(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment