(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment