTION.

Standard of Accuracy in Quotation. Very little help

can be gained from Polycarp's use of O. T.}as the number

of cases in which he can be proved to have made use

of 0. T. is small. The clearest case of a quotation is

from Tobit I29tXtwovvvi] ex Oavarov puercti (Polycarp. x. 2

'eleemosyna de morte liberat'). In Polycarp xi. 2 ('qui

ignorant iudicium domini') there seems undoubtedly to

be a reference to Jer. 54

(OVK Zyvvcrav obbv Kvpiov KCLL Kpto-iv

0eou), 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)etSo'res on: see Galatians (31), Ephesians (36),

i Timothy

(48), Gospels (82).

(ii)Ka0oK cl-ncv 6 Kvpios : see Gospels (77).

(iii) fji,vr]fjLovvovTs &v eiirev 6 Kvpios bibdo-Kwv: see Gospels

(75)-

(iv)' sicut Paulus docet

'

: see i Corinthians (2).

(v)*

ut his scripturis dictum est'

: see Ephesians (37).



POLYCAKP 85

Ai Corinthians a

(1) Pol. v. 3.i

Cor. 6

9.

OVTTTOpVOl OVTf jLiaXaKOt OVTC dp(T- OVTf TTOpVOl, OVT l5a>XoXarpm",

voKolrai J3ao~i\iav QeovK\r}povop.rj-

ovre //oiôi,ovre p.a\a.Koi}

ovre dp&evo-

(rovo'iV)ovTf ol TTOiovvres TO. aroTra. Koirat, ovre KXevrrai, ovre

ov p.fBva'Oi, ovXot'Sopot,

ou

fta(n\(iav QeovK\T]povofj.i)(

These passages agree verbally, except for omissions in

Polycarp. The last words cited from Polycarp 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. 62.

'

aut nescimus quia Sancti ^ OVK oldare on ol dyioi rbv K0<rp.ov

mundum iudicabunt? sicut Kptvovo-iv ;

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 318

.

rrjv SoOfl&av vp.lv irifmv . . . eVa- wvl 5e fiei/ei TTIOTIS, eXiris, dyd-m],

Ko\ov8ov<rr)$ rrjs c\7ri8os, Trpoayova-rjsTO. rpia ravra' pflfav de TOVTGW

r]

TTJS dyaTrrjs. dyaTnj.

The .collocation of'

faith, hope, love/ occurs elsewhere in

St. Paul (i Thess. i3

;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. 810

.

eiy rr]v ftoddo-av vp.lv oiKOo'op.r)6f)o-Tai els TO ra

Pol. xi. 4.

'hoc enim agentes, vos ipsosi Cor. I4

10.

aedificatis.'

6 XoXw^ y\a>o~ar)eavrbv otKOô/ici.

Pol. xii. 2.

'aedificetvosin fide etveritate.'

otKoSoê^ 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.




(5) Pol. iv. 3. i Cor. i425

.

OVTC Tl TO>V KpVTTTOW TTJ5 KOpSiar. TO. KpVTTTa TT]$ KapftldS cf. 45

.

Seealso

Bom. a

15'16

.

(6) Pol. x. i. i Cor. is68

. Col. i23

.

'firmi in fide et eSpaiot -yiVeo-ê, a/ie- 6i ye empfvcrc 777

immutabiles.' TaKivrjToi. TrtWeiTc0efj.f\ia>p.fvot

KOI fdpaioi Koi pr] fiera-

KtVOV/J.VOl.

The parallel with Colossians is verbally stronger, as rr/

morel 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. 1 226

.

'sicut paSSlbilia membra et clre ndo-xî fv /Me'Xoy, o~vfJLtrdo~xei

errantia eos revocate.' irdvra. ra pe\rj.

It is possible that passibilia contains an allusion to the

metaphor of i Corinthians. See also i Peter (17).

(8) Pol. ii. i. i Cor. is28

.

G> vTrerdyr]TO, irdvTa eirovpdvia orav 5e vnorayfj aurw ra irdvra.

KOI eniyeia.

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.

fls ov OVK I86vres TTKTTtverf XaP$v ^K ^VTS dyanare, y ov apn

dvcK\d\T)T(pKOI

8c8oi-a<rp.ei>r]. M 6pa>vrs Trurrcvovrfs de dyaX\ia(r6f

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. 221

. , Isa. 53'.

os dirr\vfyK.v rjpuv ras ZiraBfV vrrep V/MWI/, on dvopiav OVK fTroirj-

duaprias roJ iSiwo-o>/zart vfuv imo\i^-rrdvu)v vno- <rev ovde 86\ov

[v.1.

eVt ro v\ov, 6? dpap- ypapp.6v ... 6? dpapriav evpedrj do\os]ev rai

Tiav OVKeiroirjarev, OVTC OVK

eTroirjo-fv, ov8eevpeffr] crro/xart avTOv.

fvp0rj 86\os ev TW 80X0? tv TG> aro/iari

avTov' aXXa di avrov' ... 6s TO?

Iva ô-cofiei/ eVdfwprias fjn&v avrbs



POLYCARP 87

dvrjveyiccvev TO>

. . . KOI edv trdo~xa>p.fv avrov eiri ro v\ov}Iva

did ro OVO/JLO. O.VTOV, do- rais dpapriais diroyevo-

dfajjifv OVTOV. TOVTOV fjifvoi TTJ diKdioo-vvrj 77-

ydp fjfuv TOV VTroypappov oxa/nei/.

0T)K. 416

1 5e MS XpHTTl-

avos, p.r) aZo'ûveo'^ti),

SoâfeVa) 8c TOV Qfov tv

T5 OVOfJiOTl TOITG).

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. 212

.

*

omnes vobis invicem subiecti TTJV dvaa-Tpofprjv vpcov cv roT?

estote, conversationem vestram edveo-iv fxovres KaXriv, Iva eV w KaraXa-

irreprehensibilem habentes in \owiv vp.a>v as KCLKOKOIUV, eVc rS>v Ka\S>v

gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus epycov firoTTTcvovrcs dogdaao-iv TW Gew

Vestris et VOS laudem accipiatis eV êp ejrta-KOTrfjs. virordy^Te Trdcrrj

et Dominus in vobis non bla- dvOparrivfl xriVet did TOV

Sphemetur.' 5 7r(*VTS $* aXX^Xots

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) (n), taken together, strengthen

each other, and justify the inclusion of all three in the first

class.

b

(12) Pol. ii. i. i Pet. i 13 .

810 dvaa>crdp,cvoi rds 6(r<pvas Bov- 816 dvafao-d/j-fvoi ras ocr<pvas TTJS

Xeu<raTe TO> 8eo> ev 00/3&J KOI dXrjdeiq, Siavoia? V/MWV, vrjfpovrfs, TfXficas

. . . 7Tl(TTV(TaVTfS CIS TOV fyfipaVTO. cXTTtCTOTf KT\.

TOV Kvpiov f)p,)v 'irjo-ovv Xpiorov K I Pet. I21

.

vcKpuv feat dovra aurw dogav. TO^S ^ a^T0^ KIVTOVS els Qebv

TOV eyeipavra OVTOV f< VfKpatv KOI

doav atiroS 86vra.

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. 211

: see Lightfoot, ad loc.

(13) Pol. ii. 2. i Pet. s

9

.

fJiT)dirodldoVTfS KOKOV O.VTL KdKOV

fJ.T}dlTodlftoVTfS KdKOV aVT\ KOKOV

rj

T) \oi8opiav dvT\ \oi8opias % ypovQov \oidopiav dvrl \oi8opias.

dvT\ ypovdov TI Kardpav dvrl 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. Polycarp's

method ofcontinuing

thequotation by

additions of his own is

worth notice.

(14) Pol. v. 3.i Pet. 2

11.

KaXbv yap TO dvaKO7rT(r6ai dirb TO)V ditcxtvOai TG>V o-apxiK&v 7ri6vfjuu>v,

ciri6vp.tS>vfv TO)

Ko<7f*o>,on ndaa eVi- curtves (TTparfvovrai Kara T^? fax?)!.

Qvpia Kara TOV Trvevparos (TTpaTfi/erai. Gal. g17

.

fj yap crap firi6vp.fi Kara TOV irvcv-

It is highly probable that this is a quotation from i Peter,

in view of the use of o-rpareuercu, a word of strong colouring.

A fusion with Gal. 517

(34) may be responsible for Kara TOV

(15) Pol. vii. 2. i Pet. 47-

vr)(povTfs Kpbs TOS etâs. vrjâTe els irpoorevxds.

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.

els fjvTroXXoi TTt6viJ.ovo-iv elffeXQelv. lsairi6v(j.ovo~iv ayye\oi TrapaKvâi.

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, 225

. Ezek. 34*.

fTTKTTpffpovres TO. diro-?JT yap a>s 7rpo/3aTa

TO TrXavapevov OVK

TreTrKaVTjpcva. TrXavupevoi, dXX* eVe- eVearpeâTe (v. 1. aTTe-

Pol. XI. 4. <TTpd(pr)Te vvv.

1

sicutpassibilia

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 passibilia may be due to i Cor. 1 226;

see i Corinthians(7).

(18) Pol. vi. 3. i Pet. 313

. Titus 214

.

^Xcorai TTfplTO KaXoV. TOV dyadov ^r/Xcarai. faXaTrjv Ka\5>v epytov.

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. i21

. Rom. 424

,io

9

;

'quicrediturisunt quoted under (12).Gal. i

1

;Col. 2

12

,&c.

in Doniinum nos-

trum etDeumlesumChristum et in ipsius

patrem qui resusci-

tavit eum a mortuis.'

The idea is too common in early Christian literature to be

assignedto

anyone

source;but as this

passageof 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. 38. 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. i 410

'12

. 2 Cor. 510

.

irdvras delTrapao-Tr/vai iravres yap 7rapao~Tr)~ TOV? yap irdvras fjfias

TO> jSq/xaTi TOV Xpiorov, cropcda TG> fir/paTi TOV (pavepcodrjvat 8fl

KOI Kao-Tovv-jrep

eavTOv Qeov(v. 1. XptaTov) vBfv TOV jS^/uaT

Xoyov dovvai. . . . apa ovv fKaaTos Xpiorov Iva

TJH&V TrepleavTOv Xdyoi' !xao~TOS Ta 8ici TOV o~a>-

da>o-ei T< 6ew. P.OTOS Trpo? a cnpagcv,

fire dyadov C'LTC <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 5et and in TOV XpurTOv (which is not found in




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. is12

. 2 Cor. 67.

67r\icra)fjLe6a TOLS o- eV8v0-o>/ie0a 8e TO oVXa dia raw ofrXav TTJS81-

1T\OIS TTJS dlKaiOffVVTjS. TOV (pWTOS. KdlOO-VVTJS. Cf. alSO

613

OTrXa 8iKaio(ruvT)s. Eph. 613

.

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. Rom. i38

.

irpoayovo'Tjs TJ}? dydirrjs TTJS els Qebv p.T)8evl prjdcv oêt'Xere,el pr) TO

Kal Xpurrov Kal fly TOV ir\T)o~iov. eav dyairav aXX^Xovy. 6-yap dyairwv

yap TIS TOVTWV evrbsTJ, 7Tir\r]pa>Kv

TOV eTfpov VOJJLOV TTfTrX^pcoKe.TO

evTO\rjv diKatoo~vvT)s. yap . . . ev TOUTO) TW Xoyw dvaKf-

âXatovTai, ev TW dyanrjo'fisTOV

ir\r)o~iov o~ov (bs CO.VTOV.r) aydirrj

T<5 ir\r)o~iov KOKOV OVK cpydfaTai'

TrXiJpw/îaovv vopov fj dyd.7rr).

Gal. 514

yup "ffa vofJios V cvl Xdyo) 7r7rX^pa)Tai, ev TWdyaTrrjo-eis

TOV

Possibly a reminiscence of Rom. i38

, which, as being a

more fully developed passage than Gal. 514

,is more probably

the source of Polycarp's words than the latter.

(24) Pol. ix. 2. Rom. 817.

els TOV o(f>ci\6p,evov avTols TOTTOV ewrep o'v/Lin-do-ô/zei',Iva KOI wv-

elo~l irapa T< Kvpio), w Kal o-vveTradov.8oao-6>fj,ev.

In view of the context, this should rather be treated as

dependent on 2 Tim. a11

,see

(56).

(25) Pol. x. i. Kom. i210

.

'

fraternitatis amatores, dili-rfj (ptXaSeXîa tls aXX^Xovs <piXo'-

gentes invicem . . . mansuetu- oropyotj rfi Tipfj aXX^Xous Trpoijyov-

dine Domini alterutri praesto- /uei/ot.

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

3 Corinthians b(26) Pol. ii. 2. 2 Cor. 4

14.

6 de eyeipas avrov CK vtKpav KOI fldorfs on 6 eyeipas rov Kvptov

fjpas eyepct. 'irjorovv Koifjfjias avv 'irjorov eycpel.

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 eyetpas might be accounted for by the previous section in

Polycarp, but the most noticeable connexion is contained

in Kol fiâs eyepei. On the whole, it is difficult to resist the

conclusion that we have here a reminiscence of i Corinthians.

C

(27) Pol. vi. 2. 2 Cor. 510

.

See Romans (21) where the passages are quoted. Prob-

ably Polycarp is thinking primarily of Rom. i410

,but has

unconsciously been influenced by 3 Cor. 510

also.

d

(28) Pol. v. i. 2 Cor. 821

. Prov. 3*. Rom. i217

.

irpovoovvres del npovoovpev yap KOI irpovoov Ka\a TTpovoovpevoi Ka\a

TOV Ka\ov fvamov KcrXci ov p.6vov tva- fvumov Kvpiov KOI fvamov TrdvT&tt av-

Qeov KOI dvdpwiruv. iriov Kvpiov, dXXa deal avOpamw. 6pa>Tra>v.

cixamov avdpanav.

The parallel to 2, Corinthians is closer than that to Romans,

as the latter omits the characteristic words 0eov (Kvptov) 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 0. T. is small.

(29) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Cor. 32.

'

qui estis in principio epi- 17 eWroA^ w&v v/zels eVre.

stulae ems.'

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. a. 91).

(30) Pol. iii. 2 IlavXov, 65 ycvofJLfvosfv vfuv Kara irpoo-omov T>V rore

dvBpuircw fdi$aev}... 6s Kal aTrcav

vfj.iv eypa^fV eVioroXas.

No stress can be laid on the very slight resemblance of this

passage to 2 Cor. jo1.




Galatians b

(31) Pol. v. i. Gal. 67.

ftSorey ovv on Qeos ov p.VKTT]pieTai. firf TT\avaa'6e. Qeos ov p.vKrr)~

pierai.

There is no doubt that the words in Polycarp are a quota-

tion, especially in view of the formula eiSore? 6Vt which

introduces them. They also occur in a very Pauline context.

No real parallel for 0eos ov juvKrrjpiferat appears to be known,

and it is therefore highly probable that Polycarp is dependent

on Galatians. But the possibility cannot be excluded thatthe words may be a quotation in Galatians also

(JUTJvXavao-Qe

perhaps suggests this inference), and that Polycarp may be

dependent on the lost source.

(32) Pol. iii. 3. Gal. 426

.

TJTIS O~T\Vp,r]TT)p

irdvravTJde avo>

t

lfpovo~a\r)fji eXevQepa eo~riv}

TJTISeO~T\V

{J.T}TT]p ^TTa.VTO)V^ f)fJi>V.

It is highly probable that this is a quotation, though theword irdvTtov 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 bythe 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. 517

.

Trao-aTrt,6vp.ia

Kara ToC Trvevparos rj yap aap firiBvp.e'iKara rov irvi>-

OTpaTfVCTCll. fJiOTOS.

See under i Peter (14). The passage in Galatians may have

influenced the quotation.

(35) Pol. ix. 2. Gal. 22.

OVTOI TrdvTfs OVK els Kfvov fSpapov. pr] TTMS els nevbv rpe^ f) edpapov.

See under Philippians (41).

Ephesians b

(36) Pol. i. 3. Eph. 28

.

^dpiri earecreo'coo'îei'ot, Tfl yap ^dpiri eVrf (reo'QMrp.evot 5ia

epycav, dXXa 6e\rjp.aTt Qeov 8ia Tricrreajs* xai TOUTO OVK e v/ioii/, GeoC

XptoToO. TO d)pov' OVK eepyatv^ Iva

p.r)ns



POLYCARP 93

The words eiSo're? 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 unessentialwords

;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. 426

. Ps. 45-

'

modo, ut his opyi&o-df KU\ py opyi&ade KOI(JLTJ

SCOpturiSdictum est, aâprdveTf 6 fjXios w dpaprdveTf.

Irascimilli et nolite widve rt

irapop-

peccare, et Sol non 710710) vpwv.

occidat super iracun-

diam vestram.'

Except for the insertion of et between the two clauses,

Polycarp agrees verbally (ifthe Latin version can be trusted)

with Ephesians. The passage in Ephesians consists in a quota-

tion from Ps. 45 and a comment on it by St. Paul

(cf.Deut.

2413 a7ro8co(reis TO V\vpov avrov Ttptis Svo-jjias Ât'ou, 2415 OVK

7rt8wrai 6 rj\ios err' avra>, Jer. i59

).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. MOT. 488 b, as quoted

by Lightfoot) seems to be excluded by his scripturis.

c

(38) Pol. xi. 2. Eph. 55. Col. 3

5.

*S1 quis non se ab- TrXfove/crj;?, o mi TÎ/ *X0*f&U', rjris

stinuerit ab avaritia, el8a>\o\dTprjs. earlv el8a>\o\aTpia.

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.




(39) Pol. xii. 3.d

Eph. 618

.

'

pro omnibus Sanctis orate.' 7rpoo~evx6p.cvot wep irdvrav rS>v

The idea here is very obvious, but there may be a remini-

scence of language.

Philippians

(40) Pol. iii. 2 os Koi aTTtaV Vfuv eypafyev eVioToXay.

This passage shows that Polycarp knew that St. Paul had

written letters to the Philippians (or possibly, a letter : see

Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 138).It is

highly probable that heknew the extant letter

;but the amount of evidence of his use

of it is not large, though it must be 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\ Gal. 2

2.

on OVTOI Trdvres OVK els on OVK fls Kfvbvp.rj

TTCOS els KCVOV rpex<>

KfvbvfSpaiJiop. fdpapov. f) eSpa/zoi/.

Besides the verbal parallel, the context in Polycarp, 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. 210

.

ovTrerdyr)

TO. TrdvTO. fjrovpdvia Kai Iva fv T< ovofiart 'lr)o~ov TTO.V yovu

firiycia, . . . ov TO alpa Kr}Tr)o~fi dno KafjL^rj enovpavicw KOI firiyciav KCU

TO)V dlTl6oi>VTQ)V OITW. KaTa.)(6ovltoVt

321

VTrortzâi aurai ra iravra.

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. 318

.

*et pro inimicis crucis.' rovs fxfyovs TOV oravpoO TOV

XptOTOV.

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

17.

o-Wfxdprjv vfuv /*rydAo>s ev Kvpio> \alpot Kal cryyâipo) iraaw vp.1v.

'irjo-ov Xpia-ra). 410 ^xdprjv 8e fv Kvp/w peydXas on ...

Compare 2 Thessalonians (46).



POLYCARP 95

(45) Pol. v. 2. Phil. i27

. i Clem. xxi. i.

cav rro\iTfvo-<afJieda povov aiW TOU cavp.f) agios avrov

uuoj avTov. vayyc\iov TOV XpicrroC 7ro\iTfv6fj.evoi TO. Ka\a

ird\iTVcrdc. Kal evdpfcrra

Polycarp may here be thinking of the passage in Clement.

Of. Clement (40).

2 Thessalonians. b

(46) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Thess. i4.

'ego autem nihil tale Sensi wore avrovs was cv vfuv eyicav-

in vobis vel audivi, in qilibus xacrBai fv rats KK\T)ffiais TOV Qeov.

laboravit beatus Paulus, quiestis 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 2 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".

*et non sicut inimicos tales *al py o>s fx&P v ^y0"0e, aXXa

existimetis.' vovBcrtire isd8c\(f)6v.

Polycarp's words sound as though he had purposely adapted

the expression of z 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. 67.

Q-p\r]fie navToov ôXerTa)!/ <^>iXap-

ovdev yap (IcrrjVfyKafjiCV els TOV

yvpi'a. cidorcs ovv on ovSeVf?cnjrry Kooyiov, 6Vt ovde QevtyKfiv TI dwdpcda.

Kap.ev els TOVKoa-fioV)

dXX* ov8e j Tim. 610

.

ifrKy*** Ti tXo^v. ^ yhp ^^^'

rS>v^ eWij/,

<j)i\apyvpia.

It is almost impossible to believe that these passages are

independent. The formula (clbores on) with which Polycarp

introduces the second of the two sentences, indicates that he




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 apyji is

less vivid than pifa ;this also points to the priority of

i Timothy.

C

(49) Pol. iv. 3.i Tim. 5

5.

Kvpi'ouTriffTiVy

evTvyxavovvasffXiriKev enl debv Kal Trpooyiti/ei rat?

irepi 7rdVra>i>, fJMKpav derjcrco-iv Kal rais Trpotreuâty VVKTOS

ovo-as ndarrjs 8ia/3oXf/s. Kal rjp.fpas.

(50) Pol. v. 2. i Tim. 38.

6/Wcos SK'IKOVOL ajM/i7Trot Karevairiov SiaKovovs oxraura)? <T6fti/ovy, fifj

avTOv rrjs diKaiocrvvrjs. . . .fifj Sia/3oXot, 8i\6yovs, pr] oiva TroXXta 7rpo(re\ovTas,

fir] StXoyot, a<îXapyupoi, eyxpaTeis pr) aio-^pOKepSels, eôi/ras TOfivor^ptov

TTtpt Traj^ra, 0(T7rXay^j/ot, cTrt/zeXets-, TTJS 7ri(TT<t>s fv Kadapa (rvvtiftfjo-d . . .

nopcvopevoi Kara rqv a\T)6ciav TOV etra Sia/fowiraxrai/ aW-yKXqroi ovref.

Kvpt'ov. yvvaiKas ajo-awrajscrf/ii/as, fiiy fita^d-

Xous1

, vr)(f)a\iovs, Trio-ray e'i> irao-iv.

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. i1.

7rpoarKapTpa>iJLvTTJ eXTT/St rjpiav Kal

Xptorov 'l^troC Trjs

eXm'Sosr)p,>v.

roidppa/3o)j/t -rijs diKaioorvvqs fjp&v, os

eVrt XptOToy 'irjo-ovs,

The unusual order Xptoros 'Irja-ovs 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. n ;

Trail. Inscr., 2).

(52)Pol. xii.

3.

i Tim. 21

.

'

orate pro regibus.' iroieiaBai farjo-fis . . . vntp pa<ri\ca>v.

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".

'

qui

autem nonpotest

Se in el 8e TIS rov Idiov OIKOV

Trpoarrjvaihis gubernare, quomodo alii OVK

oldfv, nag eKKXrja-ias Qeov eVi-

pronuntiat hoc?' /ieXêreTai ;

The language in Polycarp may be suggested by a rather

weakened reminiscence of i Timothy.

(54) Pol. xii. 3. i Tim. 415

.

1

ut fructus vester manifestuS wa crovfj irpoKonfj (pavfpa fl nda-iv.

sit in omnibus/

Possibly a reminiscence.

2 Timothy b

(55) Pol. ix. 2. 2 Tim. 410

.

ov yap rov vvv r\ycmr\<rav alowa. dyawrjcras rov vvv alSiva.

The dependence on 2, Timothy seems almost certain, especi-

ally as 6 vvv aivv occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles among

the books of N. T. (cf. i Tim. 617

; Titus s12

). Besides the

similarity of language, the reference in both cases is to loyalty

in face of danger.

C

(56) Pol. v. 2. 2 Tim. 211

.

KaBws vTrecrêro TJJJUV eyelpai f)p.as TTICTTO? 6\6yos, fl yap avvaTrfGdvo-

K vfKp&v Kal on, lav iro\iTevo-a>fJifda ptv KOIffV^fcropf)',

flvirofjifvofj.fi/

*al

fyf TTHTTfVOflfV.

Whatever may be the case with the first part of the promise

referred to, the latter seems to be connected with some current

Xoyo? (cf.or i in Polycarp) like that quoted in 1 Timothy,

whether directly or indirectly through that passage. The

word (Tvufiao-iXtveiv is unique in the Apostolic Fathers, nor

does the simple /3ao-tA.eveiz> occur with the meaning here

implied. The notion of continuance in the present Triorevojuez;

brings it nearer in meaning to viro^vo^v than might at first

appear, especially when taken in connexion with TroAirevo-co/uefla

that has preceded.

(57) Pol. xi. 4. 2 Tim. 225

.

1

quibus det DominuS poem- îrorf durj avrols 6 Qfbs urrdvoiav

tentiam veram.' els fntyvoxriv d\r)6fias.

The words of Polycarp certainly recall 2 Timothy : in view




of the other evidence this should probably be regarded as

a reminiscence.

d(58) Pol. xii. i. 2 Tim. i

5.

1

quod ego credo esse in vobis.' 7re7ro>iai Se on KOI tv crot.

Possibly a reminiscence of language.

C

Acts c

(59) Pol. i. 2. ActS 224

.

ov rjyeipfv 6 Qfbs \vo~as ras o>8lvas ov 6 Qebs dvea-Trjo-ev, \ixras Tag

TOV qdov. wSIraff TOV Oavarov (adov is ail early

Western variant).

Oavarov occurs in 2 Kings 226

(Ps. I75

),Ps. H43

,and

abov in Ps. I76

;but the expression Avo-as ray vblvas

depends upon a mistranslation of *6in (=' 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.

Kpir^sa>vro)v Kal

veicpStv. Kptrrjs<avra)v KOI

VKp>v.Acts io42 is the only passage in N.T. where these exact

words occur, but 2, Tim. 41

,i Pet. 4

5are closely parallel;

cf. also 2, Clem. i. i.

(61) Pol. ii. 3. Acts 20s5.

fjivrjfjiovevovTcs &v ftirfv 6 Kvptos fivr}p.ovf\>iv re T>V \6yav TOV Kv-

$i&d(TK(i)v. piov Irj(roV) OTI avrbs ewre . . .

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) >

(62) Pol. vi. 3. Acts 7B2

.

ot Trpofp^rm olTrpOKrjpvgavreg TTJV

rtva T>V TrpocpijT&vOVK fdiagav

\VO~IV TOV KvplOV. Ol TTdTfpfS V/MCOV ;KOL CLTTfKTflVaV TOVS

TrpoKaTayyflXavTas irepl TIJS

TOV BiKaiov.

Possibly a reminiscence of the language of Acts.



POLYCARP 99

(63) Pol. xii. 2. Acts 2618.

'

det vobis sortem et partem K\rjpov ev rotsr)ytao~p.evois.

inter sanctos suos, et nobis vo- 8

21

OVK eWtV o-oi pepls ovSe K\ijpos.

biscum, et omnibus qui SUnt 25

OTTO iravros eOvovs TO>V vno TOV

sub caelo.' ovpavdv.

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, jmepts ov8e K\fjpos

occurs in Deut. is12

, I426

'28

; while the order of these words

in Acts andDeuteronomy

is thesame, 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. I12

(ets rrjv /mepi8a TOV KXr/pov T&V ayt&v v rw(fxarC), which

is, however, less close than the parallel in Acts : in connexion

with the last clause, Col. I23

(kv Trda-rj Krurei rrj vnd 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".

avT<

/zero (frofiovKOL ird(rr]S XaTpeucopev evapeoTCDSTW

vXaêtay. Ka^d)$ avros Gew fiera euXajSetas KCU

cVereiXaro KOI ol evay- deovs.

yeXta-afJifvoi r)p.asano-

oroXot Kai ot Trpof^f/Tai

ol TrpoKTjpvgavTes rrjv

fXevfriv TOV Kvpiov fip.5>v.

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 evXaêta, which is not

found in the parallel passage of Psalms, occurs in N. T. only

in Hebrews, and Polycarp refers toot

evayyeAto-a/mevot

(65) Pol. xii. 2. Heb. 620

.

1

et ipse sempiternus pontifex, apx^p^s yevopcvos s

Dei films.' Heb. f.

d<p<p,oiG)p.evos8e TO> vi

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 (8ia TOV atawov /cat tirovpaviov dpîepea)?

'Irjo-ov Xpio-Tov ayaTnjTou aov iraibos), we may suppose that theidea was one which had a strong hold on his mind. The con-

ception of Christ as bpxt-epevs occurs prominently in I Clement

(seei 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

Jilius.

d

(66) Pol. ix, i. Heb. 5".

TrapaKaXeo ovv ndvTas vfj.as iret- nets yap 6 /xreâ>i/ ydXaKTOs arreipos

Qapxelv r<5 Xoyo> rrjs diKatoo~vvr]s. Xoyou dtKaiocrvvrjs.

The phrase Ao'yo? biKaiocrvvrjs 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*.

iras yo/>, os avp-r) 6/ioAoy7

>

T^(rcrGi'TT&V Trvevpa o

6/xoXoyei 'lr)(rovv

Xptorov evcrapKi \rj\v6evai}

avri- Xptcrroi/eV

(rapid f\r)\vd6ra e/c TOV

Xpurros earns. Ka\ os avpf] 6}jio\oyfj

Qfov eort'v KQI irav irvevpa ojj.fi

TOfj.apTvpiov TOV vTavpov, K TOV 6/uoXoyet (v. 1.

Xvet)TOV

'irjo-ovv fK

8taj3oXov eVriV. TOV Geou OVK. eo~Ttv.

38

6 TTOICOV rr\v apapriav fK TOV

Cf. 2 John 7OTI TToXXoi irXdvot

fri\6ov els TOV Koo-pov, of ^17 6/xoXo-

yovvrcs 'irjo-ovv Xpicrrov fpô/jifvov

p o-apKt. OVTOS e&Tiv 6 7r\dvos Ka\ 6

Notice especially ojotoXoyet^, kv (rapid

TOV bia(36\ov, 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

.

TaiJUfJirjuara TTJS aXrjOovs dyaTrrjs.

6 Qebs dydnrj eariv.

The expression of Polycarp has an Ignatian rather than

a Johannine sound;

cf. for instance Ign. Magn. vii. J.



POLYCARP 101

DColossians d

(69) Pol. i. 2. Col. i5'6

.

These passages are parallel in thought, but except for the

one word /capTroôpet there is no verbal connexion between

them.

(70) Pol. x. i. Col. i23

.

See under i Corinthians(6).

(71) Pol. xi. 2. Col. 35

.

See under Ephesians (38).

(72) Pol. xii. 2. Col. i12

.

See under Acts (63).

GOSPELS.


UNOLASSED

(73) Pol. v. 2. Mark 93B

. Matt. 2O28.

Kara TTJV aXrjdeiav TOV ei TIS 8e\ci irp>Tos 6 vlos TOV avdparrov

Kvpiov, os fyeveTO did- flvai, eo-rat Travrav e- OVK rj\dcv 8taKovr)6r)vai

KOVOS rrdvr&v. O-X^TOS, KOI iravrav did- dXAadiaKovrja-ai.

The sentence in Polycarp reads like a homiletic application

of thesaying

in

Mark, suggested bythe mention of 8ta/corot on

the one hand, and by the example of Christ, as the great fulfiller

of His own precept, on the other. The actual words Travrav

SICLKOVOS 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. i817

.

'

tanquam inter gentes.' &crnep 6 e


(75) Pol. ii 3. Matt. 71. Luke 6

8B. i Clem. xiii. i f.

p.vrjp.ovfvovTs 8e[AT) Kpiverc, tva pr)

KOIpr] Kpivcre,

Kai /zaXtora /Lie/xw/jnei/ot

$>v flTrev 6 Kvpios KpiOrJTf ev v \6yo)v TOV Kvpiov

8i8do~KG>v'/LIT) Kpiverf, rpat p-frpelrf, fJifTpT]- yap /zerpw /ierpct- 'irjo-ov, oi/s e\d\r)<rev

tva/LIT) KpiOrjrc' d(pi- 6r]<TfTai vfuv. re, avrifiCTprjOrjO-fTai

StSao-fccov

6re, /cat dfaflrja-fTai ft

3

fiaKaptoiof vfuv. Ka\ fj.aKpoOvp.lav'




vp.lv' eXeare, tra TTTtoôt ro> mwvport, 620

p.aKapioi ol rcoy -yap fiTW eXearf

eXc/j^T/re" co/*e'rpa>

ort avrav farrlvf) TTTOJÔI, ort vperepa iva e'X;$)re, dcpicTf

p-erpelre, dvTip,Tprj- /SacrtXeia reiij/ oipa- eVrti/17 |3ao-tXeia rou tra dfaflf) vp.lv as

6f)<reTai vp.lv' Kal ort vS)V. 6eov.Troteire,

ol TTTcoxoi 510

MaKap40* ot Se- (rerai v/iif a>s St'Sore

Kat 01 diaxopevoi ei/e- StwyêVoi CVCKCV 81- OITQ>S do6rj(rfTai, vp.iv.

KCV 8iK.aiocrvvr)sfort Kaioa~vvrjs)

ort avTa>v as KptVtre, oyra>s Kpt-

avTotv ecrrlvrj /3ao~t- eoTiv ^ fitteri\eia rS)v

6fjo"fcr6e' <as XP1!'

Xet'a rov 0eo{). ovpavav. (TTfiifcrOf, OVTWS XP*!'

vp,lv' to

aurcpvp.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. 612

. Luke u 4.

/iij TClXe&S TTLCTTfVOVTfS KCUa(f)tS fjp.1v

TO. KOI a(f)fS fylv TO.S

/carti

rwos, p,rj aTroro/ioiev

o(pfi\rjp,aTa r)p,>v}o>s

dpapTias rjp.cctVjKal

yapKpicrei, elctores ort Trdvres KCU

f)p,els d<pr)K.ap.ev rols avrol d(pifp,ev iravr\

6(pi\TaiCTfjivdp.apTias. ocjfretXerats' f)p.a>v. oCpeiXovri fjplv.

eiovvSeop-eOdTovKvpiov Cf. 614 16

,1 8

s5.

Iva fjp.lv d<p

The words Seo'/mefla 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. 614, 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.

8fT]0-OlV OlTOVfJifVOL

TOV TravrfnoTTTjjv Qeov

fj-f) flveveyKelv fjpds fls

7rpacr/ioi', K.a6a>s etnev

6 Kvpios' TO pev

rjde

KOI

yprjyopfiTf KaiTTpoar-

fvXfvdf,

Ivap,rj

e\0T]Tfls jreipaa-fiov

TO fifv

irvvp,a TrpoBvpov, fjdc

Matt,613

(=Lukeii4

).Mark i4

38.

Kal

fjiids fls

2 641

yprjyopflTf

7rpoo~fvx~@*, tva

ftO~f\0r]T fls

TOfj.ev Trvfvpa Trpodvfiov,

TI8e

o-ap do-Qfvfjs.

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 Ka6<*>s

L7Tv 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.

1

orate etiam. . .

pro persequentibus

et odientibus VOS.'

Matt. 5" Luke

ycm-are TOVS

VJJL&V,KOI 7rpoo-eu;(o-0e

vnep TO>V

vpas.

cyan-are TOVS

t>/ia>i/,/caXais TTOtttre TOIS

fJU(rovo~iv v/xas, t>Xo-

-yetreTOVS Karapa)fivovs

Spas, Trpoafvxfo-fa irepi

TO>VTrr)pa6i>T(i)V vp.ds.

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 Gospelsin its present form.

(79) Pol. i. 3. Matt. i 317

.

elsr]v TroXXoi

f7ri6vfj.ov(riv flo-ehOflv. Luke I O24

.

There is no reason to suppose that the parallel here is more

than accidental.


C

(80) Pol. v. 2. C John 521

.

Ka6a3s VTreorêro rjp.'iv eyfipat f)p.as axrjFfp yap 6TraTrjp cyeipct TOVS

K V6Kp)V. VfKpOVS Kal^(OOTTOlft,

OVTO) Kal 6 VIOS

ovs BeXei o>o7roiel.

g25

Ol VfKpol aKOlHTOVTai TTJS (p(t)vrjs

TOV vlov TOV GeoO, KOI ot aKoixravrfs

644 KOI eya) dvaoriyo-o) avTov tv TTJ



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 is16

.

'ut fructuS vester manifestus Iva

fyiets VTrayrjre KCU Kapnov

sit in omnibus.' tfrfpqTe, KOI 6Kapjros vpS>v fifvrj.

The sentence in

Polycarp

sounds like a reminiscence of

i Tim, 415

,see (54) ;

the only point of contact with John is

in the word fructus, and this might be accounted for, e.g. by

Gal. 522

,if so 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 etSoVes on introduces the words

Trdvres ocêtXerat eo>iez> aâprias, 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 HEEMASINTRODUCTION.

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 alwaysadmit of

some degreeof doubt.

He maysometimes 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 usedto 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

(1) Hand. IV. iv. i, 2. i Cor. f>* f

'Eavyvvrj,

. . .rj

irakiv avrip TIS cap deKOifirjQfj

6dvqp, iXevGepa

K.oip.Y)6fi,KCU

yaprja-r) TIS f OVTWV, ftrriv a 6f\ei yaÔrfvai . , . p.aKa-

p,f}Ti &fj.apTaVi6

yafjiatv Qv\ ^MaP~ pta>Tepa de f&nv eav OVT<O/J.eivrjy

. . .

ravci, (frrjcriv'eav 8e 0' eavrw pfivg 8oKa> e Kaya> Jlêvfia Qeov ?Xetj;

TIS, irepio-o-oTepav e'avroi Tipyv . . . VS.28

fav be Kal yrjuys *, oi>x ffpapTCS.

TreptTroteTrat Trpbs TOV Kvpiov' eav de

Kalyafj,r)(rr], ou% apapTavci.

*7a/x^<T];y, Tisch., W. H.

d(2) Sim. IX. xii. i. i Cor. io

4.

CH Trerpa . . . avrrj KOIf) TTV\T) fj

deirfTpa TJV

6XpttTTOS.

6 vibs TOV Geoi) etrrt.

The resemblance here seems purely accidental, the rock

being quite different in the two cases.



io6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHEKS

Ephesians b

(3) Mand. X. ii. i, 2, 4, 5. Eph. 430

.

f) \VTTT) eKTpifai TO TTvevpa TO ayiov M \vneiTe TO Hvevfjia TO "

Ayiov

Kal 7rd\iv o-d>ei . . .f) \inrr] avTrj TOV Qcov.

elo"TropevTai els TOV avdpwirov, Kal 518

'19

irfypovo-Oe ev HvevpaTi, . . .

XuTrei TOTrvevfj-a

TO ayiov KaleKTpifiet i/raXXoi/Tey.

OVTO . . . ^ fj.ev difaxta . . .TJ

de

oûôXta Xv7T6i TO nvevp.a . . ./UT)

0XT/3e TO 7rvevfj.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 Hermas 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. Eph. 43~6

.

ot irio~Tevo-avres . . . eaovTai els ev evdydirr}

. . . ev o-o/za Kal ev Hvevua,

TrvevfJia, Kal eva-aJ/za, pia xP a v > fv pia e\nidi . . . els Kvpios, pta

ifjLaTtav avTtov.*j

ev Trvevua Kal ev 7rio~Tis, ev /SaTmoyza, ei? Qeos.

cra>fj.a.Xvii. 4 \a(36vrcs ovv TTJV 5

25'26

XptcrTOff ^ydnrjo-e TTJVeK-

o<ppayi8a [=: baptism] piav (ppovrjo-iv K\r)o~iav . . . Iva avTT)V ayida-rjKa6a-

earxovKal eva vovv, Kal

/zia TTICTTIS avT&v piVay.

eyeveTO Kal[/zt'a] dydtrr]. XVIU. 4 I

18

, 430

f] eKK\r)o-ia TOV Qeov evo-co/ia,

(ppovrjo-is,els vovS) pia TTioTtf, /xta

Kal T^Te 6 vlbs TOV Qeov

a-yaXXiao-cTat . . . aTreiXrjCpus TOV \abv

These passages have all the appearance of being imitated

from Ephesians. It is the way of Hermas not to quote, but to

take suggestions, and alter to suit his own purposes.

d

(5) Mand. III. i. Eph. 425

.

dydrra, Kal nava d\r)6eia XaXeiTe d\rjdetav.9

Tras \6yos

6s o~oveK7rop6veo~6a). o~anpbs eK TOV o~T6p.aTOS vp,)v p.rj

Both the language and the sentiment are too common to



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 107

afford evidence of borrowing. Cf. Matt. 4* eVt iravrlpr\\.

(6)

Sim. IX. iv. 3. Eph. 220

.

OVTOL irdvTes efiXrjdrjo-av els rrjv e7roiKOo'op.r]6evTes emrop

olKodofj.rjvTOV irvpyov' eyevovTO ovv T>V oVoo'ToXeoi' /cat 7rpo<pr]T>v.

OTOIÔI Teo~o~apes ev Tols 6efj.e\iois TOV 411

'12

aTroordXovs . . .

irvpyov. XV. 4 01 8e TpiaKovra irevre

i . . ol de

. . els

diroo-ToXoi Kal di8do~Ka\oi.

There may be here a reminiscence of Ephesians, and indeed

the whole figure of the tower may have been suggested by

Eph. 210~22.

(7) Sim. IX. xvi. 2, 3.

iva faoiroir)da>o-w . . .irplv ydp, (frycri,

TOV avdptonov TO ovopa [TOV

Eph. 21

.

upas ovras veKpovs TOLS

TOV Qeov, veitpos VS*

c

c

Heb, 312

.

TTOvrjpa aTriorias eV

OTTO 0oO )VTOS.

Heb. n 13.

TToppcodev . . . Idovres . . . evoi . . .

15

efyov dv Kaipov dvaKafj-ât . . .

16

fiToipao-ev ydp avTols TTO\IV.

I3U

ov ydp exopev o>Se

TrdXt^.

Hebrews

(8) Vis. II. iii. 2.

o~<bei o~e TOJJ.T} d7roo~Trjvai ere OTTO

Qeov WVTOS.

Vis. III. vii. 2.

oi els reXos diroo-Tavres TOV Qeov

TOV (toVTQS,

(9) Sim. I. i, ii.

riV, OTl 7Tl i-CVTJS KttTOl-

. . .TJ ydp TrdXts v(j.S)V

fJLOKpdv0~TIV OTTO T?jS TToXeWS TaVTTJS'

. . . Tt a)Se v/xets eroi/xaêre dypovs

. . . rara ovv 6 eTOip.do)v els

TavTT]v TJ\V iro\iv ov rrpoo~8oKa ejrava*

KafjiâL els TTJV Idiav TTO\IV.

Both the ideas and the words in these passages seem to

indicate dependence.

(10) Mand. IV. iii. i,2.

rJK.o\)o~a. . . Trapd TIV

on erepa /ieravota ov/c fo~riv et/îi)

Keivr),OTf els vda>p KaTffBrjuev , . .

cos fjKovo~as' OVTO> yap eêi.

Sim. IX. xxvi. 6.

-yap eori o-co6f)vai TOV p.e\-

\ovra vvv dpvelo~6ai TOV Kvpiov,

. Heb.

afiwaroi/ ydp TOVS

dvaKaiviciv els p,eTavoiav.



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.

a/30I/OTTO CTfOVTOV TTJV

Kal fj.rjdev oXcoy

Jas.

fie ei/

p.r)$ev dia.Kpiv6p,evos'

p.rj yap olfcr6a> 6

7TOS CKelvOS OTl

TI Trapa TOV Ktyn'ou, avf]p

fi/^vôy, aKardararos ev

Trdcrais TOIS odois OVTOV.

Clem. Kom. I. xxiii. 3.

17 ypa(prj avTrj, OTTOV

Xeyef TaXaiVeopoi eio-ii/

of dvxoi, of fiicrrd-

r^t/ tyvx*lv \JTI

in Clem. II.

xi. 2, where it is

quoted as 67rpo<prj-

TIKOSXdyoffj.

Did. iv. 4.

011 di^vxyo-fis, Trore-

poi/ earai 77 o#.

Barn. xix. 5.

ou i

Trapd TOV 0eov. 2 pf)

8taXoyibv raOra, dXX'

. . . aiTovTrap'

OVTOV

4 eav dfit-

aiTrjays. 5 fav

fie fitordoT/s ... of yap

bio~TaovTes els TOV 0eoV,

OVTOI elatv of

Siû^'ot,KOI ovdev oXax eTTiruy-

^dyovo't TO)V air^fidra)!'

avT&v. There are

several other refer-

ences to 8i\l^vxio- in

the same passage :

see also Herm. (39).

Sim. I. iii.

a(ppov KOI

TaXawrwpe ai

Mand. IX. vi.

of fie oXoreXely oWes ev

irdvTa aiTovvTai.

Hand. IX. i. Jas. i 5 .

oXcosdi\lfvxr)o-Tjs aiTr)o~a(r6ai

tdrcir* Trapd TOV 8t86vros Qfov

Trapa TOV 6eov. 2 aiYov Trap avrov *nv airX >s Kai M oveio-iovros.

[4 and 7, Trapd TOVKvpi'ov]. 3 OVK

(EOTi yap 6 0e6s as ofav6po>Troi

of

Jas. i4.

TO BoKifitov vfjiwv rijs TTIO-TCWS /car-

epydêrat virop.ovrjv. T)8e

T\IOV

Sim. IX. xxiv. i, 2.

of TrtcTTevo-ai/res . . . TTUVTOTC aTrXoi

KOI OKdKOl, . . . KOI CK TtoV ACOTTO)!/

<IVT>V iravri

*cat d




Jas. s

TrdXvarirXayxyos Icrnv 6 Kvpios KOI

Jas. i

17

.

Trao-a SdVts dyadrj KOI irav

vtoQkv 0~Ti, Karafiaivov GTTO

TOV TTOTpOS TO>V<p<*>TO>V. 3

17

f)8e

avwdevoxxpia TrpStrov p.ev ayvrj

eTretraclprjviKrj.

Jas. 3

OVK O~TIV avTT} fj (Tcxpia avadev

oXX*eVtyetoff,

Mand. IX. ii.

arrow . . . Kal yvwarj TTJV

o~ir\ayxviav UVTOV.

Mand. IX. xi.

17TTlOTtff aV(t)6fV fCTTt TTUpa TOV

Kvpiov.

Mand. XI. v.

Trdv yap TTVfVfM OTTO Qeov 8o6ev

. . . ava>6ev e'oTii>. 8 irpS>Tov fiev 6

%(i>vTO TTvev/za TO avaiBfV Trpavs

0Tt KOlT)O~VÎOS,

Mand. IX. xi.

178e

8i\lsv%ia eiriyeiov trvevp-d

irapa TOV 8iaj36Xov.

Mand. XI. vi.

TO 8e TTVVfJ.a . . . KOTO. TCLS

pios . . . eniyftov eo~Ti. xi TreptTOU

1TVV(JMTOS TOVfTTiyfiOV.

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 8u/o;xoi. A TTPO^TJTIKOS Ao'yo? was likely to be used

by Hermas;

e. g.Eldad and Modat, cited below (16).

(i 2) Sim. IX. xxiii. 2-4. Jas. 4".12

.

OTTO TQ)V KaTa\a\ia>v cavT&v ftffia- ffl KaTaXaXetTe aXX^Xcav, aeX<pot.

paoyzeVot cicrlv evrfj Trtoret ... at o KaTa\a\S>v d8e\(pov , . . KaTaXaXet

VOfJLOV . . . elf O~TIV 6 VOp.O0Tl]S KOI

KpiTrjs, 6 8vvdfjLvos o~S>o~ai Ka\ OTroXeo'at*

crv 8e Tis ft 6 Kpivo)v TOV Tr\T)o-{ov ;

dwdfjievos oTroXeo-atfj

o~>o-ai avTov ;Cf. Matt. IO

28

Mand. XII. vi. 3. 7" ^vw Kai

, , , aTroXeo-at.TOI; >

t

a7ToXrat.

KOTaXaXtai . . . Tats KaraXaXtals avrcov

... ei 6 Geoy . . . tXea>ff -ytVerat,

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.



no THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(13) Vis. II. ii. 7.

fiaicdpioi vfj,ts

o<roi

TTJV 6\tyiv TTJV

rrjv p.fydXrjv,

Kai 00-01 OVK dpvrja-ovrai

TT)V fafjV avra>I>.

dJas. i

12.

Ma/cdptos dvrjpos

rrcipacrp,6v'. . .

TOV ar(pavov

Eev. 7U

.

of

epx6p.votK

TTJS

s TTJS fieyd\rjs.

Matt, i o22and 2 4

13.

6 6VTTO/ZetVaff 6l

6AO51

. OVTOff 0"G)C'7?O"'TCH.

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.

ovvfj

dcruv-

Kpao-ta )8Xaj3epa vp.lv

Tols exova'

iv Kc"- W/ieraSt8oi)o-ii/ rots vore-

povpevois. jSXeTreTC rr)v

Kpi<riv TTJ

varTepovpevoi,Kal 6

ai>rS>v dva-

irpbs rbv Kv-

Jas. 51 ' 4.

ot7rXouo"iot, . . . K\ai>'

crare 6\ai\vovTcs enl rats

TaXatTTcoptats v/j-uiv raig

7Tfpxop.fvais ... 6

p.tcr66s rS)V epyarav . . .

6dTrccrTfprjpevos a0'

\>nS)V Kpd&i' KOI at ôal

r>vBepHTavTcov fls ra

S)ra Kvpiov

Lev. I91S

.

Trapa o*ot ea

Deut. 2 415

.

Kara vov

PS. II 6.

<TTvayp.ov

K.vpiov.

Trpos

piov.TTfVTJTOW.

Ps. if.

rj Kpavyrj p.ov . . .

ftaeXevo'erat els ra Sra

avrov.

Cf. Enoch xciv.

7-10.With a resemblance of sentiment and expression, the

differences are considerable, and both may be explained from

the 0. T.

(15) Mand. II. ii, iii.

firjdevbs KaraXdXft . . .

irovTjpa f) AcaraXaXtd,

d/cardVraroi/ 8aip.6viov.

V. ii. 7 djcarao"rart

evirao-fl 7rpaei avrov.

Sim. VI. iii. 4, 5.

pi)

Jas. 4".

icaroXaXelre dX-

Xi?X<

3TTJV 06

. dAcardoTarov KCLKOV.

I8

aArardoraros ev

Tois odolf avrov.

Prov. 2628.

0-ro/u.a 8 aaTeyov

Trotei d/caracrrao't'as'.

2O16

/A?) dyaTraKara-

XaXeli'.

Wisd. i11

.

OTTO KaraXaXtay <ei-

. . /ta-

rao~rao~ta . . . a*carao"ra-

rovvTfs rats /SovXats

avrcov.

See also Ps. 4920

,

ioo

Isa. 5411

.

aAcardcrraroy ov

See also Tobit 413

.



SHEPHERD OF HERMAS in

Jas. 45

.

T!SoKeiTe OTl KCVWS

T) ypa(pf) Xe'yet; irpbs

(pdovov eVwro&r TO TTVCV-

jj.ao

KartpKio-fVev f)iuv ;

Test, of Twelve

Patriarchs, Simeon 4

nvevpa Qeov ev

Joseph 10 Kv-

plOS KaTOlKT)(Tt V VfUV

. . . KdTOlKf I . . . 6 CV

uiTo> KaroiKwv. Benj. 6

Kupioff yap ev aura

KaroiKfl.

The sentiment and the words are sufficiently common.

'A/carao-TaToz; baifjioviov reminds one of James;but with the

change from KCLKOV, the connexion is too slight to be relied on.

(16) Mand. III. i.

TO irvevpa o 6 Geoff

KaT(o<io~ev evTTJ o~apK\

Tavrr) ... 6Kvpioff

6 ev

O~Ol KllTOlKOOV.

Mand. V. ii. 5-7.

ov /cat TOTTvev/jia TO

ayiov KaToiKel . . . KUTOI-

Kelv . . . r)Tfi KaTotKelv

, . . OV KClTOlKel.

Sim. V. vi. 5, 7.

TO Trvevpa TO ayiov . . .

KaTWKLo~ev 6 Geoff eis

o-dp/ca . . . evjj

Kara-\

Kr)o~e TOirvevfjia

TO

ayiov . . . ev fj TO Trvevfia

TOayiov KaTuxrjo'ev.

Though the parallelsin the Testaments of the Twelve

Patriarchs show that the idea of a Divine indwelling, ex-

pressed by the word KaroiKflv is not unusual, nevertheless the

words of Hernias 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 andModat, which is quoted in Vision II. iii. 4 'Eyyvs Kvpios rols

eTrtorpeô/xevois, &>s yeypaTrrat v ra> 'EA.5a5 Kal Ma>8ar. Weshould note that the striking expression in James, Trpos <}>06vov

eTrnrotfei, is wanting in Hermas.

(17) Mand. XII. i. i. Jas. i26

. Polycarp v. 3.

Trjv Trovrjpav p.rj â\ivaya>yo>v â\ivay<ayovvTes eav-

Kal %a\iva- y\S)O~omav avTov. TOVS dirb navrbs KOKOV.

avrfjv Ka6tos 32

dvvaTos %a\iva-

yayy7)o~ai /cat o\ov TO

crS>p.a. VS.4 onov . . .

u. VS.8

rriv

/SovXet.

2

The metaphorical use of 'bridling' is not uncommon, but

the word is of rare occurrence. It is found, however, in



H3 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Lucian, applied to ra? T&V rjbov&v dpefeis, which shows how

unsafe it is to infer literary connexion from a mere re-

semblance of words and thought. Here, however, we mustnotice the presence of the ideas of willing and taming, which

occur also in the context of James.

(i 8)Mand. XII. ii. 4. Jas. 47. Tobit 6

18.

OTTO (roO. /3dAo>, KO.I (pevêrai d({) poviov KOI (pevêrai.

iv. 7 6 Sta/SoXoj novov vpS>v. Test, of Twelve

Patr., Simeon 3.Brjre ofo Mv, *al

<j>ev-

dnorp^r6 rrovrjpov

* '

)v

""_

, ITVfV/JiQ.COT Q.VTQ1),

V. 2 eav ovv O.VTI- _ ,

/i~ > - a \ Isachar 7.oratfyre avro>, viKrjBeis

irdv Trvevua rov Be-

4^KaKfivo? a7roâ)p

OTT* Napht. 8.

avT&v. &</

d^>* v/ioif.

i Pet. 59.

w dvrio-TTjTe

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. i27

.

XVpas KOI 6p(pavovs eirio-KeirTeo-Qe. cTrio-KeTTTCo-Oai 6p(pavovs KOI XW05

Mand. VIII. x.*" T

fi6xi^ l v'

XnPals vTTTjpcTelv, 6p<pavoi>$ KOI

vcrrepovfievovsejna'KeTrrea'Bai.

Vis. III. ix. 2.

cirio-KeTTTfo-de d\\rj\ovs.

The verbal resemblance in the first passage is striking;

but eTrio-Kenreo-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.

3222;Deut. io18

;Job ztf ;

Ps. 936

, I459

;Isa. i 17

, 917

;Jer. 7

6,

223

;Ezek. ztf

;Zech. 7

10

). Moreover, the parallel passages in




Hermas deviate much more widely from James. It is therefore

impossible to feel confident that there is dependence.

(20) Sim. II. v. Jas. 25.

6 fiev 7T\ovo~ios eêt xpfjuara TroXXa, 6 Qebs eêXeâro roiis TTTWÔV? . . .

ra dc irpbs TOV Kvpiov Trrtuêvct . . . ir\ovo~tovs ev Trio-ret.

6 TTCVTJf 7T\OV<n6s <TTIV fV TT) VTvci, g16

TToXt/ tOÛCl 8eT]O~lSdlKdlOV

KOI 8vvafJi.iv fjLcydXrjv fêt 17 tvrevgis evcpyovfjievr).

avTOv napa ra> 0e<S.

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

, I2

21

,

i6

19~31

; 2 Cor. 6

10

, 8

9.

The idea of the powerof prayer is differently connected and applied ;

and there is

no verbal resemblance that can suggest literary dependence.

(21) Sim. VIII. vi 4. Jas. 5'.

S)v ai pa/3Soi ^Tjpai KOI /Sf/SpoDfterai 6 irKovros vpoov o-fOTprf, KOI ra

VTTO o-rjrbs fvpeOrjvav, ovroi ci<rtv ol diro- ipdrta vp.S)V tn/roj3po)Ta yeyopev.

crrarat . . . KOI ^Xaa'fprjp.TjcravTfS cv 27

OVK avrot (sc.ot

irXovcrtoi)

rats afjLapriats avratv TOV Kvptoi/, ert /3Xaa-

<^>7fiov(rtTO KaXov ovop,a TO fTTi-

dc KOIcnai.a'-^yvBtVTfs TO ovop.a Kvptov K\r)0ev c<p* vp.as ;

TO fniK\T)6ev V avTovs. See also i Pet. 416

(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 0. T., or from general literary usage.

Vis. I. i. 8, ii. i. Cf. Mand. IV. i. 2. Jas. i14

.15

,

Mand. II. iv. Sim. II. vii. i6>17

.

Mand. XII. vi. 5. i27

, 48.

Sim. VI. i. i. i21

.

Sim. VI. i. 2. Vis. IV. i. 8. 21.4.

Sim. VI. i. 6, ii. 4. 55.

Sim. VIII. ix. i. 2".

Sim. IX. xix. 2. 3'.14 18

,2 14 17 > 20.

Sim. IX. xxi (especially 3). in 18

,27.

Sim. IX. xxvi. 7. 38.

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.

Or THF



H4 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

D

Acts d(23) Vis. IV. ii. 4. Acts 4

12. Isa. 2 4

15.

ri TOV Qebv . . . Trpbsov8e yap 6Vo/za eo~Tiv TO ovopa Kvpiov ev8o-

TOV Kvpiov, TTio-Tevo-af eTepov VTTO TOP ovpavbv ov.

OTI 81 ov8evbs 8vvrj o-(a- TO 8e8opevov ev avdpat- 4311

OVK e&Tiv napeg

6fjvat flp.f}

8ia TOV Trots, ev a> 8cl o~<a6r)vai epov o~a>a)V.

peyaXov KCU evd6ov rjyias. Pq ^^, ,

* oo"

' C

O Qeos, ev ra> 6v6p.aTi

(TOV o~S>o~6vfj.e.

II22o>o~6V /ze, Kvpie.

ip2

VTrepao~7rio~at o~ov

TO ovofjia TOV Qfov.

See also Ps. 3221

,

789

, io58

,i2 3

8

,&c.

It seems doubtful whether'

the Lord'

and*

the name '

refer

to God or to Christ. In IH. 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 IH. 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 O. 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. Acts i

24.

Kap8ioyva)a-TTjs yap &v 6 Kvptos. Kvpie, KapStoyfooora iravrotv.

I58o

Kap8ioyvo>orr)s 0eos.

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

Romans d

(25) Hand. X. ii. 5. Kom. 82

.27

.

pi) 6Xl@cTO

nvfvfwTO

ayiovTO fv avro TO

irvcvfia vrrepevrvyxavct. . .

trot KdToiKovv, p.r)noT eWfv^j/Tat [KOTO, fVTvy%dvct vnep ayivv.

<rovjTO> 0e<5.

i Thessalonians

(26) Vis. III. ix. 10. i Thess. 513f*

ovv dXXrjXovs KOIelprj- flprjvcveTC eV eavrols' irapaKaXovpev

tv avrots. &f

These passages use the same phrase in rather similar

contexts dealing with mutual exhortation.

i Peter d

(27) Vis. III. iii. 5. i Pet. 32

. *.

f) far) vp.a>v6ta vdaros <ra)drj KOI tv

Tjp.fpats Noie, KaTa(TKcvaop,fvr)s

)i),els

qv oXiyoi. . .

dico~<a6r)crav

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

M(28) Vis. III. xi. 3. i Pet. 5 7 . Ps. 5433-

oi>K enepfyaTe eauTcov Trao'av TTJV fj.6pip.vav fnlpiôv eVt Kvpiov TTJV

TO.S fjifpip.vdsCTTI TOV

v}j.<i)v eiriptyavTcs eV pcpipvav <rovt

/cat avror

Kvptoi/. avrov[TOV Geoi/J,

OT <re

IV. ii. 4 fl-fffrvyes auT<5 p*\ci Trepl fy

. . . OTI Tr)V p.epip,vdv o~ov

7rt TOV Qeov enepiâs.

. . . 5 fTTlptyciTC TO.S

fJLfpifJLVdS Vp.5)V 67TI TOV

K.vpiov}Kd\ OVTOS

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 Z



n6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(29) Vis. IV. iii. 4.

&o"nfp yap TO xpvviov doKip.deTai TO &

<5ta TOUTTUpoy,

. . . OUTCOS icat

vp-fls Tiu.6rtpovdta Tfvpbs

i Pet. i7

.

Vp.O)V TTJS iri<JTO>S TToX

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.

6p.fv vibs TOV Qeov

irdo~rjs TTJS *CTicrea>s avrov

irpoycveo~Tfpos*

fOTiv

. . . 7r* <TâTO)V TQ)V

f/fifpatv rrjs <rvvrf\cias

(pavepbs tye

* Not used in N. T.

i Pet. i20

.

Xptoroi)

v p.cv irpo

e eârou

Heb. i2.

[al.e

i John 35.

fKflvos

Also 38.

I2

17 ^0)17 e<pavp<b6rj.

Col. i15

.

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.

i Pet. 414

ft 6vei8ico~6e

(31) Sim. IX. xiv. 6.

OUK (irawxyvovTai TO

ovofj.a avTov (popdv.

XXi. 3 oTav6\l\lfiv

a.K.ovcru>(Ti, ... TOovofjia XpiffTtavos,

firaicrxvvovTaiTOV Kvpiov

avT&v. XXVu'i. 5> ^ Qebv V T<p bvo(

01 ird&XOVTff (VfKfV TOV TO).

ovop.ciTos oodctv o0fi-

XT TOV Qf6v, OTI dgiovs

v/j.as Tjyrj(raTo 6 06oy Iva

TOUTO TOovafjia /3ao*Ta-

ÎJT* . . . TTfTTOvdaTC V-

Kfv TOV oi/o/xoToy Kvpiov.

VIII. VI. 4 eVat-

(rXVV0CVTS TO OVOfJM

Kvpiov TO (irtK\T]6ev fir

avrovs. See(2l).

fv 6vo-

. Tra-

Se ws

Se TOV

TOV-

Polycarp viii. 2.

fav 7rao-ô)/zei/ Sta TO

ovofj.0. avTov, dogdp.V

avTov. TOVTOV yap fjfjiiv

TOVV7roypafj.pbi> fdijKe

81 cavTov.

MarkS38

; Luke 92

.

os yap

Cf. Acts 5": see

(46).




The probability that there is here a reminiscence of i Peter

is confirmed by the parallel from Polycarp ;for the latter has

just quotedi

Peter, and that hestill

has the Epistlein

mindis indicated by the last clause: see i Pet. a

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. V-2. Matt. i8 8

.

I) 3- a,7ro6cij.fvoi

ovv iravavyevrjcrQe a>s TO. iratftia.

CDS vfjnia (3p<pr) cl(riv, Kaiciav . . . a>s dpriyevvrjTa I Cor I420

.

ols ovdcuia KdKia ova- /Sped) 17.-

, ,..

Q , , \ , ., 177 Kama vr)7Tia((Tf.paivci em TTJV Kapbiav . . .

ocroi ovv, KT\.

The comparison is too obvious to require borrowing; and

if Hermas uses the fiptyrj of i Peter, he fails to use the more

striking d/myeWrjra.

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

Gospels1. 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 m a-v^^Xlov eT8e? KaOrjfi^vqv, ioyypa rj

fleVts* ort reVo-apas irobas \L TO av^^Kiov KOI Ivyvp&s

/cat yap 6 Koalas 5ta re(7(ra/oa)y oroide tooz> Kparetrai.

Sim. IX. iv. 3 eyez/o^ro ovv (TTOIXOI reVo-a/oes ei> rots

TOV Ttvpyov. XV. 4 ol IJLCV Tr/oairot [Ai0ot], </>TJO-^,ot 8eKa ot etj ra

t, Trpwrr^ yevea* oc 8c euoo-t -TreWe Sewe'pa ycvta

ot 8 rpiaKovra Trevre Trpo<piJTai TOV @eou Kat

v' ol 8e T(ro-apdKovTa a7roVrx)Aot KOL 8t5ao-/<aAot rot)

TOV vlov TOV 0eoi5.

Dr. Taylor finds the key to this allusion to the four

elements in the well-known passage of Irenaeus 2,in which

1 The Witnessof Hermas

to the

Four Gospels, 1892.8

III. xi. 8, 9 Stieren; n, xa Harvey.



n8 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 vrolyoi in the

foundation of the tower with the <TToiyjEia. The four genera-

tions have their parallel in the four covenants of Irenaeus.

'The numbers of the stones in the four rows are 10, 35, 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.1

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 ourGospels, 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.



SHEPHEKD OF HERMAS 119


C

Matthew C

(33) Mand. XII. i. 2. Matt. 22 11.

TOVS[AT] eftovTas ev8vp.a rrjs

ctriBv- eiS> cictl avQpairov OVK cvo'eo'vp.fvov

plus TIJS dyadrjs. fvdvpa ydpov.

Sim. IX. xiii. 2.

e

i;avrat

[at irapdcvoi=

a-yta TrvevpaTa, or

Sui/a/ieiff ToC vtov roi)0eo{)]

v8v(T<ocri TO ej/

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 380

.

ev TW atom TovTO) ov <>aivovTai aêre crvvavdv(r6ai dfjKpoTepa

OVTC ol dtKaioi ovre ol d/iapTa)Xot, P*XP l T vGepi.(rp.o\i . . . (rvXXtâre

dXXa irdvres o/notpt elcnv. Trp&rovra idvta . . . vlrov <rvva-

IV. 2 6 yap ata)j/ 6ep^d/ifi/os ydycTC.

Oepos eort rots SiKaioif, rots dc d/xap-to

Trvpi KaraKaicrai.

ra>\ois xfip&v. 4 cos ^yXa /cara/cau-38

6 de dypos c<rnv 6 Koer/zoy.

Qrjcrovrai.

V. V. 2 6 czypoy6

Koa-fJLOs OVTOS

fOTlV.

This might certainly have been suggested by the parable

of thetares,

thegeneral

ideabeing similar,

and thelast-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. 2818.

l*wrjfp> irao-av Xa/3o>v rrapa rov f866rj /not Tracra eovcn'a.

Trarpos avroC. II27

ndvra pot irapfdodr) vno TOV

Trarpds /iou.

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. 535

.

irapa TOV jSao-iXews TOU ptryaXov. TOV /zeyaXov /Sno-tXe'co?.

Theexpression

is afairly

common one(see

Ps.

46

3,

47

3,

943

;also Tobit I3

15

),and the context is quite different.




(37) Mand. XI. xvi. Matt. 715

>16

.

doKifiaê ovv dno T>V Hpyw KOI ra>v ^fvdoTrpo(pr)Ta>v ... dirb T>V

TTJS a>f)sTOV avdpcoirov

TOV \fyovra Kapnu>i> avrav fmyvwo-faOe avrovs.

tavrbv rrvVfJiaTO<p6pov 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 652

.

ov otw'co ovdev, KOI f) Kapftia fiov ov yap (rvvrjKav . . . dAA* rjv T) icapS/a

7Tf7ra>pa>Tai.avT&v

ircira>pa>fJii>rj [see also 817

].

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. Seealso (43) and the references in (46), which exclude Matthew,

as that Gospel does not use Traicrxyv<rOai.

Luke D

(39) Mand. IX. viii. Luke iS 1.

alrovfjifvos . . . irpos TO dclv TrdvTore irpoo'fv^ffrBai

avrovs KOIp.r) eyKaKclv Pal. f<-~\.

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. 4^16

;Gal. 6

9

; Eph. 313

;

2 Thess. 313

,but not in reference to prayer, as it is in 2, Clem,

ii. 2. See also (u).


(40) Vis. III. vi. 5. Matt. is20

.21

.

)(OVTS p.CV 7TIOTII/, XOVTf ^ /ca'

1 TOVXoyOJ/ ttKOlXOV KCU V0VS

fJLCTO.

TT\OIITOV TOV altovos TovTOV. OTovx.aP^s 'hapPdvcov avTov' . . . yevopevr)?

yevrjTcu OXtyis, 8ia TOV IT\OVTOV avrvv 8e Âtycwy . . . o-KavdaXi&Tai.

KOL dia TOS irpayp.aTias aTrapvovvTcu Mark 418

'19

TOV Kvpiov avT&v. , , , , , ..,r

.01 fis Tas aKavUas cnretpofifvoi . . .

Oim. 1A. XX. I, 2. al p,fptp,Vai rov alavos ical

rj dirdrr] TOV

ol[JLcv Tpij3o\oi eio-tv ol TrXoutrtoi, TT\OVTOV Kai al

irepl TO. \onrdeVt(9v/itat

al fie aKavOai ol ev Tals Trpay/iareiW . . .avfJLirviyovo-iv TOV \6yov.




rat? TTOtKiXaw epTrecpvpfjievoi . . . irvvyo- Luke 814

.

vnb r&v

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. 2624

; Marki421

. i Clem. xlvi. 8.

oval TOIS . . . irapaKOv- KO\OV rjv aur<5, el OVK. enrev yap' Oval TO>

vao-iv' alpT<arepov qv eyevvrjOrj6 avdpwros av6pa>7ra> ene'iva*' Ka\6v

avrois TOfj.fj yevvrjtirjvat. eKetvos. r\v avr<x> el OVK

eyevvrjOr).

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. 528

.

p.rj dvaftaivfTco o~ov eTrl TTJV Kap8iav iras 6 jSXeVojj/ yvvaiKa irpos TO eVttfv-

irepl yvvaiKos a\\orpias. pr/crai avrrjs fj8r) efj.oi)êvo~ev avrfjv ev

rff Kap&iq avrov.

Mand. IV. i. 6. Matt. i99

;Mark xo11.

fav de diToXva'as rrjv yvvaiKa erepav os av airo\vo~rj rfjv yvvalita avTOv, el

ya/iiiyo-iy,Kal avros /noiârat. /nr)

eVi iropveia [Mk. om.], /eatyaprjo-fl

a\\r)v, /zotârat [Mk. add. eVavrfjv].

The first of these passages is similar in sentiment, thoughnot in words, to Matthew. The second resembles the Gospels

both in thought and language. It goes beyond i Cor. 710 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 mayreasonably infer some kind of literary dependence. At all

events, the passages indicate acquaintance with the Synoptic

tradition.

(43) Sim. IX. xx. 2. Matt. ip28

.

oi 7r\ovo-ioi . . . 8v(Tic6\a>s etVfXtv- 8v(TKo\a>s nXovanos [Tisch. TrX.

trovrai els rrjv f3acrt\eiav rov Qeov.8vcr.]

elo~e\cvo-fTai els rrjv j3a<rtXeu>

ra>v ovpavnv. Mark I O237ra>s 8vo~Ko-

Xo>y ot TO xprinara exovres els rrjv J3ao~t-

\eiavrov Qeov elo~c\evo~ovTat,. Lukei8

24

nearly the same as Mark.

We can hardly doubt that this is a quotation.




(44) Sim. V. ii. i. Matt. 2i33

;Mark I2 1

;Luke 2O

9.

TTJV irapafioXrjv.2 ((pvrevo'fv a/x;re- TrapaftoXrjv [Mk. eV

7rapa/3oXaiyJ

Xcoi/a . . . dovXov . . . TrapeKaXeVaro . . . (f>VTCvo~v dfi7reX&>i/a [Mk. afwr.

avTov . . . f^fjXde de 6 dfcnroTrjs . . .

e'<pvT.J. . . aTrfdrjurjarfv.

cis TTJV diro8r]fj.iav. /neTa xpovov rjKQev Matt. 2$U

.

6 df(nr6rns TOV 8ovXov. 7 deXta avrbv (KaXfo~cv . . . 8ov\ovs |Lk. IO!S1.

v / . c - - 19 >**\\ /

o~vyic\T)povo(JiOVTO) utw p.ov 7roir)o~ai. p.fTa oe iro\vv xpovov ep%(Tai

6 KVplOS TO)V 8ovXo)V.

Mark i27

;Luke 20".

6 KXripovonos [6 ufoffj.

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.

CDS VTjina /3pe0Tj. . . 01 TOIOVTOI . . .

KOTOLKfjO-OVO-tV V TTj @aO~lXia TOV

6eoO . . . irdvra yap TO.

cam irapa T<5

avTat.

See also xxxi. 3 'felices vos ovpav&v. 19"; Mark io

uT&V yap

iudiciO Omnes . . . quiCUmque TOIOVT&V eo-T\vf) fBao-iXeia TWV ovpava>v

estis innocentes sicut infantes, [Mark TOV 6eo]. Cf. Matt. 20"

quoniam pars vestra bona est irp&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 S38

;Luke 9

26.

fTraio~xvv6evTes TO ovopa Kvptov. 6s -yap av eVaio-^vr^ fie *at TOtr

Sim. IX. xiv. 6. e'fiovs Xoyovy.

OTt OVK iraio~xvvovrai TO ovofJiaavTOv Comp. (31)-

Sim. IX. xxi. 3.

TOV Kvpiov.

w KOI TrpSyra nap

Matt. i83

.

avfir)

. . .yevT)o~df as TO. 7rai8/a,

ov pr) cio-e\6r)T (Is TTJV (3ao~iXeiav TQ>V

ovpav&v.L0

ot a-yyeXoi avT&v . . .

/SXeVovo-i TO irpoo-airov TOV irarpos

fjiov.

46 [teifav fv rfj /3ao~tXeta T>V

TO

(III) The Fourth Gospel

DJohn d

(47) Vis. II. ii. 8. John n 25, i4

6.

TOVS dpvr)o~ap.fvovsTOV 'Eyco et/*i . . .

f) a>r]>

Kvpiov OVTOH

dirb TTJS

Col.34-

6 XptCTTOV . . .TJ

Matt. io33

;oo-Tts S' av dpvT](rriTai

iratVj dpvr)o~ofjiai OVTOV

Kayo). Also Luke 1 2',

somewhat varied.




The only connexion is in the word foorj, and it is by no

means certain that it refers to Christ in Hermas;in any case,

the verse in Colossians is sufficient to

showthat 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 io18.

8ovs avTols TOV vopov ov eXct/3e Trapa ravrrjv rrjv fvrdXrjv eXa/3oi> Trapa

TOV naTpbs avTov. TOV irarpos p.ov. Cf. I 249

, I431

, I510

.

The identity of expression may be accidental, for it is

sufficiently explained bythe context.

(49) Sim. IX. xii. i. John io7

'9.

17 TTvXr) 6 vibs TOV Qeov eon. 5 eyo> flfjii f) dvpa. VS.1T

8ia TOVTO

els TTJV /SmnXfUW TOV Qeov aXXcos/ie 6 Trarqp dyana.

ereX#e/ ov 8vvaTai avQpa>Tros elp.rj 1 4 ovdfls epêrat Trpos

TOV Trarepa,

dia TOV ovofiaTos TOV vlov avrov TOV elp,r)

81 euov.

T)ya7TT)ij.cvovvif avTov. 6

rj8e TTV\IJ

6 vibs TOV Qfov fo~Tiv' avrrj p.ia ci'croSds1

tori Trpos TOV K.vpiov. aXXeos ovv ov8e\s

eto-fXeva-erai Trpos O.VTOV flpr) dia TOV

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 maybe reasonably questioned. Such sentiments must have spread

among Christians apart from direct literary influence.

(50) Sim. IX. xv. 3. John 33~5

.

TavTa TO oVo/zara [of various ov bvvarai Ideiv TTJV (3ao-i\ciav TOV

Vices]6

(popS)VTOV 06ou 8ov\os TTJV Qfov . . . ov fivvaTCti flo-(\6flv fls TTJV

(3ao~i\fiav jj,v oêrai TOV GeoO, fls /SaaiXfiav TOV Qeov.

aVTTjV df OVK ClO-6\fV(TTCU.

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 91,with the parallel in Luke 9

27,

and the notion of seeing it without entering it is suggested by

Matthew 2664

,with the parallel in Mark I4

62,where the word

is used. See also Luke 3i27

.



II CLEMENTINTRODUCTION.

PHOTIUS (Biblioth. Cod. 126) says of 2 Clement, prjra riva <as

airb rfjs Otias -ypa^rjs favifwra Trapeio-ayei, <5z> ov*f) Trpu>Trj a7r?}A-

Xa/cro TrarreXw?. A case of such alien{

scripture'

quotation

common to i and 2 Clement is that found mostfully

in

2 Clem. xi. 2-4 (iClem, xxiii. 3 f.) Aeyet yap /cat 6 Trpo^rjTiKos

Aoyos, TaAa7ra>po eio-w ot btyvxoi, KT\.' 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 quotationsfrom unknown Gospels. For what follows the words Ae'ye t y

ypa(f)ri tv T< 'lefeKiTJA, in vi. 8, is in fact a free paraphrase ;and

he is apt to use <pr)o-iv 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. 6624are adapted). In v. 2, however, he

certainly cites a non-canonical Gospel with Ae'yei 6 Kvpws, as

also in viii. 5, with the addition h rw evayyeAuo.

In xiv. 2 our author appeals, for teaching about the Church,

to* The Books (ra /3i/3A.ia + 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 632 35, as

embodying a divine oracle (Ae'ya 6 0eos). Here God is con-



II CLEMENT 135

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. 913

,Mark s

17

(cf.Luke 5

32

)are cited

(ii. 4),after an

O. T. passage, with KOL ere'pa 8e ypa^rf Ae'yei. 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 canquote

withequal

deference mattercertainly

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'

prevalentin the non-Jewish

partof the Alexandrine Church.

In that case it would be an earlier local type of harmony*

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. io23.

TTKTTOS yap fcrnv 6fTrayyei\dfJ.fVOs.

THOTOS yap 6 eVayyeiXa/Mfwy.

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*.

aTT00fp.fvoi cKflvo o irtpiKfipeflaroaovrov \ovres irfpiKfipcvov rjuv

vtyos TT) avrov 6e\r)<Ti. vtyos fiaprupeoj', oyKov

iravra . . .

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.




Although the thought of these two passages is so different,

it seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to resist

the conclusion that thelanguage of

2Clement

is

unconsciouslyinfluenced by that of Hebrews.

The following points of similarity may be added, though theycannot be classed.

(a) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. Heb. i318

.

7rpoo~fvxfi . . . tK Ka\rjs o-vvei&rj- 7rpo<revxc(r0 TTfpl rjnatv' irfidopfBa

af<os. yap OTI KaXrjv <rvv(i8r)(riv eôfifv.

The expression KaAr) avveibrio-is does not occur elsewhere inN.T.

(6) xx. 2 has a general similarity with Heb. io32- 39;and the

expression 0eoC &VTO$ occurs in 2 Clem. xx. 2 and Heb. JO31

(cf. 3").

D

i Corinthians d

(3) 2 Clem. ix. 3. i Cor. 619

.

Set ovvfjfjuis

a>s vabv 0eo <pv\do~- TJOVK oiSare ort TO <rS)p.a v/icov vaos

<reiv TTJV crdpKa. TOV ev vfuv 'Ayt'ov nvevparos eamv,

ov fXCTe c*7r eoO ;

i Cor. 316

.

OVK o*8are on vaos Qeov eorc . . .

Cf. Eph. 220-22

.

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. 92i 25

.

Themetaphor

of the

gamesis

verycommon in ancient

literature. Cf. Lightfoot, ad loc.

(5) 2 Clem. xi. 7, xiv. 5. i Cor. 29.

See note on the passage in relation to i Clem. (14).

Ephesians d

(6) 2 Clem. xiv. 2. Eph. i22

.

OVK oto/iai Se vpas dyvoeiv on Kal avrbv cda>Kc Kc(paXr}V vrrfp

eKK\r)o~ia &)(ra trai/za eort

XptoroO

irdvra rfj e/cicXô-ia, fjriscarl TO <7a>/za

(\eyei yap rj ypa<pf)' 'Eiroirjacv 6 6fbs avrov, TO TrX^pco/ia TOV TO TrdvTO. fv

TOV avdptoitov apo~v /cat 6q\v' TO navi



II CLEMENT 127

apa-tv ffrrlv 6 Xpio-T6s, TO 6rj\v rj Eph. 5".

(KK\T)aria),Kdl OTI ra pipkin /cat ot OTl fafe ^7-1 K(f)a\r) rfjs yvvatris,

CTrdo-ToXoi rf)V fKK\r)0-iav ov vvv eii/ai is Ka\ Xpiarros Kf(pd\r) TTJS eKK\rj-

aXXa ai/co0ev [<aow]. o-t'ay, KrX.

Eph. i4

.

ev

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. 418

.

f<TKOTi(rp.e6a rrjv didvoiav. Cf. (l 7)

(8) 2 Clem. xiii. i. Eph. 66

.

dv6pa>Trdpf(TKOt. Cf. Col. 322

.

James d

(9)2 Clem. vi. 3, 5. Jas. 4

4.

(mv de OVTOS 6 altov KOI 6 fLc\\a>v OVK oiSare onrj (ptXia TOV Ko&fwv

dvo f-^Bpoi . . . ov 8vvdfjLf6a ovv TUV ^X^Pa T v foG eariv ; os av ovv

8vo (piXoiflvai' dfl Sc

f]/j.asTOVTCO Pov\7)6fj (pi\os flvai TOV

There is a similarity of feeling between these passages, but

no verbal parallel, except in the occurrence of <iA.oi and <i\i'a.

(10)2 Clem. xv. i. Jas. 5

16.

p,i<r6bs yap oi>< eo-nv piKpos TrXaixo- tv\ea-6t vnep aXX^Xcoi', OTTCBS laBrJTf .

p.evrjv ^v\^f)V Kai dTro\\vp.tvr)v aTro- TfoXi; io"^vft dfrjais diKaiov tvepyov-

(TTptyai els TO vadrjvcu. P-*vr

)'

(n) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. Jas. 520

.

vrjcTTfia Trpotrfv^^?, e\crj- 6

dfdfjL(pOTCpa>v' dyaTrrj

fie 68oO QVTOV acocret

n\r)6os

Kd\T}S

The occurrence in 2 Clement of so many points similar to

those in Jas.

5

16 20is

worthyof notice,

althoughnone of the

resemblances may be very striking in themselves.




(12) 2 Clem. xx. 2-4. Jas. 57 8 10

.

7ri(TT(v<afj.fv ovv, d6eX0ot KOI ddeX- p,aKpo6vfJ.r]CraTe ovv, dde\(f)oiiecu?

<f)ai'Qeov Q>VTOS itfipav d$XoCîei>, rrjs napovcrias roO Knpiov. tSou, 6

Kalyvfj,va6(j.c6a

r<0 vvv /3ia> Iva ra> yeatpybs eicSeêTai TOP rifjiiov Kapjrbv

fj.e\\ovTi arTC(f>ava>6a>nV. ovdels ra>v TTJS yrjs, p.aKpo6vfjLa>v fir avrw, ecof

raxyv Kapnov eXafiev, aXX* Xa/3/ vcrbvTrpwifjiov

KOI otyipov.

avrov. i yap TOV fjn.(r6bv fMaKpodvfJLTjffaTfKOI v^cis . . . VTTO-

6 6ebs a-wroûs anediSov, daypa Xdfterf, a8eX<ot', TTJS Kaito-

cpnoplav fjaKovp-ev /cat ov iraOeias KalTTJS jj.aKpodvfj.ias TOVS

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. i20

.

facts O-OXTT/. XP VO)V MVfJLCLS.

Cf. also OTTO rfjs KK\.r)(rias rfjs fco?/? and KK\rja-ia fwo-a (occurring

in the same section of 2 Clement) with XiQoi fiSi/res (i Pet. a4).

(14) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. i Pet. 48.

dydirr)8e KaXvnrfi n\i]6os apapricov. dydjrrj KaXvnrei ir\T]6os a(j,aprt>v.

See note on i Clement (48).

UNCLASSEDRomans

(15) 2 Clem. i. 8. Rom. 417

.

cita\<rfv yap rjp.asOVK ovras Kal KO\OVVTOS rd

pf) ovra o>s ovra.

f)6c\r)<revfK

p.rjOVTOS ctvai fads.

The correspondence is superficial, and the phrase in some

sense is not uncommon. Cf. Lightfoot, ad loc.

(16) 2 Clem. viii. 2. Rom. 9

n.

The metaphor of the clay and the potter is used by Jeremiah

(i84ff

-),and it would therefore be unsafe to assert the depen-

dence of 2 Clement on Romans.

(17) 2 Clem. xix. 2. Rom. i21

.

rr)v didvoiav. Kal eoTcoriVtfr; 17davvfTOs avruv

Kapdia.

Eph. 418

-

(TKOTi(rp.fVoi rfj diuvoiq.



II CLEMENT 129

The phrase is parallel to that of Komans and Ephesians,

but closer to the latter. Cf.(7).

1 Timothy

(18) 2 Clem. xx. 5. i Tim. i17

.

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. 416

.

Cf. Jas. 519

>20

(n).

2 Peter

(20) 2 Clem. xvi. 3.

ytvoMTKCTe 8e on ep^frai ffdr) 17

rjpepa TTJS Kpiveus as /cXt/Saj/os KCUO-

pcvos, KOI TdKr](TovTal rives r>v ovpa-

vu>v, KOI Tratrarj yr)

a>s /*oXt/3os eVi

irvpl TT)Kop.cvos, Kal Tore(pavrjorcrai

TO. KpixpiaKOI (pavcpa epya TWV av-

Mai. 41t5ov ypfpa cpx^Tcu KaiofjLcvr)

eoy K\i[3avosi

Isa. 344

raKTjtrovTcu 7rd<rai at 8vvdp.eis T>V ovpavwv.

This affords parallels to 2, Pet. 35~7

>10

;notice also the

variant cvpe^rjo-erat in 2 Pet. 310

,which is near to <az>?j(7Tcu

in 2 Clem. xvi. 3.

[Lightfoot thinks the agreement of 2 Clem. xi. 2 with

2 Pet. i19 in 6

-rrpo(pr]TLKbs Ao'yojj and with 28 in

, worthy of notice.]

Jude

(21) 2 Clem. xx. 4. Jude 6.

&a TOVTO 6fiaKpi<ris efiXatyev dyye\ovs re rovs

p-

p.rjtv

SLKCLIOV,Kal (ftapwev rrjv

eavT&i/ apxty . . . fls Kpiaiv

fJLyd\r]s fipfpas dccrp.ois aiftiois VTTO

These passages seem parallel, but it is to be remembered

that the interpretation of 2 Clem. xx. 4 is very doubtful, that

the variant deo-ô's (C) is found for &e<7/mot9 (S, considerably

weakening the parallel), and that changes of the text have

also been proposed.



I3o THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

GOSPELS.


C

Matthew C

(22)2 Clem. v. 5, vi. 7 Matt, ii

88

*"-, 25"*

(viii. 4)-

r)o~e eirayyeXia rou Xpioroi) neyd\r) &evT irpos fit,

. . . Kaya> dvairavcra)

KOI Bavfj.ao'TT] eo~Tiv, KOI^ -j- 17, CJ ova-

vfJias' apare TOV vyov p.ov f(p* vpas,

7ravo~is TTJS (jif\\ovo~T]s /SacriXeiay KOI . . . Kat Vpf)O~fT avdnavcriv rais

<t>r}s alwviov. "^vâls vfiav.

TTOIOVVTCS yap TO 6f\r)â TOVf<p*

ocrov OVK cVoi^(rarf . . . Kai

XpioToC fvprj(rofj.fvdvd7rav(riv' fl 6e dnf^tixrovrai OVTOI ft? KoXacnv alo>viov

)

p-rjyf,ovdev fjpas pvcreTai

e< TTJS of de di<aioi els

aluviov /coXaa-ftoy, eav irapaKov(r<Dfj.V

TO>V VTO\S)V ttVTOV.

Tas fvroXas TOV Kvpiov <pv\davT$

alwviov.

Matthew alone has (i)Christ's

promiseof rest to those

whodo His will such persons

'

finding rest'

; (a) the warning as to

Ko'Xao-ts aldvios (only here in N. T.) for those who do not His

commands, as set forth in the Judgement Scene, while the prize

is7] (îKXovaa) (3a(n\eia and (Jor) cuomoy. 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. io32

(Luke i28

).

Xe'ya &e KCU auToV Tbv opoXoyrj- TTCLS ovv oorty opoXoyrjo-fi cveftol

(TOVTafj.e [ev&TFiov

T>V dvdpaTrwv, epTrpoo-devT>V

dvOpuTrav, ofioXo-yjô-o)

om. Syr.], 6/xoXoy>J(ra)avTov fv&TTiov Ka.ya>

tv aur<5(fnrpo(r6fv TOV irarpos

TOV TTUTpOS JJ.OV. ft-OVTOV V OVpdVols.

Clement's quotation is nearer Matthew than Luke (who has

6 vlos TOV &vdp<&Trov . . . UpTrpoa-Ocv T&V ayye'Xcov TOV 0eou). But

even retaining CV^TTLOV KT\. (Matthew and Luke have ZnTtpocrOtv

KT\.) yClement's wording is sufiiciently different to suggest

the direct use of another source altogether, whether oral or

written. See the next note.

(24) 2 Clem. iv. 2. Matt. fl.

Xeyei yap' Ov nas 6 \tya>v pot, ov iras 6 \cya>v pot, Kvpie, Kupi,

Kupte, Kvpif, o-coô-crat, dXX* 6 TTOI&V ela-tXevo-fTai (is TTJV ftacriXciav TUV

TTJV diKaioo-vvijv. ovpav&v, aXX* 6 rroi>v TO OfXr^jia TOV

narpos JJ.QVTOV cv ovpavois.



II CLEMENT 131

2o)0?j<rrai may simply echo ov yap TOVTO orwo-ei?J//a9, just

before (cf.iii. 3, also i. 1,4, ii. 2, 4, 7), especially as Matthew's

phraseis rather

Jewish;

andftucaiocnfcip? may be

aparaphrase

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-

rjfJiflf,edv

p.fj Tr)pr)o-Q>p.evTO fidim- ... 6 jSacriXevj . . . Xe'yct avra>,

cr/ia dyvov KOI dpiavTOV, iroiq irerroi- 'Eraipe, 7rS>s ficrrjXdfs a>8ef*r) %(ov

6r)(Tfi fl<Tf\evo'6[jL6a fls TO (3acri\ciov fvdvpa ydpov ;

TOU Qfov ; . . . cav/ZTJ fvpf6S)fj,ev epya

f\ovTfg oa-ia KOI 8iKaia ;

Here resemblance turns on the meaning of r6 /3ao-tAetoz/. It

is true that it can mean '

kingdom/ but rather in the abstract

sense of 'sovereignty,' as in xvii. 5 Ibovrcs rb jSao-t'Aeioi; TOV

Koa-pov cv ro)J

Ir]o-o a sense which ill suits the contrast here,

where it is a matter of'

entering into'

ro /ScKnAeiou'

with

assurance.' Elsewhere /3ao-tAeta is used of the Kingdom men

hope to enter, see xi. 7 eto-rjfofxe^ et? TT\V /3ao-iAetaz> avrov. Hence

fiaaiXeLov 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(tpya. excises oo-ta /cat

Stxaia),

cf. Acta Bamabae, 12 ro ez/Svjua e/ce>o, OTrep <mz> aÔaprov fls

TOV al&va.

UNCLASSED

(26) 2 Clem. xvii. i. Matt. 28

19 f-

ei yap (vro\as eôp.(v Viva, Syr.J nopevOevres ovv jJLaSrjTfiKrare navra

KCU TOVTOTTpdo-O-OpCV (-UfJLCV, Syr.),

TOfdvrj, fSanTlÔVTfS OVTOVS fls TO

dirb Totv ida>\&v drroo-irav KOI KOT^- ovopa TOV iraTpbs KT\. . . .,

didd-

X*i-v

jK7"A. o-KovTfs avTovs rrjpflv ndvra ova

vp.iv.

Just a possible allusion, in view of the reference to missionary

tvroXds :

yetaTro r&v clbtiXav cnrocnrav KOL

Karrj^lvrather recalls

the gist of the Kerygma Petri.

E 2




D

Luke d

(27) 2 Clem. ii. 5, 7. Luke ig10.

TOVTO Xe'y, on del TOVS diro\- ?^ 7p o wos- roi) dvOpdanov

\vp.evovs o-u&iv . . . ovTots Kal 6 &Tr)o~ai Kal o->o~ai TO aTroXwXo's.

Xptoros r)6f\r)(rcv crSxrai TO. drro\-

\VfJLfVa, Kal 0-(0<TfV TTOXXOUJ, fX$G>I/

KCU Ka\o-asfjfJias fjdr] dnoXXvpevovs.

Here, in spite of certain echoes(e. g. eA.0o>z> /ecu KaXeVas) 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>35

. Didache i. 3.

orav yap dKovo~a>o~iv KOI el dyajrare rovs iroia yap x^PLf>

*av

Trap f]p,)v OTI Xeyft 6 dyan>VTas v/ias, Tro/a dyandre TOV? dyaTratv-

Qeos, Ov x^Pls v/juv el vfuv x<*pu '<"*' . ray v/xas ; . . . v/mj 8e

dyaTrare rovs dyairSaVTOS TrXrjv dyairdre TOVS e^- dyandrf TOVS fitcroOi/ras

v/uas, aXXaX!^Pls VP*V &poi>s vpav . . . Kal eorai v/xas, Kal

oi>xecT

el dyairdre rovs exQpovs 6 p.i(r6bs vpav rroXvs. e^^pdi/.

Kal TOVS fiiaovvTas vpds.

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 Ao'yia ToO 0eoii) found

on Christian lips that it is cited. The addition of Kal TOVS

vâs finds parallels in Did. i. 3 and Justin, Apol. i. 15

TOVS jutcrowras vâs. Such a variant for rovs ex^povs

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 i610

f.

Xey yap 6 Kvpios ev rw euayyeXtV 6 TTLO-TOS ev eXa^tarw /eat cv TroXXw

Ei TO piKpbv OVK Tr)pr)craTe, TO peya TTIO-TOS eVn . . . el ovv lv raiddiKq>

TLS vfuv 8a><r; \eya> yap vfiiv OTI/na/zcoi/a mo-Tol OVK cyevO~de, TO

6 irio-Tos fv eXaîora) Kal ev TroXXoJ dXrjOivbv ris vfuv TnoreiWi ;

TTtOTOff fOTLV.

Iren. Adv. Haer. ii. 34, 3' Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis

exsistentibus in eum : Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnumest quis ddbit vobis ? significans quoniam qui in modica temporal!vita ingrati exstiterunt ei qui earn praestitit, iuste non percipientab eo in saeculum saeculi

longitudinem

dierum.

Cf. Hippol. Refut. X. 33 vrraKove TW TTfTroirjKOTi Kalp,r] avriftcuve vvv, iva

firlT(f /UK/up

TTiorbf (vpedcls Kal TO peya Trtorevî/at



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. 2521 23

).That Irenaeus is

not quoting Luke j6n 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. 2514"30

],while

(b) 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 crrjpr/o-are (which must stand, in view

of what follows) and fideles non fuistis it was not confined

to one circle before Irenaeus's day. Cf. (31), which relates to

the same context in Luke (i613

),also (34).


(30) 2 Clem. ii. 4. Matt. Q13

;Mark 2

17

rat eVe'pa8e ypaxfi Xe'yet ZTI Oi< (Luke 5

32

).

r)\6ov KaXttrai SiKaiovs, aXXa apap- ov(yap, Matt.) rj\6ov KaXeVat

,aXXa ap.apTa>\ovs.

Cf. Barn. V. 9 Iva fi# OTI OVK rj\6ev KoXevai. ducaiovs, aXAa apap-

TO)\OVg.

The parallelism with our two first Synoptics (Luke has OVK.

\ri\vOa . . . ctj perfooiav) 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 i6ls

; Matt. i626

.

Xey 8e 6 Kvpios' Ovfcfc olKerrjs

Verbally

as Luke i613

;Matt.

dvvl wpiois 8ov\vciV eav 624

lacks OIKC

KOI 0eo) fiovXevftv *ai



i 34 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

fta/Ao>va, do-vfj.q>opov fjfuv eorriv. Tt Nearer Matt. i6 26

(cf.Mark

yap TO o(p\os, fdv TIS TOV /coV/zov 816

)than Luke p

25

;neither

0\OVKCp$t)0-T), TTjV

df

^VxfjV frfJUtodf]haS Ti TO

O<pf\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. n. Luke 821

.

KOI yap cirrev 6 Kvpios' 'ASfXôt MTr)P Mv /cat d8e\(poi pov OVTO'I.

fjiovovToi flaw, 01 noiovvTfS TO QeXrjpa io~iv ol TOV \6yov TOV Qcov

TOV TTUTpOS fJ-OV.Kttl 7TOIOVVTS.

Matt. i2 49 f- (Mark s3

tfiou, r) p.r)TT)p p,ov KO\ ol

fjiov* OO-TLS yap aviroirjo-rj

TO

TOV Trarpos /AOV ToO V ovpavols, avros

,KT\.

Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 14 OVTOI flo-iv ol dScXôi p.ov mlfj MTTJP, ol

rrotovvres TO. 6e\fjp,aTa TOV naTpos pov.

Clem. Alex. Ed. Proph. 20 ayci ovv els \(vdfplav Triv TOV rraTpbs

o~vyK\r)pov6fj.ovs vlovs Kal (f)i\ovs' *A8eX(|)oi p.ov ydpt <pi]o~lv6

O~VyK\7]pOv6p,Ol ol TTOlOVVTfS TO 6f\T)p.a TOV TTttTpOS (J.OV.

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.

Epiphaniusseems to be

citingthe Ebionite

Gospel, or our Gospels loosely in his own words. See also (35).

(33) 2 Clem. iii. 4 (cf. 5). Mark i2so

,cf. Matt. 22

37

;Luke

e o\r)s Kapdias Kal o\rjs TTJSIo

oiavoias.

* A reference ultimately to Deut. 6 5;but as both words

biavoias and Kapbias 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 ef 0X779 TTJS Kapbias a-ov . . . KOL tf oXrjs

rijs biavoias <rov . . . (comp. Matt. 2237

;Luke io27

).'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. 3913 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

(III) Apocryphal Gospels.

Luke is27

.

Kaifpct, Aey<a vfuv, OVK otSa irodev

eo~T' aTrbVrr/re dir ep.ov jrdvrfs epyarai

(34)2 Clem. iv. 5.

8l<Z TOVTO . . . flTTfV 6 KuptOff

['irycroCy, Syr., cf. V. 4]''Eai; yT

fJ.fT e/LloO 0~VVr)yp.VOlV TO) KoXTTO) [JLQV,

Kal/LIT) rrotT/Te TOS eVroAas /zou,

OTTO-Matt *7

23

/3uXo) vpay Kai epw V/LUJ/J vTrayeTe OTT'\ / / > ~

> ~ > TJVt -

//j> i / Kai TOTe ouoXoyrjo'a) avTot? OTI

efj.ov }OVK oioa vp.as irooev fo~Te

} cpyaTai ^ t / >

/ OvoeTTOTf eyvo)v vuas' aTrovcopeiTe a?r

avofjuas. > * >y \ > /

e/zou ot pyaop.cvoi TTJV avopiav,

Ps. 69

aTTOO-TTiTe aV e/zoO irdvTfs olepyaô/Lt/ot TT)I/ dvopiav.

Justin, Apol. i. l6 Kai Toree'pai avTois* aTro^copftTe OTT* e/noO, epyaTai

T^ dvop.ias, cf. Dial. 76 Kait'pa) avTots* ara^wpetTe OTT* e/zov.

The points in common with Luke, v/iui>,ov/c ot8a . . . iroOev

eore, epyarai, 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. 4O11

. This, indeed, would suit

the thought of the whole section iii. 2 (or iv. 2)v. 4. But

another interpretation of a-vvr\y^voi is possible, which would

make it continue the imagery of Luke if1

eâyo/uez;

ev&iriov a-ov, KT\. Yet compare (29), (35).

(35)2 Clem. v. 2-4.

Xe'yet yap 6 Kvptof, Eaeoê coy

dpvia ev /zeVco XVKQJV' aVoKpi$eis 8e

6 HeTpos avTcoXe'yei*

'Eav ovv dia-

(TTrapaâja iv ol Xvxot TO dpvia

6 'Irjo~ovs T<5 IleTpa)' MT) 0oj3

Ta dpvia TOVS \VKOVS(J.CTO.

TO aVo-

Oavelv avTa' Kaiv/aftv p.

Lukeio3

; Matt. io16

.

ISov, eyo)aTrofrreXXa) vp>ar

apvas (7rpo/3ara, Matt.) eV

TOVS aTTOKTCvvovTa? VJJLO.SKal

v/juv 8vvap,vovs Troietj/,aXXa

TOV p.ra TO dnoOaixlv vfj.ds

eovcriav ^v\fjs Ka

fta\clv els yeevvav Trvpos.

Lukei2 4 f-

/i^ (po^r)6f)TfOTTO roil/ aTTOKTeivovrtov

TO (roi/xa Kai îera rai5ra/LIT)

TTfpio-o-OTfpovTI

iroifjo~ai

TOV fJifTa TO aTTOKTclvai e

fH$a\civ fls TTJV yecvvav.

Matt. io28.

^r)6rJT (atro). .

r) 8vvap,vo>v dnoKTcivai' (pof3r]6r)T

de fjioXXov TOV dwdpevov Kal"^rv^riv

Kai crco/zu aTroXecrat eVyffvvrj.

Justin, Apol. 1. 19 W (pofcto-Qe TOVS dvaipovvras vfj.ds Kai /jera raura/IT)

8vvaij.vovs TITToifja-ai, ewre, (po^r)6r]T de TOV /zero TO diroOaveiv dvvdpcvov Kai

\l^v^r)VKai

(rco/LiaeZs yeevvav efifSaXelv.

Here the phenomena of 2 Clem. (34), (29) recur, viz. closer

verbal resemblance (in the parts common) to Luke than to




Matthew, though the reference to ^v^r) Kal o-w/xa is 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<j>ofir]OrJT

airo to

<o/3eto-0e with accusative. All this points to the use byClement 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. 2, 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 /car' 'E/Spauws) ;

in which case the Gospel according to the Egyptians may be

the one source cited by 2, Clem, throughout. J. V.B.]

(36)

2 Clem. xii. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 13, 92.

CTTfp&TrjOels yap O.VTOS 6Kvpios

Sia rot)ro rot, 6 Kao~o~iavos <f>r)<n,

VTTO TWOS, 7TOT6 fjci avTovf] /3a(TiXei'a, irvvdavop.evr)s TTJS 2aXa>fi?7? TTOTC yva-

eiTTfV' "Orav o~Tai ra Svo ev}Kai TO orQfjo-eTai TO

jrept&v

fjpero, e0j; 6

eo> ws TOra>,

Kai TO apcrev fiera rrjs Kvpios' "Orav TOrrjs alo~xvvr)s ei/Su/ia

QrjXeias OVTC apcrfv ovrt 6fj\v. Trarfja^Tc Kai orav yevrjratra 8vo cv,

Kai TO appev peTO. TTJS BrjXeias OVTC

appcv ovTf 6r)\v.

Clem. Alex, vouches that what Cassian cites occurs in the

Gospel Kar* Atyvwrtovj, and it looks as if 2 Clement quotes

from the same passage. Only 2 Clement omits its opening

clause, as not to his purpose (perhaps as liable to Encratite

exegesis) ;while Cassian omits the third clause, Kal TO ea> ws

TO ea-a), as not to his purpose.



J37

TABLES OF RESULTS

TABLE I



I38

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 anysuch classification.

Barnabas. B Rom.

C Eph. Heb.

D Matt, i Cor. 2 Cor. Col. I Tim. 2 Tim. Titus, I Pet.

Unclassed : Luke, John, Apoc.

Didache. (i)

' Two Ways'

: D ? Acts, Rom.

Unclassed : Heb. Jude.

(ii) Rest: B Synop. Trad.

C? Matthew.

D Luke, i Cor. i Pet.

Unclassed: John.

1 Clement. A Rom. i Cor. Heb.

C Acts, Titus.

D 2 Cor. Gal. Phil. Col. I Tim. I Pet. I John, Apoc.

Ignatius. A i Cor.

B Matt. John, Eph.

C Rom. 2 Cor. (?),Gal. Phil, i

Tim.2 Tim. Titus.

D Mark (?), Luke, Acts, Col. I Thess. (?), 2 Thess. (?),

Philem. (?), Heb. i Pet.

Polycarp. 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.

Hermas. B i Cor. Eph.C Matt. Mark, Heb. Jas.

D Luke, John, Acts, Rom. i Thess. i Pet.

2 Clement. C Matt. Heb.

D Luke, I Cor. Eph. Jas. i Pet.

Unclassed : Rom. i Tim. 2 Pet. Jude.



139

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES EXAMINED

MATTHEW



140 INDEX I

JOHN



INDEX I 141

PHILIPPIANS



142 INDEX I

2 PETER

i JOHN

f:

15

2 JOHN7

JUDE22 f

Page

15

APOCALYPSE

2210

.

Page16

no16

i?

17,58

II

INDEX TO PASSAGES OF THE APOSTOLICFATHERS EXAMINED

BARNABAS



INDEX II 143

IGNATIUS



144 INDEX II

SHEPHERD or HERMASVis. III. ix. 8

III. ix. 10

III. xi. 3 .

III. xiii. 3IV. ii. 4 .

IV. ii. 6 .

IV. iii. 4 .

II CLEMENT

i. 6 .

i. 8 .

ii. 4 .

ii- 5> 7

iii. 2

*age



SELECT LISTOF

STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKSPRINTED AT

THE CLARENDON PRESS, OXFORD.THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC. . page i

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, ETC. 4

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ETC. 5

ENGLISH THEOLOGYLITURGIOLOGY

page 6

1. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC.

HEBREW, etc. Notes on the

Text of the Book of Genesis. ByG. J. Spurrell, M.A. Second Edition.

Crown 8vo. I2s. 6d.

Notes on the HebrewText of the Books of Kings. By C. F.

Burney, M,A. 8vo. 145. net.

Notes on the HebreioText of the Books of Samuel. By S. R.

Driver, D.D. 8vo. 145.

Treatise on the use ofthe Tenses in Hebrew. By S. R. Driver,

- D.D. Third Edition. Crown 8vo.

75. 6d.

' The Psalms in Hebrewwithout 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 8vo, paper

covers, 3s. 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, stiffcovers, 2s.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. Edited byAd. Neubauer, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

A Hebrew and EnglishLexicon of the Old Testament, with an

Appendix containing the Biblical

Aramaic, based on the Thesaurusand Lexicon of Gesenius, by Francis

Brown, D.D., S. R. Driver, D.D.,and C. A. Briggs, D.D. Parts I-XI.

Small 4to. 2s. 6d. each.

Gesenius' Hebrew Gram-mar. As Edited and Enlarged byE. Kautzsch. Translated from the

Twenty-fifth German Edition bythe 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 ofPsalms, Proverbs,and Job. By William

Wickes, D.D. 8vo. 53.

Hebrew Prose Accentu-

ation. By the same Author. 8vo.

i os. 6d.

The Book of Hebrew

Boots, by Abu '1-Walid Marwan ibn

Janah, otherwise called Rabbi

Ydnah. Now first edited, with an

appendix, by Ad. Neubauer. 4to.

2l. 7s. 6d.

ETHIOPIC. The Book ofEnoch. Translated from Dillmann's

Ethiopia Text (emended and re-

vised), and edited by R. H. Charles,

M.A. 8vo. i6s.

Oxford : Clarendon Press. London : HENRY PROWDE, Amen Corner, E.G.

F. TOGO.



HOLY SCRIPTURES.

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,a is. each.

Supplement to the above,Fasc. I. Containing a Concordanceto the Proper Names

occurringin

the Septuagint. By H. A. Red-

path, M.A. Imperial 4to. i6s.

Essays in Biblical GreekBy Edwin Hatch, D.D. 8vo. ios.6d.

Origenis Hexaplorumquae supersunt; sive, Veterum Interpre-

tnm Graecorum in totum Vetus Testa-

mentum Fragmented Edidit Fridericus

Field, A.M. 2 vols. 4to. $1. =,s.

NEWTESTAMENT. NovumTestamentum 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 TestamentumGraece. 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 NovumTestamentum Stephanicum, jam indea Millii temporibus Oxoniensiummanibus tritum

; curante Gulmo.

Sanday, A.M., S.T.P., LL.D. I. Col-

latiotextusWestcottio-Hortiani(jure

permisso) cumtextuStephanico anni

MDL. II. Delectus lectionum notatu

dignissimarum. III. Lectiones

quaedam ex codicibus versionum

Memphiticae Armeniacae Aethio-

picaefusiusillustratae. Extra fcap.

8vo, cloth, 3*. 6d.

GREEK. Novum Testamen-tum Graece juxta Exemplar Mittianum.i8mo. 2s. 6d. On

writing-paper,with wide margin, 7s. 6d.

The Greek Testament,with the Readings adopted by theRevisers of the Authorised Ver-

sion, and Marginal References

(1 ) 8vo. Second Edition. los. 6d.

(2) Fcap. 8vo. NewEdition. 45. 6d.

Also, on India Paper, cloth, 6s.,and in leather bindings.

(3) The same, onwriting-paper,

with wide margin, 155.

The Parallel New Testa-

ment, Greek and English; being theAuthorised Version, 1611

;the Re-

vised Version, 1 88 1;and the Greek

Text followed in the Revised Ver-sion. 8vo. I2s. 6d.

Outlines ofTextual Criti-cism applied to the New Testament. ByC. E. Hammond, M.A. Sixth Edition

Revised. Crown 8vo. 43. 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.

8vo, 2s.; cloth, 35. 6d.

The New Testament inthe Apostolic Fathers. By a Com-mittee of the Oxford Society of

Historical Theology. 8vo. 6s.net.Horae Synopticae. Con-

tributions to the study of the

Synoptic Problem. By Sir John C.

Hawkins, Bart., M.A. 8vo.75. 6d.

Facsimiles of the AthosFragments of Codex H of the Pauline

Epistles. Photographed and de-

ciphered by K. Lake, M.A. Large4to, in an envelope, 2 is. net.

LATIN. Libri PsalmorumVersio antiqua Latina, cum Paraphrasi

Anglo-Saxonica. Edidit B. Thorpe,F.A.S. 8vo. IDS. 6d.

Old-Latin BiblicalTexts. Edited with Introductionsand Appendices by John Words-

worth, D.D., and H. J. White, M.A.Small 4to, stiff covers.

No. I. 6s. No. II. 2 is.

No. III. i2s. 6d. No. IV.5s.

Oxford; Clarendon Press. London HENRY FROWDE, Amen Corner, E.G.



HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Nouum Testamentum DominiNostri lesu Christ! Latine, se-

cundum Editionem S. Hieronymi.Ad Codicum Manuscriptorum fidem

recensuit Johannes Wordsworth,

S.T.P., Episcopus Sarisburiensis.

In operis societatem adsumto

Henrico luliano White, A.M. 4to.

Pars I, buckram, 2l. 1 2s. 6d.

Also separately

Fasc.I,

1 2s. 6d. Fasc.II,

*s. 6d.

III, I2s.6d. IV, ios.6d.

Fasc. V, i os. 6d.

A Binding case for the five Fasciculi in

Pars I is issued at 35.

Part II, Faso. I, 128. 6d.

COPTIC. The Coptic Version

of the New Testament, in the Northern

Dialect', otherwise called Memphiticand Bohairic

;with Introduction,

Critical Apparatus, and literal

English Translation. 8vo. 4 vols.

Vols. I and II, 425. net.

Yols. Ill and IV, 425. net.

OLD-FRENCH. LibriPsal-morum Versio antiqua Gallica e Cod. ms.

in Bibl Bodleiana adservato, una cum

Versione Melrica aliisqw Monumentis

pervetusiis. Nunc primum descripsit

et edidit FranciscusMichel,

Phil.

Doc. 8vo. i os. 6d.

ENGLISH. The Books of

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and

the Song of Solomon. According to the

WycliffiteVersion ofHerefordand Purvey.

With Introduction and Glossary

by W. W. Skeat, Litt.D. 38. 6d.

The New Testament. Ac-

cording to the same Version. 6s.

The Holy Bible,

Revised Version*.

Cheap Editionsfor School Use.

Revised Bible. Pearl i6mo, cloth

boards, ictd.

Revised New Testament. Non-

pareil 32mo, 3d. ;Brevier i6mo,

6d.; Long Primer 8vo, yd.

* The Revised Version Is the joint property of the

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

ENGLISH. The Oxford Biblefor Teachers, containing the Holy

Scriptures, together with a new, en-

larged, and illustratededition of the

Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible,

comprising Introductions to the

several Books, theHistoryand 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. Pricesin various sizes and bindings from

35. to sos.

Helps to the Study of the

Bible, taken from the Oxford Bible for

Teachers. New, Enlarged, and Elus-

trated Edition.

Pearl i6mo, stiff covers, is. net.

Nonpareil 8vo, cloth boards, 2s.6d.

Large Type edition, long primer

8vo, cloth boards, 55.

The Prayer-book Version

of the Psalms, printed parallel with

a NewVersion, by S. R. Driver, D.D.

Second Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo.

3s. 6d. net.

The Psalter, or Psalms

of David, and certain Canticles, with a

Translation and Exposition in Eng-

lish, by Richard Rolleof

Hampole.Edited by H. R. Bramley, M.A.

With an Introduction and Glos-

sary. Demy 8vo. il. is.

Studia Biblica et Eccle-

siastica. Essays in Biblical and

Patristic Criticism, and kindred

subjects. By Members of the Uni-

versity of Oxford. 8vo.

Vol. I. ios.6d Vol.11. I2s. 6d.

Vol. III. i6s. Vol. IV. I2S. 6d.

Vol.V, Pt. I. 35. 6d. Vol. V,Pt. II.

3*. 6d. Vol. V, Part III. 2s. 6d.

Vol. V, Pt. IV. 4s. 6d.

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 EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, NEW YORK and TORONTO.



FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.

2. FATHERS OP THE CHURCH, ETC.

St. Athanasius : Orations

against the Arians. With an account

of his Life by William Bright, D.D.

Crown 8vo. gs.

Historical Writings, ac-

cording to the Benedictine Text. Withan Introduction by W. Bright, D.D.

Crown 8vo. 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 8vo. gs.

St. Basil: The Book of St.

Basil on the Holy Spirit. A Kevised

Text, with Notes and Introduction

by C. F. H. Johnston, M.A. Crown

8vo. 7s. 6d.

Canons of the First FourGeneral Councils of Nicaea, Constanti-

nople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. WithNotes 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 Archiepiscopi Alexan-drini in XII Prophetas. Edidit P. E.

Pusey, A.M. Tomi II. Svo. 2l. 2s.

: in D. Joannis Evan-gelium. Accedunt Fragmenta Varia

necnon Tractatus ad Tiberium Dia-

conum Duo. Edidit post Aubertum

P. E. Pusey, A.M. Tomi III. Svo.

2l. 5 S.

Commentarii in Lucae

Evangelium quae supersunt Syriace. Emss. apud Mus. Britan. edidit R.

Payne Smith, A.M. 4to. il 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. il. is.

Eusebii Pamphili EvangelicaePraeparationis 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. 51. 55. net.

(Translation only, 2 vols., 255. net.}

.Evangelicae Praepara-tionis 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. 155.

contra Hieroclem et

MarceUum Libri. Recensuit T. Gais-

ford, S.T.P. Svo. 7.

Eusebius* Ecclesiastical His-

tory, according to the text of Burton,with an Introduction by W. Bright,

D.D. Crown Svo. 8s. 6d.

Evagrii Historia Ecclesiastica,

ex recensione H. Valesii. Svo.45-.

Irenaeus : The Third Book ofSt. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, against

Heresies. With short Notes and a

Glossary by H. Deane, B.D. Crown

Svo. 55. 6d.

Patrum Apostolicorum, S. Cle-

mentis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi,

quae supersunt. Edidit Guil. Jacobson,

S.T.P.R. Tomi II. Svo. il. is.

Oxford : Clarendon Press. London : HENRY FROWDE, 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.

Svo. 145.

Reliquiae Sacrae secundi ter-

tiique saeculi. Recensuit M. J. Routh,S.T.P. Tomi V. Svo. il. 58.

Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum

Opuscula. Recensuit M. J. Routh,S.T.P. Tomi II. Svo. los.

Socrates' Ecclesiastical His-

tory, according to the Text ofHussey,with an Introduction by William

Bright, D.D. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.

Sozomeni Historia Ecclesia-stica. Edidit R. Hussey, S.T.B.

Tomi III. Svo. 155.

Tertulliani Apologeticus ad-

versus Gentespro Christianis. Edited,

with Introduction and Notes, byT. Herbert Bindley, B.D. Crown

Svo. 6s.

.de PraescriptioneHaereticorum : ad Martyras : ad Scapu-

lam. Edited, with Introduction andNotes, by T. Herbert Bindley, B.D.

Crown Svo. 6s.

Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae His-

toriae Libri V. Recensuit T. Gaisford,

S.T.P. Svo. ;s. 6<f.

3. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ETC.

Adamnani Vita S. Columbae.. Edited, with Introduction, Notes,and Glossary, by J. T. Fowler, M.A.,D.C.L. Crown Svo, half-bound,8s. 6d. net.

The same, together with

Translation. 95. 6d. net.

Baedae Historia Ecclesiastica.

A New Edition. Edited, with Intro-

duction, English Notes, &c., by C.

Plummer, M.AI 2 vols. CrownSvo. 2 is. net.

Bedford (W.K.R.). The Blazon

ofEpiscopacy. Being theArms borne

by, or attributed to, the Arch-

bishops and Bishops of Englandand Wales. With an Ordinary of

the Coats described and of other

Episcopal Arms. Second Edition,

Revised and Enlarged. With OneThousand Illustrations. Sm. 4to,

buckram, 3is. 6d. net.

Bigg. The ChristianPlatonists

ofAlexandria. By Charles Bigg, D.D.

Svo. i os. 6d.

Bingham's Antiquities of the

Christian Church, and other Works. 10

vols. Svo. 32. 3s.

Bright. Chapters of EarlyEnglish Church History. By W. Bright,

D. D. Third Edition. Svo. 1 2s.

Burnet's

History of

the

Refor-mation of 'the Church of England. Anew Edition, by N. Pocock, M.A.

7 vols. Svo. il. i os.

Cardwell's Documentary An-nuls of the Reformed Church of England ;

being a Collection of Injunctions,

Declarations, Orders, Articles of

Inquiry, &c. from 1546 to 1716.

2 vols. Svo. iSs.

Carleton. The Part ofRh eimsin the Making of the English Bible. ByJ. G. Carleton, D.D. Svo. gs.6d.net.

Conybeare. TheKey ofTruth.

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.

i$s. 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, los. 6d.

Vol. II, Part II. Church ofIreland ;

Memorials of St. Patrick. Stiff

covers, 33. 6d.




ENGLISH THEOLOGY.

Puller's Church History ofBritain. Edited by J. S. Brewer,M.A. 6 vols. 8vo. 2l. 1 2s. 6d. net.

Gee. The Elizabethan Clergyand the Settlement of Religion, 1558-

1564. By Henry Gee, B.D., F.S.A.

With Illustrative Documents andLists. 8vo. i os. 6d. net.

Gibson's Synodus Anglicana.Edited by E. Cardwell', D.D. 8vo. 6s.

Hamilton's (Archbishop John)Catechism, 1552. Edited, with In-

troduction and Glossary, by ThomasGraves Law. With a Preface bythe Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.

Demy 8vo. I2s. 6d.

Horstman. Nova LegendaAngliae; 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 printedsources by Carl Horstman, Ph.D.

2 vols. 8vo. il. 1 6s. net.

John, Bishop o/Ephesus. TheThird Part of his Ecclesiastical History.

[In Syriac.] Now first edited byWilliam Cureton, M.A. 4to. iZ. i2s.

The same, translated byR. Payne Smith, M.A. 8vo. los.

Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiae

Anglicanae. Corrected and continued

from 1715 to 1853 by T. Duffus

Hardy. 3 vols. 8vo. il. los. net.

Noelli (A.) Catechismus sive

prima institutio disciplinaque Pietatis

Christianae Latine explicata. Editio

nova cura Guil. Jacobson, A.M. 8vo.

5s. 6d.

4. ENGLISHBigg. The Church's Task

under the Roman Empire. With Pre-

face. Notes, and an Excursus byC. Bigg, D.D. 8vo. 55. net.

Bradley. Lectures on the

Book of Job. By George Granville

Bradley, D.D., Dean of Westmin-ster. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.

Ommanney. A Critical Dis-sertation on the Athanasian Creed.

By G. D. W. Ommanney, M.A.Svo. 1 6s.

Records of the Reformation.Tfie Divorce, 1527-1533. Mostly nowfor the first time printed from MSS.in the British Museum and other

Libraries. Collected and arranged

by N. Pocock, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo.

iZ. 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 Studio.

BiUica, Vol. V, Part IV.) Cloth,

5s. net.

Shirley. Some Account ofthe

Church in the Apostolic Age. By W.W.Shirley, D.D. Second Edition. Fcap.Svo. 3s. 6d.

Stubbs. Registrum SacrumAnglicanum. An attempt to exhibit

the course of Episcopal Succession

in England. By W. Stubbs, D.D.Small 4to. Second Edition. los. 6d.

Turner. Ecclesiae Occiden-

talis Monumenta luris Antiquissima :

Canonum et Conciliorum Grae-

corum Interpretationes Latinae.

Edidit Cuthbertus Hamilton

Turner, A.M. 4to, stiff covers.

Fasc. I, pars I, los. 6d. Fasc. I,

pars II, sis.

THEOLOGY.Bradley. Lectures on Eccle-

siastes. By the same. Second Edition.

Crown Svo. 55. 6d.

Bull's Works, with Nelson's

Life. Edited by E. Burton, D.D.

8 vols. Svo. 2l. gs.

Burnet's Exposition of the

XXXIX Articles. Svo. 7s.

Oxford : Clarendon Press. London : HENRY FKOWDE, Amen Corner, B.C.



ENGLISH THEOLOGY.

Butler's Works. Divided intoSections ;

with Sectional Headings ;

an Index to each volume;and some

occasional Notes;

also Prefatory

Matter. Edited by the Eight Hon.

W. E. Gladstone. 2 vols. Medium8vo. 145. each.

Cranmer's Works. Collected

and arranged by H. Jenkyns, M.A.,

Fellow of Oriel College. 4 vols.

8vo. iZ. los.

Enchiridion TheologicumAnti-Bomanum.

Vol. I. Jeremy Taylor's Dissua-

sive from Popery, and Treatise

on the Heal Presence. 8vo. 8s.

Vol. II. Barrow on the Suprem-

acy of the Pope, with his Dis-

course on the Unity of the

Church. 8vo. 75. 6d.

Vol. III. Tracts selected from

Wake, Patrick, Stillingfleet,

Clagett, and others. 8vo. us.

Greswell's Harmonia Evan-

gelica. Fifth Edition. 8vo. gs. 6d.

Hall's Works. Edited by P.

Wynter, D.D. 10 vols. 8vo. 3*. 35.

Heurtley. Harmonia Sym-bolica : Creeds of the Western Church.

By C. Heurtley, D.D. 8vo. 6s. 6d.

Homilies appointed to be read

in Churches. Edited by J. Griffiths,

D.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Hooker. An Introduction to

the Fifth Book of Hooker's Treatise of

the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. ByF. Paget, D.D. Medium 8vo. 75. 6d.

Works, with his Life

by Walton, arranged by John Keble,

M.A. Seventh Edition. Revised byR. W. Church, M.A., Dean of St.

Paul's, and F. Paget, D.D. 3 vols.

medium 8vo. iZ. i6s.

For the convenience of purchasers. Vol. II

of this edition (Ecclesiastical Polity,

Book V), is sold separately, price Twelve

Shillings.

Hooker. The Text as arrangedbyJ. Keble, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. us.

Jackson's (Dr. Thomas) Works.12 vols. 8vo. 3Z. 6s.

Jewel's Works. Edited by R.W. Jelf, D.D. 8 vols. 8vo. iZ. los.

Martineau. A Study of Re-

ligion : its Sources and Contents. ByJames Martineau, D.D. Second Edi-

tion. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 155.

Patrick's Theological Works.

9 vols. 8vo. iZ. is.

Pearson's Exposition of the

Creed. Revised and corrected byE. Burton, D.D. Sixth Edition. 8vo.

1 os. 6d.

Minor Theological Works.

Edited with a Memoir, by Edward

Churton, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. los.

Sanday. The Sacred Sites ofthe Gospels. By W. Sanday, D.D.With many Illustrations, including

drawings of the Temple by Paul

Waterhouse. 8vo. 135. 6d. net.

Sanderson's Works. Edited byW. Jacobson,D.D. 6 vols. 8vo.iZ.ios.

Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae.2 vols. 8vo. 9s.

Rational Account of the

Grounds of Protestant Religion ; beinga vindication of Archbishop Laud's

Relation of a Conference, &c. 2

vols. 8vo. i os.

Taylor. The OxyrhynchusLogia and the Apocryphal Gospels. Bythe Rev. Charles Taylor, D.D. 8vo,

paper covers, 2s. 6d. net.

Wall's History ofInfant Bap-tism. Edited by H. Cotton, D.C.L.

2 vols. 8vo. iZ. is.

Waterland's Works, with Life,

by Bp. Van Mildert. A new Edition,

with copious Indexes. 6 vols. 8vo.

2Z. IIS.

Review of the Doctrine

of the Eucharist, with a Preface bythe late Bishop of London. Crown8vo. 6s. 6d.




8 LITURGIOLOGY.

Wheatly's Illustration ofthe

Book of Common Prayer. 8vo. 55.

Wyclif. A Catalogue of the

Original Works of John Wyclif. ByW. W. Shirley, D.D. 8vo. 35. 6d.

Wyclif.Select

English Works.By T. Arnold, M.A. 3 vols. 8vo.

iZ. is. net.

Trialogus. With the

Supplement now first edited. ByGotthard Lechler. 8vo. 5.

5. LITURGIOLOGY.Cardwell's Two Books of Com-

mon Prayer,set forth

by authorityin the Keign of King Edward VI,

compared with each other. Third

Edition. 8vo. ;s.

History of Conferenceson the Book of Common Prayer from

1551 to 1690. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The Gelasian Sacramentary.Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ec-

clesiae. Edited, with Introduction,Critical Notes, and Appendix, byH. A. Wilson, M.A. Medium 8vo.

1 8s.

Liturgies, Eastern andWestern. 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. Demy8vo. 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

byA. J.

Maclean,D.D. 8vo. In the press.

Helps to the Study of the

Book of Common Prayer:

Beinga Companion to Church Worship.

By the Very Rev. W. R. Stephens,

B.D., Dean of Winchester. Crown8vo. 2s. 6d. net

;also in leather

bindings.

Leofric Missal, The, as usedin the Cathedral of Exeter duringthe Episcopate of its first Bishop,A.D. 1050-1072 ; together with someAccount 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 ofthe 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. 8vo. 155.

Monumenta EitualiaEcclesiae Anglicanae. The occasional

Offices of the Church of England

according to the old use ofSalisbury,

the Prymer in English, and other

prayers and forms, with disserta-

tions and notes. Second Edition.

3 vols. 8vo. 2l. i os.

Warren. The Liturgy andRitual of the Celtic Church.

ByF. E.

Warren, B.D. 8vo. 145.

OXFORDAT THE CLARENDON PRESS

LONDON: HENRY FROWDEOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.G.

EDINBURGH: 12 FREDERICK STREET; GLASGOW: 104 WEST GEORGE STREET;

NEW YORK: 91 & 93 FIFTH AVENUE;

TORONTO: 25 & 27 RICHMOND STREET WEST.





RETURN TO the circulation desk of any

University of California Library

or to the

NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station

University of California

Richmond, CA 94804-4698

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS2-month loans may be renewed by calling

(415)642-6233

1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books

to NRLF

Renewals and recharges may be made 4 daysprior to due date

DUE AS STAMPED ow

JAN 16 1990

SENT ON ILL

JUL 3 2006

U.C. BERKELEY

S? a.-s=f ty?

CO

LD 21-100m-?30 (6936s)



.if.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fernando-sabra
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times