Thursday, April 26, 2012
PG001(col. 199-202): First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: Index of Chapters
[Since this is just a list of chapters with brief titles, I will omit it for now.]
PG001(col. 199-200): First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: Title and Summary.
Author: André Galland
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
Of the holy Clement
the bishop of Rome
the Epistle to the Corinthians 1
written <in> the person of the Roman Church[[79]].
[Lat. trans. om.]
<With> J. B. Cotelier <as> translator.
Summary
To the <letter> of the Corinthian Church, shaken up by both discord and sedition against the presbyters, the Roman Church responds. It is grieved by the disagreement, and it exhorts the authors of the sedition, <having> taken up penance, <to obey> the presbyters. It encourages hospitality, humility, concord, fear of God. It expounds upon the promised resurrection, on preserving the order of sacred things. It teaches that by the apostles both <that> bishops and deacons both were established and <that it was prescribed> how in the place of deceased bishops successors are to be furnished. <That> bishops properly created and maintaining <their> duties should not be removed. He desired that Claudius, Ephebus, Valerius, Vito, <and> Fortunatus, his messengers, be sent back shortly.
Notes
79. For this reason Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 3, says <it> was written "by the church which is at Rome", although others think that Clement was its author. However, Clement preferred to inscribe it <with the name> of his Church <rather> than with <his> own name: either because then the leaders used to do nothing without the counsel of their Church, as Cyprian about himself explicitly <in> epistle 5 to his clergy mentioned with these words: "I could not write back alone; since from the beginning of my episcopate I established to do nothing separately by my own opinion without your counsel and without the consent of the people[[A]]"; or also lest he seem to consider <his> own <party interests>, if when the dignity and reverence corresponding to ecclesiastical men was to be restored among the Corinithians, either he alone, or the clergy with him, without the people addressed that Church. Moreover, right reason demanded that if indeed the Corinthians had written earlier not to Clement alone, but to the Romans, Clement write back by the name of the Romans <and> not by <his> own. --Coustant.
My Notes
A. The texts in both printings I have of Migne fail to correspond exactly to what is in the Patrologia Latina volume for Cyprian.
My Notes
A. The texts in both printings I have of Migne fail to correspond exactly to what is in the Patrologia Latina volume for Cyprian.
PG001(col. 196-198): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section X.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
X. Of the second epistle of Clement mention is made by none of the most ancient Fathers. For that two epistles of Clement were known to the faithful already after the second century after Christ, can in no way be understood from the words of Dionysius the bishop of the Corinthians[[51]]. For although that outstanding epistle of Clement about which we discussed above, he named the "first", it is clear that he said it not in regard of a certain second Clementine epistle, but of the epistle of Soter the Roman pontiff, which was equally among the Corinthians publicly read out.
Now, that <in> the third century the second epistle of Clement was in use and authority, Gallandi[[52]] tried to demonstrate from the Apostles' canon 85. But the most learned man erred. For that last canono was composed not before the end of the fifth century, as the illustrious man Dr. Sebastian von Drey outstandingly taught[[53]].
The first who mentions the second epistle of Clement is Eusebius, pointing out that also another epistle of Clement is brought forth; but that it was not equally known as the first, since neither had the ancients used it[[54]].
Then, this epistle is in that most celebrated Alexandrian codex, preserved in the London British Museum. And so <in> the fourth and fifth century Clement was thought by many <to be> the author of this epistle. By what authority, we do not know. Equally <it> escapes us, relying on which arguments Jerome[[55]] and Photius[[56]] asserted that this epistle was rejected by the ancients; for Eusebius does not bring forth such things, whereas the more ancient ones are utterly silent about it. I should not think you erred if you asserted that Jerome and Photius understood the words of Eusebius less correctly. Therefore, we clearly perceive that the testimonies of the ancients do not openly deny the authority of this epistle, whereas the silence of the most ancient Fathers renders it suspect[[57]].
Since which things are so, it behooves <us to approach> the epistle itself, or rather the fragment that still survives in the Alexandrian codex, investigating whether internal indications are in it by which our Clement can be proved <to be> its author. Let us hear Wotton[[58]]: He says, "Insofar as style and method of speaking" (epistle 2) "is so dissimilar from the earlier and undoubted <epistle>, that it can worthily be doubted whether <it> is truly Clement's." Jean Morin had pointed out the same things, saying[[59]]: "Its style is not simple like the first's, but contrived; not flowing freely,but studiously elaborated in accordance with the capacity of the author; not <without rhetorical periods> and sometimes <lacking apodosis clauses>, but he excessively affects the <ostentatious display> of words, <rhetorical> antitheses and their repetition." To Morin assents the prince of critics, Richard Simon[[60]], whom very many have followed. In most recent times Wocher [<took> the same side] in his translation of the first epistle of Clement[[61]]. Whoever attentively has read that second epistle has not denied that a great difference of style comes between it and the first <epistle>.
Beyond the silence of the most ancient Fathers and the difference of style, it also throws the suspicion of <false> attribution in to us that a half part of chapter 23 of the first epistle is also received in the second <at> chapter 11.
Grabe[[62]] well adds that that which is called the second <epistle> of Clement to the Corinthians does not have the form of an epistle and lacks the very title joined with a dedication in the <opening>, such <title and dedication> however as is clearly extant in all letters of the Apostles and apostolic men given to particular Churches, and in the first <epistle> of Clement itself. Vendelin rightly judged it rather similar to a homily than to an epistle, <Vendelin> who, however, less rightly attributed it to Clement himself, and Dodwell after him <in his> Dissertation 1 on Irenaeus, section 29[[63]]. Cotelier[[64]], Coustant[[65]], Gallandi[[66]], and Lumper[[67]] strove to claim this epistle for our Clement. But these most learned men barely drag you to their <sides>, since their arguments are light and they declared war on the objections of others more than <they> proved their opinion. That was without all doubt rather easy; for <it> will escape no one that Herman Venema[[68]] and other sometimes ventured rather light objections against the authority of this epistle. But to none of the defenders of this epistles <does it befall> to bring forth firm arguments for Clement <as> the author.
The opinion of Grave, received also by Moehler[[69]], pleases us, <the opinion> that that <which is> commonly called the second epistle of Clement was one of the homilies (falsely) attributed to him, which sorts <of homilies> were [altogether] many is evident from Question 96 of Anastasius the Antiochene[[A]].
Wocher, relying on no certain ground, thinks this epistle should be attributed to Dionysius the bishop of Corinth[[70]].
However, Grabe suspects that this spurious work in the middle <of the> 3rd century, after the age of Origen, was <falsely attributed> to Clement[[71-78]].
Notes
51. Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History" 4, 23: "And in this same" (epistle of Dionysius to Soter) "he" (Dionysius) "also mentions the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, demonstrating [from the beginning] that from ancient custom its <public reading> was done <in the presence of> the church. At least he says, 'And so today we have passed through the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your" (Soter's) " epistle, which we will have always ever reading <it> to be advised, as <in reading> also the earlier letter written to us by Clement."
52. "Bible of the Ancient Fathers", tome 1, Prologue, page 15.
53. "New Investigations on the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles", Tubingen, 1852, pages 370, 377, 445.
54. "Ecclesiastical History", 3, 38: "But is must be known that also a second is said to be an epistle of Clement's; not at all like the first <epistle> have we understood also this <epistle> <to be> recognized; because neither do we know that the ancients <used> it."
55. "Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers", chapter 15: "A second epistle by his name is also reported, which is rejected by the ancients."
56. "Library", codex 113: "But the <so-called> second <epistle> to the same" (Corinthians) "is rejected as spurious." Besides, Photius notes that this second epistle introduces certain strange phrases as though from sacred Scripture, brings forth foreign interpretations of certain passages, and does not maintain a continuous <narrative order> or <logical sequence>.
57. Several argue that Epiphanius also displays testimony of our epistle, since indeed <he> (Heresy 27, 6 and 30, 15) makes words about many epistles of Clement. But first, Epiphanius seems to have thought that that also those epistles to virgins <were> Clementine, in regard of which <epistle> he ought to have spoken about many epistles of Clement; second, Epiphanius nowhere displays testimony of our second epistle of Clement with <explicit> words.
58. Preface, page 206.
59. "Biblical Studies", book 1, chapters 4, 5, 9. Study 9.
60. "Select Library", tome 1, chapter 38, page 282.
61. "The Letters of the apostolic Fathers Clement and Polycarp, newly translated and provided with introductions and commentaries by M. J. Wocher", Tubingen, 1830, page 203, 208.
62. "Gleanings", tome 1, page 268.
63. Grabe's "Gleanings", <in the cited place>.
64. In the edition of the "Apostolic Fathers", tome 1, page 182.
65. "Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs", tome 1, page 34.
66. "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 14.
67. "Theologico-critical History", tome 1, page 22.
68. Cf. Gallandi, "Library", <in the cited place>, page 17, and Lumper, <in the cited place>, page 27.
69. "Patrology", tome 1, page 65 and following.
70. <In the cited place>, page 204.
71-78. "Gleanings", tome 1, page 269.
My Notes
A. Often confused with Anastasius of Sinai.
The first who mentions the second epistle of Clement is Eusebius, pointing out that also another epistle of Clement is brought forth; but that it was not equally known as the first, since neither had the ancients used it[[54]].
Then, this epistle is in that most celebrated Alexandrian codex, preserved in the London British Museum. And so <in> the fourth and fifth century Clement was thought by many <to be> the author of this epistle. By what authority, we do not know. Equally <it> escapes us, relying on which arguments Jerome[[55]] and Photius[[56]] asserted that this epistle was rejected by the ancients; for Eusebius does not bring forth such things, whereas the more ancient ones are utterly silent about it. I should not think you erred if you asserted that Jerome and Photius understood the words of Eusebius less correctly. Therefore, we clearly perceive that the testimonies of the ancients do not openly deny the authority of this epistle, whereas the silence of the most ancient Fathers renders it suspect[[57]].
Since which things are so, it behooves <us to approach> the epistle itself, or rather the fragment that still survives in the Alexandrian codex, investigating whether internal indications are in it by which our Clement can be proved <to be> its author. Let us hear Wotton[[58]]: He says, "Insofar as style and method of speaking" (epistle 2) "is so dissimilar from the earlier and undoubted <epistle>, that it can worthily be doubted whether <it> is truly Clement's." Jean Morin had pointed out the same things, saying[[59]]: "Its style is not simple like the first's, but contrived; not flowing freely,but studiously elaborated in accordance with the capacity of the author; not <without rhetorical periods> and sometimes <lacking apodosis clauses>, but he excessively affects the <ostentatious display> of words, <rhetorical> antitheses and their repetition." To Morin assents the prince of critics, Richard Simon[[60]], whom very many have followed. In most recent times Wocher [<took> the same side] in his translation of the first epistle of Clement[[61]]. Whoever attentively has read that second epistle has not denied that a great difference of style comes between it and the first <epistle>.
Beyond the silence of the most ancient Fathers and the difference of style, it also throws the suspicion of <false> attribution in to us that a half part of chapter 23 of the first epistle is also received in the second <at> chapter 11.
Grabe[[62]] well adds that that which is called the second <epistle> of Clement to the Corinthians does not have the form of an epistle and lacks the very title joined with a dedication in the <opening>, such <title and dedication> however as is clearly extant in all letters of the Apostles and apostolic men given to particular Churches, and in the first <epistle> of Clement itself. Vendelin rightly judged it rather similar to a homily than to an epistle, <Vendelin> who, however, less rightly attributed it to Clement himself, and Dodwell after him <in his> Dissertation 1 on Irenaeus, section 29[[63]]. Cotelier[[64]], Coustant[[65]], Gallandi[[66]], and Lumper[[67]] strove to claim this epistle for our Clement. But these most learned men barely drag you to their <sides>, since their arguments are light and they declared war on the objections of others more than <they> proved their opinion. That was without all doubt rather easy; for <it> will escape no one that Herman Venema[[68]] and other sometimes ventured rather light objections against the authority of this epistle. But to none of the defenders of this epistles <does it befall> to bring forth firm arguments for Clement <as> the author.
The opinion of Grave, received also by Moehler[[69]], pleases us, <the opinion> that that <which is> commonly called the second epistle of Clement was one of the homilies (falsely) attributed to him, which sorts <of homilies> were [altogether] many is evident from Question 96 of Anastasius the Antiochene[[A]].
Wocher, relying on no certain ground, thinks this epistle should be attributed to Dionysius the bishop of Corinth[[70]].
However, Grabe suspects that this spurious work in the middle <of the> 3rd century, after the age of Origen, was <falsely attributed> to Clement[[71-78]].
Notes
51. Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History" 4, 23: "And in this same" (epistle of Dionysius to Soter) "he" (Dionysius) "also mentions the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, demonstrating [from the beginning] that from ancient custom its <public reading> was done <in the presence of> the church. At least he says, 'And so today we have passed through the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your" (Soter's) " epistle, which we will have always ever reading <it> to be advised, as <in reading> also the earlier letter written to us by Clement."
52. "Bible of the Ancient Fathers", tome 1, Prologue, page 15.
53. "New Investigations on the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles", Tubingen, 1852, pages 370, 377, 445.
54. "Ecclesiastical History", 3, 38: "But is must be known that also a second is said to be an epistle of Clement's; not at all like the first <epistle> have we understood also this <epistle> <to be> recognized; because neither do we know that the ancients <used> it."
55. "Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers", chapter 15: "A second epistle by his name is also reported, which is rejected by the ancients."
56. "Library", codex 113: "But the <so-called> second <epistle> to the same" (Corinthians) "is rejected as spurious." Besides, Photius notes that this second epistle introduces certain strange phrases as though from sacred Scripture, brings forth foreign interpretations of certain passages, and does not maintain a continuous <narrative order> or <logical sequence>.
57. Several argue that Epiphanius also displays testimony of our epistle, since indeed <he> (Heresy 27, 6 and 30, 15) makes words about many epistles of Clement. But first, Epiphanius seems to have thought that that also those epistles to virgins <were> Clementine, in regard of which <epistle> he ought to have spoken about many epistles of Clement; second, Epiphanius nowhere displays testimony of our second epistle of Clement with <explicit> words.
58. Preface, page 206.
59. "Biblical Studies", book 1, chapters 4, 5, 9. Study 9.
60. "Select Library", tome 1, chapter 38, page 282.
61. "The Letters of the apostolic Fathers Clement and Polycarp, newly translated and provided with introductions and commentaries by M. J. Wocher", Tubingen, 1830, page 203, 208.
62. "Gleanings", tome 1, page 268.
63. Grabe's "Gleanings", <in the cited place>.
64. In the edition of the "Apostolic Fathers", tome 1, page 182.
65. "Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs", tome 1, page 34.
66. "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 14.
67. "Theologico-critical History", tome 1, page 22.
68. Cf. Gallandi, "Library", <in the cited place>, page 17, and Lumper, <in the cited place>, page 27.
69. "Patrology", tome 1, page 65 and following.
70. <In the cited place>, page 204.
71-78. "Gleanings", tome 1, page 269.
My Notes
A. Often confused with Anastasius of Sinai.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
PG001(col. 196): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section IX.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
IX. Lumper[[48]], <Fredericus?>Heynsius, Young and <Jan?> Van Gilse[[49]] and Moehler[[50]] have discussed about the doctrine of St. Clement.
Notes
48. "Theologico-critical History", tome 1, pages 56-92.
49. In Commentaries on the moral theology of the apostolic Fathers.
50. "Patrologia", tome 1, page 61 and following.
PG001(col. 195-196): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section VIII.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
VIII. Now let us discuss regarding the time at which the first epistle of Clement was written.
It is established from the epistle itself, chapter 1, that it was written shortly after some persecution. No one doubts that the persecution was either Nero's or Domitian's. Grabe, Pagi, Orsi, Gallandi, <Henry> Wotton, and others contend that it was written around the year 68 <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing, closely after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul. However, Cotelier, Tillemont, and Lumper think that it was written out around the year 96 or 97 <when> Domitian's persecution <was> ceasing.
This entire question can most easily be resolved if the time of the Clementine episcopate is plainly established. Now, from the things said above we have understood that the ecclesiastical rule of Clement is to be attributed either to the years 68-77 or 92-101.
This entire question can most easily be resolved if the time of the Clementine episcopate is plainly established. Now, from the things said above we have understood that the ecclesiastical rule of Clement is to be attributed either to the years 68-77 or 92-101.
But this the matter thus holds itself, let us look into the epistle itself, <intending to investigate> the indications of the age.
a) Clement, making mention <in> chapter 5 of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, says: "Let us go to <those who have most recently become> athletes." From this it is apparent that our epistle was written out not much after Nero's persecution.
b) <In> chapter 6 the persecution recently passed by (chapter 1) <is described as> so cruel, and the multitude of martyrs is described as so great, that the times of Nero, not of Domitian, are indicated. For that an "enormous multitude" had been crucified under Nero, Tacitus (with clearly the same <manner of speaking> which the holy Father uses, "large multitude") reports to us[[43]]; however, regarding the <persecution of Domitian>, Tertullian thus speaks: "Domitian also had tried, <he being> a portion of Nero as concerns cruelty, but <by that> by which <he was> also a man, he restrained <what had been> easily begun, <with> also <those> whom he had gathered up, having been restored."[[44]]
c) <In> chapters 5 and 6, none of the so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian is mentioned: Not Flavius Clemens, non Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitillia, not John the Evangelist; of whom, as Cardinal Orsi[[45]] points out, the holy Father would at least have mentioned one, if he had written after the persecution of Domitian.
d) That before the time of Domitian and shortly after Nero's persecution our epistle was written, persuades the mention of the Jewish cult thriving in the then still standing Jerusalem temple <(>chapters 40 and 41<)>. Towards weakening this argument Lardner and others brought froth the example of Flavius Josephus, who <in> the year 93 after the birth of Christ did not discuss regarding the sacrifices otherwise than if the temple still existed[[46]].
But both matters, Josephus's and Clement's, are by far dissimilar. Josephus, describing the sacred rites of his people, through a not uncommon trope of history uses what we call the historical present. Clement, however, in order <to lead> the Corinthians towards preserving order, places before the eyes <of> <his> readers the order of the Jewish cult. Which <being the case>, however, if the temple had already been destroyed, the whole argument of the holy Father would have been invalid, and it would have invited adversaries <to say>: Behold, by the overturning of the Jerusalem temple God himself has borne witness that such order is not desired by him.
From these things we infer that our epistle was written <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing and before the destruction of Jerusalem (Years 68-70), <and> moreover that St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter.
<The things> which are objected by Cotelier and others are of no weight. For from here, <namely>, that Clement, <in> chapter 47, reports that the first dissension of the Corinthians was aroused "in the beginning of the Gospel", <it> cannot be concluded that a longer space of time from that first dissension went by. For also St. Paul, around nine years after <the foundation of the Philippian Church>, speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians 4:15 about "the beginning of the Gospel", not at all intimating that the Philippian Church was founded already many years before.
Nor does it move us that St. Clement <in> chapter 42 called the Church of the Corinthians "ancient". For the Church, as Dodwell well points out, by the best right she is called "ancient", which was founded "in the beginning of the Gospel"[[A]], that is, <in> the first times of the preached Gospel[[47]].
Notes
43. "Annals", 15, chapters 41-44.
44. "Apology", chapter 5.
45. "Ecclesiastical History", tome 1, page 412. In Gallandi's "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 9.
46. "Antiquities", 3, chapter 10.
47. Cf. Grabe's "Gleanings", tome 1, page 256.
My Notes
A. English fails to capture the Greek etymological similarity of "ancient" and "beginning".
b) <In> chapter 6 the persecution recently passed by (chapter 1) <is described as> so cruel, and the multitude of martyrs is described as so great, that the times of Nero, not of Domitian, are indicated. For that an "enormous multitude" had been crucified under Nero, Tacitus (with clearly the same <manner of speaking> which the holy Father uses, "large multitude") reports to us[[43]]; however, regarding the <persecution of Domitian>, Tertullian thus speaks: "Domitian also had tried, <he being> a portion of Nero as concerns cruelty, but <by that> by which <he was> also a man, he restrained <what had been> easily begun, <with> also <those> whom he had gathered up, having been restored."[[44]]
c) <In> chapters 5 and 6, none of the so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian is mentioned: Not Flavius Clemens, non Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitillia, not John the Evangelist; of whom, as Cardinal Orsi[[45]] points out, the holy Father would at least have mentioned one, if he had written after the persecution of Domitian.
d) That before the time of Domitian and shortly after Nero's persecution our epistle was written, persuades the mention of the Jewish cult thriving in the then still standing Jerusalem temple <(>chapters 40 and 41<)>. Towards weakening this argument Lardner and others brought froth the example of Flavius Josephus, who <in> the year 93 after the birth of Christ did not discuss regarding the sacrifices otherwise than if the temple still existed[[46]].
But both matters, Josephus's and Clement's, are by far dissimilar. Josephus, describing the sacred rites of his people, through a not uncommon trope of history uses what we call the historical present. Clement, however, in order <to lead> the Corinthians towards preserving order, places before the eyes <of> <his> readers the order of the Jewish cult. Which <being the case>, however, if the temple had already been destroyed, the whole argument of the holy Father would have been invalid, and it would have invited adversaries <to say>: Behold, by the overturning of the Jerusalem temple God himself has borne witness that such order is not desired by him.
From these things we infer that our epistle was written <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing and before the destruction of Jerusalem (Years 68-70), <and> moreover that St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter.
<The things> which are objected by Cotelier and others are of no weight. For from here, <namely>, that Clement, <in> chapter 47, reports that the first dissension of the Corinthians was aroused "in the beginning of the Gospel", <it> cannot be concluded that a longer space of time from that first dissension went by. For also St. Paul, around nine years after <the foundation of the Philippian Church>, speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians 4:15 about "the beginning of the Gospel", not at all intimating that the Philippian Church was founded already many years before.
Nor does it move us that St. Clement <in> chapter 42 called the Church of the Corinthians "ancient". For the Church, as Dodwell well points out, by the best right she is called "ancient", which was founded "in the beginning of the Gospel"[[A]], that is, <in> the first times of the preached Gospel[[47]].
Notes
43. "Annals", 15, chapters 41-44.
44. "Apology", chapter 5.
45. "Ecclesiastical History", tome 1, page 412. In Gallandi's "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 9.
46. "Antiquities", 3, chapter 10.
47. Cf. Grabe's "Gleanings", tome 1, page 256.
My Notes
A. English fails to capture the Greek etymological similarity of "ancient" and "beginning".
Sunday, April 22, 2012
PG001(col. 194-195): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section VII.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
VII. Great among the ancients was the authority of our epistle, which Irenaeus calls "a most sufficient writing"[[37]], <and> Eusebius "great and wondrous"[[38]]. Dionysius of Corinth[[39]], Eusebius[[40]], Jerome[[41]], and Photius[[42]] testify that it had been publicly read out in several Churches, especially on Sundays.
Photius himself <thought less of> it because Clement supposed that worlds across the ocean existed (chapter 20), used the example of the phoenix bird as true (chapter 25), and because calling our Lord Jesus Christ a Pontiff and Leader (chapter 36), [he had not brought forth those words about him <as> suitable for God and rather sublime].
Notes
37. "Against Heresies", 3, 3.
38. "Ecclesiastical History", 3, 16.
39. In Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", 4, 33.
40. "Ecclesiastical History", 3, 16.
41. "Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers", chapter 15.
42. "Library", codex 113.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
PG001(col. 194): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section VI.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
PG001(col. 192-194): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section V.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
V. Now <it> must be spoken about integrity.
a) In the same year 1633, in which our epistle first <would be published> <in print>, Jérôme Bignon, Parisian <legal expert>, called into doubt its integrity, thinking that clauses and words were added to the genuine epistle. To <this> most learned man especially <displeasing were>:
1) The story of the phoenix, chapter 23.
2) The frequency of epithets
3) The word, "lay", chapter 40, and
4) The passage of chapter 47: where the Church of the Corinthians is called "ancient".
To him responded Hugo Grotius[[30]], pointing out among other things that without doubt Clement equally as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews had drawn <his> Greek speech from learned authors, and for that reason had used freer diction, not, as [<those who>] Hebraize, broken up into small pieces, but flowing rather profusely.
<As> concerns the story of the phoenix, others of the ancients, e.g., Tacitus ("Annals" 4, 28) and Pliny ("Natural History" 7, 49; 13, 9; 29, 9) also had faith in the same tale.
That the Church of the Corinthians already by Clement, in regard of the the other Churches, could have been called "ancient", no one will deny.
Finally, what things should be said regarding the word "lay", you will find in the notes at chapter 40.
b) We have already said above that Clement of Alexandria had excerpted many chapters of our epistle (1, 9-12, 17,18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53), <with> the name of the Roman Clement <unexpressed>, and had interwoven the abbreviations <into> the fourth book of "Miscellanies"[[31]]. But Edward Bernard and Leclerc in both Amsterdam Cotelerian editions of the apostolic Fathers, suspected that all these passages had the Alexandrian himself <as> author, from whose book they contend our epistle was interpolated.
To those accedes the distinguished man Lorenz Mosheim[[32]]. For to him many things in our epistle seem to be brought forth, of which <there> is no relation with plan of calling the Corinthians to concord. He says, "The first ten chapters have certain traces of a false hand, but not so many: the author constantly follows his plan. But in chapter<s> 11 and 12 he comes to recommending faith and hospitality, in which <chapters> plainly appears no coherence with the preceding <chapters>. Wherefore little is lacking <that I should not> consider these chapters to be <interpolated>. Clement returns to <his> plan <in> chapter 13, and he continues in it to chapter 22. But <in> this chapter suddenly, <with> no reason inviting him, he hurries to a far different argument, to the resurrection of dead bodies, about which he discourses up to chapter 28. <In> chapter 28 he seems to remember his plan again; and the beginning of this chapter well accords <with> the end of chapter 21, but most impracticably can it be connected with the ending of chapter 27. On account of which <the things> which are taught <in> six chapters about the return of cadavers into life, seem to be <falsely> attributed to Clement...Nor do I think better of chapters 40-45 and of chapter 55, in which you may read things which could have come into the mind of none, except to a man by all means unmindful of the matter which he conducts."
<As for> what attends the argumentation of Bernard and Leclerc, <Henry> Wotton[[33]] well discusses thus: "Fruitless, however, are his efforts. For who in this manner argues from Clement of Alexandria either has not well understood him, or treats <him> with bad faith. For by the same reason it will be done regarding the authority and credibility of all those writers who are ever cited by Clement of Alexandria. For no one of the Fathers used greater license in citing authors, whether sacred or <gentile>; since it was in <his> custom not always to repeat the complete words of authors, but by his will now to contract, now to insert from his own, some things to omit, other things to change in various ways."
Finally, let us respond to Mosheim thus:
a) Chapters 11 and 12 of our epistle cohere well with the preceding <chapters>, since indeed <they> treat the same material <as> these <chapters>; oppose examples of hospitality, piety, and faith to the envy of the Corinthians; and at the same time demonstrate the penalties of dissension (chapter 11).
b) Nor are chapters 23-28 far from Clement's plan. For Clement either accordingly mentions the resurrection because, <with> I Cor 15:12 <as> witness, several of the Corinthians denied the resurrection of the dead; or accordingly so that the things which Our <epistle's> chapter 21 and 22 had said about the punishments of the unrighteous, would be proved.
c) Chapters 40-45 openly <treat of> that, so that they might recall to concord and subjection the Corinthians rebelling against the clergy. Therefore, they best correspond to Clement's plan, and at the same time they most closely cohere with chapters 37 and 38.
d) Thereupon, Chapter 55 offers nothing but examples of that charity about which <in> the preceding chapter words were made.
e) Moreover, several chapters, displeasing to Mosheim, already are praised and cited by the Ancients, e.g., chapter 54 by Origen in <his commentary on> John 1:29; chapter 25 by Cyril of Jerusalem <in> Catechesis 18, 8.
f) All chapters called into doubt are found in that most ancient Alexandrian codex.
g) Since the epistle of Clement was read out publicly in the Churches, it could barely have <happened> that it was disfigured by a wicked man.
h) Diversity of style and diction is nowhere to be found in our epistle.
Notes
30. See above, column 47.
31. Compare note 2 at chapter 9.
32. "Major Institutions of Christian History", page 214 and following.
33. In the Notes at First Clement, chapter 9.
<As> concerns the story of the phoenix, others of the ancients, e.g., Tacitus ("Annals" 4, 28) and Pliny ("Natural History" 7, 49; 13, 9; 29, 9) also had faith in the same tale.
That the Church of the Corinthians already by Clement, in regard of the the other Churches, could have been called "ancient", no one will deny.
Finally, what things should be said regarding the word "lay", you will find in the notes at chapter 40.
b) We have already said above that Clement of Alexandria had excerpted many chapters of our epistle (1, 9-12, 17,18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53), <with> the name of the Roman Clement <unexpressed>, and had interwoven the abbreviations <into> the fourth book of "Miscellanies"[[31]]. But Edward Bernard and Leclerc in both Amsterdam Cotelerian editions of the apostolic Fathers, suspected that all these passages had the Alexandrian himself <as> author, from whose book they contend our epistle was interpolated.
To those accedes the distinguished man Lorenz Mosheim[[32]]. For to him many things in our epistle seem to be brought forth, of which <there> is no relation with plan of calling the Corinthians to concord. He says, "The first ten chapters have certain traces of a false hand, but not so many: the author constantly follows his plan. But in chapter<s> 11 and 12 he comes to recommending faith and hospitality, in which <chapters> plainly appears no coherence with the preceding <chapters>. Wherefore little is lacking <that I should not> consider these chapters to be <interpolated>. Clement returns to <his> plan <in> chapter 13, and he continues in it to chapter 22. But <in> this chapter suddenly, <with> no reason inviting him, he hurries to a far different argument, to the resurrection of dead bodies, about which he discourses up to chapter 28. <In> chapter 28 he seems to remember his plan again; and the beginning of this chapter well accords <with> the end of chapter 21, but most impracticably can it be connected with the ending of chapter 27. On account of which <the things> which are taught <in> six chapters about the return of cadavers into life, seem to be <falsely> attributed to Clement...Nor do I think better of chapters 40-45 and of chapter 55, in which you may read things which could have come into the mind of none, except to a man by all means unmindful of the matter which he conducts."
<As for> what attends the argumentation of Bernard and Leclerc, <Henry> Wotton[[33]] well discusses thus: "Fruitless, however, are his efforts. For who in this manner argues from Clement of Alexandria either has not well understood him, or treats <him> with bad faith. For by the same reason it will be done regarding the authority and credibility of all those writers who are ever cited by Clement of Alexandria. For no one of the Fathers used greater license in citing authors, whether sacred or <gentile>; since it was in <his> custom not always to repeat the complete words of authors, but by his will now to contract, now to insert from his own, some things to omit, other things to change in various ways."
Finally, let us respond to Mosheim thus:
a) Chapters 11 and 12 of our epistle cohere well with the preceding <chapters>, since indeed <they> treat the same material <as> these <chapters>; oppose examples of hospitality, piety, and faith to the envy of the Corinthians; and at the same time demonstrate the penalties of dissension (chapter 11).
b) Nor are chapters 23-28 far from Clement's plan. For Clement either accordingly mentions the resurrection because, <with> I Cor 15:12 <as> witness, several of the Corinthians denied the resurrection of the dead; or accordingly so that the things which Our <epistle's> chapter 21 and 22 had said about the punishments of the unrighteous, would be proved.
c) Chapters 40-45 openly <treat of> that, so that they might recall to concord and subjection the Corinthians rebelling against the clergy. Therefore, they best correspond to Clement's plan, and at the same time they most closely cohere with chapters 37 and 38.
d) Thereupon, Chapter 55 offers nothing but examples of that charity about which <in> the preceding chapter words were made.
e) Moreover, several chapters, displeasing to Mosheim, already are praised and cited by the Ancients, e.g., chapter 54 by Origen in <his commentary on> John 1:29; chapter 25 by Cyril of Jerusalem <in> Catechesis 18, 8.
f) All chapters called into doubt are found in that most ancient Alexandrian codex.
g) Since the epistle of Clement was read out publicly in the Churches, it could barely have <happened> that it was disfigured by a wicked man.
h) Diversity of style and diction is nowhere to be found in our epistle.
Notes
30. See above, column 47.
31. Compare note 2 at chapter 9.
32. "Major Institutions of Christian History", page 214 and following.
33. In the Notes at First Clement, chapter 9.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
PG001(col. 191-192): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section IV.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
IV. Several of the ancients praise passages of the Clementine epistle that are not read in our copies. E.g., Basil, <in the> book on the holy Spirit, chapter 29, number 72, tome 3, page 61, ed. B.B.[[A]], writes: "But also Clement more anciently (<perhaps> "more ancient") says, 'God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ <lives>, and the holy Spirit <lives>.'"[[29]]
But futile are the reckonings of those who on account of this reason have attacked the authority of our epistle; for perhaps all these passages, of which the number is small, once were read after chapter 57, where an entire leaf <of parchment> fell out. Certainly that statement of Basil's, as Frey pointed out, very opportunely suits that place and can be accommodated in the epistle [running down to the end].
Notes
29. You will find the remaining passages in Gallandi, "Library <of the ancient Fathers>", tome 1, page 44 and following.
My Notes
A. The only plausible name I can come up with for "B.B" is Beriah Botfield, who was a "well known bibliographer" who published a collection of prefaces to first printed edition of ancient texts. But I'm not sure this is the same person.
But futile are the reckonings of those who on account of this reason have attacked the authority of our epistle; for perhaps all these passages, of which the number is small, once were read after chapter 57, where an entire leaf <of parchment> fell out. Certainly that statement of Basil's, as Frey pointed out, very opportunely suits that place and can be accommodated in the epistle [running down to the end].
Notes
29. You will find the remaining passages in Gallandi, "Library <of the ancient Fathers>", tome 1, page 44 and following.
My Notes
A. The only plausible name I can come up with for "B.B" is Beriah Botfield, who was a "well known bibliographer" who published a collection of prefaces to first printed edition of ancient texts. But I'm not sure this is the same person.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
PG001(col. 188-191): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section III.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
III. No one denies that Clement the Roman wrote to the Corinthians. However, there were those who thought our epistle not genuine, nor considered that it was <the one> which the ancient Fathers praised and mentioned. Especially John Toland[[25]], Christian August Salig[[26]], and Gisbert Voetius, professor of theology at the Utrecht Academy[[27]], denied the authority of our epistle, those <former two> imperiously bringing forth no arguments, <and> this <latter one> proffering rather a hallucination than a demonstration. Listen how badly he has <dealt with> it, led by preconceived opinion. He says, "I marvel at the singular divine providence that took care that from the disciples of the apostles, and apostolic men, and <those> near to the century of the apostles, either nothing was written, or nothing was preserved and remained for later <sc. men>, or at least nothing survived from the beginning of the Church up to this day, about which it is doubted, or which was not mutilated by worms and moths or some other army of God; such that for Scripture alone so much more evidently <stood established> its authority, and proper to it alone was incorruptibility and eternity."
That we have the same epistle which Clement wrote is thereupon satisfactorily proved, since those things which the ancient Fathers of the Church recounted from the mentioned epistle are found in our <epistle>.
a) Already St. Polycarp, as Gallandi pointed out, turned over with <his> hand the same Clementine epistle, and transferred several things from it almost verbatim in his epistle to the Philippians.
That we have the same epistle which Clement wrote is thereupon satisfactorily proved, since those things which the ancient Fathers of the Church recounted from the mentioned epistle are found in our <epistle>.
a) Already St. Polycarp, as Gallandi pointed out, turned over with <his> hand the same Clementine epistle, and transferred several things from it almost verbatim in his epistle to the Philippians.
First Epistle of Clement Chapter 1. And to women...command, <that they> properly loving their men...<and> being very prudent. Chapter 5. Peter...thus having borne witness journeyed to the owed place of glory. Chapter 7. Wherefore let us abandon empty and vain thoughts, and let us go according to the well-reputed and august rule of our holy calling. Chapter 9. Wherefore let us heed the magnificent and honorable counsel of him (God)...having abandoned the vanity and the strife, etc. Chapter 13. Recalling the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spoke <when> teaching, '...By which measure you measure, in the same it will be measured to you.' Chapter 21. Let us see how close is (the Lord), and that nothing has escaped him of our thoughts, nor of the discussions which we make. 'For <he> is a searcher of thoughts and considerations.' <The same>. Let us educate the young <in> the education of the fear of God, let us direct our women towards the good. Let us indicate the love-worthy disposition of purity, '...Let them provide their love equal<ly>, not according to inclinations, but to all <who> fear God devoutly.' | Epistle of Polycarp Chapter 4. Let us teach...your women...loving their men in all truth and...in all continence. Chapter 9. Peter and Paul...to the place owed to them are beside the Lord. Chapter 7. Wherefore having abandoned the vanity of the many...let us turn towards the word handed over to us from old. Chapter 2. Wherefore having girded up <your> loins, serve God in fear and truth, having abandoned the empty vanity and the error of the many. Chapter 2. And having recalled <the things> which the Lord said <when> teaching, '...In which measure you measure, it will be measured back to you.' Chapter 4.[[B]] Knowing...that <God> examines everything of ours, and nothing has escaped him, neither of conversations, nor of thoughts, nor any of the hidden things of the heart. <The same>. Let us teach...your women (to journey) en the faith and love and purity given to them...<they> all also loving <equally> in all continence; and to educate the children <in> the education of the fear of God. |
b) <The things> which Irenaeus reports about the epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, best correspond to the nature of our epistle. Behold his words: "Therefore, <in the time of> this Clement, <when> a not minor sedition <had occurred> for the brothers in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most sufficient writing to the Corinthians, bringing them together towards peace, and renewing their faith, which tradition also recently it had taken from the apostles."
c) Clement of Alexandria praises many passages of the Clementine epistle, which still are found in our epistle.
Miscellanies I, chapter 7, page 339: "For example, Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians, [<as the phrase goes>], says, <in> setting forth the differences of <approved abilities> according to the Church: 'Let one be faithful, let one be able to declare knowledge, let <one> be wise in the judgment of words, let <one> be vigorous in labors." The Alexandrian repeats the same words, taken from <the first epistle> of Clement, chapter 48, <in> "Miscellanies", <book> 4, chapter 8, page 773.
Miscellanies IV, chapter 17, page 609, 610: "Yes, indeed, the the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle Clement even himself speaks to us <in> outlining <a certain> type of <knowing>: 'For who <having sojourned as a stranger> among you, etc." Here the Alexandrian excerpts chapters 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, <and> 53 of our epistle.
Miscellanies V, chapter 12, page 693: "But also in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it has been written, '<The> ocean boundless to men, and the worlds beyond it." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
Miscellanies VI, chapter 8, page 773: "'For <to so great an extent> should <one> be more humble, <to such an extent as> <one> seems to be much greater,' says Clement in the <epistle> to the Corinthians." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 48.
Miscellanies I, chapter 7, page 339: "But if you should seek the royal and authoritative inroad, hear: 'This is the gate of the Lord, the just will enter in it. And so, <while> many gates <are> opened in justice, this <gate> was <sc. opened> in Christ." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 48.
d) Origen, "On First Principles", <book> 2, chapter 3, number 6, tome 1, page 82, ed. BB[[C]]: "Clement the disciple of the apostles clearly mentioned also those which the Greeks called "antipodes", and other parts of the <earth>, to which neither anyone of us can approach, nor <can> anyone from those who are there come across to us; which very things he called worlds, when he says: 'The ocean is impassible to men, and these which are across it <are> worlds which are governed by these same <organizational principles> of the master God.'"[[D]] Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
Origen, "<Commentary> on Ezekiel", chapter 8, tome 3, page 422: "And Clement says, 'The ocean <is> boundless to men, and if <there are> worlds beyond it, <they are> organized with the <just as great> ordinances of the Master." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
The same, "<Commentary> on John" I, 29[[E]], tome 4, page 153: "And it has been borne witness also among the gentiles, that many a one, <when> pestilential diseases <had fallen upon> <them>, have given themselves over <as> sacrifices on behalf of the public; and the faithful Clement receives these things as <having happened>, not irrationally believing the narratives, <the Clement who> is borne witness by Paul saying, 'With Clement...,' etc." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 55.
e) That Eusebius had before <his> eyes the same epistle of Clement that is now extant, his words satisfactorily demonstrate:
"Ecclesiastical History", book 3, chapter 16: "Therefore, of indeed this Clement is reported one agreed-upon epistle, great and wondrous, which he cast as from the Church of the Romans to the Corinthians, <when> sedition <had occurred> at that time in Corinth."
Ibid., book 3, chapter 38: "In the <epistle> of Clement admitted by all, which he cast <as> from the person of the Roman Church to the Corinthians. Having provided in which many thoughts of the <epistles> to the Hebrews, and furthermore using phrases from it in the very <same> words, etc."
No one does not know that our epistle uses often the same words which are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews[[28]].
f) Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 18, chapter 8, brings forth from the epistle of Clement, as he himself testifies, the tale of the phoenix (<First> Clement, <chapter> 25).
g) Epiphanius, heresy 27, number 6: "For (Clement) says in one of his epistles, 'I <will> depart, I <will> go away, let the people of God [be established]." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 54.
h) Jerome, "Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers", chapter 15: "(Clement) wrote <in> the person of the Roman Church to the Church of the Corinthians a very useful epistle that also in several places is publicly read, <and> which seems to me to suit the character of the epistle which is reported under the name of Paul to the Hebrews. But also it misuses many things from the same epistle, not only in meanings, but also according to the order of words."
<The same>, book 14, "Commentary on Isaiah 52:13": "Clement, an apostolic man, who ruled the Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians, 'The scepter of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boasting of arrogance, although he could <do> all, but in humility.'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 16.
<The same>, book 1, "Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:2": "Clement in his epistle writes: 'The ocean and worlds which are across it.'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
<The same>, <in the same place>, book 2 at <Ephesians> 4:1 : "Of which matter also Clement to the Corinthians is a witness: 'The bond of love of God, who could declare?'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 49.
Let us remain silent <about> the testimony of later <writers>.
c) Clement of Alexandria praises many passages of the Clementine epistle, which still are found in our epistle.
Miscellanies I, chapter 7, page 339: "For example, Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians, [<as the phrase goes>], says, <in> setting forth the differences of <approved abilities> according to the Church: 'Let one be faithful, let one be able to declare knowledge, let <one> be wise in the judgment of words, let <one> be vigorous in labors." The Alexandrian repeats the same words, taken from <the first epistle> of Clement, chapter 48, <in> "Miscellanies", <book> 4, chapter 8, page 773.
Miscellanies IV, chapter 17, page 609, 610: "Yes, indeed, the the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle Clement even himself speaks to us <in> outlining <a certain> type of <knowing>: 'For who <having sojourned as a stranger> among you, etc." Here the Alexandrian excerpts chapters 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, <and> 53 of our epistle.
Miscellanies V, chapter 12, page 693: "But also in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it has been written, '<The> ocean boundless to men, and the worlds beyond it." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
Miscellanies VI, chapter 8, page 773: "'For <to so great an extent> should <one> be more humble, <to such an extent as> <one> seems to be much greater,' says Clement in the <epistle> to the Corinthians." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 48.
Miscellanies I, chapter 7, page 339: "But if you should seek the royal and authoritative inroad, hear: 'This is the gate of the Lord, the just will enter in it. And so, <while> many gates <are> opened in justice, this <gate> was <sc. opened> in Christ." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 48.
d) Origen, "On First Principles", <book> 2, chapter 3, number 6, tome 1, page 82, ed. BB[[C]]: "Clement the disciple of the apostles clearly mentioned also those which the Greeks called "antipodes", and other parts of the <earth>, to which neither anyone of us can approach, nor <can> anyone from those who are there come across to us; which very things he called worlds, when he says: 'The ocean is impassible to men, and these which are across it <are> worlds which are governed by these same <organizational principles> of the master God.'"[[D]] Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
Origen, "<Commentary> on Ezekiel", chapter 8, tome 3, page 422: "And Clement says, 'The ocean <is> boundless to men, and if <there are> worlds beyond it, <they are> organized with the <just as great> ordinances of the Master." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
The same, "<Commentary> on John" I, 29[[E]], tome 4, page 153: "And it has been borne witness also among the gentiles, that many a one, <when> pestilential diseases <had fallen upon> <them>, have given themselves over <as> sacrifices on behalf of the public; and the faithful Clement receives these things as <having happened>, not irrationally believing the narratives, <the Clement who> is borne witness by Paul saying, 'With Clement...,' etc." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 55.
e) That Eusebius had before <his> eyes the same epistle of Clement that is now extant, his words satisfactorily demonstrate:
"Ecclesiastical History", book 3, chapter 16: "Therefore, of indeed this Clement is reported one agreed-upon epistle, great and wondrous, which he cast as from the Church of the Romans to the Corinthians, <when> sedition <had occurred> at that time in Corinth."
Ibid., book 3, chapter 38: "In the <epistle> of Clement admitted by all, which he cast <as> from the person of the Roman Church to the Corinthians. Having provided in which many thoughts of the <epistles> to the Hebrews, and furthermore using phrases from it in the very <same> words, etc."
No one does not know that our epistle uses often the same words which are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews[[28]].
f) Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 18, chapter 8, brings forth from the epistle of Clement, as he himself testifies, the tale of the phoenix (<First> Clement, <chapter> 25).
g) Epiphanius, heresy 27, number 6: "For (Clement) says in one of his epistles, 'I <will> depart, I <will> go away, let the people of God [be established]." Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 54.
h) Jerome, "Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers", chapter 15: "(Clement) wrote <in> the person of the Roman Church to the Church of the Corinthians a very useful epistle that also in several places is publicly read, <and> which seems to me to suit the character of the epistle which is reported under the name of Paul to the Hebrews. But also it misuses many things from the same epistle, not only in meanings, but also according to the order of words."
<The same>, book 14, "Commentary on Isaiah 52:13": "Clement, an apostolic man, who ruled the Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians, 'The scepter of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boasting of arrogance, although he could <do> all, but in humility.'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 16.
<The same>, book 1, "Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:2": "Clement in his epistle writes: 'The ocean and worlds which are across it.'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 20.
<The same>, <in the same place>, book 2 at <Ephesians> 4:1 : "Of which matter also Clement to the Corinthians is a witness: 'The bond of love of God, who could declare?'" Cf. <First> Clement, chapter 49.
Let us remain silent <about> the testimony of later <writers>.
Notes
25. In the Catalog of books attributed to Christ and the apostles, chapter 18, tome 1 <of> "Works", page 392.
26. "On the [books] of the ancients", chapter 3, section 4, page 39. Cf. Mosheim, "Major Institutions", page 213.
27. "Selected disputations", tome[[A]] I, page 103. Cf. Grabe, "Gleanings", tome 1, <page> 260.
28. Many affirm either that Clement himself wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, or that certainly he had it before <his> eyes in writing his own <epistle>. Far differently conjectures Dr. Mack ("Tübingen Theological Quarterly", 1838, fascicle 3, page 385 and following), doing it so that he demonstrates to us the epistle of Clement was earlier than the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that [this <sc. Ep. to Heb.> <was> composed <for the purpose of> well introducing Clement's epistle among the Corinthians, and that together with Clement's epistle it was given to the Corinthians. W. F. Rinck attacks Mack in Ullmann's "Studies and Critiques", 1839, fascicle 4, page 1002 and following.
My Notes
A. Migne follows Hefele in having the abbreviation "P.I.", which seems likely to be a misprint for "T.I".
B. For the first clause I have followed what is printed in Migne; however, in place of, "examines everything of ours", a later edition of Hefele has, "looks for fault <in> everything". The difference is accounted for in the graphical similarity between, "ημων", and the prefix, "μωμο".
C. I don't know what Migne's edition "BB" is supposed to be. The closest thing I can find to a contemporary edition of Origen is that of de la Rue, which is what is cited in the later edition of Hefele I've found.
[Update]Upon further research, the only plausible name I can come up with for "B.B" is Beriah Botfield, who was a "well known bibliographer" who published a collection of prefaces to first printed edition of ancient texts. But I'm not sure this is the same person.
D. The translation here is a bit strange, since Rufinus's Latin translation of Origen seems to be an initially very literal effort awkwardly supplemented by Latin grammatical necessities, resulting in a somewhat cumbersome and redundant diction.
E. I don't know what "I, 29" refers to, but I have found this passage in book VI, chapter 36, of the Roberts-Donaldson English translation.
B. For the first clause I have followed what is printed in Migne; however, in place of, "examines everything of ours", a later edition of Hefele has, "looks for fault <in> everything". The difference is accounted for in the graphical similarity between, "ημων", and the prefix, "μωμο".
C. I don't know what Migne's edition "BB" is supposed to be. The closest thing I can find to a contemporary edition of Origen is that of de la Rue, which is what is cited in the later edition of Hefele I've found.
[Update]Upon further research, the only plausible name I can come up with for "B.B" is Beriah Botfield, who was a "well known bibliographer" who published a collection of prefaces to first printed edition of ancient texts. But I'm not sure this is the same person.
D. The translation here is a bit strange, since Rufinus's Latin translation of Origen seems to be an initially very literal effort awkwardly supplemented by Latin grammatical necessities, resulting in a somewhat cumbersome and redundant diction.
E. I don't know what "I, 29" refers to, but I have found this passage in book VI, chapter 36, of the Roberts-Donaldson English translation.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
PG001(col. 187-188): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section II.
(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
II. Since in the <time> of Clement a most grave dissension broke out among brothers[[19]], the Roman Church wrote a most splendid epistle to the Corinthians, by which it recalled them to peace and concord, and renewed their faith that the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles. Thus <writes> Irenaeus[[20]]. Eusebius reports that our Clement wrote this epistle <in> the names of the Roman Church[[21]]; and many others of the ancients mention this epistle. But before the <17th> century, all theologians of the middle and earlier age lamented this epistle of the apostolic Father <as> lost.
However, in the year 1632 Cyril Lucaris, the Constantinopolitan patriarch, gave as a gift to Charles I, king of the English, a most ancient codex of the Old and New Testaments; and behold, at the end of this most excellent Alexandrian codex was found that epistle of Clement, so long desired[[22]], with a fragment of another book, which the catalog prefixed to the codex designates with these letters: "....ent's e....le B"[[23]], that is, "Clement's epistle 2".
Both these epistle<s> of Clement from that most ancient codex, first of all at Oxford <in> 1633 Patrick Young published, the librarian of the king of the English; <and he> supplied and noted in lead the lost words and letters eaten away by age, <having> carefully, as I think, measured the spaces and interstices. But his edition and all <other editions> measured against the Youngian, suffer from not a few faults. By which it was done that Henry Wotton, <master of the arts> from the College of St. John the Evangelist, carefully inspected the <manuscript> codex anew and emended and filled out the Youngian text <eighty times>. Thus came out <in> 1718 at Cambridge the Wottonian edition, in which you find printed in smaller characters <those things> which were absent from the manuscript exemplar. Gallandi with the highest judgment considered that this edition should be followed by himself, who moreover in <preparing his edition> used the notes and conjectures of other learned men, Mill, <Antoine> Birr, Frey, etc. Finally, <in> the year 1839 at Oxford from the academic press came out the most elegant edition of William Jacobson, who again opened the Alexandrian codex, emended the text here and there, proposed learned conjectures, and added his own to the annotations of others[[24]].
Notes
19. The sedition had been <put in motion> against the presbyters (chapter 47), who were unjustly being cast out of their offices (chapter 44). Schenkel (in Ullmann's "Studies and Critiques", 1841, fascicle I, page 53 <and following>) asserts that that faction which <used to boast> to be of Christ, <had come back to life>, and just as <it had spurned and rejected> the authority of the apostles, this also <it> spurned and rejected the authority of the presbyters, who had been established by the apostles. But Clement himself well distinguishes the more recent sedition of the Corinthians from that prior <one>, chapter 47.
20. "Against Heresies", III, 3. In Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", book 5, chapter 6.
21. "Ecclesiastical History", book 3, chapters 16 and 38.
22. The manuscript codex provides the epigraph: "Epistle of the Clement to the Corinthians". Cf. Jacobson, "Apostolic Fathers", tome 1, page 203.
23. Cf. Jacobson, <in the cited place>, page xi[[A]]. The manuscript codes proffers not even a complete letter of the inscription in front of the epistle itself. Jacobson, <in the cited place>, page 214.
24. [[B]]"What survives of St. Clement the Roman, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp, the apostolic Fathers. The Martyrdoms of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp <are added>. William Jacobson, master of arts, vice principal of the [court] of the blessed Mary Magdalene, recently a member of Exeter college, reviewed <these> against the reliability of the codices, illuminated <them> with the notes of various <men> and his own <notes>, <and> furnished <them> with indices. 2 tomes."
My Notes
A. This pagination appears to be from the first edition of Jacobson's work.
B. This is the full title of the publication.
However, in the year 1632 Cyril Lucaris, the Constantinopolitan patriarch, gave as a gift to Charles I, king of the English, a most ancient codex of the Old and New Testaments; and behold, at the end of this most excellent Alexandrian codex was found that epistle of Clement, so long desired[[22]], with a fragment of another book, which the catalog prefixed to the codex designates with these letters: "....ent's e....le B"[[23]], that is, "Clement's epistle 2".
Both these epistle<s> of Clement from that most ancient codex, first of all at Oxford <in> 1633 Patrick Young published, the librarian of the king of the English; <and he> supplied and noted in lead the lost words and letters eaten away by age, <having> carefully, as I think, measured the spaces and interstices. But his edition and all <other editions> measured against the Youngian, suffer from not a few faults. By which it was done that Henry Wotton, <master of the arts> from the College of St. John the Evangelist, carefully inspected the <manuscript> codex anew and emended and filled out the Youngian text <eighty times>. Thus came out <in> 1718 at Cambridge the Wottonian edition, in which you find printed in smaller characters <those things> which were absent from the manuscript exemplar. Gallandi with the highest judgment considered that this edition should be followed by himself, who moreover in <preparing his edition> used the notes and conjectures of other learned men, Mill, <Antoine> Birr, Frey, etc. Finally, <in> the year 1839 at Oxford from the academic press came out the most elegant edition of William Jacobson, who again opened the Alexandrian codex, emended the text here and there, proposed learned conjectures, and added his own to the annotations of others[[24]].
Notes
19. The sedition had been <put in motion> against the presbyters (chapter 47), who were unjustly being cast out of their offices (chapter 44). Schenkel (in Ullmann's "Studies and Critiques", 1841, fascicle I, page 53 <and following>) asserts that that faction which <used to boast> to be of Christ, <had come back to life>, and just as <it had spurned and rejected> the authority of the apostles, this also <it> spurned and rejected the authority of the presbyters, who had been established by the apostles. But Clement himself well distinguishes the more recent sedition of the Corinthians from that prior <one>, chapter 47.
20. "Against Heresies", III, 3. In Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", book 5, chapter 6.
21. "Ecclesiastical History", book 3, chapters 16 and 38.
22. The manuscript codex provides the epigraph: "Epistle of the Clement to the Corinthians". Cf. Jacobson, "Apostolic Fathers", tome 1, page 203.
23. Cf. Jacobson, <in the cited place>, page xi[[A]]. The manuscript codes proffers not even a complete letter of the inscription in front of the epistle itself. Jacobson, <in the cited place>, page 214.
24. [[B]]"What survives of St. Clement the Roman, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp, the apostolic Fathers. The Martyrdoms of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp <are added>. William Jacobson, master of arts, vice principal of the [court] of the blessed Mary Magdalene, recently a member of Exeter college, reviewed <these> against the reliability of the codices, illuminated <them> with the notes of various <men> and his own <notes>, <and> furnished <them> with indices. 2 tomes."
My Notes
A. This pagination appears to be from the first edition of Jacobson's work.
B. This is the full title of the publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)