Sg^:.:^^;ii!k:

.'•"'It',-;.'' aKi .'.•.*!«

¦«•¦ «...

'ai«%BK»-.i.'-'

¦¦¦¦ .-^"-"^Si^-'-'srsSr,.:

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE
NEW TESTAMENT IN THE
APOSTOLIC FATHERS

BY
A COMMITTEE OF THE OXFORD SOCIETY
OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1905

HENRY FROWDE, M.A,
PVB113HEE TO THE UNIVEHSirY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK AND TORONTO

y-' c

ERRATA

Page 51, line 11, for passage read Epistle

54, 60,
73,80, 81, 81,
83,
137,

25,/<'»'(48) read (49)
15, insert Polycarp before (75)
3a, for Symrn. read Smyrn.
24, omit Luke 9^° ; as also
2, f<yr fjv read r)
7, this sentence should follow on (97)
4 from bottom, far (93) read (ga)
2 from bottom, /or 123 read 125

N.T. in Apostolic Fathers.

PREFACE
This work had its origin in a resolution passed by the
Society of Historical Theology, in Oxford, appointing a small
Committee to prepare a volume exhibiting those passages of
early Christian writers which indicate, or have been thought
to indicate, acquaintance with any of the books of the New
Testament. Beyond the appointment of the Committee, the
Society has no responsibility whatever for the work, and the
judgements which are expressed belong to the Committee alone.
The present volume deals with the writings of the Apostolic
Fathers, in which information is scanty, and traces of de
pendence on the Scriptures of the New Testament are most
open to doubt. The editors are quite aware that their judge
ments may not command universal assent ; but they may
claim at least that these judgements have been carefully
formed, sometimes after considerable hesitation, by men who
are not without practice in this kind of investigation. It
is hoped that the book will not only provide the student with
useful material, but afford him some helpful direction in
reaching his own conclusions.
The first duty of the Committee was to agree upon a plan.
It was decided to arrange the books of the New Testament in
four classes, distinguished by the letters A, B, C, and D,
according to the degree of probability of their use by the
several authors. Class A includes those books about which
there can be no reasonable doubt, either because they are
expressly mentioned, or because there are other certain indica
tions of their use. Class B comprises those books the use of
which, in the judgement of the editors, reaches a high degree
of probability. With class C we come to a lower degree of
probability ; and in class D are placed those books which may
possibly be referred to, but in regard to which the evidence
appeared too uncertain to allow any reliance to be placed upon
it. Under each author the books of the New Testament are

iv PREFACE
arranged in accordance with these four classes, except that tbe
Gospels are reserved for a section by themselves after the other
writings. In dealing with the Gospels the following division
has been observed : — First are presented references to the
Synoptical Gospels severally; secondly, references to Synoptical
material, where the individual Gospel cannot be distinguished
— cases to which the above classification seems inapplicable ;
thirdly, references to the Fourth Gospel ; and lastly, references
to apocryphal Gospels. Under each class (A, B, C, D) the
books follow one another in the present canonical order ; and
the passages cited under each head are arranged in the order
of probability, according to the editors' judgement, and marked
a, b, c, d — symbols to which an explanation will apply similar
to that which has been given in connexion with the capital
letters. The quotations are printed in parallel columns. The first
presents the quotation containing the supposed reference.
The second exhibits the corresponding passage, or passages, in
the New Testament, quoted from the text approved by our
English Revisers, with references, when necessary, to various
readings. A third column, when required, contains illustrative
passages from the LXX (the text of Dr. Swete's edition being
used) or from other writings. Underneath the several quota
tions are comments, calling attention to special points, or
indicating briefly the grounds of the editors' judgement. In
class D references are given without the text in several
instances, because, though they have been cited in evidence,
they did not appear to deserve serious recognition. In
addition to these a great many passages were examined
by the Committee, but are not mentioned because the Com
mittee came to the conclusion that there was no serious
ground for arguing that they showed the influence of the
New Testament.
In the execution of the foregoing plan, books were ia the
first instance allotted to the several members of the Committee,
in order that each might make a preliminary list of passao-es,
with his own judgements and comments. These were carefully
revised, passage by passage, at meetings of the Committee.
They were then arranged in what was intended to be their

PREFACE v
permanent form. Finally, they were once more revised by
the Committee ; and in many cases previous judgements were
again brought under consideration. It is obvious that the
distinction of classes, especially between b and c, must often
have involved delicate and doubtful deliberation ; for it is
extremely difficult, where several are collaborating, to retain
at all times the same standard of judgement. But even if in
many cases other scholars may arrive at different conclusions,
the Committee hope that their labours will not be wholly
without fruit in this important field of Biblical study.
The task of final redaction and the furnishing of special
introductions were in each case left to the member of Com
mittee to whom the preliminary work had fallen ; so that the
full consensus of the Committee must be taken to apply only
to the degrees of probability assigned to the apparent traces
of given New Testament books in the authors examined.
A list of the Committee is appended, in which is indicated
the particular work for which each member is specially
responsible —
Barnabas: J. V. Bartlet, M.A, D.D., Senior Tutor of
Mansfield College.
Didache : K. Lake, M.A., Professor of New Testament
Exegesis in the University of Leyden.
I Clement: A. J. Carlyle, M.A., Lecturer in Theology of
University College.
Ignatius : W. R. Inge, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Hertford
College.
Polycarp: P. V. M. Benecke, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
Magdalen College.
Hermas : J. Drummond, M.A.,LL.D., Principal of Manchester
College.
II Clement : (Gospels) J. V. Bartlet ; (St. Paul's Epistles)
A. J. Carlyle ; (Catholic Epistles) P. V. M. Benecke.

CONTENTS PAGE
PREFACE  iii
BARNABAS  i
DIDACHE  24
I CLEMENT  37
IGNATIUS  63
POLYCARP  84
HERMAS  105
II CLEMENT  124
TABLES OF RESULTS  137
INDEX I (Passages from the New Testament) . . . 139
INDEX II (Passages from the Apostolic Fathers) . . 143

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
INTRODUCTION.
Standard of Accuracy in quotation. Our author shares
the Alexandrinism so widely diffused in the first century a.d.
throughout the eastern Mediterranean. This has its effect on
his methods in dealing with the 0. T., which he uses through
the LXX, known to him in a text which approximates to our
Codex Alexandrinus (but reads also at times as if revised
from the Hebrew)^. In general 'the 0. T. is quoted even
more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement, but with less
precision. The writer is fairly exact in well-known contexts
belonging to the Psalter or the Book of Isaiah ; but elsewhere
he appears to trust to memory, and not to concern himself
greatly about the words of his author. Even when preceded
by a formula citandi his citations often wander far from the
LXX, although they are clearly based upon it (e. g. Exod. 33-^"*
= Barn. vi. 8 ^). Similar liberties are taken even where the
writer mentions the book which he is quoting,' e. g. -aepas ye
TOL Xeyei avroh ev rw Aeurepow/Jn'&), Kai 8ia5?jo-ojixat irpos tov \adv
TovTov TO, biKaicoixaTo. IJ.OV- — ' a sentence which, though it has all
the notes of a strict quotation, proves to be a mere summary
of Deut. 4^~^".' The following comparison of Exod. 33'^"^ and
Bam. vi. 8 may give some measure of the freedom ^ for which
we must allow in considering possible N. T. citations or
echoes. Exodus. Barnabas.
Kai emev Kvpios jrpos Mauo-^v, iSou, raSc Xeyei Kvpios 6 Sfos"
ILopfvov dvdPj]6i ivTcv6ev av Kai 6 ElaAOare ds TrjV yrjv TrjV dyadrju, fjv
Xaof uov ... fir T^y yrjV rjv Ajiotra ap-oafv Kvpios ra 'A^paap, Ka\ 'itraoK
T<3 'A^paafi Kai 'laaaK Ka\ 'la/c<o/3, Kai 'Iokib/S, koI KaTaKKr]povopi]tTaT(
Xeytov . . . Kai elad^m (re fls yrjv avrrjv, yrjv peovaav yoKa Kai piXi.
peova'av ydXa KOi fieXi. (See also Nos. (i) (40) below.)
* Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, 411-413, for this and what follows.
* Comp. vi. I, where he substitutes the correct gloss riji iraiSl Kvpiov in
the phrase eyyia&Toi /iot, in Isa. 50' ; and xii. 9, where he boldly adds o vl&s
TOV ®(ov iiT iaxdrav rSiv fiinpSiv to Exod. 17".
' Sanday, Gospds in the Second Century, 31 ff., reckons 16 exact, 23 slightly
variant, aud 47 variant citations of the 0. T.
CABI.TLB B

a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Further we must remember that he freely blends passages
from different quarters : e. g. ii. 7 f = Jer. ']^ ^- -I- Zech. 7",
8"; iv. 7 = Deut. 3428 + 31"; iv. 8 = Exod. 3a'' + Deut. 912;
cf ix. 8, XV. I. The same applies to his quotations from
apocryphal books like Enoch and 4 Ezra, which he also
cites with the same phrases as introduce Scriptural aUusions
generally. The formulae of citation are : Xe'yet, with 6 Q>e6i or 0 Kvptos,
7\ ypa(f)ri, 6 7rpo(^7jrjjj, expressed or understood ; or again with the
name of the prophet in question, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel,
and even Enoch ; or most fully Xeyet Kvpios (6 ©eos) ev t^
'7rpo(l)rirri, opi^ei (Yiupios) ev ahXca 7r/3o<^^T2J Xiyovrt. Synonymous
for \eyei are eiwe, eXaKrjae, evereiXaro. Similarly yeypanrai,
used even in citing Enoch (iv. 3, xvi. 6), and yeypafijihru
evToXrjs (vii. 3). The general result is an absolute doctrine of
inspiration, which equates the Divine and the human speaker
or writer, and which neglects distinctions between canonical
and apocryphal sources. In this connexion reference may be
made to vi. 13 Xeyei 6^ Kvpios, 'I6ov, TrotcS to. ecryara ws ra irpwra
(see Didascalia Apost. ed. Hauler, 75 ' Ecce facio prima
sicut novissima et novissima sicut prima': cf. Apoc. 21^ 'I6ow,
Kaiva TTOto) TtavTa, Hipp, in Dan. 4^^ ia-ovrai yap ra e<T\aTa is
ra TTpSra) : also to vii. 4, where rt ovv \ey« ev rcS Trpo^^rr/ is
followed by words not found in any other extant writing,
though our author has Lev. 16^ "• in mind in the context.
Here the citation seems too definite {ev tm ¦npo<l>rjTr\ coming
in between yeypaixiJ,evr)s evroXrjs and irSs ovv ivereiXaTo) to be
other than due to some written source, whether apocryphal or
a passage that has crept from the margin into the text of a
canonical book. The former view is supported by the analogous
case in xi. 9 f , see below (40). So in ii. 10 dva-ia tco Kupfw
KapbCa (TvvTeTpifXfjievr], 6a-iJ,r) evtoSias tu> Kvpta KaphCa bo^dCov(ra rdv
TreirXaKoVa avri^v, Barnabas has been quoting certain O. T.
prophets, and continues in a way which suggests that he has
his mind on them still, rip.iv ovv ovtws Xeyei. But while the
opening words are substantially those of Ps. 51" {dvcrCa tu
®eu> -nvevixa a-vvTerpiiJ.p.evov, KapbCav (rvvreTpi}xixivr)v, ktX.), the
whole quotation actually comes from the Apocalypse of Adam
(cf. Iren. iv. 17. a). Thus confusion of memory may explain

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 3
the case in which y^ypaTrrat introduces words found also in
our Matthew (see below).
On the whole, then, we have reason to expect that, if
Barnabas alludes to any N. T. writings, it wiU be in a free
and glossing way, and that sympathy with its methods and
style will be needful to appraise the likelihood attaching to
alleged cases of dependence ^. The phenomena in the section
on the ' Two ways ' are dealt with under the Didache.

EPISTLES AND APOCALYPSE
B
Romans b
(i) Barn. xiii. 7. Rom. 4'-"f- ("f-)-
Tl OVV Xeyet rm 'A^padp,, ore /iovos ti yap fj yparpr) Xeyei; 'Enia-Tevo'e
mo'Tevaas iredr] els diKaioavvrjv ; 'iSoii 5e 'A^paapi T(5 Qf^, Ka\ iXoylaOri
TedeiKa tre, 'A^padp,, jrarepa eOvav tcov avrat fls diKaioavvrjv . . . nSiS ovv
TTicrTevovToiv Si aKpofivarias rm Kvpi'oi iXoyiadrj ; . . . ovK iv rrepirop,^ dW
(GL, Bsm XC). ev OKpo^vaTia' . . . eis to elvai avTov
narepa iravTav tSiv TTiarcvovrav Si
aKpo^vcTTias.
LXX. Gen. 15^ ical eirCcrTevaev 'AjSpa/u t(3 ©eu, koI eXoyMrj
airS) ets biKaiocrvvriv.
17*^' KOI eyd, Ibov fi 6ia0jj(crj ^ou jxeTo, a-ov' Kai ^o-r; irarTJp
itAtjAous edv&v' Kai oi) KXrjdrja-eraL 'in rb ovopid aov 'A^papL, &XX
ecTTat 'A^paap, t6 ovoptd aov ort irarepa ttoXXSv edv&v reOeiKo, ere.
In our author's memory the 0. T. passages have become
* The final estimate of the literary dependence of our epistle cannot be
separated from one's theory of its date, aud this again involves that of its
religious standpoint. In the view of the member of committee specially
responsible for its work on Barnabas, it is most probable that the epistle was
written under Vespasian (iv. 4 f.), within a very few years of the destruction
of the Jewish Temple, the spiritual substitute for which, the Christian
Church, is alluded to as in process of being built up (xvi. 10 ; cf. vii. 11).
The standpoint is essentially that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as distinct
from other known types of primitive Christianity. For though they differ in
their attitude to 0. T. ritual, both interpret the ' new Law ' and its people
under the categories of the old, in such wise that the literal observances of
Judaism are regarded as at once fulfilled in essence and superseded by the
purely spiritual worship realized in and through Christ. To both, O. T.
worthies like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David were in the line of
heirship of the Promise, but not Israel at large (cf. Heb. 3-4, 11). — J. V. B.
B 3

4 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
conflated with the comments in Rom. 4; for the phrase t&v
¦nia-revovTOiv 6t' d/cpo/3vo-rtas (by no means an obvious one),
especially as qualifying eOv&v in Barnabas, can hardly be
explained otherwise.

(2) Bam. xiii. 2-3.
dKOvaare ovv nepl rou Xaov ti
Xe'yfi fj ypaffirj' . . . Alio Wvt) iv TJj
yaarpi o'ov . . . Kai 6 pei^av SovXevaei
Ta iXdcraovi' aiaBdveadai 6<p€i\eT€ . . .
iiri Tivoiv SeSei^ev on fxei^atv 6 Xaos
OVTOS rj (Kelvos.

Rom. 9''-".
ovS' on ela\ o'Tripfia 'A/3pad/i,
7vdvT€s TGKva, oKX 'Ei/'IfraaK KXrjdrjo'eTai
<TOi a-ireppAi . . . ipprjdr] avrij OTt 6
pei^ciiv dovXevirei tw iXdo'(rovi' KoBiits
yeypaiTTai, To:/ 'laxm/S rjydTnjaa, tov Se
Ho"au ipLio'rjo'a.

Though the passages both turn on the phrase common to
them, they use it differently, Barnabas seeing in it a prophecy
of the Christian people, Paul citing it simply for the principle
of sovereign election. Yet Barnabas often twists what he
borrows, and his knowledge of Romans is otherwise probable.

Ephesians
(3) Barn. vi. ii ff.
1 1 inei oZv dva-
Kaiviaas fjp.ds iv ttj
d(j)e(Tei t5>v dpapriatv
iitol-qo-ev fjpds aXKov
Tv-nov, ws iraiSiav e^eiv
TTjv yj^V)(r]V, as dv Srj ava-
TrXdcaovTOs avTov fjpas.
. . . SeVTepav irXda-iv
in iaxdrav inoir]a-ev'
Xeyct 6e Kvpios' 'l8ou,
TTotfi rd ecxara as ra
Trpmra. Comp. xvi. 8 Xa-
/Stii'rcr Trjv d(pecnv Tav
dfiapnav Kai iXnta-av-
Tts els TO ovofia Kvpiov
iyevopeda Kaivoi, TrnXii'
i^ dpxrjs KTi(6p.evot
(continued below).
14 iSe ovv, rjpeis
avaneirXdapeOa, KaBas

c

422 ff.
2^** avTOv yap eafxev
TTOLTJfia, KTLa-6iVT€S iv
"KpicTTa lT}(rov.
^22 ff. aTToOea-Bai vfias
. . , TOP TToKaiov av~
SpdiTTOV . . . , dvavcov-
(xdai de r<5 Trvevfiari rov
voos vp.QjpKa\ €vdv(racr$at
rov Kaivov avOpcoTrov tov
Kara Qeov KTiadevra (cf.
2"). Cf. Col. 3^f- dneK-
Svadpevoi tov iraXaiov
Svdpanov , . . , Kai
ivSvadpevoi tov veov
t6v dvaKaivovpevov els
eTTiyvaa-iv kot elKova
ToC KTiaavTos avTOV.

KaToiKTJaai tov

2 Cor. 5", I Cor.
3i6f.
2 Cor. 5*^ ware etris
iv XpL(rrmj kgivt} KTi(ri5'
TO. dp)(a'ia TTaprjKOev'
Idov, yeyoye Kaivd (cf.
Gal. 6'=).

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

2^>f- (Xp. 'lijtr.) iv
<a TrScra oiKoSop; crvv-
apixoXoyovpievt] av^ei els
vaov dyiQV iv Kvpto), iv
(a Ka\ vp-els avvoiKoSo-
pe'iade els KaToiKrjrripiov
ToB GfoO iv IIvetJfiaTt.

I Cor sWf. oiK o"i8aTe
oTi vaos Qeov iaTe, koi
TO TTveiJfia tov GeoO olxe'i
iv vplv ;
d yap vaos tov Qeoit
ayios ioTiv, olTives iare
vjiels.

. . . Xeyft" 'l8oi5, Xey€i XpiorAi' Sta Tr/s TvluTeas
Kvpios, i^eXa toutcoi' ... iv TOis KapSiais vpav.
Tas Xi8ivas KapSias Ka\
ip0aXS> trapKivas' oti
avTOS ev aapKi efieXXev
<^vepova6ai Koi iv fjp.lv
KaToiKe7v. 15 vaos yap aytor,
dSeX(()oi juov, t^ Kvpia
TO KaToiKrjTTipiov fip.av
TTJs KapSlas.
Comp. xvi 8(con-
tinued)— 10 810 iv ra
KaToiKijTr]pico rjpav dXrj-
6as 6 Qeos KaToiKeX iv
rfpiv tras ; 6 Xdyoy
auTou T^s iriareas, . . .
avTos iv r)p.iv npof^-
Tevav, avTos iv fiplv
KaToiKav . . . toCto iirnv
irvcupariKOf vaos oIkoSo-
(jLOvpevos Ta Kvpia (see
also iv. 11).
Here the phenomena are most complex, but Ephesians has
the advantage over i and a Corinthians in several ways, (i)
The idea of re-creation in Ephesians is reaUy the nearer. The
context of a Cor. 5^'' (and of Gal. 6^^) gives the phrases a
rather specific reference ; while dependence on Ephesians ex
plains both Barnabas's passages, (a) Ephesians has KaroiKrjT'qpi.ov
in close conjunction with vabv dyiov, as well as xarotK^o-at toi;
Xpiarbv . . . . ev Tots KapbCais vp.Siv (not God, as in a Cor. 5^^)
— the idea from which Barnabas starts (epieXXev . . . ev rjp.lv
KaToiKeiv) — and the notion of the spiritual temple as in process
of building (cf. Bam. xvi. 10). (3) The mystical idea of
Christ indwelling the Saints, or the Church, which Barnabas
expands in an emphatic way in §§ 14-16, is most marked in
Ephesians (and Colossians), in close connexion with the idea
of the Church as the body or -nX-qpcopta of Christ (Eph. 1^^).
This latter thought may even determine the strange turn
Barnabas gives to the words of Ps. 41^, viz. ev tLvi ocjidrj-
croixat tS) KVpim tw ©eS p.ov Kat ho^a(T6rj(rop,ai (LXX, TroTe ^'^oi
Ktti oi^O'fjcrop.ai. tS Ttpoadmio tov ©eoO), as if the Son were
bodied forth in the Church and so fulfilled as to His glory

6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(cf. Eph. I^^ t^s o ttXovtos t^s So'^s TTJs KXripovofiCas avrov ev
Tots dytois), even if avrov refers strictly to God.
That the ideas underlying these sections of Barnabas are so
subtle and inward, points to a source beyond common Christian
tradition, and to a knowledge of the Pauline writings them^
selves. d
(4) Bam. ii. i. Eph. 5", 2^.
rip.epav ovv outrSi' irovr^pav Kai oTi al ^pjpai Tvovr)pai eliriv.
avTov TOV ivepyovvTOS e^ovTOS Tr)V koto t6v ap^ovTU rrjs i^owias toC
i^ovo'iav. depos, tov Trvev/iaTos tov viv ivep-
yovvTos iv TOis viots rrjs direiBeias.
The first of these parallels is a commonplace of early
Christian thought ; the latter has parallels in Jewish Apoca
lyptic, e.g. Test. Benj. iii toC aept'ou Trvevp-aros tov BeXlap, cf
Secrets of Enoch, xxix. 5. Moreover in Ephesians it is the
aerial power or spirit (collectively), not its ruler, to which
evepyelv belongs.
(5) Barn. iii. 6. Eph. i*"'.
6 paKp66vpos npojiXeyjras as iv KaSas i^eXe^aTO ijpoy iv avra npb
aKepaioavvrj maTevaei 6 Xaos bv rjToi- Kara^oXijs Koapov . . . npoopiaas
paa-ev iv ra T)yanj]p.eva avTOV, irpoe- fjpas ets vioSeaiav Sid 'irjo-od XpiaTOv
(jiavepaa-ev fjp.lv nepi rtdvrav. els avrov . . ., els cn-aivoi' So^r/s T^r
XapiTos avTov, ijs ixapiraeev ijpar iv
Ta rfyajnjpiva.
Here the resemblances, turning on wpo/3Xe'\//^as and ftroiixacrev
ev Tw ¦^ya'nr)ij,evf, seem really striking. They can only partly
be paralleled from Jewish Apocalyptic ^ which taught that
God made the world with a view to His Beloved (People), i.e.
faithful Israel. Yet probably 'the Beloved' was sometimes
applied to Messiah in particular, even in pre-Christian usage
(see Charles's note on Asc. Isaiae, i. 4) : and so Barnabas uses
it himself again in iv. 3, 8.
Hebrews C
(6) Barn. v. sff. (xiv. 4, xvi. 9). Heb. I'tt, a'ff- (12=, 13").
5 ei 6 Kvpios virepeivev iraSeXv 1 2^ vnep.eive oravpov.
irepi rfjs ^vx^s fjpav, i>v jravrbs tov 13'^ ^^^ Tijs nvXr,s eirade.
• E.g. 4 Ezra 6'^ 'But we thy people, whom thou has called thy First
born, thy Only-begotten, and thy fervent Lover [? Beloved], are given into
their hands.' Comp. Apoc. of Baruch xiv. 18, with Charles's note.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

Kocpou Kvpios, a eiwev 6 0eos otto
KaTaffoXrjs (cdtrpou, Uoiriaapev ktX,
. . . iras ovv imepeivev imd ;^etpAs
avBpamav iraBeXv ;
6 aiiTos Se, 'iva KaTopyrjoyi tov
BdvaTOv Kai ttjv ek veKpav dvdcrraa^iv
Sei^ji (oTi ev (TapKi eSft avToK (fiavepa-
6ijvat), vnepieivev, tva Tois rvarpdaiv
Tifv iirayyeXiav diroSa, ktX.
xiv. 4 Si' i7paf viropeivas.
XVl. 9 avTos iv fjp.lv KOTOiKav,
Tois Ta BavoT^ SeSovXapevots, ktX.

I , e. g. a-v KaT apxas, Kvpte,
TTjv yrjv iBepeXiaaas, ktX.
2 tov Se (Spaxv n Trap' dyyeXovs
fjXaTTapevov ^Xeiropev, 'lr]aovv, Sid to
ndBripa toU Bavdrov . . . onas . . .
vnep TravTos yevarjTai Bavdrov,
^* fjrfi ovv Ta jraiSia KeKoivavrjKev
aipuTos Kai a-apKds, Kai avTOs napa-
TrXijaias perecrxe Tav avrav, iva Sici
ToO Bavdrov KaTapyfjo'rj tov to Kpdros
exovTa ToO Bavdrov . . .
" ov yap S^TTOv dyyeXav eViXap-
jSavernt . . .
^^ oBev acjieiXf Kara navra tois
d8eX<f)ois opoiaBrjvai.
^° ('"") Kai dnaXXd^r) tovtovs,
oaoi <l)o^co Bavdrov Sid navTos tov
^v evoxoi riarav SovXeias.
Apart from the actual phrasing of Iva Karapyriirri .... Setf??,
which recalls also a Tim. i^" (see (19), below), the points of
contact between Barnabas and Heb. a in particular seem
too important to be accidental. The probability of literary
dependence on the side of Barnabas becomes enhanced when
we consider the relation of Barn. vi. 17-19 also to Heb. a^~^ (see
below), as well as the similar use of the same O. T. quotation,
Ps. ai^^, in Barn. vi. 16 and Heb. 3^^ (though the wording
differs). Further, Heb. 9^' ^^' ^^ may well suggest Barnabas's
Iva Tots TTaTpdcTLv Tfjv eirayyeXlav airob(S.

Heb. 2«-».
. . . jrdvTa inreTo^as vnoKdra Tav
TToSav airrov (sc. avBpimov^ . , . vvv
Se ovTra dpapev avra Ta irdvTa vtto-
TCTaypeva' tov 8e . . . 'hjo'ovv . . .

(7) Bam. vi. 17-19 (xiv. 5).
^rjfropev KOTaKvpievovTes r^ff yijs . . ¦
el ovv ov yiverai touto vvv, apa rjpXv
eiprfKev TTore' orav Kai avToi reXeta-
Bapev KXrjpovopoi ttJs SiaBrjKqs Kvpiov
yeveaBai. Cf, xiv. 5 icjjavepaBri Se (sC. o
Kuptos) iva KaKeivoi (the Jews)
TeXeiaBaaiv tois dpxipTTjpacriv Kai
^pels Sid TOV KXr)povopLOvvTOS SiaBrjKrjv
Kvpiov 'irjaov Xd^apev.
Here note the ideas of (i) lordship over things earthly as
the destiny of man, (a) its delayed but certain realization, (3)
when union with the archetypal Heritor {hv 'i6r\Ke KXripovoptov
¦jTavTonv, Heb. i^, cf. Bam. xiv) shall reach its consummation (the

8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Te'Xos of the type, x. ii fin.); and elsewhere the idea that all
this was the rationale of the Divine Heritor's own ' manifesta
tion ' and especially His sufferings : see (6). Nothing short
of literary dependence seems to explain the appearance in
Barnabas, alone in its age, of so much distinctive of Hebrews,
especially as this state of lordship is also conceived as the
true Sabbatic Rest in a new world (ch. xv, cf. x. ii ; Heb.
3I1. 18^ j^, 9-11)^ on which Jesus has already entered (xv. 9).
This idea of &XXos koV/xos (xv. 8) was a current Jewish one^,
but seems to come to Barnabas through Hebrews with its
olKovp-evr] p,eXXov(ra (ii. 5) ^^^ aloiv fieXXcov (vi. 5)- Further the
prominence of the ideas in K\r}pov6p.oL ttjs biaOriKrjs KvpCov and
bia TOV KXr\povop,ovvros bLadrjKrjv KvpCov 'ItjctoC seems to point to
Hebrews, which contains more on these lines than all the rest
of the N. T. : e.g. Heb. I^ ov idriKev KXr\pov6p.ov Travruv (cf
I*), Barn. iv. 3 Ua rayfivrf 6 ¦^yairriiJ.evos avrov Kai eitl ttiv
K\y\povop.iav rjfy ; Heb. 7^^ KpeCrrovos btaOriKrjs yeyovev iyyvos
'Iria-ovs {p-ecirris, 8^, 9^^, la^*), Barn. iv. 8 tva ri tov TjyaToj-
Hevov 'Irjaov (Sia^Tjxij) evKaTa(7(f>payia-6fi els Tr}v KapbCav r)p,S>v
(cf. xiii. l), xiv. 5 os els tovto r)Toip.d(Tdr], tva airbs (paveCs . ¦ .
bidBrjrai ev rip.lv biadr)Kr]v Xo'yu ; Heb. 6^^ TOts KXr)pov6p.oi.s ttjs
eijayyekCas (i^*), 9^® ottcos . . . Tr)v enayyeXlav ^ Xd^iaixiv ol
KeKkrip.evoi ttjs alcavCov KXr]povop,Cas, Barn. xiii. 6 rbv kabv rovrov . . .
Trfs biaOriKiqs KXrjpov6[xov, xiv. 4 a^TOs 6e Kvptos fip.lv ebcDKev (rrjv
biadriKrjv) els Xabv KXr]povop,Cas. Indeed Heb. g^'^~^^ seems to
underlie Barnabas's whole soteriology: cf (11).
d
(8) Barn. iv. 9-10, 13. Heb. 4\ 10" f-
Sto TTpoaexapev iv ra'is iaxdrais (ftofirjBapev ovv pr) nore, Kara-
ripepais- oiiSev yap axpeXfjaei fjpds Xemopevris inayyeXias elaeXBelv . els
6 was ^poVos TTJs ftoijr ^pav, idv pf/ ttjv Kardirava-iv avrov, SoKg ns ff
viiv . . ., Q)s irpeirei viols GeoC, dvn- vpav vaTeprjKevai.
arapev . . . M17 Kaff eaVToiis ivbvvovres id^ f- Karavoapev dXXfjXovs els
povd^ere as fjSr] SeSiKoiapevoi, dXX' napo^vapov dydirris Kai KoXav epyav,
eVi TO avrd avvepxopevoi o-ui/fijTfire pij iyKaTaXemovres tjji/ ima-vvayayrjv
Tvepi Toi Koivfi (TvprpipovTos . . . eavTav, KaBas tBos riaiv, dXXd napa-
'¦ Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 177 f.
2 'EirayyeXia very frequent in Hebrews, also in Barn. v. 6, vi. 17, xv. 7,
xvi. 9 (conjoined with KXijais, cf. iv. 14). Observe too the similar use of
T€'A.«os (iv. 3, II, v. II, viii. I, xiii. 7), TeA.eioCi' (vi. ig, xiv. 5). to express the
final or absolute stage of a thing.

Heb. i2^«,

13" (i Pet.

I^).

Kai

aipan

pavTia-pov

Kpe'lTTOV

XaXoCiTi

; TTopa tok'A^cX.

,'3'!

Sio Kai

; 'Iijo-o€s, iva

dyida-r]

Sid ToC i

iSi'ou aiparos tov Xaov,

e^a TrjS

7TvXr)s erraBe.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 9
13 iva prjiroTe irravaiTavdpevoi as KaKovvres, Kai Toaovra paXXov Saa
kXijtoI iniKaBvnvao'apev rats dpapriais fiXeTreTe iyyi^ovcav tt/v fjpepav.
r)p5>v. Note the points in common : (1) the danger of a false sense
of security amid temptations against which strenuous vigilance
alone can prevail, (a) the value of frequent fellowship and
stimulus to good works.
(9) Bam. V. I.
els TOVTO yap imepeivev 6 Kvpios
TrapaSovvai Tr)v adpKa els KaTa<pBopdv,
iva TTj d(J3ea-ei Tav dpapnav dyviaBa-
fiev, o ioTiv iv Ta atpari tov pavri-
aparos avrov ^. yeypaiTTat ydp Tiepi
avToi (Isa. 53^'') • • • Cf. l' KaBapiapov rav dpapnav
jrotrjadpei/os, also 9^°-
I Pet. I^ iKXeKTols TrapeniSii-
pois . . . iv dyiaapa Hvevparos, els
viraKorjv Kai pavnapdv aiparos 'irjaov
XpiOTOV.
Here as regards i Pet. i^ all depends on the reading
adopted ; and as N is quite as likely to be right as C and
a version, we must leave the phrase in question out of account.
On the other hand the idea of ' sanctification ' rfj a^icrei t&v
ap.apTi&v (see also viii. I pavrCQeiv .... tov Xaov, tva ayvCCo^vTai
duo T&v ap.apTi&v; cf Heb. i^, a^^ 9^^, lo"), achieved by
blood of sprinkling (13^^^*, cf 9^^' ^^' ^^, lo^^j^ jg f^r more
characteristic of Hebrews than of i Peter. Hence this pas
sage also must be added to those suggesting the influence of
Hebrews (cf Barn. v. 5 f , 10 f., viii. i, 3).
(10) Barn. vi. 19. Heb. 6*.
orav Kai aiiToi TeXetaBapev Kkrjpo- irrl ttjv TfXeioTrjTa (j)epapeBa.
vopoi TTJs SiaBrjKTjs Kvpiov yeveaBai. Cf. 1 2^' ¦nvevpaa^i SiKaiav rere-
Xetapevav.
The idea of TeXetc'r/js underlying these passages is similar,
and is one highly characteristic of Hebrews ; see a" Sta Tiadr]-
ixdroiv TcXetdio-at, 5', 7^^ vlbv (Is rbv al&va TeTekeioifj.evov, 9^, lo^' ^*,
II*". It corresponds to biKamOrjvai in Barn. iv. lo, xv. 7.
' V, 1. iv Ty pavriapaTi aiirov toC a'lpaTos, C, cf. Lat. ' sparsione sanguinis
illius.'

lo THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(ii) Barn. viii. i ff., xiv. 4-6. Heb. p^ff-, 3'^-
TiVa Se fioKflre tvttov eivai, on el ydp to aipa Tpdyav Kai ravpav
ivTeTaXrai ra 'lapafjX jTpo(T<f>e'peiv Kai a-noSbs SapdXeas ¦ . . pavTi^pvtra
SdpaXiv . . . Kai ovras pavrL^fiv rd ... dyiafei . . . rrdaa pakXov to aipa
n-aiSia Kaff eva tov Xaov, tva dyvl- tov XpiaTOV . . . KaBapiel ttjv anvei-
(avTai OTTO tS>v dpapnav ... 6 pdcrxos Srjaiv vpav dird veKpav epyav . . .

6 'l?)0-ot)r ia-Tiv . . . oi paVTi^ovres Kai Ota touto biatirjKrjs Kaivrjs
iratSes oi evayyeXiadpevoi fjpiv ttjv peairrjs ia-riv, orras, Bavdrov yeco-
acpeatv Tav dpapnav Kai rbv dyvtapov pevov els dTToXvTpacriv Tav eni Ttj
Ttjs KapSias. irpaTTj SiaBfjKrj rrapafida-eav, ttjv iiray-
xiv. 5—6 i(j>avepaBr] Se, Iva ... yeXiav Xd^acnv 01 KeiiXtjpevoi Trjs
^pels Std TOV KKrjpovopovvTOS StaBjjKqv alaviov KXrjpovopias.
Kvpiov 'irjaov Xd^apev, os els tovto Cf. 12^* SiaBfjKTjS veas peairrj
TjToipdirBrj Iva airbs (j)aveis , . . Std- Irjaoi.
BrjTat iv fjpiv SiaBfjKrjV X6ya. 3° ^- Koi Viaatjs pev iriaTos iv oXia
xiv. 4. MaiJa-fjS Bepdirav bv eXafiev, Ta oXkco airrov (sC. ToC Qeov) as
avTQS Se 6 Kvpios fjpiv eSaKev els Xabv Bepdnav . . . "K-ptaTos Se as vibs eVi
KXrjpovopias, Si fjpds imopeivas. rbv oikov avrov' o5 oikos iapev
fjjieTs.
Here, no doubt, there are elements peculiar to Barnabas,
especially certain ritual details in viii. i. Still he lays
emphasis on the very points of contact between the Old and
New Covenants which Hebrews also sets in relief, i.e. the ritual
of the Heifer and the Covenant bequeathed by Jesus as the
Son and Heir, as distinct from Moses who was only God's
depdiTtov in all his action (quite another turn being given to
the idea ' servant of God ' than that in Exod. 14^^, Num.
I a^, Joshua i^). The probability of dependence on Hebrews
is moreover increased by a like emphasis on the Rest of God
(see below).
(la) Barn. xv. Heb. 4^-^^.
Barnabas is concerned primarily with the hallowing of the
Sabbath, as something to find fulfilment in Christianity, as
distinct from Judaism, in the Messianic Age soon to dawn.
But he may have got his idea of its rest, e. g. tots Kak&s
KaTairavopevot, ayido-oixev avrqv . . . avrol biKaioidivres Kai diroka^ovTes
TrjV e'nayyekCav . . . avrol ayiaadevres irp&rov, from the treatment
of o-oj3;3oTto-p.ds Tm ka& tov &eov in Heb. 4, e.g. ^'^^. See
further (7).
[Barn. i. 8, iv. 9 a, xxi. a, 7 and Heb. la^^' ^^^•, present
some similarities in the writer's attitude to his readers.]

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ii
On the whole, then, the passages severally marked as d
seem to amount cumulatively to c, as suggesting that Hebrews
influenced Barnabas's thinking and language in various ways.
Even Barnabas's ev a-apKi (pavepovadai and its relation to Christ's
Passion has its parallel in Heb. g^^ ets ddeTrja-iv apiaprtas bid Tijs
BvcrCas avTov irecjiavepwTaL, read in the light of a^*, 5'
^p-epais TTJs (rapKbs avrov, and lO^

r^20

D
I Corinthians d
(13) Bam. iv. 11. i Cor. 3I. ". ^^ff-
X/yo yap ij ypacjifj' Oval ol trvve- ovk ijSvvfjBrjv XaXTJaai vpXv as
Toi eavTois (cai ivaniov eavrav iiturrij- TrvevpariKols' . . . ovk o'lSare on
paves. yevapeBa irvevpaTiKoi, yeva- vaos GcoC iare . . . e'i tis SoKel co^os
peBa vaos reXeios t<5 Bea. eivai iv vplv . . . papbs yeveaBa,
iva yevTjTai aotpos , . . yeypairrai
ydp (Job 5"; Ps. 94")-
Here the conjunction of ideas at first seems striking, be
cause self-sufficiency, unspirituality, and God's true temple, do
not obviously suggest each other; and the citation of very
similar passages from the 0. T. perhaps adds to the appearance
of dependence. Yet on closer examination it appears that
Barnabas means by 'nvevp.artKos that obedience to God's evrokai
as a whole which he goes on to demand, the opposite of
drowsing in sins ; so that in fact it is the same as dyaOos
in § la.
a Corinthians d
(14) Barn. iv. 11 f. 2 Cor. 5" (i Pet. i").
jUXerapev tox (f>6^ov toS GfoC Tois ydp irdvTas fjpds (pavepaBrjvat
, . . 'O Kvpios dwpoa-aTToXfjpiTTas SeX epnpoaBev tov /S^paros tov
Kpivel TOV KotrpoV eKaaros KaBas Xpio'ToO, iva KopiatjTai eKaaros rd
iwoitjaev Kopieirai' idv 5 dyados, ^ Std tov aaparos, irpbs a errpa^ev, e'lre
SiKaioarvvrj avrov TrpotjyfjaeTai avToi)' dyaBov, eire (f>avXov. elSores ovv rbv
idv 5 jTOVTjpds, 6 ptaBbs rrjs irovTjpias <jidPov toC Kvpiov dvBpanovs ireiBopev.
epirpotrBev avrov. I Pet. l" Kai el rraTepa ini-
KoXeitrBe rbv dirpoaairoXfjTTTas Kpi-
VOKTO Kara to eKauTov epyov, iv
0oj3g) . . . dvatTTpd(prjTe.
Against the obvious resemblance in word and idea to
a Corinthians must be set the reference to a man's recompense
becoming patent before his eyes (cf. Isa. 58^, cited in iii. 4),

I a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
which rather suggests some other source, possibly known to
both. This view gains some support from i Pet. i^', which
affords a close paraUel to Barnabas's 6 Kvpios dTtpoa-untok-fjp.'nTm
Kptvel, a sentiment echoed in Rom. 2^^ ov ydp ea-ri Trpoo-coiro-
kri\{/Ca Tiapa t& ©e(5. It is to be noted, too, that in the context
of all these writers ' fear ' of God is present (as in a similar
passage in Hipp, irept Trjs (rvvrekeCas, 39).
Colossians d
(15) Barn. vi. 12 f. Col. 3'^-
as Xeyet Ta via' Uoirjaapev Kar drreKSvfrdpevoi rbv TToKaixiv avBpa-
eiKova Kai Kaff opoiaatv fjpav Tbv ttov avv Tois Trpd^eaiv avToi), Kai
dvBpanov . . . Aevrepav TrXdo'iv iit ivSvadpevoi Tbv veov rbv avaKaivov-
io'xdrav itroiriaeV Xeyei Se Kvpios' pevov els iir'tyvao'tv kot elKOva tov
'iSov, irota Ta eaxara as to irpara. KTicavTOS airrov.
The common reference to renewal Kar eUova can count for
little in view of the different contextual ideas : see also (3).
(16) Barn. xu. 7. Col. I'^f-
exeis 770X11* Kai iv tovtois (sC. to rrdvTa St avTov Kai els airrov
the Brazen Serpent) rqv S6^av eKTKrraf koI airrds itrn irpb ndvrav
TOV 'Itjaov, on iv avra ndvra Kai els Kat rd irdvra iv avra avveaTtjKe.
aiiTov. It is to be observed that the scope of the words common to
the two is in Barnabas much narrower, viz. typological, oTt
TTavra 6 Tiarrip (^avepot Tiept tov viov 'Irjtrov, as he says just below.
Yet he may be echoing a striking phrase, for all that.
I Timothy d
(17) Barn. v. 9. i Tim. I'^f-
Tovs iSiovs aTTooToXous . . . ovras ntcrrbs 6 Xoyos . . ., on Xpioros
vjrep rrdcrav dpapriav dvoparepovs, iva 'Itjaovs rjXBev eis rbv Koapov dpap'
Sei^ri on oiiK rjXBev KaXeaai SiKaiovs raXovs aaaai — &v npards eipt fya>'
aXXa dpapraXovs. dXXd Sta touto fjXefjBrjv, Iva iv ipoi
TTpara ivSei^rjTai 'Itjo'ovs XpioTos TrjV
arraaav paKpoBvplav . . .
The relation of Barnabas's ovk ^kOov, ktX., to our Synoptics
is discussed under (31). But the application of this prin
ciple to Apostles in particular, as palmary proof {evbei^is) of
the Saviour's grace — a bold idea — is so parallel to i Tim. i^^'-
as to suggest that the latter prompted Barnabas's thought.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 13

.,16

(18) Barn. v. 6. i Tim. 3'
— OTt ev a-apKi eSei airbv (fiavepa- opoXoyovpevas piya iarl to t^e
OTjvai eiiae^eias pvirrfjpiov — 6s i<pavepa>Btj
iv (rapKi . . .
I Tim. 3i« certainly affords the most striking N. T. parallel
to the recurring phrase in Barnabas. But as it is itself prob
ably quoting a current liturgical form, literary dependence
cannot be pressed either way : see also (19).
a Timothy d
(19) Barn. v. 6. 2 Tim. i".
auTos Se, iJ'a KaTapyfjO-rj Tbv Bdva- (x^P'" rfjv . . .) (f>avepaBeia-av Se
TOV Kai TTjV eK veKpav dvdaraa-iv Sei^jj vvv Sid ttjs irrufiaveias tov (raTtjpos
— OTt ev aapKi eSei avrov (fjavepaByvai fjpav XpiaTOv 'hjaoij, Karapyfjaavros
— vwepeivev. fi^v rbv Bdvarov (pmriaavTos Se ^atjv
Kai d(f>Bapa-iav Sid tov evayyeXtov.
Comp. I Tim. 3^° 6s itftavepaBij
iv aapKi. I Pet. i^".
<l)avepaBevTos Se in iaxdrov twi/
Xpdvav St fjpds roits St* aitToi) Tnoroiis
els Bebv rbv iyeipavra airrbv ck veKpav.
In both 3 Timothy and i Peter we have the conjunction of
two ideas prominent in Barn. v. 6. The degree of likeness, how
ever, to a Timothy is greater, and is supported by i Timothy,
though there is some additional evidence that Barnabas used
I Peter; see (a3), (a4). As regards the phrase ev crapKl <f>ave-
povirOai in Barnabas, its frequency (see vi. 7, 9, 14, xii. 10, cf
xiv. 5) calls for special notice. Its occurrence in i Tim. 3I*,
in what looks like a rhythmical hymn (Eph. 5^' ^' ; Col. 3^^ ^•)
or liturgical form, implies that the idea of the incarnation as
a 'manifestation ' (eiricpdveLa) of a Divine Saviour was fairly
general (see Heb. 5', g^^ cf i Pet. i^" ; 2 Tim. i" ; Titus a")
in the later apostolic age, long before the Fourth Gospel
appeared. Such a usage in Barnabas's region may explain
the hold the idea has on him. But the conjunction in
Barnabas of the two ideas blended in the latter half of a Tim.
i^" is striking, and suggests literary connexion, unless here
also the same holds as is probable in ev o-apxl ^avepwdfjvai.

14 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(20) Barn. vii. 2. .2 Tim. 4'.
ei ovv 6 vibs tov GeoO, i>v Kvpios Siapaprvpopai ivwntov tov GeoC
Kai peXXav Kpiveiv ^avras Kai veKpovs, Kai XptaTov 'irjaoi) ToC peXXovTOS Kpi-
enaBev, ktX. vetv (avras Kai veKpovs.
Here in both cases a common formula of Christain faith
seems to be cited; cf i Pet. 4'; Acts 10*^ ; Polyc. ad Phil.
ii. i; a Clem. i. i.
Titus d
(21) Barn. i. 3, 4, 6. Titus 3"^-, i\
dXrjBas /SXe'TToi iv vplv iKKexvpevov eaaaev fjpds Sta XouTpoB TroXiy-
dnb tov nXovo'iov ttjs nrjy^s Kvpiov yeveo'ias Kai dvaKoivaaeas Uvevparos
nvevfia i<j> vpds . . . iXniSi C<^ijs avrov dyiov, ov i^exeev e<j) Tjpds nXovaias
(C in iXniSi) . . . ^arjs eXnis, dpx^ Sia 'itjaov Xpiarov tov aar^pos fjpStv,
Kai TeXos ntareas fjpav. iva SiKaiaBevres rrj iKetvov ;;tdpiTt
KXrjpovdpoi yevrjBapev KaT iXniSa
C<^tjs alaviov.
1^ in iXniSi ^arjs alaviov.
The parallelism of language is considerable, as also of thought.
To Barnabas the presence of salvation as evidenced by the
effusion of the Spirit ; while, just below, he refers to 'hope of
life' eternal, in the phrase ekirCbi (f^rls avrov — a phrase char
acteristic of Titus (here, and in i^ ew' eXwi'St fco^s alwvCov, to
which C seems assimilated in Barn. i. 4). Yet this may well
be part of his own way of thinking, in view of i. 6, cf iv. 8
ew eXTTtSt T^s 7rt<7Te(os avrov.
(22) Bam. xiv. 5f. Titus 2".
OS ets tovto TjToipdaBtj, iva ai/rbs os eSaKev eavrbv vnep fjjiav, iva
(pavels rds ^Stj SeSanavrjpevas fjpav Xvrpaarjrai fjpds dnb ndwrjs dvopias
KapSias ra Bavdra Kai napaSeSopevas Kai KaBapiatj eavra Xabv nepiovaiov,
t5 TTjs nXdvtjs dvopia Xvrpaadpevos ^rjXarfjV KaXav epyav.
. . . XuTpmo-dpei/ov ^pSs eV ToC ffKO-
Tovs eroipaaat eavra Xabv dyiov.
Cf. V. 7 aiiTos eavra rbv Xabv Tov
Katvbv erotpd^av.
Here the idea of Christ preparing for Himself a special
people, by redeeming it from dvop.Ca, is present in both writings
in rather similar language, and so far strengthens the pre
sumption created by (ai).
I Peter (3.
(23) Barn. v. 5, 6, vi. 7. i Pet. i^'f-
nas ovv vnepetvev vnb x^'-P''^ ""^pi ^r aavqpias e^e^fjTtjaav Koi
dvBpanav naBe'iv ; pdBere, ot n-po- i^rjpevvtjaav npotprjrai oi nepl Trjs tis

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 15
iprjTai, an avToC exovTes ttjv x°P^^t ^pas x^P'tos npocjirjTevo'aVTes, ipev-
els avrbv inpo<prjTeva'av. avrbs Se ii»a vwjTes els riva {j noXov Katpbv ibfjXov
KarapyrjO'T] rbv Bdvarov Kai rfjv ck to iv avToXs Uvevpa Xptarov, npopap-
veKpav avdaracriv Sei^tj, on iv aapKi Tvpdpevov to ets Xpiarbv naBfjjuna
eSei aiiTov (}>avepaBfjvai, vnepeivev, iva Kai Tas perd Taira So^as.
Kai TOIS narpdaiv ttjv ina-yyeXiav
dnoSa, ktX.
Cf. vi. 7 iv TapKt ovv airrov peXXov-
Tos <f)avepov(TBai Kai nda'xeiv, npoe(j)a-
vepaBrjTondBos. Cf. vii. 7,xii.8, lO.
In Barn. v. 5, 6 the parallelism with i Peter is twofold; (i)
prophecy foreshadows Christ's passion and its sequel, and (a)
this is due to grace proceeding from Christ Himself, (i) is
an idea native to Barnabas's own thought (see the parallels);
but (a) is noteworthy.
(24) Barn. vi. 2-4. i Pet. 2'"*.
Kat TrdXtf Xe'yet o npo(j)fjTrjs [Isa. StOTt nepie^et iv ypacptj, 'iSov,
50'^- has been quoted], inel its Tiflijpi iv ^mv XiBov dKpoyaviaXov
XiBos l<rxvpbs ireBrj els a-vvrpifirjv' ktX. (Isa. 28'*).
'iSou, epiSaXS ktX. (Isa. 28'^).
Though Barnabas and i Peter cite the same passage
from Isaiah (with textual variation) and Psalm 118^^, they
use them rather differently, as is shown by Barnabas's eis
avvTpij3riv, probably suggested by Isa. 8^^ Kat (rvvTpi^-fj(TovTai.
Comp. Rom. 9^^ for the idea of Jesus as 6 kCdos tov itpoaKop.-
fiaros of Isa. aS^^.
Other seeming parallels have been treated in other con
nexions: I Pet. i^ under (9), i" under (14), 1^° under (19).
Considered, but set aside.
I Cor. 3"^cf. 6"; see (3).
Gal. 4^^ "• ; Barn, xiii (where Isaac's sons, not Abraham's,
are the types).
I Tim. 5^*^' ; Barn. iv. la.
a Pet. 3' cannot be cited as affecting Barn. xv. 4 avrbs b4
ixoi ptaprvpel' 'ISov, ¦^jj.epa KvpCov (v. 1. v'fip.epov ¦fjp.epa) etrrai o)s
X^Xta err) ; for such exegesis of Ps. 90* seems to have become
a commonplace of Judaism (cf Charles's note on The Book of
the Secrets of Enoch, xxxiii. i, a).
I John 4^, cf a John '', cannot be treated as influencing

1 6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Barn. v. lo f ^kdev ev crapd, especially in view of what is said
under (19): see also (41).
The greeting in Barn. xxi. 9 recalls several N. T. epistles.
"O Kvptos Tjys So'^Tjs (see i Cor. a^; James a^, also Acts 7^ 6 ©cos
TTJS 6o'£t)s, cf Ps. a8^) Kol TTtio-Tjs x^dpiTos finds its most striking
parallel in i Pet. 5-'-'' 6 be ©eos ttcJo-tjs x"/"'''os'j o Kakea-as ¦vp.ds
ets TrjV alatvLov avrov bo^av ev XptorS. But the similar thought
in a Cor. i^ suggests that here too it is a common fund
that is being drawn on by all; while the p.eTa rov irvevpLaTos
vp&v, found also in Gal. 6^^ ; PhU. 4^^ ; Philem. ^^ may be
a recognized epistolary phrase.
Unclassed
Apocalypse
(25) Bam. vi. 13. ¦ -. Apoc. 21^
Xe'yet Se Kvpios' 'l8ov, nota rd Kai einev 6 KaBfjjievos ini Ta
eaxara as rd rrpara. Bpova, iSou, Katfd noia ndvra.
Isa. 43" ISov eya ttoiS Katvd a vvv dvareXeX.
That Barnabas, at least, cites an apocryphal source is made
highly probable by the Didascalia (ed. Hauler, p. 75), 'Nam id
dictum est, Ecce facio prima sicut novissima et novissima
sicut prima.'
(26) Barn. vii. 9. Apoc. i''- ".
inetSf] oil/ovTai avrbv rdre t^ fjpepa ISov, epxerat perd twi/ ve<j>eXav,
rbv noSfjptj exovra rbv KoKKtvov nepl Kai oyJAerat airrbv nas 6(l>BdXp6s, Kai
TTjV adpKa Kai ipovaiv' Ovx ovTos oinves aiirbv e^eKevTrjcav . . .
ianv ov ttotc fjpeXs iaravpaaapev . . . Kai iniaTpe-^as eiSov . . , opoiov
KaraKevrfjaavTes . . . ; via dvBpanov, ivSeSvpevov noSfjprj . . ,
The main reference in Barnabas is certainly to the situa
tion described in our Gospels; see (37). Moreover common
knowledge of Zech. 1 2^° (Heb. and LXX cod. T) and the refer
ence seen in it by early Christians (cf John 19^^ Kai irdkiv erepa
ypa(f)ri Xe'yet, "O-^ovrai ets hv e^eKivTrjcrav) will serve to explain
other features common to our two passages. But the sub
stantival use of Tro8Tjpr), found in the N. T. only in Apoc. I^^
might suggest that Barnabas's language was unconsciously
influenced by this passage also. Yet see Ecclus. 27* koi
evbijcrri aiirfi (to bCKaiov) is irob-ripq bo^rjs, a passage which also
implies that TroS^pijs was a word of dignified associations, fitting
it for Barnabas's purpose.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 17
(27) Barn. xxi. 3. Apoc. 22". i^.
e'yyus 6 Kvpios Kai 6 picrdbs a vto. 6 Kaipbs ydp iyyvs ianv . . . ISov
epxojjuxi Taxii Kai 6 piaBds pov per ipov.
LXX Isa. 40I0 Ibov Kvpios, Ki5pios (om. ks a° «*AQr) pterd
la-xfjos epxerai . . . Ibov 6 p.io'dbs a'VTov jxer avrov. Here Barnabas,
while not intending an exact quotation, seems to have Isa. 40
in mind. Perhaps his use of ^yyi5s is due to its presence in the
line before, eyyvs ydp fj ^pi^pa Krk. Comp. i Clem, xxxiv. 3
irpokiyei yap rjixlv' Ibov 6 Kvpios, Kai 6 pLitrObs avTov -npb •npoo'disov
avTov, ktX., and see 1 Clem. (54).
GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
Against Barnabas's knowledge of our Synoptic Gospels
(and Acts) there is one piece of negative evidence which de
serves attention. In xv. 9 he argues, against the observance
of the Jewish Sabbath, that the Christian day of glad festival
is ' the eighth day,' ev fj /cat 6 'Itjo-oSs dveo-rr] eK veKp&v /cat
(l>avepa)6els dvifiri eis ovpavoijs. Here, quite apart from all
disputes as to whether Barnabas's words must needs imply
that the Ascension of Jesus, after an act of self-manifestation
{4>o.vep(ii6eCs), was on the self-same Sunday as the Resurrection,
we have to consider whether Barnabas would even have used
language so ambiguous (to say the least), if he had known
any of our Synoptics — unless it were Luke, before Acts (see i^)
had come into his hands. This difficulty must be borne in mind
in estimating the final effect of the positive evidence adduced
below: see also (31), {^^) for other negative indications^. It
tells specially against the view that any Gospel whose authority
counted for so little, would be cited with us yiypa-mai, (39).
Matthew
(28) Bam. vii. 3. Matt. 27".
dXXd Kat (TTavpaBeis inoTi^tTO &^et eSaxav avra mew oivov perd xoXijs
Kai X°kn. pepiypevov.
Ps. 68^^ /cot ebioKav els rb ^p&p.d p.ov xpkrfv, kcu, els tjjj' bC^^av
ptov eTtoTicrdv fie S^os.
' Cunningham, 'Epistle of Barnabas, xciii, cites also th6 discussion of the
Sabbath in ch. xv, where ' we find not the most distant allusion to the narra
tives of Matt. 12, or the emphatic declarations of w. '>", of that chapter.'
CABLTLX 0

1 8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Matthew alone of the Gospels refers to xo^4 '¦ but it and
Barnabas seem to represent independent traditions influenced
by Ps. 68, Barnabas being nearest to its wording (TroTtfetv,
o^os). Further Barnabas must have in view the Synoptic
incident in Matt. 27**; Mark 1586; (John 19^^*'-), not that of
Matt. 27^*, which preceded the Crucifixion. And in general,
Barnabas's handling of the Passion in terms of 0. T. types,
especially from the Psalms, seems parallel to, rather than
dependent on, Matthew's narrative (cf. Luke 33-^^ ; Barn. vii. 9
e^ovdevelv) : see further under John ^.
(29) Barn. iv. 14. Matt. 22".
npoaexapev pfjnore, as yeypanrai, »roXXoi ydp eio't KXtjTOi, dXiyoi 8e
TToXXoi kKtjtoI, dXiyoi Se e/cXeKToi iKkeKTOi.
evpeBapev. Here we may set aside the idea of direct dependence on
4 Ezra 8^ iroXXoi pev e/crto-^Tjo-ar, oX^yot be atoQrjaovTai (or Greek to
that effect). But taken along with 10^'' o-v ydp p-aKapios el imep
TTokXo-vs, Kai Kar ovop.a eKkrjOrjs -napd tw 'T\lilaT<o KaOas koI oXt'yoi,
this passage points to a familiar maxim, akin to Barnabas's
quotation, as lying behind both 8^ and 10^^. In 8^ it would
naturally be- adapted to its context, which speaks of God's
creative action, cf. 8^ ' The Most High hath made this
world for many, but the world to come for few ' — where
the same antithesis is implied. In this light, Barnabas and
Matthew probably draw on a common source for the saying,
whose proverbial character seems proved by its addition to
Matt, ao^* in some copies (CDN Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. Orig.).
There, too, Syr. Sin. and Pesh. omit the ydp found in Matt, aa'*,
as if it were no part of the familiar maxim. Where it was
' written ' we cannot now say. But as yeypa-wrai in Barnabas
by no means excludes an apocryphal work ; witness Xe'yet yap
fj ypa<f)'ri, of Enoch in xvi. 5 (cf vi. 13). So in xii. i an
apocryphal dictum, somewhat akin to 4 Ezra 5^, is cited with
6p[(ei ev dkkf iTpo(f>-riT-ri. Of course the improbability of is
yeypaiTTai, being used to cite one of our Gospels (a narrative,
' Compare Sanday, Oo^els in the Second Century, 272 : ' We know that types and
prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, aud were soon
collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his
pleasure.'

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 19
not a ' prophetic,' writing), varies in degree as we put Barnabas
early or late. On the other hand, Barnabas may have
known the maxim in connexion with the parable of the
Wedding Feast, and thence derive its exact wording, while
yet thinking of it as occurring in a prophetic ' scripture.'
Unolassed
Luke
(30) Barn. v. 9. Luke 5^
ore fie Tois iSi'ous aTrooToXous e^eXBe an ipov, on dvfjp dpap-
Toiis peXXovTas Kqpvaaeiv rb eiiay- raXds elpi, Kvpie.
yeXtov aiiTov i^eXe^aro, ovras vnep
ndaav dpapnav dvoparepovs . . .
Peter's exclamation might possibly contribute, like i Tim.
1^=*-, to suggest Barnabas's turn of thought; see (17), (31).
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(31) Barn. v. 9. Matt. 9"- "; Mark 2"f-
(Luke 5=2).
ore Se Toiis iSi'ous dwoo'TdXoi'S Toiis eXeyov tois paBtjraXs aiiToiJ, Atari
peXXovTas Kijpvaaetv rb eiiayyeXiov {on) perd rav TeXavav Kai dpap-
aiiToii i^eXe'^aro, ovras vnep nda'av raXStv iaBiei . . . ; d Se dKovcras einev
dpapriav dvoparepovs, iva Sei^t] on ... ov {ydp) rjXBov KaXevai SiKatovs
OVK TjXBev KaXeaai SiKaiovs dXXd dXXd dpapraXovs,
djiapraXovs, Tdre ifftavepaaev eavrbv
eivai vibv Qeov.
This points to knowledge of a Logian tradition only partly
parallel to the tradition common to our Synoptics ; for the
inference as to the sinful character of the Apostles is excluded
by the context of all three Synoptists (including Luke, who
adds ets ixerdvoiav), as well as by the general impression which
they convey. That the saying, in a more or less detached
form, was a familiar Xo'yos among Christians, is both likely
and is implied by i Tim. i-'^^ Trtoros o Xo'yos /cat Triio-Tjs ott-oSox^s
a^tos, OTt Xpitrrfis 'IrjcroSs ^kdev els rbv Kocrpov dptaprcoXovs o-dia-ai
(see further under (17)): compare the way Barnabas con
tinues, et ydp p,rj ^kdev ev aapKC, -n&s dv eadoBrjcrav ol hydpamoi
^kevovres a'VTov. That there was no basis for Barnabas's
idea in any apocryphal writing is so far proved by Origen,
Contra Celsum, i. 6^, where he traces a similar suggestion to
the passage in Barnabas. c a

ao THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(32) Barn. v. 1 1. Matt. 23'* f- (Luke 1 1" f-).
oifKOvv 6 vibs TOV Qeov ets tovto iv Sid tovto, ISov, iya dnoareXKot
aapKi ^XBev, Xva rb reXetov rav dpap- npbs vpds npocpfjTas . . . ottibs eXSji
Ttav dvaKeCJiaXatao't] toXs Sia^aatv ev i<p vpds ndv atpa diKatov iKxvvopevov
Bavdra tovs npo(j)f]Tas avrov. ovkovv eni ttjs ytjs . . .
ets ToijTO vnepeivev.
The general idea is the same, though not its exact ap
plication.
(33) Barn. v. 12. Matt. 26"; Mark 14".
Xeyet ydp d Geds rfjV nXtjyfjV t^s yeypanrai yap, Jlard^a rbv notfieva
o-apKos airoO oti i^ airraV orav Kai StaaKOpniaBfjaeTai rd npo^ara ttj!
nard^aatv rbv noipeva eavrav. Tore noipvtjs.
dnoXeXrat rd npo^ara t^s nolpvrjs.
Cod. A of LXX has all the textual agreements here presented.
As the application in Barnabas (oti e^ avr&v, sc. the Jews) is
quite foreign to Matthew and Mark, it looks as if he were
nnaware of any setting such as theirs.
(34) Bam. vi. 6. Matt. 27'=; Mark is''*;
Luke 23'*.
The casting of lots on Christ's garments is common to all
our Gospels (including John 19^*). Barnabas quotes Ps. ai for
it and further Messianic touches.
(35) Barn. vi. 11.
e*7ret ovv dvaKaiviaas fjpds iv rjj dtpiaei rav dpapnav inoirjo'ev ^jids dXXov
Tvnov, as natSiav exeiv ttjv "^vxtiv, &)S dv Sfj dvanXdaaovros aiirov ^pds ....
Is the clause a>s iiaibCatv ixeiv ttjv ¦^vx'n" due merely to the
'parable' which Barnabas sees in the promise as to entrance
into ' a land of milk and honey ' ; or is it only in the light of
the idea of Christians as childlike in heart (cf. viii. i, 3) that
he perceives the parable as latent in this phrase 1 If the
latter, then one of Christ's logia seems presupposed, e. g. d^ere
TO, 'TtaibCa . . . T&v ydp Totovrcof eoTiv ^ (^aaikeCa tov &eov (Majk
10^*; Luke 18", cf. Matt. 19"), which gains special emphasis
in Mark and Luke by the added words, 'Ap.rjv Xe'yco vplv, 8s iav
JU.JJ SefrjTat rrjv jSaaikeCav tov ©eoC is iraibCov, ov pi,rj ela-ikO^g eis
avTTji/ (cf also Matt. 18^).
(36) Barn. vii. 3 : see (37).

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ai
(37) Barn. vii. 9. Matt. 27=^ ; Mark 15".
. . , eTTetS^ o'^ovTai avrbv Tore
tJ >7pepa rbv noSfjprj exovra rbv
KOKKivov nepl ttjv o'dpKa, Kai epovatv,
Oix oSrds itn-iv Sv Trore ^peis iaravpa- "KsAk. 26'' f- ; Mark 1 4" f- ;
o-apej' i^ovBevTjaavTes Kai KOTaKetr^- Luke 2 2°° f-
(ravres Kai ipnTvcravres ; SXrjBas oJtos
Tjv 6 Tore XeytoK eavrbv vlbv GeoC
etvat. As to the incident of the ' red robe,' it forms part of the
Synoptic tradition (see also John 19^): the agreement be
tween Barnabas and Matthew in the use of kokkivos (Mark
i:op<\>vpav, John ijuaTioi» TTop(j)vpovv) is due to Barnabas's reference
to TO epiovrb ko'kkivoi' just above. As to the assertion of Divine
Sonship, the reference to the Synoptic incident at the hearing
before the Sanhedrin is manifest ; note the rare and the
implicit reference to the prophecy of a regal Return (Matt.
36^*, II). The descriptive participles e^ovdevqa-avTes {=ep.TTaC-
^avres: see Matt, zy^^' ^i. " ; Mark 1520. s' ; Luke a^«^ af^, in
the light of Luke 33^^), KaraKevr'/ja-avTes, epTiT-iaavres, refer simply
to the type of occurrence seen in Matt. a7^^~^'' ; Mark 15^''"^'',
prior to the crucifixion and so without reference to John
jp34-3V . ggg also (41).
(38) Barn. vii. 11.
OOTO), (f)-r}(rCv (sc. 6 Ttjo-oCs), ot Bekovres pte Ibelv koI &'\}/a(T0aC piov
T^s /3ao-iXeias, oKpeCkovaiv QkCfiovres koX iradovTes ka^elv p,e.
These words simply state in a dramatic form (cf. vii. 5) the
moral of what goes before, viz. the allegory of the Red Wool
amid the Thoms. They are no traditional logion of Jesus,
falling outside our Synoptic tradition: cf. Matt. 16^*, ||. For
</)i}(r^i;='He means,' see x. 3ff., 7f., xi. ii, cf vi. 9, xi. 8.
(39) Barn. xii. 10. Matt. 22"-" ; Mark 12''-";
e'Trei ovv peXXovaiv Xe'yetc ort 6 LMKe 20
XpioTOff VLos ianv AaviS, aiirbs npo~ tivos vtds ean ; Xeyovaiv avra,
iprjTevei A., (jio^ovpevos Kai (Tvviav Tov Aa/3iS. Xeyet auTois, Ilms oiv
TTjv nXdvTjv Tav dpapraXav' 'EXnev 6 Aa^iS iv Uvevpan Kvpiov aiirov KaXeX,
Kvpios . . . Kai ndXiv Xe'yet ovras Xcytoj/, Emev 6 Kvpios . . . iwo-
'Hcatas (45') . . . *lSe nas A. Xeyei Kdra ' tSiv TroSSy trou ; et odv A, KoXeX
airrbv Kvpiov Koi vlbv oii Xeyet, avrbv Kvpiov, nas vibs avrov ian;
1 won-dStoy Luke (Mark ^^AiL)

aa THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Here the use of Ps. iio^ is quite parallel, down to the
application which concludes the argument. Textually Barnabas
agrees with the LXX (Alexandrine : B deest) in imonohmv,
where Matthew and Mark (BD) have ¦viroKaro).

(Ill) The rourth Gospel.
XJnclassed
(40) Barn. vi. 3. John 6", cf '\
eira Tt Xe'yet ; Knl 8s iXniaei in idv tis <^dyJ7 e'K tovtov tov aprov,
avrbv ^fjaerai els rbv alava. ^Tjorerat els rbv aiava.
V. I. d niarevav els, cf. LXX.
Isa. 28^^ Kai d ntare'vav {in aina,
NAQ) oi pij KaTataxvvBfj.
Barn. viii. 5 oti 6e rb Ipiov eirt rb ^kov ; otl fj jiacnkeCa
'Itjo-oC eirl ivka, Kai otl ol ekTrCCovres eir' avrbv (-qa-ovTat, ets rbv
al&va. ix. a ris kcTTLv 6 diktav C'?"''" ^ '^ ''o^ al&va ; Ps. 33^^ 6 Oekav
fojTji;. xi. 10 Kai Ss dv (^ayrj e^ avr&v (sc. bevbputv), fTjererai ets rbv al&va
(as from a 'prophet' influenced by Ezek. 47^"^^), interpreted
in § II as meaning 8s dv okowtj toi^tcoi; kakovp,4vatv [the words
connected with Baptism] Kat Tnare'va-ri, ^¦qcreTai els TOV al&va.
Compare Gen. 3^^ koi vvv p,rj nore . . . kd^rj tov ^kov Trjs
fto^s Kat (jidyrf, Kai ^¦qcerai ets rbv al&va.
Apoc. 2' tS viK&vTL StiSo-to avT& (payelv ex toS ^vXou t^s ^cotjs . . .
22^ ^vkov fcoTjs TTOtoiJi' KapTToiis SciJSeKa, also ^*' ^^.
Barnabas is clearly haunted by the phrase fijo-eTai ets tw
al&va, which he uses to gloss other phrases of the LXX in
vi. 3, ix. 2, (xi. 10). But whether be got it from Gen. 3^^,
the PsalTTis of Solomon, xiv. 2, or rather from the apocryphal
' prophet ' seemingly cited in xi. 9-1 1 (as his use of it in
connexion with ^vkov, especially in xi. 6f and 10, rather
suggests : cf Apoc. a'', &c.), or again from current Christian
usage (see Ecclus. 37^^, cf Wisd. 5^^), is obscure. In any case
he seems independent of John ; for he makes no allusion to
Jesus as 6 ^pros ttjs C'>^rjs.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 23
(41) Bam. xi. i ff., 8. ¦ John 19'*.
(rjrtjO'apev Se el ipeXrja-ev Ta Kvpia Kai i^fjXBev aipa Kai vSap.
npocpavepaaat nepl tov vfiaros. Kai
jrepi ToO aravpoij (then quota
tions, especially Ps. i*"') . . . ai-
aBdveaBe nas rb vSap Kai t&v UTavpbv
eVi TO auTO apiaeV tovto ydp Xryet,
paKapioi 01 inl rbv aravpov iXni-
aavres KOTe^Tjorav els to vSap, oTt rbv
pev piaBbv Xeyet ' eV Kaip^ aiiTOv' . . .
Barnabas's treatment of the Water and the Cross (not Blood,
as in John) is quite independent, being connected in his own
mind with the $vkov and vbara in Ps. i. Indeed the treatment
of the Blood and the Water in John 19^*, i John 5^-8 6
ekdav 6t' vbaros koi a^jitaTos, is so different that, had Barnabas
known the Johannine writings, he could hardly have written
as he does.
(42) Bam. xii. 7. John 3"^-
The handling of the type of the Brazen Serpent is so
different that, taken by itself, it ' makes against rather than
for the theory of acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel'
(Rendall, ad loc).

On the whole, in spite of their affinities in 'the deeper
order of conceptions,' to which Keim in particular has called
attention (cf Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, a7off.),
we must regard Barnabas as unacquainted with the Fourth
Gospel. Its Logos conception is one upon which he would be
almost sure to seize, with much else to his anti- Judaic purpose.
Rather it looks as if Barnabas and this Gospel shared to some
degree in a common mode of thought touching Eternal Life
and feeding upon words of Life — a mode of thought visible
also in the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache.

THE DIDACHE
INTRODUCTION.
The treatment of apparent quotations from Scripture in
the Didache is rendered difficult by the composite character
of the document. It is impossible to treat it as an homo
geneous whole, but it is hard to decide what strata are to be
recognized in its composition.
It has been thought best to adopt the following arrange
ment, while admitting that the classification is uncertain in
several respects.
I. The Two Ways, i-vi. In this section no attempt has
been made to reconstruct the primitive text from a com
parison of the Greek MS. found by Bryennios, the Latin
version and the text used in Barnabas — except in the
omission of the section eiXoyetTe . . . r^s 8t8axTjs (i. 3-ii. i).
This is treated separately, as manifestly secondary.
a. The ecclesiastical section, vii. i-xv. 3.
3. The eschatological section in xvi.
4. The interpolation in the 'Two Ways,' i. 3-ii. x.
The formulae which appear to introduce quotations are as
follows : —
I. In the Two Ways.
Except in the interpolated section (see below) no formulae
are used.
2. In the Ecclesiastical section.
(l) Did. viu. 2 as iKeXevaev 6 Kvpios iv r^ evayyeXia aiiTov . . .
cf XV. 3, 4-
(2) Did. ix. 5 e'lpTjKev o Kvpios . . .
3. In the Eschatological section.
(l) Did. xvi. 7 its ippe'Btj . . .
4. In the Interpolation in the Two Ways (i. 3-iL. i).
(i) Did. i. 6 eiprjTat . . . [introducing the saying 'iSpaa-dra fj
eXerjpoavVTj o'ov els rds x^'^pds aov, pexpis &v yvas Tivt Sms, which Cannot
be traced to any known source].

THE DIDACHE 25
1. THE TWO WAYS, I-VI.
There are no certain quotations from or allusions to the
Old Testament or to any other documents which can serve
as a standard of accuracy in quotation.
ACTS AND EPISTLES.
D
Acts d
(i) Did. iv. 8. Acts 4'^
truyKoiffflii^creis Se ndvra ra dSeXtfia oiiSe eis n tS>v vnapxovrav airra
cov Kai oiiK ipeXs tSia etvat. eXeyev iStov eivai, dXX' fjv aiiToXs
anavTa Koivd.
The resemblance is such as might be due to similarity of
circle or of conditions of life, and is not sufficiently close to
prove literary dependence, on one side or the other.
Romans d.
(2) Did. V. 2. Rom. 12'.
oi KoXXdipefoi dyaBa. dnoarvyoiiVTes rb novTjpov, KoXXa-
pevot Ta dyaBa.
The verbal coincidence is close, but the phrase is not re
markable (cf. iii. 9), and seems like an ethical commonplace.
In the absence of other signs of any use of the epistle, it cannot
prove literary dependence on either side.
Unolassed
Hebrews
(3) Did. iv. I. Heb. 13".
ToO XaXovvTos (TOI TOV X6yov TOV pvrjpovevere Tav fjyovpevav vpav, ot-
Geov pvTjaBfjarj vvktos Kai fjpepas. Tives eXdXrjaav vpXv rbv Xdyov roi) Geov.
There is some similarity of thought, but the distinctive
fiyovp-evu^v is not in Didache, and the phrase XaXeti' rbv koyov
TOV ©eoS is a natural one.
Jude
(4) Did. ii. 7. Jude^^f.
oi piafjaets ndvra avBpanov [dXXd Text very uncertain.
oi}s pev eXey^ets, Trept Se Siv npo(r~
^^iVt om. Lat.], ots fie dyanfjcreis vnep
TTjV ^mxfjv crov.
See Lev. 1 9" *• for wording of
Did.

26 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
Unolassed
(5) Did. iii. 7, cf Matt. 5' (due to Ps. 36").
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(6) Did. i. 2. Matt. 22"-"-
npSyrov dyanfjcrets rbv Gedi/ rbv dyanfjaets Kvpiov rbv Qeov aov iv oXj
notfjaavrd <je, Sevrepov tov nXTjaiov rfj KapSia cov . . . avTTj iarlv f) peydXij
crou as aeavrov. Kai nparrj ivroXfj, Sevrepa Se dpoi'a
avTTj, dyanfjcreis rbv nXrjaiov aov its
ceavrdv : cf. Mark 1 2''' f-
Here there is juxtaposition of the two principles associated
in the Gospels and with like emphasis on their order ; but the
addition toj^ Trotijo-arTci ere suggests direct Jewish influence.
See Ecclus. y^", and cf (5).
(7) Did. i. 2. Matt. 7^^
Trdvra Se oaa idv BeXfjajjS pf] yt'ce- ndvra ovv daa idv BeXTjre tva noiSi-
trBal cot, Kai ail aXXa pfj notet. atv vpXv ol dvBpanoi, ovras Kai vpeXs
noieXre aiiroXs (cf. Luke 6").
Tobit 4"-
o pKTeXs, ptjSevl notfjatjs.
Acts 15^"' "'.
Kai oaa pfj BeXere eavroXs yi'i'eo'floi
erepots (-i») pf) noieXre. C. D mm.
pauc. syrlJ <=¦* sah. aeth. Iren.'**
Cyprian.
The evidence seems to show that the form preserved in
Tobit re-emerges in the Jewish saying ascribed to Hillel,
' What is hateful to thyself do not to thy fellow ' ; and
the negative form in the Didache may be due to such
infiuence. On the other hand the wording oaa edv ^eXTjo-r/s p^
ktX., instead of o pttrets (found also in Greek, attributed e.g.
to Cleobulus), seems due to the influence of the evangelical
form of the saying (cf Lampridius, in Vita Alex. Severi,
51, 7 quod a quibusdam sive ludaeis sive Christianis audie-
rat . . . ' Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris ' ; so Didascalia,
i. I, adding ' ab alio '). If the saying be part of the true text
of the Acts, it would here most naturally be attributed to the
use of the Acts. If it be regarded as a gloss in Acts, the
Didache may have originated such a gloss.

THE DIDACHE ay
2. THE ECCLESIASTICAL SECTION, VII-XV.
There are no certain quotations or allusions to the Old
Testament or to any other documents which can serve as
a standard of accuracy in quotation, save the free quotation
from Mai. i^^"- in xiv. 3, where Kai xpovco (added to ev -navrl
ro'wft)) finds a parallel in the Targum ad loc.
EPISTLES. D
I Corinthians d
(8) Did. X. 6. I Cor. i6=^
papdf dBd. papdv dBd.
The Aramaic words would seem, from the sudden way in
which they are introduced in i Corinthians, to have been
in common use. But it may be noted that in each case they
are used to enforce a warning. In the Didache, el ns ovk eaTiv
[Sytos], pteravoeCToi. In i Corinthians, ei tis ov ^iXet rbv Kvpiov,
¦qrti) dvddepia.
GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
C
Matthew C
(9) Did. vii. I. Matt. 28".
^anrtaare ets rb Svopa tov narpbs ^anri^ovres aiiroiis els to dvopa tov
Kai TOV v'lov Kai rov dyiov nvevparos. narpbs Kai tov vioO Kai toC dyt'ou
nvevparos.
The Trinitarian baptismal formula is not found in the
Canonical New Testament except in Matthew ; but on account
of its liturgical use, its presence here cannot prove literary
dependence on the Gospel. Further, it cannot be held
certain that these words stood originally either in this section
of the Didache or in the original text of Matthew (ovi. codd.
ap. Euseb.). d
(10) Did. ix. 5. Matt. 7^
Kai ydp Trept tovtov eiprjKev 6 Kvpios, pfj bare to ayiov roXs Kvai.
pfj Sare rb dyiov ToXs KvaL
The verbal resemblance is exact, but the passage in
Matthew contains no reference to the Eucharist, and the
proverbial character of the saying reduces the weight which
must be attached to verbal similarity, cf. (13). It is cited
as a saying of the Lord.

a8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(ii) Did. viii. if. Matt. 6'=.
at Se vTjareiat vpav pfj earaaav perd orav Se vtjaTevtjre pfj yiveaBe, as ot
Tav vnoKptTav' VTjcrevovari ydp Sev- vnoKpiTai, CKvBpanoi' dfpavt^ovai ydp
Tepa aafifidrav Kai nepnrji' vpeXs Se rd npSaana aiirav, onas (jiavSto't tois
vrjarevtrare rerpaSa Kai napaaKevrjv. avBpanois vtjtrrevovTes. dpfjv Xe'yo) vp'iv
2 pTjSe npoaevxeaBe as oi vnoKpirai, on dnexovcri rbv piadbv aiirStV arii Se
dXX' as iKeXevtrev 6 Kvpios iv ra VTjarevav dXet^ai crou t^v Ke(pdX^v Kai
evayyeXia airrov, ovra npoaevxearBe. rb npoaandv aov vi^ai.
ndrep fjpav 6 iv ra ovpava, dyia- Matt. 6^» 9—13^
o'BfjTa TO ovopd aov, iXBera tj koi orav npoaevxrjaBe ovk eaeerOe
^aaiXeia aov, yevrjBfjra to BeXrjpd aov as ol vnoKpiTai . . . ovras ovv npoaei-
to)S iv ovpava kcu inl yfjs' rbv dprov ;^eo"^e vpeXs' ndrep fjpav 6 ev roXs ovpa.
fjpStv rbv intovaiov Sbs fjpXv afjpepov, vols, dyiaaBfjTa rb ovopd &ov, iXBeTio fj
Kai d'0eE fjpXv rfjv otpetXfjV fjpav, d)s ^aatXeia aov, yevrjBfjra to BeXrjpd aov
Kat fjpeXs a(fiiepev toIs o^etXerais as iv oiipava Kai inl yfjs' rbv aprov fjpav
Tjpav, Kctt prj eiaeveyKTis Tjpds ets rbv iniovaiov Sbs fjptv afjpepov, koi aljjes
neipacpov aXXd pvaai fjpds dnb tov fjfiXv rd dtpeiXfjpara fjpav, as Kai ijfieis
novTjpov' on aov ianv fj Svvapts Kai dcpfjKapev toXs 6<j>eiXeTcu.s fjpav, Kai pfj
Ij So^a els TOVS alavas. elaeveyKrjs fjpds els neipaapbv dXXd
pvaai Tjpds dnb tov novtjpov.
Matt. V. 5 om. syr"". dtjtfjKapev'] a<piopev DELAIf al., axpiepev X"=GKMSUn*
codd. recent. novrjpov] add. on aov eartv i} fiaatXeia ical -q hivapts koi tJ i6^a eh
Toiis alavas' dpfjv. codd. recent. ; add. ort cov ecTiv ij 0aai\eia «al y Sdfa eis Tois
aiSivas' dpfjv. syr"'°' (syr"" deest) ; add. quoniam tuum est robur et potentia
in aevum aevi amen. sah. j add. quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saecu-
lorum. k.
In the section about fasting the only point in common is
the connexion of fasting with hypocrisy ; there is also in
the Didache a complete perversion of the spirit of Christ's
teaching about fasting, and the specific reference to Pharisees
is wanting.
In the sections touching prayer the wi'iter seems clearly
familiar with a definite statement of Christ's teaching, though
hardly a written one, cf a'VTov after ev tw evayyeXt'u. There
is also a superficial point of connexion with Matt. 6^, inas
much as both there and in the Didache the true method of
prayer is contrasted with a false one. But Matthew dis
tinguishes (cf V. 7) between the false methods of the viroKpiraC
(a class of Jews) and the edviKoC, while the Didache makes no
mention of eOviKoC. It must however be remembered that the
text of Matthew is doubtful on this point, as B syr'='" read
vTTOKpiTaC instead of eOviKoC. It would also appear probable
from what precedes and follows that the Didache makes tbe

THE DIDACHE 39
falsity of method on the part of the ¦imoKpiTaC lie not so much
in the spirit as in the form of their prayers.
The Lord's Prayer in the Didache agrees with the Matthaean
version as against the Lucan, in the number of clauses which
it contains, in the introduction by the words oi'rco irpocre-vxeuOe,
and in its verbal similarity. There are no divergences from
Matt. 6^ "¦ except in four points : —
(l) T(S ovpav^ for toIs ovpavols.
(a) d^eiX^f for d^eiX?jp,aTa.
(3) d(j)Cep.€v for dc^'fjKap.ev.
(4) The doxology.
(3) may be dismissed on the ground of possible assimilation
in the text of our MS. of the Didache to the later text of the
Lord's Prayer. As to (i) and (a) the differences would be
insignificant, were it not that they come in a liturgical
passage, where the text is apt to be strictly fixed by use, and
that the whole quotation seems to come directly from a local
liturgical usage. (4) The peculiar form of the doxology does
not agree exactly with any of the forms known to occur in
tbe authorities for the text of Matthew.
These three sections, on fasting, on prayer, on the Lord's
Prayer, cannot be separated from each other. They point at
least to similar local conditions ; but the two former rather
weaken the probability that the Lord's Prayer is a direct
quotation from our Matthew.
(12) Did. xi. 7. ^ ^ Matt. 12".
ndaa ydp dpapria dtpeBfjO'erai, avrrj ndaa dpapria Kat ffXaacjirjpta a<f)e-
Se fj dpapria ovk dffyeBfjaeTai. Bfjaerai tois dvBpanois, fj Se tov
Uvevparos ^Xaa(prjpia oiiK dfpeBfjaerai.
Mark s^'.
ndvra dcpeBfjaerai roXs vioXs tSv dy-
Bpanav to dpapTfjpara, Kai at /3Xao--
(j)Tjpiai oaa dv ^Xaa<^rjpfjaaaiv' hs S'
dv ^Xa(T(j>Tjpfjaij els to Uvevpa rb 'Aytov,
oiiK exei a<f)ea'iv els rbv alava, dXX'
evoxds ianv alaviov dpaprfjparos, cf.
Luke 121°.
The form of the quotation is closer to Matthew than to
Mark or Luke, and a similar context for the saying is obviously
implied. Yet what is true of (10) applies here also.

30 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(13) Did. xiii. I. Matt. 10".
nds Se npocj)fjTTjS dKrjBivos, BeXav d^ios ydp 6 ipydrrjs rfjs Tpo(j)ijs avrov,
KaBfjaBai npbs vpds, a^tds ian rfjs Luke lo^.
rpotp^s aiirov, acravras SiSdaKokos 3^105 ydp 6 ipydrrjs Toi picrBov avroii.
dXrjdivds ianv d^ios Kai aiiTOS aanep Tim ^^^
6 ipydrrjs rfjS rpo^^s airoO. g^^^^ ^ ^^^.^^^ ^ J ^^^'q^- ^^^
The verbal coincidence is exact, and is made the more
noticeable by the fact that in Luke and i Timothy Tpo(j)fjs is
replaced by puadov. But i Timothy seems to show that the
saying was one in common Christian use, while the Didache
does not refer it to ' the Lord,' as in clear Gospel citations.
D
Luke d
(14) Did. ix. 2. - Luke 22"""".
npoTov nepl tov noTTjpiov. Kai Se^dpevos norfjpiov evxaptcrrfjaas
erne, Xd/3eTe roOro Kat Siajiepiffare els
eavToiis . . . Kai Xa^atv aprov KrX.
The R. V. goes on to give an account of another ¦nor-qpiov.
But D omits, and so does the Syriac, though it inverts the
order. If, then, we regard this as a ' Western non-interpola
tion,' the order in the Didache is the same as that found in
what would be the earliest text of Luke. But the specific
associations of the Last Supper in Luke are ignored; there
fore it does not seem that the resemblance is to be explained
by any literary dependence, but rather by a common traditional
usage. (II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(15) This, as implied in the Didache, corresponds closely
to what is found in our Synoptics, particulai-]y Matthew, and
is alluded to under the phrase rb evayyekiov, which apparently
means the Message itself rather than any special record.
Thus we have in xi. 3 the phrase Kara to boypa rov evay-
yekCov. Here the closest point of connexion in the context
is to be found in xi. 4 iras 8e aTro'o-ToXos epxopevos irpos ¦vpds
bexHrui &s Kvpios, which suggests Matt. 10*°, but can scarcely
be regarded as a quotation; see also (la) for xi. 7. So in
viii. a, the tense eKekeva-ev supports the view that the evay
yekiov is thought of as uttered by the Lord, and not as
written down. In view of these passages, it is not ceriain

THE DIDACHE 31
that the phrase <bs exere ev tS eva-yyekCio (roC KvpCov rip,&v), in
XV. 3, 4, has any other sense.
(Ill) The Fourth Gospel.
Unolassed
Under this heading it will be proper to mention the
passages in ix-x which seem reminiscent of Johannine ideas
and terminology. Three are especially noticeable : —
(16) Did. ix. a vtiep rrjs ay Las dp.'nekov Aa^lb rov iraibSs o'ov.
This must refer primarily at least to the Church regarded
as the Messianic kingdom, and not to Christ personally
(which is excluded by eyv&pia-as bid 'Irjo-oC). It may also
refer secondarily to the Davidic Messianic king, who in
Jewish thought is almost interchangeable with the nation in
its ideal aspect. Cf the Targum on Ps. 80^*. 1®, The vine-
shoot which thy right hand hath planted and the king Messiah
whom, thou hast established for thyself, and Apoc. Baruch 39
' Tunc revelabitur Messiae mei principatus qui similis estfonti
et viti.' It is relative to this mystical idea of the Church that
the Cup is to be understood (cf. irvevptaTLKos ttotos in x. 3).
The resemblance to John 15^ rests on little more than the
figure of the vine for the Messianic Kingdom.
(17) Did. ix. 3 evxo,picrTOvp.ev aroi . . . vnep rfjs fto^s Kat yvdcretas
rjs eyvcapitras r]plv bid 'IrjcroC tov iraiSds o-oi;. Cf. John 17^.
(18) Did. X. 3 rjp.lv be exapto-Q) ¦nvevpariKTjV rpotprjv Kai •norbv
Kai Cu)r\v aldiviov bid rov naibos (rov. Cf. John 6*^"^',
It is noticeable that the distinctive ideas of the manna and
the identification of the bread with the body of Christ, are
not found in the Didache. The point of closest resemblance is
that the Didache, like the Fourth Gospel, does not connect the
spiritual food with the specific ideas of the institution, as is
done in the Synoptic narrative.
3. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL CHAPTER.
GOSPELS.
The Synoptic Tradition.
(19) Did. xvi. I. Matt. 24*2.".
yprjyopeire vnep rfjs fm^s vpav' ol ypijyopeire oiv, on oiiK o'iSare noia
Xvxvoi vpav pfj a^euBfjTaaav koi oi fjpepa o Kvpios fjpav epxerai . . . Kai
6a'(pves vpav pfj iiOwecBaaav, dXXd ipeis yiveaBe erotpot" ort fj apa oil

3 a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
yiveaBe eroipof oil ydp o'lSare rijv &pav SoKeXre 6 vibs Toii dvBpanov epxerai.
iv 3 d Kvptos fjpav epxerai, Cf. 25 . Luke 12''.
earaaav vpav at 6a<pves nepte^coa.
pevai Kai oi Xiixvot Kaidpevot. Cf. 1 2*°.
Matt. 24'«' ijpepa] &pa Ltku al. pier. lat-vet. syrfl"i pesh. Tat"-
Orig. Ath.
There is a marked parallel to Luke la^', where alone do-^tJes
and k'vxvoi occur in the same combination ; but it is in Matt.
that yprjyopeire goes with ovk oi8aTe iroia fipiepq. [copa] d Kvpios
vp&v epxerai, and with rjp.epav ovbe rryv &pav in 2^^.
(20) Did. xvi. 3-5. Matt. 24"^^.
iv ydp TaXs iaxdrats fjpepais nXrjBvv- Kai Tore (TKavSdXtaBfjaovTai noXXoi,
Bfjaovrai oi ylrevSonpotftfjTai Kai ot (pBo- Kai dXXi^Xous napaSaaovat, Kai piaf}-
peXs Kai aTpd(j)fia'ovTai Ta npofiara els aovatv dXX^Xous' Kai ffoXXoi i/^euSo-
XvKOvs Kai fj dydirrj arpafpfjaerat els npo^fjrat iyepBfjaovrat Kai nXavfjaovai
pXaos. av^avovaTjsydprfjsdvoptasptoTj- ttoXXous* Kai Std rd nXrjBvvBfjvat ttju
aovaiv akXrjXovs Kat Sia^ovai Kai napa- dvopiav yj/vytjaeTat fj dydirrj rav noX-
Saaovai, kcu rare (jiavrjcrerai 6 Koapo- Xav' 6 Se vnopeivas ets reXos ovros
nXdvos as vibs GeoO Kai noifjaei arjpeXa aaBfjaerai. Cf. Matt. 7'^ 2 4'*' and
Kai repara, Kai fj yfj napaSoBfjo'erai els Mark 1 3'^.
XeXpas aiirov Kai noi-fjaei dBepira d
oiiSenore yeyovev i^ alavos' rdre ij^ei
17 KTiats rav dvBpanav els rfjV nvpaciv
T^s SoKtpaaias Kcd. (TKavSaXiaBfjcrovTat
TroXXoi Kai dnoXovvrai ot Se vnojiei-
vavres iv rfj niarei aiirav aaBfjaovrat
vn aiirov rov KaraBeparos.
There are several points of connexion with Matt. 24^""^',
but this may not represent more than a common oral basis
"^ containing a good many conventional Apocalyptic ideas. It
is to be noted that there is nothing in Matthew analogous to
d Koo-poirXtifos ktX. and to -uit' a'VTov tov KaraBeparos, parallels
to which are rather to be found in Ascensio Isaiae, iv. a ff.
(21) Did. xvi. 6. Matt. 24^° f-
Kai Tore (pavtjaeTai rd arjpeXa rffs Kai Tore (ftavfjaerat to OTjpeXov ToC
oXijOeias' nparov arjpeXov iKnerdaeas iv vloi toC avBpanov ev ra oiipava . . . Koi
ovpava, eira arjpeXov (pavfjs adXntyyos, dn-ooreXei Tods dyye'Xous airoC perd
Kat Td TpLTov dvdaraais vexpav. adXnvyyos (pavTJs peydXijs.
The parallelism is insufficient to warrant any sure inference.
The scheme in the Didache is rather that of i Thess. 4^*~",
where we have (i) the revelation of the Lord from Heaven

THE DIDACHE 33
with angels of power, (2) the archangel's trumpet call, (3) the
resurrection. Cf. too the crTjjitaTa rpia-ad of the Sibylline
Oracles, ii. 188 {popcfiaCa, a-dkiriy^, dvda-raa-iSi cf. iv. 173 ff.), and
the description of the napova-Ca in the Ascensio Isaiae,
chap. iv. For heavenly portents, cf. Josephus's account of
signs before the war ; and for the meaning of eKire'Tao-ts, cf.
Sib. Orac. viii. 30a and Isa. 65^ (in which Barnabas sees
a reference to the Crucifixion). Apparently this idea was
a more specific form given to ' the sign of the Son of Man,'
which originally pointed simply to Dan. 7^^ and its imagery.
On the whole, we notice that this section (i) contains
features not found in our Synoptic tradition, and represents
a more specific and personal doctrine of Antichrist, more
closely resembling that found in a Thess. a ; Barn, iv ; Asc.
Isaiae, iv : (a) agrees far more fully with Matthew than with
any other single Synoptic, though it has certain points
peculiar to Luke, cf. (19): but (3) cannot be said to prove
its author's knowledge of our Matthew, as distinct from the
tradition lying behind it, which may well have been that of
the region in which the Didache itseK was compiled. While,
then, use of our Synoptic tradition is highly probable, the
verdict in relation to the individual gospels must remain
doubtful.
4. THE UTTEBPOLATIOIT TS THE 'TWO WAYS'
(i. 3-ii. I).
EPISTLES. D
I Peter d
(22) Did. i. 4- I I'et. 2».
dnexov rav aapKiKav Kai aapanKU/v dnexeaBai rav aapKiKav iniBvptav.
iniBvpiav. The text of the Didache, as it stands, recalls i Pet. a".
The sentiment, however, is a natural one, and it is worth
noticing that the conjunction of a-oipariK&v and aapKiK&v seems
rather tautologous, and that o-coji^iaTiKwi; has been replaced in
A. C. vii. I by Koa-p.i.K&v. For the possibility that a-iop,aTiK&v

34 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
originally stood alone, cf 4 Mace, i^^ r&v be eTrldvp-t&v al p,h tun
ij/vxiKol ai be aoi>p.aTiKaC. If this suggestion be right, a-apKuSiv
would be a later gloss derived from i Peter and due to the
same feeling as that which led to the substitution of
KO<jp.iK&v in A. C. vii. i (possibly from Titus 3^^). The context
suggests that Didache has in view e-nidvp.Cai that wrong one's
neighbour, as in Matt. 527-3o_
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
D
Matthew
(23) Did. i. 6. Matt. 5^.
oiiK i^eXevcrerai iKeXBev pexpts ov oil pfj i^eXBtjs iKeXBev eas av ds'o-
dnoSa rbv eaxarov KoSpdvrijv. Sas rbv eaxarov KoSpdvrTjv. Cf. Luke
12^', which has XeTTTOK drroSas.
The wording of the Didache is closer to Matthew than it is
to Luke, especially in the use of Kobpdvrrjv and not kertTov.
But the context is quite different, and it would be hazardous
to lay much stress on a phrase which must have been a
familiar one. See further under (35), (a6).
Luke
(24) See under the next section,
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(25) Did. i. 3. Matt. 5"-*^.
eiXoyeiTe roiis Karapapevovs iipXv dyandre tovs ixBpoiis fipm, (cai
Kai npoaevxeaBe vnep rav ixBpav vpav, npoaevxeaBe vnep Ta)i> SiaKovraiV ijias
VTjarevere Se UTrep Tav SiaKovrav vpds. . . . idv ydp dyanfjotjre Toiis dya-
nota ydp x°P's '"" dyaTrdre rods navras vpds, rlva ptaBbv exere; oix'
dyanavras vpds ; oiixi Kai Td eBvTj to Kai oi reXavai rb aiirb ttoioCo'i ktX.
aiirb notovatv ; iipeXs Se dyaTrdre Toiis -r i^ *:27— ss
ptaoiivras iipds Kai oix ^^^^Te ixBpov. , _ , , , ¦ -
ayandre toue exBpovs vpStv, KoAffl!
TTOteire tois pto'oCo'ti' ipas, euXoyeire
Tods Karapapevovs iipiv, npoaevxetim
vnep Tav imjpea^ovrav iipds . . . uni
et dyuTrare tovs dyanavras iipAS, Tom
vpXv xdptt e'o-Tt; . . . Kai ydp oi apap-
TcoXoi rd auTo notovai.
In Matt, post ex^pois vpav add. (i\oyeiTe Tohs Karapapevovs vpds DLKII cf h
pesh et mss. vss. pp. recen. ante Kai Trpoaevx. add. koAu: Troierre roxis /uffoSnos
iipas D lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen. ante SiaKuvrav add. kmjpet-
(ovraiv ipds Kai D lat. pier, (non k) pesh. mss. vss. pp. recen.

THE DIDACHE 35
It seems impossible to decide whether the occurrence of
Matthaean and Lucan features, e. g. iroia x"P'^ (cf Luke 6^^)
and rd i6vr] (cf Matt. 5*''), be due (i) to a blending of the two
Gospels, (3) or to the knowledge of another Greek source
nearer to the Aoyia, which are generally supposed to be the
source of this section of the matter common to the first and
third evangelists, (3) or to oral tradition, (4) or to an early
harmony (e. g. the Diatessaron).
With regard to the second possibility, it may be noted that
the emphasis on fasting, which seems to be represented as
a climax, is in keeping with a tendency discernible in later
Jewish literature (cf. Tobit ia*) and which assumes promi
nence in 2 Clement 16*, but it is not found in the N. T.^
It is therefore unlikely that it appeared in a source earlier
than the Canonical Gospels, o^x e^ere ex^pdv at the end of
a paragraph, if an addition of a redactor, cannot be very
late, see Didasc. i. i, and cf Apol. Aristidis 15, Justin,
Apol. i. 14.
(26) Did. i. 4-6. Matt. 5'»-*l
(l) idv ris trot Sa pdniapa els rfjv oans ae pani^et ets rfjv Se^idv aov
Se^tdv aiayova, arpe'^lrov aiira Kai ttjv atayova, arpe'^ov aiira Kai rfjV oKXtjv'
aXXrjV Kai earj TeXeios. (2) idv d-yya- koI Ta BeXovr'i aoi KpiBfjvai Kai rbv
peiiarj ae ns piXtov ev, vnaye per x^ravd aov XafieXv acftes aiira Kai rb
aiirov Siio. (3) idv dprj ns rb Ipdrtov ijidnov' Kai dans ae dyyapevaet ptXtov
aov, Sbs aiira Kai rbv xtrava. (4) edv ev, vnaye per aiirov Svo' tw airovvn
Xd^Tj ns dnb aoi to crov, pfj dnairei, ere SiSov, Kai rbv BeXovra dnb aov
ovSe ydp Svvaaai. (5) navrl ra SaveiaaaBai pfj dnocrrpacpjis.
cItovvtI ae SiSov Kat pfj dnairei. j i g29— so
ra Tvnrovri ae inl rfjV atayova
ndpexe Koi rfjV dXXtjv' Kai dnb rov
atpoVTOs O'OV rb ipdriO!' Kai rbv xtrava
pfj KaXvarjS' navrl a'lTovvTi ae SiSov,
Kai dnb tov a'ipovTOS rd o'd pij anairei.
The resemblance of this passage to Matthew and Luke is
obvious. It should however be observed that, if we take the
five cases as arranged and numbered above in the Didache,
Matthew has i, 3, 2, 5, omitting 4, while Luke has i, 3, 5, 4,
omitting 3. Going outside the Canonical Gospels, Tatian's
Diatessaron (according to the reconstruction made by Zahn in
' But notice in this connexion the quite early addition in Mark 9^" of «ai
VTjffTeia to 7rpo<rei-xg, which is found in syr""' and almost all late authorities.
D a

36 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
his Forschungen, i. 17) had i, a, 3, 4, omitting 5, and Justin's
Apology, i. 16, cites only i, 3, and a a line later. It is hard
to draw any more definite conclusion from these facts, than
that the resemblance to our Gospels may be explained in any
one of the four ways mentioned in the preceding note. It
should be added that the addition of the phrases Kai eo-ij
T^Xeios and ovbe ydp bvvacrai shows the freedom with which
the redactor is handling his material, whencesoever derived.
It is useless to analyse closely the exact verbal corre
spondences with Matthew and Luke; for in a passage
in which so many possibilities are open, only the closest
verbal resemblances would be sufficient to prove literary
dependence.

CLEMEI^T OF ROME
INTRODUCTION.
Standard of Accuracy in quotations. The quotations from
the Old Testament seem for the most part to be made with
great exactness, especially in the case of the citation of longer
passages. Occasional variations from the text of the Septua-
gint occur ; but these are usually very slight, and may possibly
represent readings of the text differing from those in the
principal MSS. : see also p. 1 24.
The quotations from the N. T. are clearly made in a different
way. Even in the case of N. T. works which as it appears
to us were certainly known and used by Clement, such as
Romans and i Corinthians, the citations are loose and inexact.
This is not the place to discuss the causes of this difference
in method ; it is sufficient to point out that this fact makes it
in the highest degree precarious to argue from the inexact
ness of possible quotations of other works in the N. T., that
Clement did not know, and was not using these works.
Formulae of Citation. Passages from the O. T. are fre
quently introduced by the phrases yeypa-nrai, to yeypap,pevov,
7] ypa<p'fj.
EPISTLES, ACTS, AND APOCALYPSE.

RoTTians a
(i) Clem. XXXV. 5, 6. Rom. i''''-'^.
dnoppt^avTes d<p' eavrav ndaav nenXrjpapevovs natrrj aSiKta, novrj-
dSiKiav Kai dvopiav, nXeove^iav, epeis, pia, nXeove^ia, KOKia, pearovs (jiBovov,
KaKOTjBeias re Kat SdKovs, ilnBvptapovs (pdvov, eptSos, SdXov, KaKorjBeias,
Te Kai KardXdXids, Beoarvyiav, vneprj- i/ftSi/ptords, KaTaXdXous, ^eoo-Tvyeis,
(paviav re Koi dXaCoveiav, KevoSo^iav v^piards, vneprj^dvovs, dXat^ovas,
Te Kai dcjiiXo^eviav. icpevpirds KaKav, yoveiiatv dnetBeXs,

38 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
TauTa ydp oi npdaaovres arvyTj- davverovs, davvBerovs, aardpyovs,
Tol ra Qea vndpxovatv' oil povov Se dveXefjpovas, omves to SiKaiajia rov
oi npdaaovres aiird, dXXd koi oi avv- Qeoii iniyvdvres, on rd Totairra npda-
evSoKovvres aiiToXs. aovres a^ioi Bavdrov elatv, oil povov
airrd noiovaiv, dXXd Kai (rweuSoKoOo't
TOIS npdaaovai.
An examination of this passage makes it practically certain
that Clement is infiuenced by the recollection of the passage
in the Epistle to the Romans. This judgement is founded
upon —
I. The remarkable coincidence of the vices which are
mentioned: this seems too detailed to have occurred by
chance. 3. The character of the concluding sentences in the two
passages : it would be very difficult to imagine that Clement
is here independent of St. Paul.

(2) Clem, xxxiii. i. Rom. 6'.
Tt OVV notfjaapev, dSeXtpoi ; apyrj- n ovv ipovpev ; inipevapev rj
crapev dnb 'rrjs dyaBonotias Kai e'y- dpapria, iva ^ X^P'^ nXeovdatj ; pi)
KaraXinapev rfjV dydnrjv ; pijBapas yevoiTO.
TOVTO idaai 6 SeanoTTjs e(p' fjpXv ye
yeVTjBfivai, dXXd anevaapev perd
iKreveias Kai npoBvpias TrSw epyov
dyaBbv intreXeXv.
It seems most probable that Clement is here wi'iting under
the impression of the passage in the Romans. It is true that
there is little verbal coincidence between the passages, but
their thought is closely related. The impression produced
by this is very much strengthened when the context of the two
passages is observed. In the last section of the previous
chapter Clement has stated that we are justified by means of
faith. c
(3) Clem, xxxii. 2. Rom. 9°.
e'l aiTou ('loKcb^) d Kvpios 'irjaovs i^ Stv {rav narepav) o Xpiarbs to
TO KOTd adpKa. Kara adpKa.
It seems probable that the sentence in Clement was

CLEMENT OF ROME

39

suggested by that in Romans. The phrase rb Kara a-dpKa is
not a very obvious one.

Rom. 4'-".
paxapiot S)V dcpeBrjaav
al dvopiai, Kai &v ine-
KaX'iKpBTja'av at dpap-
Ttai' paxdptos dvfjp a
oil pfj XoyiaTjTai Kvpios
dpapriav. 6 paKapiapbs
ovv oUtos inl rfjv nepi-
Topfjv ; fj Kai inl rfjV
aKpo^variav ;

Ps. 31(32)^;^-
fxaKapioL Siv d(j)€67}<Tav
al dvofxiaij Kai Siv iire-
Kakv<p6r}o-av al afiaprlai.
fxaKapios dvfjp ov ov fiff
XoyioT^rat Kvpios dfiap-
Tiav, ov8e idTiv iv rw
a^ToyLari avrov boKos.

(4) Clem. 1. 6, 7.
yeypairrat ydp' Ma-
Kaptot Siv d^eBrjaav ai
dvopiai Kai Stv ineKa-
XiKJlBTjaav at dpapriai'
paKdptos dvfjp a ov pfj
Xoyiarjrat Kuptos dpap
riav, oiiSe ianv iv roi
OTopan aiiToii SdXos,
OVTOS 6 paKapiapbs iye-
veTO eVt Tods eKXeXey-
pevovs iinb tov Qeov
Std 'lijo'oS XplCTToS ToC
Kvpiov fjpav.
It is clear that Clement intends to quote the Psalm ; he
introduces the quotation with the word yiypa-nrai, and we
have not found any clear case where he has done this in the
case of a passage from the N. T. This seems also evident
from his concluding the quotation with words which are in
the Psalm, but not in Romans. But it must also be recog
nized that the words oStos d p.aKapiap6s suggest strongly that
he was infiuenced by his recollection of the same words in the
Romans.

(5) Clem, xxxvi 2.
fj davveros Kai iaKorapevrj
fjpStv. Clem. Ii. 5.
rds davverovs KapSias.

Rom. 1='.
Km itTKOTiaQ-q rj d<rvv€ros avrmv
Kapbia. Eph. 4''-
iaKonapevoi Ttj Siavoui.

The phrases in Clement may have been suggested by the
Romans, but there is a similar phrase in Eph. 4" : see (37).
Rom. 12*.

(6) Clem, xxxviii. i.
aa^eaBa ovv fjpav oXov rb aapa
iv XpiarSt 'irjaov, Kctt vnoraaaeaBa
eKaaros ra nXrjaiov aiirov.
Clem. xlvi. 7.
ifaTi SieXKopev Kai StaanHpev to
peXrj TOV XpiaroU Kai crraaid^opev
npbs TO aapa to iSiov.

KaBdnep ydp iv evl aapan TroXXd
peXtj exopev, rd Se peXrj ndvra oii
rfjV avrfjv exet npd^iV ovras oi
TToXXot ev aapa iapev iv Xpiara.
I Cor. 6'^
TO. (rci>iiaTa vficov /xeX;/ ILpiO'Tov
i(TTlV,

40 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
I Cor. 12"*.
KaBdnep ydp to aapa ev ian, xoi
peXrj TToXXd exei, ndvra Se Td pe'Xij
tov aaparos jroXXd ovra ev iart
aapa, ovra Koi 6 Xpiards.
Eph. 4*.
ev aapa Kai ev nvevpa.
Eph. 4^,
QTt eafiiv ahXrjKav fxeKt},
Eph. 5'°.
OTt peXij iapev toO aapuiTOs airrov.
It is hardly possible to say here whether Clement is
influenced by the Romans or the other Epistles.
I Corinthians a
(7) Clem, xxxvii. 5. i Cor. 12"^'
Xd^apev rb aapta fjpav' tj KeCpdXTj KaBdnep ydp to aajixt ev ian, Kat
Sixa Tav TToSfiv oiiSev ianv, ovras peXij iroXXd e^^i, ndvra Se rd peXrj
oiiSe ol ndSes Sixa t^s Kec^aX^s" to toO aapoTOs TroXXd ovra ev e'ort
Se iXdxiara peXij toC aaparos fjpav aapa, outo) koI d Xpiards . . .
dvayKaXa kcli eVxprjard elatv 0X01 tm '* Kai ydp Td aapa ovk eanv ev
aapan' dXXd ndvra avvnveX Kai vncy peXos, dXXd TroXXd . . .
Taytj pia xpfjrai els rb aa^eaBai oXov '^ oil Svvarai Se 6 6(f)6dXpbs
rb aapa, elneXv TJj X"P') ^pe'tav aov ovk ex<t'
xxxviii. I. ^ TrdXii' fj Ke(j)ciXfj toXs noai, Xpeiav
yt a -i t ^ n.. * _- fipav OVK eyo). dXXd 3roXX&> tiaXXoi'
aaQeaoa ovv rjpav qXov to aapa " ^ ' > zi '
iv XptaTa 'I>,<rov, Kai v,roTa(7<7e<r^o. ™ So-coCvTa piXtj rod trd-paros aaBeve-
iKaaros ra nXr,a'tov avrov, KaBas Kai "^"P" vTrdp^etv amyKata eo-Tt.
iriOri iv tc5 ^apio'iiari avrov,
Cf I Clem. xlvi. 7 and i Cor. 6^\
It would appear to be certain that Clement is here in
fluenced by the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The
metaphor of the body and its members is indeed found also
in Romans and Ephesians, but the details are taken from the
passage in Corinthians.
(8) Clem, xlvii. i. 1 Cor. i""".
dfaXajSere rtjv intaroXfjV tov pa- iSTjXaBrj ydp pot nepl iipav, dSeX-
Kapiov IXavXov toC (Jjtoo-to'Xov. 2 ti <^oi pov, vnb tSx XXdr;s, OTt eptSes ev
nparov fipXv iv dpxfl rov evayyeXtov vptv ei<rt. Xe'ya> Se tovto, on eKaoTOS
eypa^ev ; 3 in dXijBeias nvevpa- iipav Xe'yet, 'Eyo) pev eipt IlauXov,

CLEMENT OF ROME 41
tik£$ inearetXev iipXv nepl eavrav re 'Eya Se 'AnoXXdtj 'Eyo) Se Krjcfid,
Kai KrjCJ>d re Kai 'AnoXXa, Std rd Kat 'Eym Se Xpicrrov.
Tore npoaKXiaets iipds nenoi^aBai'
It cannot be doubted that this passage refers to the First
Epistle to the Corinthians ; the references to Cephas and
Apollos and the trouble in the Church seem to make this
plain, and the conclusion is borne out by actual quotations
from the Epistle.
It is important to ask whether the mode of referring to this
letter implies that Clement had no knowledge of our second
letter. Dr. Lightfoot, in his note on the passage, cites
parallels which seem to make it plain that such a conclusion
would be unwarranted.
(9) Clem. xlis. 5. i Cor. 13*"^.
dyoTTT; ndvra dvexerai, ndvra paKpo- fj dydnrj paKpoBvpeX, xpvrr^verai'
dvpeX' oi/Sev ^dvavaov iv dydrriy, ^ dydnrj ov fijXoi" fj dydntj oil
oiiSev vnepfj<j)avov' dyd'mj axtapa ovk nepnepeverat, ov (jivaiovrai, ovk dax^-
e^ei, dydmj oil oracrtdfet, dyd'mj ndvra poveX, ov fijrei Td eauT^s, oil nap-
noifX iv opovoii}' o^vverat, oil Xoyiferat Td kokov, oil
Xaipei inl rfj uStKt'a, ffvy^aipet Se
TTJ aXrjBeia, ndvra areyet, ndvra
jricTTevet, ndvra iXni^et, ndvra iino-
pevet.
It can hardly be doubted that many of the phrases in
Clement were suggested by the recollection of the passage in
Corinthians. b
(10) Clem. xxiv. i. i Cor. 15'°.
Koravofjaapev, dyanrjTot, 7r£s d wvi Se Xpio^Tos eyfjyeprai eK
Seandnjs iniSeiKvvrai StijveKois ^piv veKpav, dnapxfj rStv KCKOtpTjpevav.
TTjv pteXXovaav dvdaraaiv eaeaBai, rjs 2^
T^v dnapxfjv inoifjaaro rbv Kvpiov ^ ' " '
'irjoovv iK veKpav dvaarfjaas, anapxfj Xpiaros.
This would appear to be almost certainly a reminiscence.
The word dnapx-n, used in this sense of our Lord, in reference
to the resurrection, seems to make this plain.
(ii) Clem. xxiv. 4, 5- ^ ^°^' ^f"' ";
Xd^apev TOVS Kapnois' 6 andpos a<ppav, aii o aneipets ov fwoTToiel-
nas Kai Ttva rponov yiverai ; i^XBev Tat, e'dv pfj dnoBdvrj' Kai b aneipets,
0 ane'ipav Kai e/3aXev ets Tijv y^v oil rb aapa rb yevtjaopevov aneipets

43 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
cKaarov tSv aneppdrav' anva ne- dXXd yvpvbv kokkov, el rvxoi, aiTOv, fj
advra els ttjv yfjv ^rjpd Koi yvpvd nvos rav Xotnatv' 6 Se Geds SiSaatv
StaXiierai, elr eK rfjS StaXvaeas fj aiira aapa KaBas fjBeXrjae, Kai eKaara
peyaXetoTTjs rfjs npovoias rov Seandrov rav aneppdrav iSiov aapa.
dviarrjaiv avrd, Kai eK rov evbs nXeiova
aii^ei Kai iKipepei Kapndv.
It seems most probable that the thought of this passage is
suggested by that in Corinthians. It is true that the develop
ment of the conception is different, but there is nothing
surprising in this, if, as seems probable, Clement's references
to the N. T. are usually made from memory.

(12) Clem, xlviii. 5.
^ra ns ntards, fjra Svvarbs yvaaiv
i^emeXv, fjra aocfibs ev StaKpiaei
XdytBi^, fjra dyvbs iv e'pyots.

I Cor. I2*> '-
0) pev ydp Std tov Uvevparos SiSo-
Tat Xdyos aortas, dXXa Se Xdyo?
yvaaeas Kara rb aiirb Uvevjia, erepa
nians iv ra aiira HvevpaTt.

It is noticeable that though the form of Clement's phrase
is quite different from that of St. Paul, he groups together the
same three qualities or gifts, •niaros — ttio-tis, yi'So-ts — ^Xoyo's
yv&aecos, aocpbs ev biaKpCaei koycov — Xo'yos cro<pCas. In view of
this it would seem probable that we have here a reminiscence
of St. Paul's words.

(13) Clem. V. I, g. I Cor. 9"
d^Xijrds' . . . fipafietov. oiik oiSare, oTt, oi e'v araSia rpe-
Xovres ndvres pev rpexovaiv, eis he
Xap^dvei rb ^pa^eXov ;
Cf PhU. 3I*. Isa. 64'.
OTrd Toi; alavos ovk
TjKovaapev oiiSe ot 6-
(pBdXjiol fjjiav etSov Bebv
nXfjV aov, Kcd rd cpya
crou d TTot^creis Tois vtto-
pe'vovtrtv eXeov. Cf. 65'
OVK dvapfjaerai avrav
ini TTjv KapSiav.
'Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert d. ' Syr. Lat. and Constant, insert
""P'Of- " Constant, reads dyanHatv, and Syr. supports this : Lat. reads
sustinentibus, vfith Alexand.
The passages in Clement and i Corinthians are almost

(14) Clem, xxxiv. 8.
Xe-yet ydp' ^ocpBaXpbs
OVK eiSev Kai ovs ovK
fJKOvaev, Kai inl KapSiav
avBpanov oiiK dve^rj, oaa
TjTotpaaev rots iinope-
vovatv ^ aiirdv.

I Cor. 2».
aXXd KaBas yeypanrai,
A ocfiBaXpbs OVK erSe,
Kai ovs OVK ^Kovo-e, Kai
eTTt KapSiav dvBpanov
oiiK dve'ffrj, oaa fjToipa-
aev d Geds TOts dyaTrm-
atv aiirdv.

CLEMENT OF ROME 43
verbally agreed, and it would at first sight seem natural to
conclude that Clement is quoting from i Corinthians, while
the relation of St. Paul's phrase to that of Isaiah is a difficult
question. But a more careful examination of the passages
shows clearly that the phenomena are very complex.
I. The context, and therefore the meaning of the passage
in Clement, is entirely different from that in St. Paul. In
Clement the things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard
are the rewards promised to the servants of God. This is
evident from the whole character of the chapter, and espe
ciaUy of the preceding sentence, els rb jueTo'xous ^ju.as yeveadai
T&v peydkcav Kai evbo^wv eirayyeki&v avrov. In I Corinthians
the things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard are the
hidden mysteries which are revealed to the believers by the
Spirit of God. In Isaiah the meaning of the passage is
like that of Clement, but the phrases are very different.
a. A. Resch {Agrapha, p. loa) has collected a great number
of cases where the same phrase is quoted or referred to —
Hegesippus in Stephen Gobarus ap. Photium, cod. 333,
col. 893; Horn. Clem. ii. 13; Cleln. Alex. Protrept. x. 94;
Origen, in lerem. Hom. xviii. 15; Apost. Const, vii. 33;
Athanasius, De Virginitate, 18 ; Epiph. Haer. Ixiv. 69. We
may add Actus Petri, 10, Acts of Thomas, Syriac, ed. Wright,
p. 305, and a Clem. xi. 7.
In all these passages the phrase seems to be used in the
same sense as in Clem, xxxiv. 8, that is as referring to the
future rewards promised to the righteous.
3. Resch also points out that St. Jerome, Comm. on Isaiah,
lib. xvii, says that the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah con
tained this phrase, and (Ep. 57) that it was also contained
in the Apocalypse of Elias; while Origen, Comm. on Matt.
xxvii. 9, says that the phrase occurs ' in nuUo regulari libro,'
but ' in secretis Eliae prophetae.' The Testamentum lesu
Christi, xxviii (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1899), cites the passage as
a saying of the Lord, but adds ' as Moses and other holy men
have said.'
It seems then most probable that Clement and the other
authors mentioned are not taking the phrase from St. Paul. It
is impossible to think that they take it from Isaiah ; the form

44 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
in which they cite the saying is wholly different from his,
while it corresponds almost exactly with that of St. Paul.
Accordingly it is probable that St. Paul, Clement, and the
other writers are quoting from some unknown source, a pre-
Christian work, to judge from Paul's use of it (with Kadiis
yi-ypairrai).
(15) Clem, xxxvii. 3. i Cor. 15^'.
dXX' eKaaros iv Tw iSia rdypan — eKaaros Se iv tc5 tSia rdyjian —
There is here an exact correspondence of words, but the
phrase in Clement arises quite naturally from the context, and
is of too obvious a character to demand explanation.

(16) Clem, xxxvui. 2.
d Se nraxbs eiixaptareiTa tw Qea
on eSaKev aiira St' ov dvanXrjpaB^
aiirov rb iiarepTjpa.

I Cor. 16".
Xatpa Se e'jri rfj napovaia Sre<f)ava
Kat ^oprovvdrov Kai *A;^aiKOv, on ro
iipav voTepTjpa ovrot dvenXfjpaaav.
Phn. 2'°.
napa^oXevadpevos Tp ^xVt '"" °'"'"
nXrjpaajj rd vpav vareprjpa t^s npos
pe XetTovpytas.
Cf. also 2 Cor. 9", 11', and
Col. i^

(17) Clem. xl. I. I Cor. 21°.
npoSfjXav ovv fjpXv ovrav Tovrav, rb ydp Uvevpa ndvra ipevva, Kai rd
Kai iyKeKvfjidres els Td ^dBrj rfjS Betas fidBtj rov Geov.
T""^'^'"'- Rom. 1 1''.
Si ^dSos nXovrov Kai iTo<^las Kat

(18)

Clem, xlviii. 6.

I Cor. 10=^. »'.

Cf Phil. a*.

Hebrews a
(19) Clem, xxxvi. 2-5.
Std Tovrov ('Ij/o-ov Xpio-rov) fjBeXrj-
aev b Seanorrjs Trjs dBavdrov yvcio'eeos
^pds yevaaaBai' 5s &tv dnaiiyaapa rfjs
peyaXaaiiVTjs avrov, Toaoiira pei^av
iarlv dyyeXav oaa Siafftoparepov

Heb. I.
noXvpepas Kai TroXvTpoTroos TrdXat I
d Geds XoX^o-as tois narpdaiv iv rots
npofftfjrais in eaxdrov tUv fjpepav roil- 2
TciJV eXaXrjaev fjpXv iv vim, dv eBtjKe
KXrjpovdpov ndvrav, St' oS Kai inoirjae

CLEMENT OF ROME

45

ovopa KeKXijpovdpjjKev '. yeypanrai
ydp ovras' O notav rovs dyyeXovs
ovTov nvevpara kcu, tovs Xeirovpyoiis
aiirov nvpbs KJiXdya. enl Se t^ vt^
avTov ovrms etirev d SecrTrdrijs* Ytds
pov et av, iya afjpepov yeye'vvTjKa ae'
a'rTjaai nap' ipov Kai Saaa aoi eBvrj
rfjV KXrjpovopiav aov Kai rfjV Kardaxe-
aiv aov TO nepara ttjs "yfjs. Kai
ndXtv Xeyet Trpds aiirdv KdBov iK
Se^iav pov, eas dv 6a tovs ixBpovs
aov vnondSiov tSv ttoScSv aov.

Toils alavas' os i)V dnavyaapa rfjs 3
Sd^ijs Koi x^P^Kriip TTJs iinoardaeas
aiirov, (fiepav Te Td Trdvra ra pfjpari
T^s Svvdpeas aiirov, KaBaptapbv Tav
dpapriav noiTjadpevos iKdBtaev ev Se^ia
TTJs pteyaXaaiiVTjs iv v^tjXoXs, Toaovra 4
Kpeirrav yevdpevos rav dyycXcav oaa
SiacpopaTepov nap' aiiroiis KeicXrjpovd-
pTjKev ovopa. rivi ydp elne nore rav 5
dyyeXojv, Yids pov et crd, iya afjpepov
yeyevvrjKa ae ; Kai TrdXiv, 'Eym eaopai
aiiTa ets narepa, Kai aiirbs earai poi
els vidv ; orav Se ndXiv eiaaydyjj rbv 6
nparoTOKOV els rfjv o'lKOvpevrjV Xe'yet,
Kai 7rpoo-Kvv))(rdT(BO-av avT<3 ndvres
ayyeXoi Geov. Kai Trpds pev tovs 7
dyye'Xovs Xeyet, 'O notav tovs dyyeXovs
avToC nvevpara, Kcti roiis Xeirovpyoiis
avTov "nvpbs cjiXdya' npbs Se rbv vtdv, 8
'O Bpdvos aov, d Geds, ets rbv alava
TOV alavos, Kai fj pd/38os rfjs eiiBvnjTos
pd^Sos TTJs jSao-iXeias o-oV ^yaTnjo-as g
SiKaioavvrjv, Kai ipiarjaas dvopiav'
Std TOVTO exptae ae S Geds, d Geds aov,
eXatov dyaXXidaeas napd roiis perd-
Xovs aov. Kat, 2v kot' dpxds, Kvpte, 10
Tijv y^v iBepeXiaaas, Kai epya tSiv
XeipaV aov elalv oi oiipavoi' avrot 1 1
dnoXovvrai, av Se Siapeveis' Kai
ndvres as ipdnov ndXaiaBtjaovrai, Kai 1 2
aael nepi^dXatov eXi^eis aiirovs, its
ipdrtov, Kai dkXayfiaovTcu' aii Si 6
aiiTos et, Kai to errj aov ovk iKXeiyjrovai. 1 3
Trpds Tt'va Se tmv dyyeXmv eiptjKe nore,
KdBov iK Se^iSiv pov, eas av 6a tovs
ixBpoiis aov iinondSiov rap noSav
aov ; oiixt ndvres elal XetrovpyiKd 1 4
nvevpara els SiaKovlav dnoareXXopeva
Std TOVS peXXovras KXrjpovopeXv aa-
TTjpiav ;
Ps. 2', ' vids pov et av, iya afjpepov yeyevvrjKa ae. airtjaai nap ipov,
Kai Saaa aoi eBvTj tjjv KXrjpovoptav aov, Koi rfjV Kardaxfaiv aov rd nepara
rfjs y^s.
Ps. 103 (104)* d TTOimv TOVS dyyeXovs avrov nvevpara, koi tovs
XetTovpyoiis aiirov rtvp ^Xeyov .
Ps. 109 (no)' Ko^ov e'k Se^tav pov eas dv 6a roiis ix6povs aov iino
ndSiov rStv noSav aov. ' C. reads iceK\rjpov6prjicev dvopa.
^ A" read nvpbs (pXeya.

46 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
There can be practically no doubt that in this passage we
have a reminiscence of the first chapter of the Hebrews. The
following are the most important points : —
I. Clement quotes the first words of Heb. i^, and then
Heb. I*, omitting the intervening words, and with the follow
ing changes. Clement reads peyakoaa-ivrjs for b6^ris,p.eCCa>v eanv
for KpeCrTiov yevdpevos : he omits -nap avrovs, and in the best
texts transposes KeKkrjpovopriKev and ovop.a. The substitution of
p,eyakuiavvrj for 8o'£a might easily be accounted for by the occur
rence of the former at the end of Heb. i^.
3. Clement then quotes, with the formula yeypanrai,
Ps. 104*, in a form which corresponds exactly with Heb. i'.
It can hardly be doubted that Clement intends to quote the
Psalm, but the form in which he does it is exactly the same as
that in Hebrews, while it differs from the best text of the LXX
in one particular. Clement reads -avpos (j)k6ya, while the
LXX reads irCp cpkeyov (A* Ttvpbs (pke-ya).
3. Clement then quotes Ps. 2"^ and *, while in Heb. i' only
Ps. a' is quoted.
4. Clement then quotes Ps. iio^, which is quoted in
Heb. i".
We have then an almost verbal citation from the Hebrews,
and the citation of a group of passages from the Psalms which
would be difficult to explain except as suggested by the
Hebrews. It may, indeed, be objected that the latter pheno
menon might be explained as being due to the citation of some
collection of Messianic passages in common use ; but against
this it must be observed that the passage quoted from
Ps. 104*, which occurs naturally in the context in Heb. i',
would not naturally be included in any collection of
Messianic passages. c
(20) Clem. xvii. 5. Heb. 3I Num. 12".
Mtovo-^s TTiCTTds e'v 'itjaoiiv, ntarbv ovra d Bepdnav pov
oXo> Tw oiKa aiiToii i- rw notfjaavn aiir&v, as Movo^s' e'v dXo) ra
kXtjBtj. Kai Maafjs iv oXa ti5 oiko) pov TrtOTo's e'oTiv.
OIKO) aVTOV.
The passage might be based on Num. la'', but the

CLEMENT OF ROME

47

substitution of a'VTov for jitoC suggests the influence of the
Hebrews. Cf Clem, xliii. i and Heb. 3®.

(21) Clem, xxxvi. i.
'Iijo'ovv XptOTOv, Tdv dpxtepea rav
npoa(j)opav fjpav, tov npoardrrjv Kai
fioTjBbv Trjs daBeveias fjpav.

Heb. 2'^ 3'.
€V o) yap 7r€7T0vuev avros Tret-
paaSeisj tvuarai toI? Tretpafo/ieVoiS
^or}9rj(Tai . , , /caTavoT^trare rov dno-
o-ro\ov Kai dp)(i€pea rrjs 6p,oXoyias
Tjfxav *lr)<TOVV.
It seems probable that we have in this passage a remini
scence of the Hebrews. Cf. Clem. Ixi. 3 and Isiv.

(22) Clem. xvii. i.
fXt(J.T)Ta\ y€va)p.€da KdKeivcov otrives
iv bepfJUKTiv atyeioLS Ka\ firj\a>ral.s
•jrepteTrdrrjaav Krjpva'crovres rrjv ekevcrtv
TOU Xpia-rov' \iy(op.€v 8e 'HXiav Kat
'EXtaaie, ert bi Ka\ 'lefeKtijX, rovs
iTpo(jir)Tas, irpos rovrois Ka\ rovs p.€-
fxapTVpTjfxivovs.

Heb. ii'', »^
neptfjXBov iv pTJXaraXs, iv atyeiois
Seppaatv, iiarepovpevot, BXtfBdpevot,
KaKovxovpevot . . . Kai ovrot ndvres,
paprvptjBevTes Std rfjs ntareas, oiiK
iKopiaavTO rfjv ina-yyeXiav.

It would at first sight appear that we have in the passage of
Clement a probable reminiscence of tbe passage in the Hebrews,
but against this it must be observed : —
I. That the author of the Hebrews is very possibly using
some uncanonical source.
a. That it is, therefore, quite possible that the passage in
Clement is founded upon this source rather than on Hebrews,
and that the reference to Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel points in
this direction.

(23) Clem. xix. 2.
TToXXSv OVV Kai peydXav Kat ev-
6d|(BV peTetXrj(f)dTes npd^eav dnava-
Spdpapev ini rbv e^ dpxfjs napa-
SeSopevov fjpXv ttjs elprjvrjs CKonov,
Kai dreviaapev ets rdv narepa Kat
KTiaTTjV TOV avpnavros Kdapov, Kai
rats fieyaXonpeneai Kai iinep^aXXov-
aats airrov SapeaXs rfjs elpfjvrjs eiiep-
yeaiais re KoXXrjBapev.

Heb. 12'.
TOtyapovv Kai fjpeXs, Toaoiirov
exovres nepiKeipevov fjpXv vecjios pap-
Tvpav, oyKov dnoBepevoi ndvra Kai rfjV
eiineptararov dpapriav St' vnopovfjs
Tpexapev rbv npoKetpevov fjpXv dyava,
dcpopavres els rbv rfjS ntareas dp\rj-
ydv Kai TeXetoJTijv 'hjaovv.

48 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

There is little correspondence in phrase, but a strong
similarity in general conception. But if the preceding passage
is founded upon some uncanonical document, the influence of the
document might also extend to the present one.

Clem. xxi.

Heb. 4^
fmv ydp d Xdyos roii Geov, Kai
ivepyrjs . . . Kai KptriKbs ivBvpfjaeav

(24) (Jlem. XXl. 9
ipevvrjTTjs ydp eanv ivvoiav Kai
ivBvprjaeav' ov fj nvofj aiiTod iv fjpXv
ianv, Kai orav BeXrj dveXei aiirfjv. Kai ivvoiav KapSias,
It seems possible that we have here a reminiscence of the
Hebrews, but it must be noticed : —
I. We have epewrjrrjs instead of KpiriKos.
a. The subject of the sentence is not the same ; in Hebrews
it is the Word of God, in Clement it seems to be the Fear of
God. 3. The conception is found also in PhUo ' Quis rer. div.
heres,' 26, 37.

(25) Clem, xxvii. i.
ravrrj ovv rfj eXniSi npoaSeSe-
aBaaav al -^jnixal fjpav ra niara iv
raXs inayyeXlats Kai rw SiKaia iv
ToXs Kpipaaiv.

Heb. lo^l
intrros yap 6 inayyeikafievos*
Heb. ii".
f}yq(raro tov

cTret TTtOTOV
yeiKafievov,

fnay~

(26)

Clem. Xxvii. i.

ovbev yap abvvarov napa ts)
et pfj TO t^evaaaBai.

(27) Clem. Ivi. 4.
ov ydp dyaTTo Kvptos
TraiSevei, paanyoX Se
ndvra vibv ov napa-
Sexerai . . .

Heb. i2«.
dv ydp dyaTrd Kvptos
TratSeuet, paortyoT Se
TrdvTO vtdv ov napa-
Sexerai,

Heb. 6''.
bvvarov ^evaaaBai Qeov.
Prov. 3"-
ov ydp dyaTrd Kvpto:
iXeyxei ^ paanyoX Se
ndvra vlbv ov napa-
Sexerai. ' NA read TraiSeiJei.

Acts
(28) Clem, xviii. i.
Tl Se e'lnapev ini Tm pepaprvprj-
peva AaviS J npbs dv eiTrev d Geds"
Ejpov dvSpa Kara ttjv KapSiav pov,
AaviS TOV TOV 'leaaai iv e'Xe'ei
alavia expiaa airdv.

cc

Acts 13''''.
fjyeipe rbv Aaj3iS avrots ets ^aaiKea,
a Kai eiTTe paprvpfjaas, Evpov Aa^iS
TOV TOV leaaai, dvSpa Kara ttji'
KapSiav pov, ds notfjaei ndvra to
BeXfjpard pov.

CLEMENT OF ROME 49
Ps. 88 (89) '\ I Sam. 13"-
eSpov AaveiS tov SovXdv pov, iv Kai (rjrfjaei Kvptos eavTca dvBpanov
iXeei ' dyia expiaa aiirdv. Kard ttjv KapSiav avrov.
• B* eXeaj (E ?), B»NA(E ?)T e\aia.
It is to be noticed in the passages that : —
I. Clement and the author of the Acts combine phrases
from the Psalm and from i Samuel.
3. Clement and tbe Acts both insert the words rbv rov
'leiro-ai, which are not read either in the Psalm or in
I Samuel. 3. Clement and Acts agree in reading avbpa, Ps. 88^^ reads
bovkov, and 1 Sam. 13^* reads dvdpunrov.
There are, however, certain differences between Clement
and the Acts : —
I. Clement finishes the quotation with the words ev eXe'et
amvCto exptora avrov, agreeing with the Psalm.
3. Acts concludes the quotation with 6s woiijo-et -navra to Oek-fj-
p.aTd pov (cf. Isa. 44^*), for which there is no authority either
in the LXX, or in the Hebrew of the Psalm, or of i Sam. 13^*.
The phenomena of the passages are thus somewhat com
plicated ; the conclusion to which we incline is that Clement
intended to quote Ps. 88^^ — this would seem to be indicated by
the conclusion of the passage — but that be has possibly been
influenced by a recollection of the passage as it is quoted in
Acts 13^^. It seems difficult otherwise to account for the
combination of the passages from the Psalm and from
I Samuel, and for the addition of the words rbv toS 'leo-o-ai,
which is found both in Acts and in Clement.
It must, however, be observed that these suggestions do not
account for the conclusion of the quotation in the Acts. It
may be suggested that this is simply an example of the
inaccuracy which may be due to quotation from memory.
But it may also be suggested that the form of the quotation
in Acts may be due to some other cause, e. g. the possible
influence of some collection of Davidic or Messianic passages.
It is possible that such collections of 0. T. passages may have
been current in Apostolic times. Such a collection might
explain the phenomena presented by the passages in Clement

50 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
and in the Acts without requiring any direct dependence of
the one upon the other.

(29) Clem. ii. i. Acts 20'^
ndvres re iranetvorfipoveXTe prjSev pvrjpovevetv re Tmv Xdyav rov
dXa^ovevdpevot, vnoraaadpevoi pdXXov Kvpiov 'l7;o-ov, OTt avrds etjre, Maitd-
^ iinordaaovres, fjStov StSovres fj pidv ian pdXXov StSdvai fj Xap^avetv.
Xap^dvovres, tois icjiodiois tov Geov
dpKOvpevoi. The phrase in Clement finds a parallel in the words of our
Lord quoted by St. Paul, but we do not feel that the circum
stances are such that we are compelled to think that Clement
has the passage in the Acts in his mind.
I. St. Paul is quoting an otherwise unrecorded saying of
our Lord's, which may have been known to Clement simply
as a saying of our Lord current among Christian men.
a. It is possible that the phrase in Clement has no direct
relation to any particular saying of our Lord, but represents
a conception current among Christians.
(30) Clem. lix. 2. Acts 26''-
iKoikeaev fjjids dnb aKorovs els (f>as. intarpe'^ai dnb aKdrovs els <^s.
Cf Col. i^^ and i Peter a^ under (43) and (49).
Titus C
(31) Clem. i. 3. Titus 2*. ^
yvvaijiv re e'v dpapa Kai aepvrj 'va aacjjpovi^aat rds veas </>tXdv-
Kol dyvfj avveiSfjaet ndvra intpeXeiv Spovs etvat, (jiiXoTeKvovs, aa(j>povas,
naprjyyeXXere, arepyovaas KaBrjKOvras dyvds, oiKovpyovs ', dyaBds, imo-
Toiis avSpas eavrav' ev re tm Kavdvt Taaaopevas rots iSi'ois dvSpdaiv, Iva
TTjS vnoTayfjS vnapxovaas rd Kara rbv fifj d Xdyos roii Geov ^Xaa^rjprirai'
OIKOV aepvSts oiKovpyeiv^ e'StSatrKerc,
Trdw aacfipovovaas.
' L. regere ; S. curam gerentes ; 0. (e rasura) o'tKovpeiv. ' N°D oiKow/joiis.
The passage in Clement contains a number of phrases
which correspond with those of Titus.
dyv^ o-vveiSTjo-et. dyvds.
arepyovaas KaBrjKdvras roiis avSpas
eavrav. (^tXdvSpovs.

CLEMENT OF ROME

51

ev re ra Kavdvt t^s VTroray^s imap- inoraaaopevas tois iSiois dvSpdaiv.
Xoiiaas.
oiKovpyeiv. oiKovpyovs.
Trdw aa(j>povovaas. aa(j>povas.
There is a paraUel list in Philo, De Execr, yvvaiKas (T(S><i>povas
oiKoupois Kat <^iXai>8povs.
The Committee is inclined to think that the correspondence
of phrases, and especially of oJicoupyerj' and ohovpyo'Cs, cannot
well be accounted for by chance, and makes it probable that
the one writer is dependent on the other: they have, there
fore, with some hesitation, decided to place the passage in
Class C.
(I am inclined to think that the correspondence of the two
passages may be accounted for by the conjecture that the
author of Titus and Clement are both using some manual of
directions for the moral life. — A. J. C.)

(32) Clem. ii. 7.

Titus 3'.

cTotpoi ets Trdv epyov dyaBdv,

Trpds ttSv epyov dyaBbv eroipovs

Clem. xxiv. 4.
pfj dpyoiis pTjSe napeipevovs
inl TTOV epyov dyaBdv.

etvat. 2 Tim. 2^\
etvat _ ^
ets Trdv epyov dyaBbv fjToipaapevov.

2 Tim. 3",

jrpds TTOV epyov dyaBbv i^rjpna-

pevos.

2 Cor. 9'.
tva . . . nepiaaeiirjTe els Tidv epyov
dyaBdv.
D
a Corinthians
d
(33) Clem, xxxvi. 2. 2 Cor. 3".
Bid TOVTOV drevifopev ets rd v^rj f/peXs Se ndvres dvaKeKoKvpptva
rav oiipavav' Std tovtov ivonrpi^d- npoaana rfjV Sd^av Kvpiov Karonrpi-
peBa T))v apapov koi vntpTdrrjV di/'tv fdpevot rfjV aiiTrjV eiKova perapopcfiov-
avTov. pe6a dnb Sd^ijs ets Sd^av, Ka6dnep
dnb Kvpiov Jlvevparos.
The form of the two passages is very different, and there is
little correspondence between the conceptions ; but the phrases
h>0TiTpiC6ii.eea and KaTOTrrpi.Cdp.evoi might seem to suggest some
connexion. E 3
52 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Dr. Lightfoot has, however, pointed out in his note that
there is a parallel phrase in PhUo, Leg. Alleg. iii. ^^ prjbi
KaTOTTTpuraCprjv ev ^XXu rivl ttjv a-rjv Ibeav rj ev croi rta @e&. It
would appear that the phrase is not distinctive enough to
enable us to infer that Clement knew this Epistle.
Unclassed
(34) Clem. V. 5, 6. 2 Cor. ii'*'-".
Clement's enumeration of St. Paul's sufferings might at
first sight seem to suggest this Epistle ; but these would pro
bably be known to Clement apart from the account in the
Epistle, and one of his statements, eTTrdus bea-p-d cpopea-as, is
obviously not derived from the Epistle.
Oalatians d
(35) Clem. ii. i. Gal. 3\ Deut. 28««-
Kai rd naBfjjiara aiiroii ots Kar ocftBaXpoiis kcu earat tj ^arj trou
7;v Trpd dtpBctXpav iipav. 'irjaovs Xptarbs npo- Kpepapevrj anevavn riiiv
eypdcjitj iaravpapevos. dcjiBaXpav aov.
It has been suggested that St. Paul has been influenced
by Deuteronomy, and that Clement is affected both by
Deuteronomy and by St. Paul.
But the coincidence appears to be too uncertain to serve as
the foundation for the conclusion that Clement was acquainted
with Galatians.
(36) Clem. V. 2. Gal. 2'.
The word a-rvkoi is used in both passages in connexion with
the Apostles and leading men in the Church.
Dr. Lightfoot, however, has pointed out in his note that the
use of the word seems to have been very common in this
sense in Jewish writers.
Ephesians d
(37) Clem, xxxvi. 2. Eph. 4^^
These passages have already been considered in connexion
with Rom. i^^ see (5). It should be observed that Clement's
ea-KOToipivrj bidvoia corresponds with Ephesians eo-Kornrft^w
(NAB, W. & H. k(rKOTu)p,ivoi) TTJ biavoCa.

CLEMENT OF ROME 53
(38) Clem. xlvi. 6. Eph. 4*-«.
fj ovxi eva Bebv exopev Kai eva ev aapa Kai ev IlveUpa, KaBas Kai
Xpiarbv Kai ev nvevpa -r^s x°/"tos iKXfjBrjre iv pta iXniSi ttjs KXfjaeas
TO iKxvBev icj> fjpds; Kai pta kX^o-is ^pav, ets Kvpios, pta nians, ev /Sd-
e'v XptoTffl; nrtapa, els Geds Kai TrarTjp ndvrav,
d eTTt navrav Kai Std ndvTav Koi iv

naatv. evi oe CKaarco fjpwv eboorj ij
xdpis Kara rb perpov t^s Sapeds tov
Xpto^ToO.
It is noticeable that there is not only a general resemblance
between these two passages, but a close correspondence in
phrase — Clem. Eph.
I. eva Geov. I. ets Geds.
2. eva Xptardv. 2. ets Kvpios.
3. ev nvevpa T^E xdpiTOS rb eK- 3. ev Uvevpa and evi Se eKdara
Xvdev i<j)' fjpds. fjpav iSoBrj fj x^^P'^ Kara rb perpov
rrjs Sapeds rov XptOTOv.
4, pta kXtjo-is e'v Xptorw. 4. iKXfjBqre iv piS e'XjriSt t^s
KX^O'eCBS.
Cf Hermas, Sim. ix. 13, 5, and 18, 4.
At first sight it would appear probable that Clement has
the passage in Ephesians in his mind ; but we must remember
that the passages both in Ephesians and in Clement are
very possibly founded upon some liturgical forms, and it
thus seems impossible to establish any dependence of Clement
upon Ephesians.
(39) Clem. lix, 3. Eph. i^^
dvoi^as TOVS dcj>6dXpovs rfjs KapSias necjiana/ievovs tovs dcfiBdXpovs rfjs
iipav. KapSias iipav.
Cf. Clem, xxxvi. a.
The phrase is noticeable, and it should be observed that the
preceding sentences in Clement have considerable affinity
with Eph. !*-«¦ ".
Philippians d
(40) Clem. iii. 4- Pliil- i"-
pijSe . . . nopeveaBai p7;Se ttoXi- pdvov d^ias tov evayyeXtov roi
TeieaBai Kara rb KaBfjKOV ra Xpiara. Xpttrrov noXireveade.
Clem. xxi. r.
e'dv p^ d^ias aiirov noXirevdpevoi . , .
A possible reminiscence, but the metaphorical use of the

54 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
phrases of citizenship in connexion with the moral and
spiritual life was probably common,
(41) Clem, xlvii. i, 2. Phil. 4"-
'AvaXd/Sere t^v intaroXfjv rov pa- o'iSare Se Kai vpets *iXt7rTr7;o-(ot on
Kapiov IlavXov rov aTroordXov. Tt e'v dpxfj rov evayyeXtov, ore i^XBov
nparov iipXv iv dpxjj Toii eiiayyeXtov dnb MaKeSovias.
eypayj/ev ;
The phrase ev dpxfj, &c., is peculiar, and it seems clear that
Clement is using it in the same sense as St. Paul.
But it would scarcely appear that this is enough to prove
that Clement takes the phrase from Philippians.
Colossians d
(42) Clem. lix. 2. Col. i'"*' ".
St' ov iKoXeaev fjpds dnb aKorovs eiixapiarovvres Ttg narpl tc5 Uava-
els <pas, dnb dyvaaias els iniyvaatv aavTi fjpas els ttjv pepiSa tov KX^pov
S6^s dvdparos aiirov. rav dyiav iv ra (pari ds ippiiaaro
fjjias iK TTjS i^ovaias tov aKdrovs, Kat
peTeoTTjaev els rfjV ^aaiXeiav Toi) vioS
TTJS dydnrjs aiirov.
Cf also Col. I'.
tva nXrjpaBfjre T^v iniyvaaiv roii
BeXfjparos aiiroi iv ndar) aocpta . . .
The metaphor of transference from darkness to light is
worth observing, but it is also found in Acts 36I8 and
I Peter a', see (30) and (48).
We cannot, therefore, assert that Clement is dependent
upon Colossians.
Unclassed
(43) Clem. ii. 4. Col. 2».
dyav ijv iipXv fjpepas re Kai WKrbs BeXa ydp vpds elSevai fjXiKOV
vnep naarjs rfjs aSeXcjioTTjros — dyava exa imep iipav —

I Timothy d
(44) Clem. Ixi. 2. i Tim. i".
ail ydp, Seanora enovpdvte, ^aaCKev r^ Se fiaatXeX twv aicavcDV, d^Bdprtf,
t£v alavav. dopdrf, pdvco Gem . . .
The phrase is striking, but Dr. Lightfoot has pointed out
in his notes on the passage, that it is probably based upon

CLEMENT OF ROME

55

Jewish liturgical forms, and the phrase itself occurs in Tobit
I3«' ", and in Apoc. 15^ (« and C read ai<ivoiv; N-A and B
read edv&v).
Unclassed
(45) Clem. xxix. i. i Tim. 2'.
npoaeXBapev ovv aiira iv daidrryri inaipovras daiovs ^"Pas yoipis
^X^s, dyvds Kai dptdvTovs x"?"* dpy^s Kai SiaXoyiCT-poC.
aipovres npbs aiirdv.
The phrase appears to be used by many writers. Cf.
Dr. Lightfoot's note.

I Pet. i'". "-
eiSoTes OTt ov ^BaproXs, dpyupia fj
Xpvaia, iXvrpaBrjTe e'K Tfjs paraias
vpav dvaarpocpfjs narponapaSdrov, dXXd
nplca aipan its dpvoij apapov Kai
daniXov Xpiarov . . .

I Peter
(46) Clem. vii. 2, 4.
Std dnoXinapev rds Kevds Kai
paraias (fipovriSas, Kai eXBapev inl
TOV evKXe^ Kai aepvbv t^s napaSdaeas
fjpav Kavdva, . , . dreviaapev els rb
atpa TOV Xpiarov Kai yvapev as eanv
Ttptov Tw Bea Ta narpl aiirov, on Std
T^v fjperepav aarrjpiav iKXvBev Travn
TO) Kdapa peravoias X^P'" infjveyKev,
These passages present many points of correspondence of
phrase and thought, but the conception of redemption through
the blood of Christ is not peculiar to St. Peter's Epistles in the
N. T., and may well be supposed to have been current among
all Christians.

(47) Clem. XXX. i, 2.
'Aytov ovv pepis imdpxovres noirj-
aapev Ta tov dytaapoii ndvra, <pev-
yovres KardXdXids, ptapds re Kai
dvdyvovs avpnXoKas, peBas re Kcii
veareptapoiis Kai ^SeXvKras iniBvpias,
pvaepdv potxeiav jSSeXvKTTjv iineprj-
(pavtav. Geds ydp, (prjaiv, iineprjcftdvois
dvnrdaaeTai, raneivois Se SiSaaiv
Xdpiv.

I Pet. 2\ 5^
dno6epevoi ovv ndaav KOKiav Kai
ndvra SdXov Kai iinoKpiaeis Kai tpBdvovs
Kai ndaas KaraXaXids its dpnyevvrfra
Ppe(f>Tj rb XoytKOV dSoXov ydXo ininoBfj-
aare. I Pet. 5° OTt d Geds iineprj-
cjidvois dvTirdaaerat, raneivoXs Se
SiSaat x^P'"-
Cf. Jas. 4' Std Xe'yet, d Geds ktX.

Prov. 3".
Kvptos inepTjcfidvots avrirdaaerai, TaneivoXs Se SiSaaiv X"/""-
The correspondence of thought with i Peter is interesting,
but the last words are probably quoted from Prov. 3^*, and

Bavdrov, Kai KoXv^ei
ttX^^os dpapnav.

56 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
the' subject of Clement's passage is probably suggested by
the quotation from Deuteronomy, contained in the previous
chapter. (48) Clem. xlix. 5. i Pet. 4^ Jas. 5''".
dydnrj KaXfrnret nX^- dydnrj KaXvnrei nX^- d entarpeyjras dpap-
60s dpapnav. Bos dpapnav, TaXbv iK nXdvrjS obov
Prov. 10" LXX. Prov. lo'^ Heb. <fTov ai.aei^ fvxnv^ k
ndvras Se roiis pfj ' But love covereth
(juXoveiKoUvras KaXvnrei all transgressions.'
(j>iXia. I. Clement and i Peter agree exactly in the terms of the
passage ; they differ from the Hebrew text of Proverbs in
reading ' a multitude ' instead of ' all,' and they differ entirely
from the LXX text of Proverbs. It would, therefore, at first
sight seem probable that Clement is quoting the phrase from
I Peter. a. A. Resch {Agrapha, p. 348) has argued that this phrase
was originally a saying of our Lord, and brings forward the
following parallels. Didasc. ii. 3.
on Xeyet Kvptos' dydnrj KciXvnrei nXfjBos dpapnav.
Clem. Alex. Paedagog. iii. 12.
vai pfjv Kai nepl dydnrjs' dydnrj, (firjai, KaXvnrei nXfjBos dpapnav' Kat nepl
noXiTeias' dndSore Ta Kataapos Kataapi Kai rd rov Beov ra Bea.
2 Clem. xvi. 4.
dydnrj Se KctXvnrei nXfjBos dpapnav.
Resch urges that the author of the Didascalia clearly
regards the phrase as a saying of our Lord's, but an examina
tion of the context shows plainly that the author cites with
the same formula, ' the Lord saith,' passages from the 0. T.
He also argues that the fact that Clement of Alexandria sets
this phrase beside a well-known saying of our Lord, shows
that he looked upon it as having been spoken by Him ; but
again an examination of the context makes it plain that
Clement is citing indifferently phrases from the Old and
New Testaments as embodying the instruction of the
Paedagogus. It appears, therefore, that these parallels do not justify the

CLEMENT OF ROME 57
conclusion that i Peter and Clement are quoting a traditional
saying of our Lord.
3. It may, however, be suggested that Clement and i Peter
are both quoting from some unknown source, i. e. another
Greek version of the passage in Proverbs, or some Apocryphal
writing, and it does not seem therefore that we can say more
than that it is possible that Clement is quoting the passage
from I Peter.
(49) Clem. lix. 2. i Pet. 2'.
See under Colossians (43). Unclassed
(50) Clem. Introduction. i Pet. i'> ^.
There are some parallel phrases, but they are not sufficiently
important or distinctive to require special discussion.
(51) Clem. ii. 2. i Pet. 4''-
dyaBonoiiav, iv dyaBonotta.
The word occurs in the N. T. only in i Peter, and is not
found in the LXX or other Greek versions of the O. T. and
Apocrypha ; and apparently it does not occur in classical
literature.(52) Clem. ii. 4. i Pet. 2".
T^s dSeX^oTTjTOS. rfjV dSeXcfidrrjra. I Pet. 5°.
TTJ dSeXtjidTTjTl.
The word occurs in the N. T. only in i Peter ; it is found
in the LXX of i Mace. la"' ^^ but in the sense of 'brotherly
affection.' It does not apparently occur in classical literature.
I John d
(53) Clem. xlix. 5. i John 4"-
ev Tjj dydnjj ireXetaBrjaav ndvres oi d Se ^ojSovpevos ov rereXetWat e'v
e'xXeKTOt TOV Geov. t,5 dydnrj.
Clem. 1. 3.
dXX' 01 e'v dydnrj reXetaBevres . . .
There is a verbal similarity between the first passage in
Clement and that in John, but the meaning is different ; the

58 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
meaning in the second passage may perhaps be the same as
in John.

Apocalypse
(54) Clem, xxxiv. 3.
npoXeyei ydp fjpXv'
iSov d Kvptos, Kai d
ptaBbs aiirov npb npoa-
anov avrov, dnoSovvai
eKdara Kard rb epyov

d
Apoc. 22^^^.
tSov, epxopai raxv,
Kai d ptaBos pov per
ipov, dnoSovvai eKaara
«)S rb epyov iarlv aiirov.

Isa. 40".
iSov Kvptos, Kvpios
perd laxvos epxerai . . .
ISoii d piaBbs avTotJ per'
avTOv, Kai Tb epyov hiav-
Ti'ov avTov. Isa. 62".
tSov d aarfjp aot
napayeyovev exav tov
eavrav piaBdv, Kai rb
epyov aiirov npb npoa-
anov airrov.
Prov. 24'".
Koi d TrXdcras TTVO^v
Tratrtv aiirbs otSev ndvra,
OS dnoSiSaaiv eKaarcf
Kara rd epya aiiTOV.
The passages in Clement and the Apocalypse seem to be
made up of a combination of phrases from Isaiah and Proverbs.
The combination is noticeable, but may perhaps be accounted
for by the hypothesis that it may have been made in some
earlier Apocalyptic work. Cf. Barnabas (37).

GOSPELS.
The Synoptic Tradition.

(55) Clem. xiii. i f.
jidXtara jiepvrjpevoi
TMV Xdyav tov KVpiov
'irjaov, ots iXdXrjaev
SiSdaKav inteiKetav Kai
paKpoBvpiav. ovras ydp
I eirrev" 'EXedre tva eXerj-
3 BfjTe, d<j)ieTe 'va dcjieB^
o VjutV as noieXre, ovra
A noiTjBrjaerat iipXv' as
Si'SoTe, ovras SoBfjaerai
5 vpiV dis Kpivere, ovras

Matt. 5', &c.
5' paKdptoi oi iXefj-
poves' on aiiroi eXerjBfj-
aovrai. 6^^ Kai a(j>es fjpXv
Ta d^etXiypara fjpav, as
Kai fjpeXs d<pfjKapev tois
d(j>etXeTats fjpav.
6'* e'dv ydp dc^fjre
ToTs avBpanots rd napa-
nrapara aiirav, dcpfjaei
Kai iipiv d narfjp iipStv d

Luke 6'"' '^'.
6'^ Kai KaBas BeXere
tva notaaiv fipXv oi dv-
Bpanoi, Kai vpets TToteire
aiiToXs djiotas.
6'* yiveaBe o'lKTip-
poves, KaBas d narrfp
iipav o'tKrippav e'ort.
Kai pfj Kpivere Kai ov prj
KpiBfjre ; kcu. pfj Kara-
SiKofere, Kai ov pfj Kara-
SiKaaBfjTe' aTroXvere, Kat

CLEMENT OF ROME

59

Q}S

XPI-
OVTtBS XP1-

6 KpiBfjaeaBe' oreveaBe
h arevBfjaerai iipXv^
perpa perpeXre, iv aiircji
peTpTjBfjaerai ^ iipXv.
' Lat. omits the clause.
' Lat. reads remetietur.

Clem. Alex.
Sfromata, u. i8, 91.
iXedTe,(prjalv d Kvptos,
tva eXerjBfjre' d(j)ieTe, iva
d^eBfj iipiv' d)S TTOteiTe,
oijTcas noiTj6fjaeTai iipXv
its SiSoTe ovTcos SoBfj
aerai iipiv d)s Kpivere,
ovTcos KpiBfjaeaBe' as
XprjOTeveaBe, ovras XPV'
arevBfjaeTat iipXv a pe
rpa perpeXre, dvnperprj-
Bfjaerai iipXv. Didasc. ii. 42.
OTt Xeyet d Kvptos* *> Kpipan Kpi
vere, KpiBfjaeaBe, Kai d>s KaraStKa-
fere, KaraSiKaaBfjaeaBe.

ovpdvtos, idv Se pfj d^fjre
ToXs dvBpanots rd napa-
nrajtxiTa aiirav, oiiSe 6
narfjp iipav dcjjfjaei rd
napanrapara iipav.
7^ pfj Kpivere, tva
pfj KpiBfjre' iv CO ydp Kpi
pan Kpivere KpiBfjaeaBe,
Kat e'v a perpa perpeXre
perprjBfjaerai iipXv,
7^^ TrdvTa ovv oaa
dv BeXrjre iva nota
aiv iipXv oi avBpanoi,
oiiTa Kai vpets TroteiTe
avTois* OVTOS ydp ianv
d vdjios Kai oi npocpfjrat.
Polycarp ii. 3.
pvtjpovevovres Se Sv
eiTrev d Kvpios SiSdaKav
pfj Kpivere tva pfj KpiBfjre'
dtpiere, Kai dcjieBfjaerai
iipXv' iXedre, tva iXerj-
6fjTe, a perpco perpeXre,
dvnperptjBfjaeTai iipXv.
' Lat. et.

OTToXv^ijo'etr^e' SiSoreKai
SoBfjaerai iipXv perpov
KciKdv, nenteapevov, ae-
aaXevpevov iinepeKxwd-
pevov, Saaovaiv els rbv
KoXnov iipav. a ydp
perpa perpeXre, dvn-
peTpTj6fjaeTai iipiv.

Didasc. ii. 21.
dSds Se elpfjvrjs iarlv
d aarfjp fjpav ['Itjotovs d
XpitTTOs], OS Kai etTTev"
aCJieTe Kai dcpeBfjaerai
iipXv [SiSoTe Kai SoBfj-
aerat vpivj .
' Syr. Lat. omit SiSore
. . . iipiv.

Macarius Aegypt., Hom.
xxxvii. 3.
KaBas iveretXaro, dcpere Kai dtpeBrj-
aerai iipXv.

The phenomena of tbe passage are very complex.
I. The passage numbered i has no phrase directly corre
sponding to it in any of our Gospels, but might be founded on
Matt. 5^.
The passage numbered a has no proper parallel in St.
Matthew, but is near Luke dnokvere, &c.
No. 3 has no proper parallel in our Gospels, but may be
compared with Matt. 7^^ and Luke 6".
No. 4 has no parallel in Matthew, but is very near Luke 6^^,
only Clement has us and ovrm, while Luke has koi.

6o THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
No. 5 is parallel to Matt. 7^ and Luke 6^'', but Clement has
(US and oiirois, while Matthew has piTj and tva pr) Kpidrjre, and
Luke prj and Kai ov p,^ KpiBfJTe.
No. 6 has no parallel in either Gospel.
No. 7 is parallel to Matt. 7^ and Luke 6^^, but Matthew
has ev M for u, and Luke inserts ydp after &, and reads ^vn-
p.eTpr)0?7creTai. n. Resch {Agrapha, p. 136) has collected a number of
parallels. Clement of Alexandria has the passage exactly as in
Clement with a few unimportant variations.
Clement of Alexandria's use of Clement of Rome is well
established, and this fact, therefore, requires no special
explanation. In Polycarp some of Clement's phrases recur, cf. (75).
No. I is exactly the same, but Lat. reads et.
No. a is in Polycarp, but he reads koi dcpeO'^a-eraL instead of
iva dcfiedfj.
Nos. 3 and 4 are not in Polycarp.
No. 5 is found in Polycarp, but in the same form as in
St. Matthew, not in Clement's form.
No. 6 is not in Polycarp.
No. 7 is found in Polycarp, but he omits Clement's ev avrZ,
and reads dvTip.eTprjdrja-erai like Luke, yet he omits Luke's ydp.
Didasc. ii. 3i.
No. 3 is in the same form as in Polycarp.
No. 4 reads exactly as in Luke (but see critical note to
text), omitting Clement's cos and ovra^s.
Didasc. ii. 4a.
No. 5 occurs in the form of Matthew, while the clause km
ins KarabiKaCere, &c., is parallel to Luke.
Macarius, Hom. xxxvii. 3.
No. a reads as Polycarp.
III. To sum up these phenomena —
No. I is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp.
No. a is in Clem. Alex., Polycarp, Didasc, and Macarius.
No. 3 is found only in Clem. Alex.

CLEMENT OF ROME 6i
No. 4 is found in Clem. Alex, and Didasc, but in the
latter in the form of Luke.
No. 5 is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp, but in the
latter in the form of Matthew.
No. 6 is found only in Clem. Alex.
No. 7 is found in Clem. Alex, and Polycarp, but in the
latter in a form which approaches nearer to that of
Matthew and Luke than that of Clem. Rom.
It must also be observed that except by Clem. Alex, the
passage of Clem. Rom. is only partially reproduced, and so
far as it is reproduced by Polycarp, it is in a totally different
order. rV. The Committee concludes that in the circumstances it
is impossible to say with any confidence what is the source
of Clement's quotations. It may be urged that they repre
sent an inaccurate quotation of Matthew and Luke made
from memory, but the recurrence in Polycarp of the phrase
marked i, and in Polycarp, Didasc, and Macarius of that
marked a, makes this less probable. On the other hand, the
fact that the series of phrases as it is found in Polycarp
and the Didasc. is incomplete, and not in the same order as in
Clem. Rom., seems to show that there is no one documentary
source common to all these writers.
We incline to think that we have in Clem. Rom. a citation
from some written or unwritten form of ' Catechesis ' as to
our Lord's teaching, current in the Roman Church, perhaps
a local form which may go back to a time before our Gospels
existed.
(56) Clem. xlvi. Matt. 2 6^ Mark 14". Luke 17'. I
7) 8. ovai Se T<5 dv- drt d pev vids rov ' AvevSeKrdv ian
pvfjaBrjre t£v Xd- Bpana ixeivo) Si ov dvBpanov iindyei, Ka- tov Td aKdvSciXa pfj
yav 'irjaov tov Kv- d vids toC dvBpanov Bats yeypanrai nepl iXBeXv' nXrjv ovai St'
pt'ov fjpav' napaSiBorai' KaXbv aiiroii' oiial Se TW dv- ov epxerat. Xvai-
eiTrev ydp' Ovai ?v aiira, el oiiK e'yev- 6panco iKeiva, Si oS reXeX aiira el XiBos
Ta dvBpana eKeiva' vfjBrj d dvBpanos i- d vibs roii dvdpanov pvXiKbs nepiKetrai
KaXbv Tjv aiira el pfj KeXvos. napaSiSorai' KaXbv nepl rbv rpdxrjXov
iyewfjBtj, fj eva t£v i8°^. fjv aiira, el ovk e'yev- avrov, Kai eppmrai
iKXcKTav pov aKav- gy g" ^y aKavSa- '^^1 ° dvBpanos e'Kei- els r^v 6dXaaaav,
SoXio-af KpetTTOv §v \lajj ^^a tbv pt- ""'• V '"" aKavSaXian

62 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

aiira nepireBfjvai pii-
Xov Kai Karanovn-
aBfjvai els rfjV Bd-
Xaaaav, fj eva rav
piKpav pov o'KavSa-
Xiaai .
' eKKeKTOiv pov 5ta-
arpeijiai , Clem. Alex. ,
Syr., Lat.

Kp&iv TOvrav Tav g .
ntarevdvrav els ipe, ^al ts dv aKavSa-
avpcjiepei aiira, tva xl„^ ?y„ ^^^ ^iKpSv
Kpepaa6rj pvXosdviKbs roirav t£v Triorev-
Trepi rbv rpdxrjXov ^^<i,„ ^Jj ^^^^ ^aXdv
aiiroii, Kai Karanov- ^f,.„^ ^nira pdXXov
TiaBfj iv ra neXd-
yei rfjs BaXdaarjs.
. . . ttX^v ovai t«
dv6pana iKeiva, St

TCBV fva.

piKpav Toi/roii'

ei nepiKetrai pvXos
dviKbs nepl rbv rpd-
XrjXov aiirov, Kai /3e-
/SXijTat eis rfjV 6d-

o5 rd aKdvSaXov ep- Xaaaav,
Xerat.
We have here the combination of the words spoken by our
Lord with regard to Judas, recorded by Matthew and Mark,
with a saying which is recorded in another connexion in
the three Synoptic Gospels. It is not impossible that Clement,
quoting from memory, might have combined some words from
the one context with the more general saying, and that he may
thus be quoting from one or other of the Gospels. But it is
just as probable that we have here, as in Clem, xiii, a
quotation from some form of catechetical instruction in our
Lord's doctrine.

(57) Clem. xxiv. 5.
i^fjX6ev d aneipav.
(58) Clem. XV. 2.
Xe'yet ydp ttov ; ovTos
d Xaos TOts x"''^e(riv pe
Tipd, fj Se KapSia aiirav
ndppa dneanv an ipov.

Matt. 13' ; Mark 4' ; Luke 8\
i^fjXBev d aneipav.

Matt. 15'.
KoXas npoe^TjTevae
nepl iipav 'Heratas
Xe'yuv, d Xaos ovtos tois
XeiXeai pe Tt/ta, tj Se
KapSia aiirav ndppa
dnexei an ipov.

Mark 7".
Practically
same.

Isa. 29".
Kai eiTrev Kvptos, ey-
yt'fet pot d Xaos oSros
ev T(5 ardjiaTi aiirov, Kai
ev TOts x^tXeaiv ainav
Tipaaiv pe, fj Se KapSia
aiirav ndppa dnexei ott
e'pov"

the

The quotation is probably from Isaiah,
quotation in Clement is tbe same as that
a Clem. (33).

but the form of the
in the Gospels : cf

IGNATIUS
INTRODUCTION.
BesidiS his references to books of N. T., none of which
stands as a direct quotation, Ignatius occasionally quotes from,
or refers to, books of 0. T. The passages are these : —
(a) Eph. V. 3. Prov. 3".
yeypairrat yap' 'Yneprjcfidvois d Kvpios iineprjcfidvois dvnrdaaeTai.
Geds ovriTao'treTat.
This quotation is discussed below (76). Ignatius deviates
from the order of the words, besides substituting ©eo's for
Kvptos. (6) Eph. XV. I. Ps. 33».
etTrev Kai e'ye'vero. eiTrev Kai iyewfjBrjaav.
Here eyevero is a better translation of the original than
eyevvrjd-qa-av ; but we need not suppose that Ignatius had
access to the Hebrew text.
(c) Magn. X. 3. Isa. 66'*.
a ndaa yXaaaa ntarevaaaa els crvvayayeXv ndvra Ta eBvrj kcu, rds
Geov avvfjxBrj. yXaaaas.
A loose reference.
{d) Magn. xii. i. Prov. 18".
6 SiKatos eavTov Karfjyopos. SiKatos eavrov Karrjyopos.
Ignatius here follows the LXX. The Hebrew gives quite
a different sense: 'the first man is upright in his suit; his
neighbour then cometh and searcheth him out ' (Lightfoot).
Ps. I'.
TrdvTa ocra dv Trot.5 KOTevoSai-
^^crerat. Isa. 52^
dXoXv{leTe' rdSe Xeyei d Kvpios,
ovopd pov ini nvav ^XaacprjpeXnu. St' vpds Std TravTos rb ovopd pov
PXaacfirjpeXrai iv roXs eBveatv.
The words are also quoted indirectly by St. Paul (Rom. 3^*).

tva
Bfjre.

Magn.
ndvra oaa

xiii. I.
TroteiTe

KarevoSa-

(/)_

TraU.

viii.

2.

ovai

ydp St' oi

' e'TTt

paTaidrrjTi to

64 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Polycarp (Phil. x. 3) quotes them similarly to Ignatius, and so
do the Apostolical Constitutions in two places. Both these
last are probably borrowing directly from Ignatius.
{g) Smyrn. i. 2. Isa. 49"^ 62'".
tva dprj aiiaarjjwv els roiis ataJvas.
Cf. also Isa. 5^". LXX has atptiv crva-a-rjpov.
A comparison of these references, and of those in Class B
from N. T., will show that Ignatius always quotes from
memory ; that he is inexact even as compared with his
contemporaries ; and that he appears sometimes to have
a vague recollection of a phrase when he is not thinking of,
or wishing to remind his readers of, the original context.
EPISTLES AND ACTS.

1 Corinthians b
(i) Eph. xvi. I. I Cor. 6".".
pfj nXavdaBe, dSeXtpol pov' ol prj nXavdaBe' oCre ndpvoi, . . .
oiKOtpBdpoi ^aatXeiav Qeov oil KXrjpo- oiire potxot . . . ^aaiXeiav Qeov kXtj-
vopfjaovatv. povoprjaovat.
Cf. also Philad. iii MJj irkavda-de, dbekcfioi pioii' et tis (rxtfovTi
OKoXov^ei, fiacrikeCav Beov ov Kkrjpovop.el. These passages also
resemble Gal. 5^^ (43)^ where bixoa-racrCai and alpiaeis are
mentioned (cf. axCCovn in Philad. iii). ohocpOopoL in Ignatius
probably means 'seducers,' especially pioixoC: if, however, we
understand the ' house ' to be the Church (so Hilgenfeld), we
may also compare i Cor. 3^^ ei tis rbv vabv rov Qeov (jideCpti,
(fidepei TOVTOV 6 ©eo's.
(2) Eph. xviii. i. 1 Cor. i"' =°.
aravpov, o ian aKavSaXov toXs d Xdyos ydp rov oravpov roXs pev
antarovatv, fjpXv Se aarrjpia Kai ^afj anoXXvpevots papia ioTiv, rots] Se
atavtos. TTOV aocfids ; ttov av^rj'rTjTTJs ; aa^opevots fjp^v Svvapts Qeov iariv . . .
noil Kavxfjais riv Xeyopevav avverav ; nov aocfids ; ttov ypappareiis ; ttov
av(,rfrTjTfjs rov aiSivos tovtov ;
St. Paul's words {nov cocpos, &c.) are a pai'apbrase of Isa.
33^8. cf also ig'i sq. That Ignatius is quoting St. Paul is
made more certain by the echo of i Cor. i^' in the preceding
sentence. The phrase a-Kdvbakov tov a-ravpov occurs Gal. 5^^ (44).

IGNATIUS 65
(3) Magn. X. 3. 1 Cor. 5'.
vnepBeaBe oJv tijv KaKTyv ^iprjv eKKoBapare t^v ndXaidv fdpijv, tva
t^v TraXai(»5eio-av Kai ivo^iaaaav, Kai ^re veov (pvpapa.
pera^dXeaBe ets veav ^vprjv, os iariv
'hjaoiis Xpiards.
A free quotation ; but there can be little doubt that Ignatius
had this passage in his mind.
(4) Rom. V. I. I Cor. 4*.
dXX' oil napd tovto SeSiKaiapat. dXX' ovk e'v rovrm SeSiKaiapai.
Ignatius quotes from memory ; there is no difference in
meaning between isapd tovto and ev tovt<b.
(5) Rom. ix. 2. I Cor. is'^^".
iya ydp alaxwojjtai i^ aiirav eaxarov Se ndvrav, ioanepel ra
XeyeaBai' ovSe ydp d^ids etpt, Stv iKrpapan, acfiBrj Kapoi, iya ydp , . .
eaxaros aiirav Kai cKrpapa, dXX* ovk etpi tKavds KaXeitr^at aTrdtTToXos
fjXerjpai ns etvat, fjV Qeov iniriixa. . . . xdptn Se Geov eipt o ei'pi.

(6) Eph. XV. 3. I Cor. 3''.
Trdvra ovv noiapev, its airrov iv vabs Geov e'trre, Kai to Uvevpa roi)
fjpXv KaToiKovvTos, tva &pfv aiirov Geov oiKei e'v vptv.
vooi Kai OVTOS e'v ^ptv Geds.
Cf also I Cor. 6'^^ and a Cor. 6". See ( 39). Zahn without
reason compares Apoc. ai^.
(7) Trail, ii. 3. i Cor. 4'.
Set Se Kai tovs StaKdvovs ovras ovtcoe ^pSs Xoyt^eaBa avBpanos,
pvarrjpiav 'itjaoii Xpttrrov Kard ttovto its iinrjpeTas Xptarod Kai o'tKovdpovs
rponov ndaiv dpecTKetv. pvarrjptav Qeov,
Cf. also I Cor. 10^^ eya> iravra ¦ada-iv dpea-Koi.
(8) Trail, v. i. i Cor. 3'. I
(fio^oHpai pfj vrjniots ovaiv iipXv as vrjniots iv Xpiarif . . . oiina
PXd^Tjv napaBZ. ydp fjSiivaaBe.
In the next sentence ov bvvr\devTes x^PW"''- is suggested by
the same passage.
(9) Trail, xii. 3. i Cor. 9".
tva pfj dSoKipos eiipeBa. pfjnas . . . avrbs dSoKtpos ye'vapm.
The idea of a race seems to be present in Ignatius as well
as in St. Paul.
(10) Rom. iv. 3. I Cor. f\
dneXevBepos 'irjaoii Xpiarov. dneXevBepos Kvpiov.
Cf also I Cor. 9^.

66 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(ii) Rom. vi. I. I Cor. 9'^
KaXdv pot dnoBaveXv Std 'irjaovv KaXdv ydp pot pdXXov dnoBaveiv
Xptardv (v. 1. els Xpiarbv 'irjaovv), fj fj rb Kaixvpa pov ovSeis Kevaaei.
^aaiXeveiv twv nepdrav rfjs yfjs.
(12) Philad. iv. I. 1 Cor. lo", ".
pia ydp adp^ tov Kvpiov fjpav rb norfjpiov . . . ovxi Koivavia ianv
'\rjaov Xpiarov, Kai ev norfjpiov els tov aiparos tov Xpto-Tov; tov aprov
6V(»o-tv TOV aiparos aiirov. ov KXapev, ovxi Koivavia rov aaparos
tov XpiaroU ianv ; on ets apros, ev
aSipa 01 TToXXoi iapev.
(13) Philad. vii. I. i Cor. 2i».
TO TTvevpa . . . rd Kpvnrd iXeyxei. rb ydp nvevpa ndvra ipevva,
Cf also I Cor. 1425 and Eph. 512. is.
(14) Smyrn. Inscrip. i Cor. i^.
dvvarepfjTco oUarj ndvrog X^P'" Stare vpds p^ iiarepeXaBtu ev
aparos, prjSevl xapiajutn.

d
(15) Eph. ii. 2. I Cor. 16''.
Kard Trdvra pe dvenavaev.
(i6) Eph. ii. 3. I Cor. i"-
KaTTjprto-fievoi. In both passages the idea of unity is prominent.
(17) Eph. iv. 2. I Cor. 6'^
peXTj ovras, &0.
Cf also Trail, xi. a ovras p,ekr} avrov, and with these compare
Rom. 13*' ^ and Eph. 5^".
(18) Eph. viii. 2. I Cor. 2".
ol aapKiKot, &C.
The resemblance is closer to Rom. 8^' ^. See below (35).
(19) Eph. ix. I. I Cor. 3"-"
d)s 6'vTes XiBot vaoXi, &C.
Cf also Eph. 3^" *¦-, and possibly i Pet. 3^.
(20) Eph. X. 2 and xx. i. i Cor. 15".
eSpatoi rrj niarei.
Cf also Col. i^^ (64) a possible allusion.
(21) Eph. xi. I. I Cor. 7^^'.
eaxaroi Kaipoi, &C.
There is probably no reference to i John i^^.

IGNATIUS 67
(22) Eph. xvii. 2. I Cor. i'^' '".
Sid Tt . . . d Kvpios.
(23) Eph. XX. I. I Cor. IS*'' ".
Tbv Kaivbv avBpanov.
See below on Eph. a", 4^* (38).
(24) Trail, vi. i. i Cor. 7".
OVK eyd) dXX* fj dydrrq, &C,
(25) Trail, xi. 2. i Cor. 12I2.
ovTas peXT; avrov.
See above (17).
Ignatius must have known this Epistle almost by heart.
Although there are no quotations (in the strictest sense, with
mention of the source), echoes of its language and thought
pervade the whole of his writings in such a manner as to
leave no doubt whatever that he was acquainted with the
First Epistle to the Corinthians. B
Ephesians b
(26) Eph. Inscript. Eph. i^^.
TTj eiiXoyrjjievTj iv peyeBei, Geov eiiXtyyrjrbs d Geds Kai narfjp . . . d
narpbs nXrjpajiaTt, rfj npoapiajievrj eiiXoyfjaas fjpds iv ndarj evXoyta . . .
Trpd alavav etvat Std navrbs els Sd^av KaBias i^eXe^aro fjpds . . . npb Kara-
napdjwvov arpenrov, fjvapevrj Kai ^dXfjS Koapov, eivai fjpds . , . dpapovs
eiiXeXeypevrj iv ndBei dXrj6tva iv BeXfj- . . . npoopiaas Kara rfjV eiiSoKiav tov
pan TOV narpbs Kai 'irjaov XptaToH BeXfjparos . . . Std rov aiparos aiiToii
TOV Geov fjpav, rfj eKKXrjaiq ttj ... tov nXrjpaparos rav Katpav . . .
d^topaKapiara rfj ovarj iv 'Ecfieaa, npoopiaBevres . . . Kara ¦rfjV ^ovXfjV
TrXeta"Ta ev 'I^crov Xpiara Kai iv Tov BeXfjparos aiiroO ... eis to etvat
dpitpa xop? X'"'P"''- ijpds eis enaivov Sd^rjs aiirov.
A comparison of these two passages will show a very large
number of correspondences, which Zahn undervalues when
he calls them ' not very certain echoes.' The evidence is
cumulative, and is not impaired by the fact that Ignatius
applies to the Church collectively expressions which St. Paul
applies to individual Christians, such adaptations being
common to our author.
(27) Polyc. V. I. Eph. s'<'.
napdyyeXXe . . . dyandv rds avp- dyandre rds yvvaiKas, KaBdis Kai
jSiovs, as d Kvpios rfjv iKKXrjaiav. d Xptarbs fjydnrjae rfjv iKKXrjaiav.
Cf also (39). F a

68 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
C
(28) Eph. XX. I. Eph. 2« and 4^.
rbv Katvbv dvBpanov 'Irjaovv Kaivbv dvBpanov.
Xptardv. St. Paul uses the phrase in a slightly different sense ; but,
as Lightfoot suggests, Ignatius may have taken 'to put on
the new man ' as meaning ' to put on Christ,' an explanation,
we may add, which St. Paul would not have repudiated.
Cf also I Cor. 15*^ 6 bevrepos dvBpiavos.
(29) Smyrn. i. i. Eph. 2"-
e'v evi aapan rfjs iKKXrjaias aiiToii. ev evi aapan.
The context in both passages contains a reference toTsaiah,
as well as the common idea of Jew and Gentile as one body.
Cf also Eph. 1 23 and Col. ji^.
(30) Polyc. i. 2. Eph. 4^.
ndvrav dvexov ev dydnrj, dvexdpevoi dXXrjXav iv dyanrj.
This correspondence is strengthened by the preceding words
in Ignatius, t^s ev&a-etas (ppovri^e, rjs ovbev dpeivov, which should
be compared with the following verse in Ephesians, anovbi-
Qovres Trjpelv Tr)v evorrjTa tov ¦nve-vp.aros. d
(31) Eph. i. I. Eph. 5\
ptprjral dvres Geov.
Cf. also Eph. X. 3, /xtprjTai roi; Kupiov, where the context is
the same (forgiveness of injuries, &c.).
(32) Eph. ix. I. Eph. 2"°-^.
Xt'^oi vaov.
This may well be accounted for by i Cor. 3^""^^ ; see (19).
Compare also Col. a'' and i Pet. a^.
(33) Eph. xix. Eph. 3".
Ttois OVV i(f>avepa>6rj rois alaa-iv. ris ^ olKOVOfila toO p.v(rn]ptov tou
dnoKeKpyfipevov utto rav alavav . . •
Lva yvaptaSjj,,
Cf also Col. 1 2" (66).
(34) Polyc. vi. 2. Eph. 6"-".
as onXa, &c.
The parts in the armour are differently assigned, and the
metaphor was doubtless a favourite one in Christian preaching.
Cf too I Thess. 5^, where the resemblance is still slighter.

IGNATIUS 69
Though the correspondences between Ignatius and this
Epistle are not nearly so numerous as in the case of
I Corinthians, it may be considered almost certain that they
are not accidental. Ignatius mentions St. Paul by name in
Eph. xii, calling the Ephesians o-vpp'ua-Tai Tlaiikov tov rjyia-
irpevov, a phrase which reminds us of St. Paul's frequent use of
pvarrjpiov for the Gospel dispensation in this Epistle (Eph. i",
33-*. 9, 532, 6"). The words of Ignatius (Eph. xii) kv Ttdcrrj
einarokri doubtless mean ' in every letter,' and are a pardon
able exaggeration of the fact that the Apostle makes mention
of the Ephesians in five of his Epistles besides that which
bears their name.
Von der Goltz considers the literary dependence doubtful, in
view of the difference in form of most of the supposed echoes,
and of the fact that several of them have parallels also in
Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, or i Peter. The strength
of the argument must rest mainly on the first passage quoted
(26), in which the resemblances are numerous and striking;
but even without it a strong case might be made out for the
use of the Epistle by Ignatius. C
Romans C
(35) Eph. viii. 2. Rom. 8^ ^
oi o'apKiKoi rd nvevpanKa npda- oi ydp Kard adpKa dvres rd r^s
aetv oil Sivavrai oiiSe oi nvevpariKol crapKos (ppovovatv, oi Se Kara nvevpa
TO aapKiKa. rd nvevparos . . . 01 Se iv aapKi ovres
Qea dpeaai oil Sivavrai.
This passage may be from i Cor. a'* (18), but the resem
blance to Rom. 8^' * is rather closer : cf. also Gal. 5^^' ^''. The
use of the word cxdp^ in an ethical sense is Pauline ; in Ignatius
it generally has an anti-docetic force.
(36) Eph. xix. 3. Rom. 6*.
KaBrjpeXro naXaid ^aaiXeia, Geov tva ^peTs ev KatvdrijTt ^afjs nepi-
dvBpanivas (pavepovpevov els Kaivd- narfjaapev.
TTfra dXSiov ^afjs.
The phrase Kaivorrjs fcuTJs ( = 'the new state which is life')
is probably from St. Paul.

70 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(37) Smyrn. i. i. Eom. i'' ".
e'K ye'vovs AaveiS Kard adpKa, nepl tov vlod aiirov, tov yevopevov
vlbv Geov Kard BeXrjpa Kai Siivapiv. eK anepparos AafilS Kard adpKa, roii
opiaBevTos viov Geov ev Svvdpei Kara
nvevpa dyiaavvtjs.
Cf also Eph. xviii. a ex a-Trepixaros p.ev AavetS ¦nvevp.aros
be dyCov, d
(38) Eph. Inscript, Rom. 15^'-
TTJ eiiXoyrjpevTj . . , nXrjpapan, iv nXrjpapan eiiXoyias.
a Corinthians d
(39) Eph. XV. 3. 2 Cor. 6"
avTov e'v ^ptv KaroiKovvros, iva ^peXs ydp vabs Geov eaptev (avros.
&pev vaol Kai avrbs iv fjpXv Beds.
The resemblance here is close, but may be sufficiently
accounted for by i Cor. 3^«' ^'^ and 6" : see (6).
(40) Trail, ix. 2. 2 Cor. 4".
iyeipavros, &C.
' Apparently a reminiscence ' (Lightfoot).
(41) Philad. vi. 3. 2 Cor. i^ II^ 12". Cf 2=.
eiixaptara t(j3 Ge© pov on evavv-
eiSTjTos eipt e'v vptv, Kai ovk exet tis
KavxfjaaaBai . . . on i^dprjad Ttva,
<&;c. A cumulative case, which is slightly strengthened by KavxTrt-
a-aa-dai; cf KU'iyrjcns 2 Cor. ii^". Cf also I Thess. 3^ None
of the above, taken singly, is more than a possible allusion ;
but taken together they make the use of the Epistle by
Ignatius fairly probable.
Oalatians C
(42) Philad. i. i. Gal. i^.
ov intaKonov eyvav ovk dcp eavrov ovk an dv6panav ovSe St' dvdpa-
ovSe St' dvBpanav. ttov.
d
(43) Eph. xvi. I. Gal. 5^^.
^aatXelav . . . KXrjpovopfjaovaiv. oi rd roiavTa npdaaovres ^aaiXeiav
Geov oil KXrjpovopfjaovaiv.
See above (1) on i Cor. 6^' ^^

IGNATIUS

71

(44) Eph. xviii. i.
aravpov o ian aKavSdXov,
(45) Trail. X. I.
Sapedv dnoBvfjaKa.
(46) Rom. vii. 2.
d epos epas icrravparai.

Gal. 5".
(TKavSoXov TOV aravpov.
Gal. 2".
apa Xptarbs Sapedv dneBavev.
Gal. 6».
epol Kdapos iaravparai Kaya n^
Kdapa.
The passage in Philad. is the only one which strongly
indicates knowledge of this Epistle by Ignatius ; and as it
stands almost alone, we cannot claim a very high degree of
probability for the reference.
Philippians c
(47) Smyrn. iv. 2. Phil. 4".
Trdvra vnopeva aiirov pe ivSvva- ndvra laxva ev ra ivSvvapovvri
povvTos. pe.
Cf Eph. 613 . I Tim. i^^ (54).
(48) Smyrn. xi. 3. Phil. 3".

TeXetot ovres reXeia Kai eftpoveire. (
(49) Rom. ii and iv.
anovSiaBfjvat and Bvaia,
Cf also 3 Tim. 46 (59).
(50) Philad. i. i,
oiiSe Kard KevoSo^iav.
Philad. viii. 2.
prjSev Kar ipiBeiav . . , dXXd Kara
XpiaropaBiav, I Ti/rrvothy '
(51) Eph. xiv. I.
dpxfj pev nians, reXos Se ayanrj,
Eph. XX. I.
npoaSrjXaaa vptv rjS fjp^dprjv oiKO-
vopias, Magn. viii. i.
pfj nXavdaBe raXs erepoSo^iats prjSe
pvBevpaatv tois TraXaiots dvacjieXiaiv
oZaiv' el ydp pexpt vvv Kard 'lovSai-
apbv fSpev, dpoXoyovpev X^P'" f"?
eiXf^e'vai.

oo'oi o5v TeXetot, tovto (ppovapev,
Phil. 2".

Phil. 2». K
prjSev Kar' ipiBiav prjSe Kara Kevo-
So^tav ... e'v Xpiara Irjaov,

I Tim. i'-^
tva napa-yyeiX'Tjs rial pfj erepoSiSa-
(TKoXetv, prjSe npoaexeiv piiBots Kai
yeveaXoytais aTrepdvTots atnves iK^rjrfj-
aeis napexovai pdXXov fj o'lKovopiav
Qeov rfjV iv niarei. to Se reXos rfjs
napa-yyeXias ecrriv dyaTrij e'K Kadapds
KapSias KCU avveiSfjaeas dya6fjs Kai
niareas dwnoKpirov.

7a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
If these three passages from Ignatius are compared with
the opening sentences of i Timothy, it will be seen that the
resemblance is very close, and that it lies in words and
expressions which are not commonplaces. (See, however,
Hermas, Vis. iii. 8. ^-^, for a list of virtues beginning with
TTio-ris and ending with dya-nrj.) It is also clear that, if
literary dependence be admitted, it is on the side of Ignatius.
See also (60).
(52) Polyc. iv. 3. I Tim. 6^
SovXovs Kai SovXas pfj iineprj^dvef pfj Karacppoveiraaav, on dSeXtpoi
dXXd pTjSe avroi cjivtrtovaBaaav, dXX' elaiv' dXXd pdXXov SovXevertao'av.
eis Sd^av Geov TrXeov SovXevercBcrav. d
(53) Rom. ix. 2. I Tim. i"
dXX' fjXeTjpai TIS etvat e'dv Geov dXXd fjXefjBrjv, on dyvofflv inolrjaa,
entriix't, Cf above, on i Cor. 72=, 159," (5).
(54) Smyrn. iv. 2, i Tim. i".
aiiTov pe ivSvvapovvTos tov reXetov
dvBpanov yevopevov.
Cf also a Tim. 2^ and 4".
3 Tvmothy C
(55) Eph. ii. I. 2 Tim. i".
Kard Trdvra pe dvenavaev, its Kai Scirj eXeos d Kvptos to 'Ovijatcpdpov
avrbv d narfjp 'Irjaov Xpiarov dva- o"kco' on ttoXXokis pe dvei|/-v|e, Koi
¦Jfitai. ¦rrjv aXvaiv pov ovk inrjaxivBrj.
Smyrn. x. 2.
dvTti^X°^ vpSv TO nvevpa pov,
KOI rd Seo-pd pov d oiiK . . . inrjaxvv-
BTjre, These two passages seem to be reminiscences of the same
context in 3 Timothy. The foUowing words in Smyrn. x
resemble Mark 83^ and Luke 9^* : see (90).
(56) Polyc. vi. 2. 2 Tim. 2'.
dpeaKere a arpareiieaBe, tva r^ crrpaToXoyfjaavri dpeajj.

(57) Eph. xvii. I. 2 Tim. 3^
p^ alxpaXariarj iipds.
Of also Rom. y^^.

IGNATIUS 73
(58) Trail, vii. 2. 2 Tim i'.
KoBapds iariv rrj oTiveiSfjaei. iv KaBapa avveiSfjaet.
(59) Rom. ii. 2. 2 Tim. 4'.
p^ TfXe'ov napdaxrjaBe rov enrovSi- ^Sij anevSopai.
aB^vai Geo).
Cf Phil. 3".
The reminiscences of 2 Timothy, as of i Timothy, are
tolerably clear. Both Epistles are nearly in Class B.
Titus e
(60) Magn. vui. i. Titus i".
pt; nXavdaBe raXs erepoSo^iais prjSe pfj npoaexovres 'lovSa'iKoXs pvBois
pvBevpaatv tois TraXatois dvatpeXeaiv Kai evToXais dvBpdinav.
ovaiV el ydp pexpt vvv Kard 'lovSai- m-j. 9
trpdv (apev, dpoXoyovpev x^P"* /"3 ^ s. . ,
etXrj^ivai. papas Se CT^rjaeis Kai yeveaXoyias
. . . neptiaraao' elal ydp dvacpeXeXs
Kai pdraioi.
See (51) on i Tim. i*. The word dvaxpek-ris and the reference
to ' Judaism ' occur in Titus and not in i Timothy.
d
(61) Polyc. vi. I. Titus i'.
Geov oiKovdpoi. its Qeov otKovd/xov.
See (7) for i Cor. 4I ; cf i Pet. 4".
The evidence in the case of Titus is weakef than in that of
I Timothy or 2 Timothy. D
Acts d
(62) Magn. V. I. Acta 1°".
eKaaros els rbv tStov rdnov peXXet d<j>' rjs nape^rj 'lovSas nopfvBijvai
X<tpeXv. ets rbv rdnov rbv iSiov.
These phenomena must be taken along with those in relation
to Luke's Gospel.
(63) Symrn. iii. 3. Acts 10".
perd Se t^v dvdo'Tao'tv avve<j)ayev crvvetpdyopev Kai avveniopev aiira
avToXs Kai avventev. pera ro avaarfjvai aiirbv iK veKpav.
These look Uke allusions ; but the words are common and
obvious ones, and may be only tbe result of coincidence.

74 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Colossians d
(63*) Eph. ii. I. Col. i^ 4'-
TOV avvSovXov.
Cf Magn. 3 ; Philad. 4 ; and see Lightfoot's note on Col. 4^.
(64) Eph. X. 2. Col. i^'.
eSpaXoi rfj niaret.
See on i Cor. 15^3 ^^o).
(65) Eph. xvii. 2. Col. 2^.
Geov yvdjcriv.
In the passage of Colossians, St. Paul, according to the best
reading, identifies ' the knowledge of God ' with ' Christ.'
(66) Eph. xix. 2. Col. i^.
Tras ovp icfiavepadrj toIs alSxriv J
Cf also Eph. 3« (33).
(67) Trail. V. 2. Col. i".
opara Ka\ dopara, ra opara kol ra dopara,
(68) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. 2".
KaBrjXapevovs iv ra aTOvpa. npoarjXaaas aiirb Tw aravpa.
The metaphor is the same, but the appUcation is different.
(69) Smyrn. i. 2. Col. i^'.
e'v evi adipan,
Cf on Eph. a" (29).
There is thus a considerable number of possible aUusions
to Colossians in Ignatius, but none of them is at all certain.
I Thessalonians d
(70) Eph. X. I. I Thess. 5".
dStaXetVrcos npa'aevXeaBe. The Same.
The reading in Ignatius is doubtful (see Lightfoot) ; the
adverb may have been inserted from the passage in i Thes
salonians. The adjective dbidkemros occurs in Polyc. i, but
there also it is suspect.
(71) Rom. ii. I. I Thess. 2*.
oil 6eXa iipds dv6panapeaKfjaai, ovx ^^ dv^poiTrots dpeaKovres, dXXd
dXXd Qea. Qea.
The evidence that Ignatius knew i Thessalonians is almost
nil.

IGNATIUS 75
3 Thessalonians d
(72) Rom. X. 3. 2 Thess. 3'.
e'v vnopovfj Irjaov Xpiarov. els rfjv vnopovfjv tov Xpto-Tov.
Philem,on d
(73) Eph. ii. 2. Philem. ^o.
dvaipTjV iipav. val, dSeXcjie, iya aov dvaiprjv iv
Kvpiio.
In spite of the fact that the name Onesimus occurs in this
sentence of Ignatius, the allusion is very doubtful. The
Pauhne phrase ovaCp.rjv occurs in this sense several times in
Ignatius.
Hebrews d
(74) Magn. iii. 2. Heb. 4'=.
rb Se TotoiiTov ov Trpds adpKa d ndvra Se -yvpvd Kai rerpaxTjXtapeva
Xdyos, aXXa npbs Qeov rov ra Kpvtpia toXs dcfiBaXpoXs avrov Trpds dv ^piv d
elSoTa. Xdyos.
We have bere a double resemblance, in the idea of nothing
being hidden from the knowledge of God, and in the expres
sion 6 Xo'yos [fipuv ecrri] irpos [rtra].
(75) PhUad. ix. I . Heb. 7'. "> ="• "> ^^
KaXoi Kai ot iepeXs' KpeXaaov Se d
dpxtepevs d neniarevpevos rd dyia t5v
dyiav, os pdvos TreTTicTTevTai rd Kpvrrrd
TOV Geov.
Lightfoot also compares Heb. a", 3^, 4", 5''''> 6'°, 7'',
8^, 9!^ He adds: 'The reference (in 6 TreTrtaTev/ii^z'os, &c.) is
to the special privilege of the High Priest (Heb. g^-'^^,
iqIs sq.^ of entering into the Holy Place. This coincidence,
combined with those noticed above, shows, I think, that
Ignatius must have had the Epistle to the Hebrews in his
mind.' It is no doubt true that no other book in N. T.
develops the idea of Christ as High Priest, and that Clement
of Rome, who also uses it, e.g. (31), shows knowledge of
Hebrews ; but the comparison may weU have been suggested
to Ignatius from other sources, and the resemblance does not
seem close enough to justify the degree of confidence which
Lightfoot expresses. Cf also Polycarp (65).

76 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
I Peter d
(76) Eph. V. 3. I Pet. 55.
yeypanrai ydp' 'Yneprjcjydvois d Geds d Geds iineprjcjidvots dvnrdaaeTai.
avrirdaaerat. The quotation is from Prov. 3^*. The words are quoted not
only in i Peter, but in James 4^ and in Clement of Rome (47).
In all alike ©eos or 6 ©eo's takes the place of the Ki5pios of the
LXX ; but Ignatius alone puts vTreprjcpdvois first in the
sentence.
(77) Rom. V. I. I Pet. 2^^ 5^
The connexion of iroipL'rjii with enCa-Konos is considered by
Lightfoot to present ' a close paraUel ' with i Peter ; but the
resemblance must not be pressed. See also (19).

GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
The much closer parallels with Matthew than with Mark
or Luke are a remarkable phenomenon, but one which fre
quently meets us in the earUest sub-Apostolic Uterature.
B
Matthew b
(78) TraU. si. i- Matt. 15".
ovTOt ydp OVK eio-tv cjjvreia narpds. ndaa (pvTeia fjV ovk icfivrevaev o
Philad. iii. I. Trarijp pov d oiipdvios, iKpi^aBfjaerat.
dnexeaBe tmv KaKav fioravav,
danvas oii yeapyei 'Irjaovs Xpicrrds,
Sid rb pfj etvat aiiroiis cpvreiav narpds.
(79) Smyrn. i. i. Matt. 3^^
^e^annapevov iinb ladvvov iva ovra ydp npenov iarip fjpXv nXrj-
nXrjpaBfj ndaa SiKatoaiivrj im aiiroii. pStaai ndaav SiKaioavvrjv.
Matthew alone of the EvangeUsts gives this motive for our
Lord's Baptism. ' The use of the phrase irXjjp. irao-. b. is so
peculiar, and faUs in so entirely with the characteristic
Christian Judaizing of our first Evangelist, that it seems
unreasonable to refer it to any one else ' (Sanday). The fact
that Ignatius elsewhere (Eph. xviii. a) ascribes a different

IGNATIUS 77
motive for the Baptism, viz. tva tw ndOei, rb Hbcap KadapCaru,
perhaps strengthens the case.
(80) Smyrn. vi. i. Matt. 19".
d xcpSv X'^P^^ra. d Svvdpevos xi^peiv X'^'P^lra.
The meaning of the phrase is the same in the two passages ;
it stamps the doctrine just stated as a difficult and mysterious
one.(81) Polyc. ii. 2. Matt. 10".
(fipdvijios yivov its d ocjiis iv ndatv, yiveaBe ovv cjipdviiioi as oi d'<jf>ets
Kai dxepatos eitraei its fj nepiarepd. Kai aKepatoi its ai nepiarepai.
This sentence is wanting in the parallel passage of
Luke (io3). C
(82) Eph. V. 2. Matt. 18". «°.
ei ydp e'vds Kai Sevrepov npoaevxfj idv Svo iipav (rvpcjiavfjaaaiv ini
ToaavTTjv laxvv exei. t^s y^s . . . yevfjaeTai aiiroXs. oS ydp
elai Svo Tj rpeXs avvrjypevoi els rb
ipbv ovopa, iKeX elpl iv peaco aiiTav.
Here Ignatius's evbs koI betirepov = bvolv. The reference
is clearly to the saying recorded in Matthew — 'probably a
weU-known saying ' of Christ (Zahn). Cf. also James 5^®.
(83) Eph. vi. I. Matt. 10".
ndvra ydp bv nepnei d olKoSeandrrjs d Sexdpevos vpds e'pe Sexerat, Kai
eis iSiav o'lKovopiav, ovras Set ^pds d e'pe Sexdpevos Sexerai rbv dnoarei-
aiirbv SexeaBai, its airrbv rbv nep\jfaVTa. Xavrd pe.
It is possible that Ignatius may also be aUuding to the
parable narrated in Matt, aisssq- (where oiKoSeo-Tro'TTjs occurs,
not in Mark or Luke). There is also a resemblance to
John 13^" (see below (103)), which is perhaps as close as
the resemblance to Matthew (John uses irepneiv). Luke 10^®
is much less similar in language than either.
(84) Polyc. i. 2, 3. Matt. 8".
Trdvras ^dara^e as Kai ae d Kvptos avrbs rds daBeveias fjpav eXafie,
. . . ndvrav rds vdaovs ffdara^e, its Kai rds vdaovs iffdaraaev.
TeXeios d^X^TTjs.
The idea is found in Isa. 53* ; but it is probable that
Ignatius borrows from Matthew and not direct from 0. T. ;
for tbe LXX reading is different, viz. oStos rds dp-aprCas fip,&v

78 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(ftipei Kai Trept ^p&v obvvdrai, Ignatius, however, translates
the Hebrew correctly, and the possibiUty that he is using
a translation other than the LXX cannot be excluded.

d
(85) Eph. xvii. I. Matt. 26''.
Sid TOVTO pvpov eXa^ev inl rfjs npoafjXBev aiira ywfj . . . Kai
KecpaXfjs d Kvpios, tva nvejj rfj iKKkrjaia Karexeev inl rfjs KecpaXfjs aiiroii dva-
dcpBapatav. Keipevov.
Cf also Mark 143 "• ; John 1 33 "'. If there is Uterary
dependence on any of our Gospels, the preference must be
given to Matthew rather than Mark, who has Karexeev avrov
Trjs Kecfiakrjs, while the reference to the head as anointed, and
(seemingly) as the quarter from which the fragrance of in
corruptibility is shed upon tbe Church, favours Matthew
rather than John.
(86) Magn. v. 2. Matt. 22".
&anep ydp iart vopiapara Svo, &C.
(87) Magn. ix. 3. Matt. 27"^
napav ^yeipev aiirovs.
Lightfoot shows that the beUef in a descensus ad inferos
was prominent in the early Church. Here Christ is supposed
to have visited the souls of patriarchs and prophets, and to
have raised {fjyeipev) them either to paradise or heaven. Cf
also Philad. ix ; and i Pet. 3^^ 4^ for paraUel views of the
descent into Hades. The beUef appears also in Justin,
who quotes Jeremiah in confirmation, and asserts that the
passage in question, which does not appear in the Hebrew
Bible, had been wilfuUy excised by the Jews. Irenaeus also
quotes it more than once, ascribing it both to Jeremiah and
to Isaiah.
(88) Rom. ix. 3. Matt. lo"-"-
t£v iKKXrjatStv rav Se^apevav pe
els dvopa 'irjaov Xpiarov.
The phrase els ovop.a, as well as the simUarity of thought,
should be noticed, especially as there may be another echo
of this passage in Eph. vi : see (83).

IGNATIUS 79
Ignatius was certainly acquainted either with our Matthew,
or with the source of our Matthew, or with a Gospel very
closely akin to it. In the present uncertain state of the
Synoptic Problem, it would be rash to express any confident
opinion ; but the indications on the whole favour the
hypothesis that he used our Greek Matthew in something
Uke its present shape. D
Mark d
(89) Eph. xvi. I. Mark 9*'.
eis to TTvp rb da^earov.
The phrase, though in quite a different context, occurs in
Matt. 0^ and Luke 3^''.
(90) Smyrn. x. 2. Mark 8".
ovSe vpds inataxvvBfjaerai fj reXeia
nians, 'irjaovs Xpiards.
Cf also Luke 9^^ (93), and see (55).
Scarcely anything can be built on these very doubtful
aUusions.
Luke d
(91) Smyrn. i. 2. Luke 23'^"-^''.
aiXrjBas inl Uovtiov HiXaTov Kai
'HpcoSov Terpdpxov KaBrjXajievov vnep
fjpav iv aapKi.
' The part taken by Herod is mentioned by Luke alone in
the Canonical writings ' (Lightfoot).
(92) Smyrn. iii. 2. Luke 24''.
Kai oTe Trpds Toiis Trepi Herpov ^Xa^fjaare pe Koi t'Sere, on nvev-
^X6ev, ecfjTj aiiToXs' Adhere, ^IrrjXacfifjaa- pa adpKa Kai darea ovk exei, Kadas
re pe, kcu. iSere ort ovk eipt Satpdviov ipe BeapeXre exovra.
aaajjtaTOv. Eusebius {H. E. ui. ^6) says of this passage of Ignatius, ovk
ot5' oTToeev prjTots cTvyKexprjTai. Jerome {Vir. El. a) says that
it is taken from the ' evangeUum quod appeUatur secundum
Hebraeos,' which he had lately translated into Greek and

8o THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Latin, and which at the time he was disposed to regard as
the original Matthew, though afterwards he spoke less con
fidently on this point. In another place {Comm. in Isai. xvui.
praef.) he repeats his statement that ' incorporale daemonium '
comes from this source. On the other hand, Eusebius, who was
well acquainted with this Gospel, cannot verify the quotation ;
and Origen, who also knew it well, ascribes the words to
another apocryphal writing, viz. the Petri Doctrina {de Princ.
praef. 8), which he pronounces to be the work neither of
Peter nor of any other inspired writer. The contradiction
cannot be explained. Lightfoot suggests that either Jerome's
memory failed him, or that his copy of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews contained a different recension from that
which was known to Origen and Eusebius. As regards
Ignatius, he thinks it impossible to say whether he got the
story from oral tradition or from some written source. Con
sidering the carelessness of Ignatius in quotation, it is strange
that Eusebius should not have suggested that he took the
story from Luke ; and but for these Patristic comments, we
should probably have formed that opinion. Ignatius men
tions the incident as if it were already well-known to his
readers. (93) Smyrn. x. 2. Luke 9''
OvSe vpas enaicryyvBrjcreTai . . . 'Yrjcrovs XpiaTOS. Cf. Luke 9^^ ;
as also Mark 8^3, see on (90).

The balance of probabiUty seems to be sUghtly in favour
of a knowledge of the Third Gospel by Ignatius : cf Acts (62).
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(94) Eph. xiv. 2. Matt. 12"-
ipavepbv rd Se'vSpov OTrd tov Kapnov iK ydp Tod Kapnod rb SevSpov
avToO. yivaaKerat. Luke 6".
eKacrrov ydp SevSpov ix tov tSiov
Kapnov yivaoKerai,
The words have the look of a current saying of Christ.

IGNATIUS 8 1
(95) Eph. xi. I. Matt. 3''.
fjv ydp -rfjv peXXovaav dpyfjv ^o^rj- yevvfjpara ixiSvav, ris ineSet^ev
Bapev, $ rfjV ivearStaav x^pi-" aya'nfj- iipiv (fivyeXv dnb rfjs peXXovarjs dpyfjs ;
aapev. Luke 3' (the same words).
(96) Magn. X. 2. Matt. 5"; Mark 9''"; Luke
diKtaBfjTe iv airra. 14 •
The mention of the 'kingdoms of the world' may be a
reminiscence of the narrative of the Temptation in Matt. 4* ;
Luke 4^.
(97) Rom. vi. I. Matt. i6='«.
ovSfv pe dx^jeX^o-et . . . tovtov. Also in Mark and Luke.
This is at best a very doubtful allusion.
(Ill) The Fourth Gospel.
B
John b
(98) Rom. vii. 2. John 4"'. ".
oiiK eanv iv ipol niip ^tXdvXov, crii av Tjrrjaas aiirdv, Kai eSaKev av
vSap Se (av Kai XaXovv iv ipoi, aot vSap (dtv ... to vSojp o eyd) Saaa
eaaBev pot Xe'yov' Aevpo Trpds tov aiira yevfjaerat iv aiira nrjyrj vSaros
narepa. dXXope'vov els (afjv alaviov.
Lightfoot's assertion that ' the whole passage is inspired by
the Fourth Gospel' seems to be justified, especially in view of
John 4^3 n^al ydp 6 irarrip toiovtovs C'Ji'f ' '¦"^^ Trpoo-Kwoviras aiirov.
Besides the close parallel quoted above, rpo^fj <\)6opds just below
is probably suggested by John 6^'' ttjv j3p&ai.v ttjv dirokkvpivrjv,
and opToy ©eov by John 633 . (,£ also y^^. If we adopt the read
ing (&v dkk6p,evov from the interpolator's text, we have another
striking paraUel with John 4^* : injyrj vbaros C&vros occurs in
Justin, Dial. 69. On the other side (against the Johannine
reference) it might be urged that the words about the ' living
water' may have been a weU- known saying of Christ, with
which Ignatius may have been acquainted from other sources.
The words of Ignatius about the ' pleasures of this life ' have
a Synoptic ring, and there is nothing corresponding to them,
nor to the remarkable phrase about dydnrj dcpdapros as 'the
blood of Christ,' in John. Moreover, the passage in John
speaks of present advantage, Ignatius of future reward. This

8 a THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
last objection is not serious ; and on the whole (Urect literary
dependence seems much the most probable hypothesis.
(99) Philad. vii. i. John 3'.
TO nveiipa oil nXavdrai, dnb Geov to nvevpa onov BeXei nveX, Kai rfjv
ov' otSev ydp Trd^ev epxerai Kai Trov cl>avfjv airrov aKoiieis, dXX' ovk otSas
imdyei, Kai rd Kpvnrd eXeyxei. noBev epxerai Kcd ttov iindyei.
The passage reads like an echo of the words in the Gospel,
though the thought is quite different. This, however, is in
Ignatius's manner. The idea in rd Kpvnrd ekeyxet has nothing
corresponding to it in the discourse to Nicodemus. The
phrase Tiodev epxerai recurs John 8^* and i John a^^, in a
different connexion. John 8^* (otSa ¦nodev fjkOov Kai nov vTsdya)
is in some ways nearer to Ignatius than 3'. Both passages
may have been floating in his mind. C
(100) Magn. vii. I. John8^^'''.
aanep ovv d Kvptos dvev Toi) Tra- an ipavrov nota oiiSev, ciXXd
rpbs oiiSev inoirjaev, . . . ovras prjSe KaBas iSiSa$e pe d narfjp, Tovra
vpets, &C. XaXa, Kai d nep-^as pe per ipov
Magn. viii. 2. e'o-rtv' ovk dtfirJKe pe pdvov, on ra
n, . ,, V T \ / . ' dpeard aiira Troidi ndvrore.
1^ Ijjcrovs XptaTosJ Kara navra evrjpe- '
arrjaev ra nep^avri aiirdv.
This parallel is much strengthened by the double remini
scence. d
(loi) Eph. V. 2 and Rom. 7'- John 6".
apros ToU Qeov. dpros tov Qeov.
(102) Eph. vi. I. John 13'°
Trdvra ydp dv nepnei, &C.
See above on Matt. 10*° (83).
(103) Eph. xvii. I. John 12^.
piipov eXa^ev, &C.
Some commentators (e. g. Zahn and Lightfoot) have argued
that this passage shows knowledge of John's Gospel as well
as of Matthew's, because of the mention of the fragrance
of the ointment (77 be olda enkrjpcaOrj, &c.) ; but this can
hardly be pressed : see (85). Similarly, rov dpxovros tov

IGNATIUS 83
aiwi-os to-utov need not imply knowledge of John 16^^, for
St. Paul (i Cor. 2^' *) has the same phrase. The dominant
thought in Ignatius is that the Church, as the Body of Christ,
has a share in the anointing of the Head. Cf. Origen, c. Celsum,
vi. 79, for the same idea.
(104) Philad. ix. i. John 10'.
aiirbs itv Bvpa tov narpds.
Cf also John 14^ and Apoc 3*. The Johannine doctrine of
the pre-incarnate activity of the Logos is emphasized by
Ignatius in this sentence. Compare his words about Abraham,
&c., with John 8*^. Besides the word 6vpa, compare Ignatius's
ela-epxovrai and crcoT^pos with John's elcrekO't) and o-co^Tjo-eToi.
But the metaphor of the Door occurs also in Hermas ; and in
John 10' there is no reference to ' drawing ' to the Father,
nor to the Old Testament saints (as in Ignatius's next line).
John 14^ would have been more to the purpose, if Ignatius
had wished to quote the Fourth Gospel here.

Ignatius's use of the Fourth Gospel is highly probable,
but falls some way short of certainty. The objections to
accepting it are mainly (i) our ignorance how far some of the
Logia of Christ recorded by John may have been current in
Asia Minor before the publication of the Gospel. If they
formed part of the Apostle's oral teaching, they must have
been famiUar to his disciples, and may have been coUected
and written down long before our Gospel was composed.
(2) The paucity of phrases which recall the language of the
Gospel, and the absence of direct appeals to it ; phenomena
which are certainly remarkable when we consider the close
resemblance between tbe theology of Ignatius and that of
the Fourth Gospel. It is difficult, for example, to think of
any reason why Ignatius did not quote John ao in Smyrn.
iii. a (93). (IV) Apocryphal Gospels.
See under (9 a), for possible use of Gospel according to the
Hebrews.

G a

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
INTRODUCTION.
Standard of Accuracy in Quotation. Very Uttle help
can be gained from Polycarp' s use of 0. T., as the number
of cases in which he can be proved to have made use
of 0. T. is smaU. The clearest case of a quotation is
from Tobit la' eXejjpocrwTj eK Bavdrov pverai (Polycarp. x. 3
'eleemosyna de morte liberat'). In Polycarp xi. a ('qui
ignorant indicium domini') there seems undoubtedly to
be a reference to Jer. 5* (o^" eyvaa-av dbbv KvpCov Kai KpCaiv
©eov), and the freedom of the quotation deserves notice.
There are many places where the language of 0. T. may have
influenced Polycarp, but the quotations, if they are such, are
generally allusive and worked into the structure of the
writer's sentences. Polycarp's use of 0. T. is in fact very
similar in its general phenomena to his use of those parts of
N. T. on which he relies most frequently.
In his undoubted quotations from N. T. we find that, while
short coUections of words are sometimes repeated exactly, in
longer passages the order is treated very freely, omissions
occur for which no reason can be assigned, and the spirit
rather than the actual words is sometimes reproduced. The
quotations have the appearance of having been made from
memory ; rarely, if ever, from a book.
The following /ormuZae of citation may be mentioned: —
(i) elbores oti: see Galatians (31), Ephesians (36), i Timothy
(48), Gospels (82).
(ii) KaOois ei'nev 6 Kvpios: see Gospels (77).
(iii) pvrjixovevovres &v ei'nev 6 Kvpios bibda-Koiv : see Gospels
(75)' (iv) ' sicut Paulus docet ' : see i Corinthians (a).
(v) ' ut his scripturis dictum est ' : see Ephesians (37).

POLYCARP 85
A
I Corinthians g,
(i) Pol. V. 3. I Cor. 6'.
oCre ndpvoi ovre juiXaKol ovre dpae- ovre ndpvoi, oihe elSaXoXdrpat,
voKoXrai fiaatXeiav Geov KXrjpovopfj- oUre potxot, ovre paXoKoi, oiire dpaevo-
aovaiv, ovre oi Trotovvres rd arona. KoXrat, ovre KXeirTat, ovre TrXeove'KTot,
ov peSvaot, oil XoiSopoi, ovx dpnayes,
^aaiXeiav Geov KXrjpovopfjaovaiv.
These passages agree verbally, except for omissions in
Polycarp. The last words cited from Polycarp suggest that
he may have been conscious of making omissions in his
quotation, but these omissions do not appear to proceed on
any fixed principle, and the quotation was probably therefore
made from memory. On the other hand, it seems impossible
to doubt that the passage in i Corinthians is the source of
Polycarp's words.
(2) Pol. xi. 2. I Cor. 6'.
' aut nescimus quia sancti fj ovk oTSare on ol dytoi tov Kdapov
mundum iudicabunt? sicut Kpivovaiv ;
Paulus docet.'
The reference to St. Paul by name makes Polycarp's use of
I Corinthians practicaUy certain, though it occurs in a part
of the letter for which the Latin version alone is extant.
(3) Pol. iii. 2, 3. ^ 1 Cor. 13".
TIJV SoBeXaav iiplv nicrriv . . . ina- wvt Se pevei nians, iXnis, aydnrj,
KoXovBovarjs ¦rfjS iXnlSos, npoayovarjs rd rpia raHra' pet'fav Se Tovrav fj
T^E dydmjs. ayanrj.
The coUocation of 'faith, hope, love,' occurs elsewhere in
St, Paul (i Thess. i3 ; Col. i*- % but i Cor. 13 is the chief
passage, and the order there is the same as in Polycarp,
(4) Pol. iii. 2. ^ I Cor. 8".
oiKo8opet(7eat ets rfjv SoBeXaav iipXv oiKoSopTjBfjaerat eis rd rd eiSojXd-
TTioTtv. 6vTa iaBieiv.
Pol. xi. 4.
'hoc enim agentes, vos ipsos i Cor. 14
aedificatis.' d XciXav yXitaajj eavrbv o'tKoSopeX.
Pol. xii. 2.
'aedificetvosinfideetveritate.'
olKobop.eiv is a commoner word in i Corinthians than else
where in N. T. ; outside Polycarp, on the other hand, it does
not occur in the Apostolic Fathers.

.10

85 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(5) Pol. iv. 3. I Cor. 14^^
ovre Tl tSv KpvnrStv rfjs KapSias. rd Kprvnrd rfjs KapSias CI. 4 •
See also Rom. a^'' ^'.
(6) Pol. X.I. I Cor. 1 5°^ Col. i^'.
'firmi in fide et eSpaiot yiveaBe, dpe- et ye intpevere r^
immutabiles.' TaKivrjroi. niaret reBepeXiapevoi
Kai eSpaXoi Kai pfj pera-
Kivovpevoi.
The parallel with Colossians is verbaUy stronger, as rfj
¦nCa-rei does not occur in i Corinthians ; but the order is that
of I Corinthians, and the evidence for Polycarp's use of
Colossians is weak (see under Colossians).
(7) Pol. xi. 4. I Cor. i22».
'sicut passibiUa membra et e'ire ndaxei ev pfXos, avpndaxei
errantia eos revocate.' Trdvra rd peXrj.
It is possible that passibiUa contains an allusion to the
metaphor of i Corinthians. See also i Peter (17).
(8) Pol. ii. I. I Cor. 15^'.
a iinerdyrj rd ndvra inovpdvia orav Se vnora-yTJ avru rd ndvra.
KCU. iniyeta.
This parallelism is too weak to be classed. See also
Philippians (4a).
In view of the fact that Polycarp's use of i Corinthians
may be regarded as certain, the small amount of verifiable
influence from i Corinthians is worthy of notice.
I Peter a
(9) Pol. i. 3. I Pet. i».
els ov oiiK ISdvres ntarevere X''P? "^ °^* tSdvres dyaTrdre, els bv dpri
dveicXaXfjra kcu, SeSo^aapevrj. prj dpavres ntcrreiovres Se dydXXtdaBe
Xapa dveKXdXfjTa Kai SeSo^aapevrj.
I Peter is almost certainly presupposed by Polycarp here,
but the points of difference between the passages are instruc
tive for Polycarp's method of quotation.
(10) Pol. viii. 1,2. I Pet. 2^\ Isa. 53'.
ds dnfiveyKev fjpav rds enaBev iinep iipav, on dvofiiav ovk e'TToii)-
dpapnas ra iSia) aapan vptv vnoXipndvav iino- aev oiiSe SdXov [v. 1.
e'Tri TO |vXov, os dpap- ypappbv . . . os dpapriav eiipeBrj SdXos] e'v TU
Ti'av OVK inoirjaev, oiire ovk inoirjaev, ovSe eiipeBrj ardpan aiirov.
eiipeBrj SdXos e'v Tm SdXos e'v nS aropari
(rrdpan avrov' dXXd St' aiiroii' ... 6s rds
^pds, tva (fjaapev iv dpaprias fjpav aiirbs

POLYCARP

87

avra, navra VTrepeivev.
. . . Kai e'dv 7rd(rx<opev
Std TO ovopa aiiTov, 80J-
d(apev aiirdv. rovrov
ydp fjpXv rbv vnoypappbv
eBrjKe.

avTjveyKev ev na aapan
aiiroii inl rb ^vXov, tva
TaXs dpapriais dnoyevd-
pevoi Tfj SiKatoaiivrj fij-
aapev. 4^^ el Se its Xptan-
avds, pfj alaxvveaBa,
So^a^era Se tov Geov e'v
Toj dvdpan roiira.
The whole of this passage is very strongly Petrine, and it
wiU be noticed that aU the parallel passages in i Peter
(except one) come from the same context. In the place where
I Peter is dependent on Isaiah (as quoted above), Polycarp
seems clearly to be dependent on i Peter. At tbe same time,
the variations of order and the occasional verbal differences
should be noticed ; but there is a striking identity of thought,
even where the form is different. I Pet. 2^^-

rfjV dvaarpocpfjv iipav iv rots
eBveatv exovres koXtjv, iva iv a KaraXa-
Xoiiaiv iipav as KaKonoiav, iK rSiv KaXav
epyav inonreiiovres So^daaatv tw Geo
e'v fjpepa iniaKOnfjs. iinordyrjre ndarj
dvBpanivjj Kriaet Std rbv Kvpiov.
5'' Trdvres Se dXX^Xois [vTTOTdyTjTeJ.

(11) Pol. X. 2.
' omnes vobis invicem subiecti
estote, conversationem vestram
irreprehensibilem habentes in
gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus
vestris et vos laudem accipiatis
et Dominus in vobis non bla-
sphemetur.' The second clause in the passage quoted from Polycarp
seems to be a certain quotation from i Peter, and the un
conscious change implied by the word irreprehensibilem is
therefore to be noticed.
These three passages (9) (10) (11), taken together, strengthen
each other, and justify the inclusion of aU three in the first
class. b
(12) Pol. u. I. iPet. i>'.
Std dvafcoo-dpevot rds datpiias Sov- Std dva^aadpevot rds dacji'vas rfjs
Xevaare rm Qea iv (pd^co Kai dXrjBeta, Stavoias vpav, vfjcfiovres, reXeias

. . . ntarevaavres eis rov eyetpavra
TOV Kvpiov fjpav 'Irjaovv Xpiarbv eK
veKpav Kai Sdvra airra Sd^av.

iXniaare ktX.

St'

I Pet. I^^
aiiToii niaroiis els Qebv

rov eyetpavra avrov eK veKpav Kat
Sd^av aiira Sdvra.
It may be noticed that these two pairs of passages, which
agree closely, follow each other in the same order in Polycarp

88 THE N. T IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
and I Peter. In the first passage, Polycarp appears to conflate
a passage from i Peter with Ps. 3^^ : see Lightfoot, ad loc.
(13) Pol. ii. 2. I Pet. 3».
pfj dnoSiSdvres KaKbv dvrl kokov pfj dnoSiSdvres KOKbv dvrl kokov fj
fj XotSoplav dvrl XoiSopias fj ypdvBov XoiSopiav dvrl XotSoptas.
dvri ypdvBov fj Kardpav dvrl Kardpas.
This is almost certainly a quotation from i Peter, but the
possibility cannot be excluded that both Polycarp and i Peter
are quoting a proverb in the part common to them. Polycarp's
method of continuing the quotation by additions of his own is
worth notice.
(14) Pol. V. 3. I Pet. 2".
KaXdv ydp to dvoKonreaBai dnb rSiv dnexea6at t£v aapxiKav eniBvpiav,
iniBvptav iv ra Koapto, ori ndaa im- atnves arpareiiovrai Kara t^s ^x^^-
Bvpia Kara tov nvevparos arpareiierai. Gal. J^^'.
fj ydp adp^ iniBvpeX Kara roii nvev
paros.
It is highly probable that this is a quotation from i Peter,
in view of the use of a-Tpareverai, a word of strong colouring.
A fusion with Gal. 5^'' (34) may be responsible for Kara tov
TTvevparos.
(15) Pol. vii. 2. I Pet. 4'.
vfjCfiovres npbs rds eiixds. vrj^jrare eis Trpocreuxds.
Pol. xi. 4.
' sobrii ergo estote.'
The expression in vii. 3 is so striking, that it is very
probably a quotation. d
(16) Pol. i. 3. I Pet. i".
els TJV TToXXoi iniBvpovaiv elaeXBeXv. elsdiniBvpovatv dyyeXoi napaKvyjrat.
Polycarp may possibly be influenced by i Peter here, as his
words follow immediately the certain quotation (9), while
the words in i Peter follow the words cited from that Epistle
under (9) after a short interval.
(17) Pol. vi. I. I Pet. 2"- Ezek. 34*.
entarpe(povres rd dno- ^re ydp its npd^ara rb nXavapevov ovk
nenXavrjpeva. nXavapevoi, dXX' e'TTe- enearpeifrare (v. 1. OTre-
Pol. xi. 4. arpd(j)ijTe viiv. arpe^^are).
' sicut passibiUa
membra et errantia
eos revocate.'

POLYCARP

89

Rom. 4",
Gal. i^ ; Col. 2'

10- &c.

As Polycarp cannot be proved to have made much use
of 0. T., it is possible that i Peter has influenced these
passages. The word passibUia may be due to 1 Cor. 1 3^^ ;
see I Corinthians (7).
(18) Pol. vi. 3. I Pet. 3". Titus 2".
fT/Xfflral Trepi to koXov. roii dyaBov ^rjXarai. (rjXarfjv KaXav epyav.
This is a possible case of influence, but the expression is not
striking or distinctive enough to make the inference necessary.
(19) Pol. xii. 2. I Pet. i".
'qui credituri sunt quoted under (12)
in Dominum nos-
. trum et Deum lesum
Christum et in ipsius
patrem qui resusci-
tavit eum a mortuis.'
The idea is too common in early Christian Uterature to be
assigned to any one source ; but as this passage of i Peter
has almost certainly influenced Polycarp in another place (la),
it may also have influenced him here.
(20) Pol.v. 2,vi. I. I Pet. 3^ Eph. 4'1
et^tTTrXctyxvoi. evcTTrXayxvot.
In these passages the word means ' tender-hearted,' whereas
its classical sense is ' brave ' ; but no inference can be drawn
from this, as the meaning ' tender-hearted ' seems to be fairly
common in later Greek (cf, e.g., Test, xii Patr. Zeb. 5, 8, 9).

Romans
(21) Pol. vi. 2.
Trdvras Set napaarfjvai
t5 ^fjjutri roii Xpiarov,
Kai eKaarov iinep eavrov
Xdyov Sovvai.

b
Trdvres yap Trapao'TT}'
(Topieda ra ^^fiari rov
Qeov (v. 1. Xpta-rov)
. , . apa ovv eKaaros
Tjfiav Trept eavrov Xdyov
batrei ra Qea.

2 Cor. 5".
TOVS ydp ndvras rjpds
cjiavepaBfjvai Set epnpo-
aBev roii ^fjparos roii
Xpiarov iva Kopiarjrai
fKaaros rd Sid rov aa
paros npbs d enpa^ev,
eire dyaBbv etre cpaiiXov,

This passage is very probably influenced by Romans, but
there may be unconscious conflation with a Corinthians. The
chief points of connexion between Polycarp and a Corinthians
are in the word Sei and in tov XpicrTOv (which is not found in

90 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
any early text of this passage in Romans). But the latter
alteration might have been introduced by Polycarp himself,
and the case for Romans is decidedly stronger than that for
a Corinthians. d
(22) Pol. iv. I. Rom. 13^^- 2 Cor. 6'.
dnXiaapeBa roXs d- ivSvaapeBaSerdonXa Std rotv onXav rfjs Si-
nXots rfjS SiKaioaiivrjs. tov (jjards. Kotoavvrjs. Cf. also
6^^ oTrXa SiKaioavvrjS. Eph. 6^^'.
This passage is certainly infiuenced by Pauline metaphors.
It suggests the reference to Romans, but not much stress can
be laid upon this.
(23) Pol. iii. 3. Rom. 13'.
npoayovarjs rfjs dydmjs rfjs ets Geov prjSevl prjSev dcfietXere, et pfj rb
Kai Xptarbv Kai els rbv nXrjaiov. idv dyandv dXXiyXovs. d ydp dyaTrdlv
ydp TIS ro'vrav evrbs rj, nenXfjpaKev rbv erepov vdpov nenXfjpaKe. rb
ivroXfjv SiKatoavvrjs. ydp . . . iv rovrco ra Xdya dvaKe-
(jtdXaioiirai, iv rtS dyarrfjaets rbv
nXrjaiov aov its eavrov. fj dydrrrj
Tw nXrjaiov KaKbv oiiK epyd^erat*
nXrjpapa ovv vdpov fj dydnrj.
Gal. 5^* ° 7°P "'ds vdpos iv evl Xdyco nenXfjparat, iv ra dyanfjaets rbv
nXrjaiov aov its aeavrdv.
Possibly a reminiscence of Rom. 13', which, as being a
more fully developed passage than Gal. 5^*, is more probably
the source of Polycarp's words than the latter.
(24) Pol. ix. 2. Eom. 8".
els rbv otpeiXdpevov aiiroXs rdnov etnep avpndaxopev, tfo Kat avv-
elal napd ra Kvpia, a Kai avvenaBov. So^aaBapev.
In view of the context, this should rather be treated as
dependent on a Tim. 3^\ see (56).
(25) Pol. X. I. Eom. 12".
' fraternitatis amatores, dili- t^ cjyiXaSeX^ia els dkXfjXavs <}>iXd-
gentes invicem . . . mansuetu- aropyoi, nj npS dXXfjXovs nporjyoC-
dine Domini alterutri praesto- pevoi.
lantes.' Lightfoot's reconstruction of the Greek (see his note) gives
the best explanation of the passage in Polycarp yet brought
forward ; this reconstruction involves a reference to Romans,
but too much stress ought not to be laid on what after all
remains a conjecture.

POLYCARP 91
3 Corinthians b
(26) Pol. ii. 2. 2 Cor. 4"-
d Se iyeipas aiirbv eK veKpav Kai elSdres on d iyelpas rbv Kvpiov
ijpds eyepei. Itjo-ovv Kai fjpds aiiv 'Irjaoii eyepet.
The resemblance between these two passages is not verbally
exact, and the idea contained in them may have become a
Christian commonplace. The fact that God is described as
6 eyeCpas might be accounted for by the previous section in
Polycarp, but the most noticeable connexion is contained
in Kat ^pas eyepet. On the whole, it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that we have here a reminiscence of 3 Corinthians.
c
(27) Pol. vi. 2. 2 Cor. 5".
See Romans (31) where the passages are quoted. Prob
ably Polycarp is thinking primarily of Rom. 141", but has
unconsciously been influenced by 3 Cor. 5^° also.
d
(28) Pol. V. I. 2 Cor. 8^1. Prov. 3^ Eom. 12".
Trpovoovvres dei npovoovpev ydp Kai npovoov KoXd npovooiipevoi KaXd
TOV KdXoii ivaniov KaXd oil pdvov iva- ivantov Kvpiov Kai ivantov ndvrav av-
Qeov Kai dvBpdinav. ntov Kvpiov, dXXd Kai dvBpanav. Bpdmav.
ivdmiov dvBpanav.
The paraUel to 2 Corinthians is closer than that to Romans,
as the latter omits the characteristic words ©eov (Kvptov) koi'.
But as the passage in St. Paul is dependent on Proverbs, no
stress can be laid on the resemblance, for Polycarp may be
also thinking of Proverbs, though the number of passages in
which he can be proved to have made use of 0. T. is small.
(29) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Cor. 3^
' qui estis in principio epi- fj imaroXfj fjpav iipeXs iare.
stulae eius.'
If Lightfoot's interpretation of the Latin version is correct
(see his note), the reference to 3 Corinthians seems certain ;
but the interpretation cannot be regarded as probable (see
Harnack in T. u. U. :sx. 2. 91).
(30) Pol. iii. 2 navXov, OS yevdpevos iv iipXv Kara npdaanov Toiv To're
dvBpanav iSiSa^ev, . . . os Kai dnav iipXv eypaijrev iniaroXds.
No stress can be laid on the very slight resemblance of this
to 2 Cor. lo^.

93 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Galatians b
(31) Pol. V. I. Gal. 6'.
eiSdres ovv on Geds ov pvKrrjpi^eTai. pt] nXavda6e. Geds oil pVKrrj-
piCerat.
There is no doubt that the words in Polycarp are a quota
tion, especially in view of the formula elbores on which
introduces them. They also occur in a very PauUne context.
No real parallel for ©eos ov pvKrrjpCQerai appears to be known,
and it is therefore highly probable that Polycarp is dependent
on Galatians. But the possibUity cannot be excluded that
the words may be a quotation in Galatians also {prj -nkavdcrde
perhaps suggests this inference), and that Polycarp may be
dependent on the lost source.
(32) Pol. iii. 3. Gal. 4^.
niartv' rjrts iariv pfj'rrjp ndvrav fj Se dva 'lepovadXfjp eXevBepa ecrriv,
fjpav. ^ris iarlv pfjrrjp [TrdvTOJVJ fjpav.
It is highly probable that this is a quotation, though the
word ¦ndvTinv appears to have been inserted in the later texts
of Galatians through the influence of the passage in Polycarp.
The application in Polycarp may weU have been suggested by
the thought that the Jerusalem that is above corresponds in
Galatians to the cUspensation of faith.
d
(33) Pol. iii. 3. Gal. 5".
See under Romans (33), which is more Ukely to be the
source of the common matter.
(34) Pol. V. 3. Gal. 5".
Trdo'a iniBvpta Kara roii nvevparos fj ydp adp^ e'niBvpeX Kard tov Trvev-
arpareiierai. paros.
See under i Peter (14). The passage in Galatians may have
influenced the quotatioii.
(35) Pol. ix. 2. Gal. 2\
ovToi ndvres ovk els Kevbv eSpapov. pfj nas els Kevbv rpex") ^ eBpapov.
See under Philippians (41).
Ephesians b
(36) Pol. i. 3. Eph. 2'.
eiSdres on xdptri eare aeaaapevoi, rfj ydp xapiri e'crre aeaaapevoi Sid
OVK e^ epyav, aXXd BeXfjpan Qeov Std niareas' Kai roHro oiiK i^ iipav, Geov
Irjaoii Xptarod. rb Sapov' oiiK i^ epyav, tva pfj Tts
Kavxi70'7;Tai.

Eph. 4'\

Ps. 4'

opyi^eade kuI p.^

dpytfeo-^e

dpaprdvere' 6 ^Kios /i^

dpaprdvere.

eTTiBvera cVl irapop-

¦yiff/iM vpLav.

POLYCARP 93
The words eJSo'res oti seem to imply a consciousness in Poly
carp that he is making a quotation ; the two passages agree
verbaUy, except for the absence in Polycarp of some unessential
words ; and it is to be noted that the sharp Pauline antithesis
of faith and works is not characteristic of the Apostolic Fathera
generaUy. (37) Pol. xii. I.
' modo, ut his opyt(,eaoe kui prj opyt{,eaoe Kat prj
sci-ipturis dictum est,
Irascimini et nolite
peccare, et Sol non
occidat super iracun-
diam vestram.'
Except for the insertion of et between the two clauses,
Polycarp agrees verbally (if the Latin version can be trusted)
with Ephesians. The passage in Ephesians consists in a quota
tion from Ps. 4^ and a comment on it by St. Paul (cf. Deut.
24^3 aiToScdo'eis rb evixvpov aiirov Trpos bva-pds rjkCov, 34-'^ ovk
eiriSvo-eTai 6 ^Xios eir' ovtm, Jer. 15'). Even if St. Paul's com
ment is influehced by these passages in Deuteronomy, the
coUocation of the two passages in Polycarp is almost certainly
due to Ephesians. The words his scripturis and et may imply
that Polycarp regards himself as making two separate quota
tions, but the second of the two can hardly be other than from
Ephesians. The supposition that St. Paul and Polycarp are
quoting a common proverb (e. g. Pint. Mor. 488 b, as quoted
by Lightfoot) seems to be excluded by his scripturis.

(38) Pol. xi. 2.
'si quis non se ab-
stinuerit ab avaritia,
ab idololatria coin-
quinabitur.' There certainly seems to be a reference in Polycarp to one
of these two passages, although ideas of this kind may have
been Christian commonplaces. The words in Colossians are
nearer to those in Polycarp, but as the evidence is inadequate for
Polycarp's use of Colossians elsewhere, the passage in Ephesians
ought probably to be preferred here.

c

Eph. 5'-

Col. 3=-

nXeoveKTTjs, 0 ianv

rfjv nXeove^iav, fjns

elSaXoXdrprjs.

icrrlv elSaXoXarpela.

94 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(39) Pol. xii. 3. d Eph. 6".
' pro omnibus Sanctis orate.' npoaevxdpevoi vnep ndvrav Twv
dyiav.
The idea here is very obvious, but there may be a remini
scence of language.
Philippians
(40) Pol. iii. 2 OS Kat dnav iipiv eypayj/ev eniaroXds.
This passage shows that Polycarp knew that St. Paul had
written letters to the Philippians (or possibly, a letter : see
highttoot, Philippians, p. 138). It is highly probable that he
knew the extant letter ; but the amount of evidence of his use
of it is not large, though it must be added that the general
impression in favour of his acquaintance with it is stronger
than can be fairly estimated from the isolated examination of
single passages. b
(41) PoL ix. 2. Phil. 2'^ Gal. 2\
on oSroi ndvres ovk els on oiiK els Kevbv pfj nas els Kevbv rpexa
Kevbv eSpapov. eSpajwv. rj eSpajwv.
Besides the verbal paraUel, the context in Polycarp, referring
to life in the prospect of death, suggests the context in PhiUp-
pians, while the general meaning of Galatians is different.
c
(42) Pol. ii. I. Phil. 2"'.
o) VTrerdyi^ rd ndvra enovpdvia Kai tva iv T(5 dvdjian Irjaoii ndv ydvu
iniyeta, . . . ov rb aipa iK^rjrfjaei dnb Kap-^rj inovpaviav Kai iniyetav Kai
rdiv dnet6ovvrav aiira. KaraxBoviav. 3^' iinord^ai aiira rd Trdvra.
As the context in Polycarp shows clearly that the passage
refers to Christ, it is likely that he is dependent on PhiUppians.
(43) Pol. xii. 3. Phil. 3".
'et pro inimicis crucis.' tovs ixBpoiis rod crravpov roii
XpitrroH.
The expression is sufficiently striking to make it probable
that Polycarp is thinking of the passage in PhUippians.
d
(44) Pol. i. I. Phil. 2".
avvexdprjv vptv peydXcas e'v Kvpia x^'P"" ""t avyxaipa Trdo-tv vptv.
fjpav 'Irjaov Xptar^. 4^" ixdprjv Se e'v Kvpia) peydXms ort . . .
Compare a Thessalonians (46).

POLYCARP

95

(45) Pol. V. 2. Phil. 1^.

I Clem. xxi. i.

idv noXiTevaapeBa pdvov d^ias tov

e'dv pfj d^ias avroii

a^icos avrov. eiiayyeXiov rov Xptarod

noXirevdpevoi rd KaXd

noXireiieaBe.

Kat evdpeara evantov

avroii noiapev.

Polycarp ma'^ here be thinking of the

passage in Clement.

Cf Clement (40).

3 Thessalonians. b

(46) Pol. xi. 3. 2 Thess. i*.
'ego autem nihU tale sensi fio-re airoiis ijpds e'v vptv e'yKav-
in vobis vel audivi, in quibus x°-<rSai iv raXs iKKXrjaiats rov Geov.
laboravit beatus Paulus, qui
estis in principio epistulae eius :
de vobis etenim gloriatur in
omnibus ecclesiis.'
The context shows that Polycarp supposes himself to be
quoting words addressed to the PhUippians (cf etenim).
Similar words actuaUy occur only in 3 Thessalonians, an
Epistle addressed to another Macedonian Church, which Poly
carp might easily have thought of, by a lapse of memory, as
sent to the Philippians. The present tense of gloriatur also
suggests that he is quoting. c
(47) Pol. xi. 4. 2 Thess. 3".
'et non sicut inimicos tales Kai pfj is ex^pdv fjyeXa6e, dXXd
existimetis.' vovBereXre as dSeXcfidv.
Polycarp's words sound as though he had purposely adapted
the expression of 3 Thessalonians for his own object.
In spite of the fact that both these passages occur in the
part of Polycarp for which the Latin version alone is extant,
his use of 3 Thessalonians appears to be very probable.
I Timothy b
(48) Pol. iv. I. I Tim. 6'.
^PXV ^^ ndvrav xakenav (j)tXap- oiiSev ydp elarjveyKapev els rbv
•yvpia. elSdres ovv on oiiSev elarjvey Kdapov, on ovSe i^eveyKcXv n SvvdpeBa.
Kapev els rbv Kdapov, dXX' ovSe j Tim. 6'°.
g y tv n exopev. ^^^^ ^^^ ndvrav rav KaKav iariv fj
cptXapyvpia.
It is almost impossible to beUeve that these passages are
independent. The formula {elbores on) with which Polycarp
introduces the second of the two sentences, indicates that he

96 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
is conscious of quoting and points to the priority of i Timothy.
The word ovv may perhaps show that reference is being made
to a well-known source, and that the one quotation has
suggested the other. It may further be noted that dpxn is
less vivid than pifa; this also points to the priority of
I Timothy. c
(49) Pol. iv. 3. I Tim. 5^
rds XVP"^ aarjjpovoiiaas nepi rfjv fj Se ovras XVP" *°' pepovmpevrj
TOV Kvpiov nianv, ivrvyxavoitaas ijXntKev inl Bebv Kai npoapevei raXs
dSiaXeinras nepl ndvrav, paKpdv Sefjaeatv Kai raXs npoaevxaXs wktos
oUaas ndarjs SiafioXfjs. Kai rjpepas.
(50) Pol. V. 2. I Tim. 3*.
dpoias StdKOvoi apepnroi Karevaniov StaKovovs coo'avTiBS aepvovs, prj
aiiroii rfjs SiKatoaiivrjs. . • ¦ pfj Std/3oXot, StXdyovs, pfj oivat ttoXXiS npoaexovras,
pfj SiXoyoi, dcjiiXdpyvpoi, iyKpareXs pfj alaxpoKepSeXs, exovras rb pvarfjpiov
nepl ndvra, eiianXayxvoi, intjieXeXs, rijs niareas iv KaBapa avveiSrjaei . . .
nopevdpevoi Kara rfjv dXfjBeiav rov eira SiaKOvetraaav aveyKXrjrot ovres.
Kvpiov. yvvaiKas oxravrcos aepvds, pfj Sta/3d-
Xovs, vrjcfictXiovs, Trtcrrds e'v ttoo'iv.
In these passages the general character of thought and
treatment is very similar, and there are a considerable number
of verbal parallels.
(51) Pol. viii. I. I Tim. i'.
npoaKaprepapev rrj iXniSi rjpav Koi Xpiarov 'Irjaov rfjs iXniSos fjpStv.
ra dppa^avi t^s SiKatoaiivrjs fjpdtv, os
ian Xptarbs 'Irjaovs.
The unusual order Xpicrrbs 'Itjo-ovs is to be noted : it does not
seem to occur elsewhere in Polycarp, and is not found in the
passages of Ignatius which are general parallels {Magn. 11 ;
Trail. Inscr., a).
(52) Pol. xii. 3. I Tim. 2\
' orate pro regibus.' nOieXaBai Sefjaeis . . . vTrep ^aaiXeav.
That kings and rulers were mentioned in the praises of the
Church is clear from i Clem. Ixi. The plural regibus is strange
as applied to the Emperor, and has even suggested to some
critics an argument in favour of the spuriousness of Polycarp's
Epistle (Lightfoot, Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 592). But the
later date suggested is impossible on other grounds, and the
plural is most easily explained by a reference to i Timothy.

POLYCARP 97
(53) Pol. xi. 2. I ipjjj^ g5_
'qui autem non potest se in ei Se ns toC t'Si'ov oI'kov Trpocrrnvat
his gubemare, quomodo alii odK o?Sev, ,r£s e'KKX,o-ias Geov e'TTt.
pronuntiat hoc?' peXfjaerai ;
The language in Polycarp may be suggested by a rather
weakened reminiscence of i Timothy.
(54) Pol. xii. 3. I Tim. 4»=.
_ ' ut fructus vester manifestuS iva o-ov fj npoKonfj cjiavepd ^ ndaiv.
sit in omnibus.'
Possibly a reminiscence.
2 Timothy b
(55) Pol. ix. 2. 2 Tim. 4".
ov ydp TOV vvv ^yd7r>;o-av aidjva. dyoTrijo-as rdv vvv alSiva.
The dependence on 3 Timothy seems almost certain, especi
aUy as 0 vvv alatv occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles among
the books of N.T. (cf. i Tim. 6"; Titus a^^). Besides the
simUarity of language, the reference in both cases is to loyalty
in face of danger.

(56) PoL V. 2. 2 Tim. 2";
KaBas vneaxero fjpXv iyeipai fjpds niarbs d Xdyos, el ydp ovvaneBdvo-
£K veKpav Kai on, edv noXirevaapeBa p.ev Kai avffjaopev, el iinopevopev Kai
a^ias airrov, Kai avp^aatXevaopev, avp^aatXevaopev.
etye niarevopev.
Whatever may be the case with the first part of the promise
referred to, the latter seems to be connected with some current
Xo'yos (cf OTI in Polycarp) like that quoted in a Timothy,
whether directly or indirectly through that passage. The
word (Tvp^acrike'veiv is unique in the Apostolic Fathers, nor
does the simple /Sao-tXeveiv occur with the meaning here
impUed. The notion of continuance in the present iriare'vop.ev
brings it nearer in meaning to v'nop.ivopev than might at first
appear, especially when taken in connexion with TTokirevcrdixeOa
that has preceded.
(57) Pol. xi. 4. 2 Tim. 2^'.
' quibus det Dominus poeni- pfjnore Sarj airoXs d Geds perdvoiav
tentiam veram.' «ts iniyvaatv dXrjBelas.
The words of Polycarp certainly recall a Timothy : in view

eK

98 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
of the other evidence this should probably be regarded as
a reminiscence. d
(58) Pol. xii. I. 2 Tim. i'.
' quod ego credo esse in vobis.' neneiapai Se on Kai e'v o-oi.
Possibly a reminiscence of language. C
Acts C
(59) Pol. i. 2. Acts 2^.
dv fjyeipev 6 Geds Xvcras rds caStvas dv d Geds dvearrjaev, Xiiaas rds
TOV aSov, itSXvas rov Bavdrov {aSov is an early
Western variant).
ablves davdrov occurs in a Kings aa^ (Ps. 17'), Ps. 1143, and
atblves qbov in Ps. 17^ ; but the expression Xvo-as rds abXvas
depends upon a mistranslation of ''i'nn ( = ' pains' or 'fetters').
It is difficult to account for the same mistake being made
wholly independently, and so it seems probable that Polycarp
is dependent on Acts. But the mistake may also be due to
an earlier writer followed both by the author of Acts and by
Polycarp, especially as we have no particular reason for
supposing the author of Acts to have been acquainted with
Hebrew. d
(60) Pol. ii. I. Acts io«.
Kpirfjs ^avrav Kai veKpav. Kpirfjs f<ivTo)v Kai veKpav.
Acts 10*2 is the only passage in N.T. where these exact
words occur, but a Tim. 4^, i Pet. 4^ are closely paraUel;
cf. also a Clem. i. i.
(61) Pol. u. 3. Acts 20"^.
pvrjpovevovres Stv einev d Kvpios pvrjjioveveiv re Tojv Xdyav rov Kv-
SiSdo-Ktuv. piov Irjaoii, on aiirbs eiTre . . .
No stress can be laid on the use of this formula of intro
duction, as the words are in themselves very natural, and
I Clem. xiu. i has a very simUar expression (see below, under
{75))'
(62) Pol. vi. 3. Acts 7".
oi npocjyfjrat ol npoKTjpv^avres tijv Ttva tSv npo^rjrSiv ovk iSia^av
eXevatv tov Kvptov. oi narepes iipav ; kclI dneKretvav roiis
npoKara'yyetXavras nepl rfjs iXevaeas
TOV StKaiov.
Possibly a reminiscence of the language of Acts.

POLYCARP 99
(63) Pol. xii. 2. Acts 261^
' det vobis sortem et partem KXfjpov iv roXs fjyiaapivois.
inter sanctos sues, et nobis vo- 8^^ ovk e'o-rtv o-oi ^epis odSe KXijpos.
biscum, et omnibus qui sunt 2^ otto navrbs eBvovs rav iinb rbv
sub caelo.' ovpavdv.
There seems some possibility that Polycarp is here uncon
sciously influenced by various expressions in Acts, though no
certainty can be felt in regard to the matter, jnepis ov6e Kkrjpos
occurs in Deut. 13^^, 14^^' ^^ ; while the order of these words
in Acts and Deuteronomy is the same, Polycarp, if the Latin
version can be trusted, adopted the opposite order. For the
first clause quoted from Polycarp there is a further parallel
in Col. I^^ (ets rrjv piepCba rov Kkrjpov t&v dyCoiv ev tu (JjcotC), which
is, however, less close than the paraUel in Acts : in connexion
with the last clause. Col. i^* ^^j, Trcto-rj KrCcret rfj vnb rbv ovpavdv)
may also be noted, but the phrase ' omnibus qui sunt sub
caelo ' is a very obvious one.
Hebrews C
(64) Pol. vi. 3. Heb. i2''l Ps. 2".
SovXevaapev aiira exatpev x^P'", ^i' ?* SovXevaare ra Qe& iv
perd (^d/3ov Kai ndarjs Xarpeiiapev eiiapecrrasra cfid^co.
evXajSet'os. KaBas aiirbs Gew perd eiiXa^eias Kai
ivereiXaro Kai ol eiiay- Seovs.
yeXiadpevoi fjjms and"
crroXoi Kai oi npotpfjrat
oi npoKTjpii^avres rfjv
eXevaiv roii Kvpiov fjpSiv.
Though the reference seems to be a general one to the
tenour of 0. T. as weU as the Gospel, yet the phrase may very
possibly be coloured by Hebrews ; for evka^eCa, which is not
found in the paraUel passage of Psalms, occurs in N. T. only
in Hebrews, and Polycarp refers to 01 evayyeXicrti^evoi ^pas
awo'a-ToXoi.
(65) Pol. xu. 2. Heb. 6'"',
' et ipse sempiternus pontifex, dpxtepeis yevdpevos els rbv alava.
Dei filius.' Heb. 7'.
dcfiapoiapevos Se ra via rov Qeoi.
The occurrence of sempiternus pontifex and Dei filius in
the same context, both in Polycarp and Hebrews, render it
not improbable that Polycarp is directly dependent on Hebrews
H a

100 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
here. If we may trust the prayer in Mart. Polyc. xiv as
giving his actual words (6ia tov alatvCov kuI enovpavCov opxtepecos
'Itjo-ov Xpiarov dyarrrjTov crov iraibos), we may suppose that the
idea was one which had a strong hold on his mind. The con
ception of Christ as dpxiepevs occurs prominently in i Clement
(see I Clement (ai)) which, however, may also be dependent
on Hebrews ; cf Ignatius (75) ; but in none of these passages
is there anything corresponding to sempiternus or to Dei
filius. d
(66) Pol. ix, I. Heb. 5".
TrapoKaXm ovv Trdvras vpds Tret- Trds ydp d perexav ydXaKTOS aneipos
6apxeXv ra Xdya rfjs SiKaioavvrjs. Xdyov SiKaiooT/vj;s.
The phrase Xo'yos 6iKatooT;z/rjs occurs only here in N. T. ; but
the context is widely different from that of Polycarp.
I John C
(67) Pol. vu. I. I John 4I
Trds ydp, bs dv pfj dpoXoyj 'irjadHv •ndv nvevjia o dpdXoyeX 'Irjaovv
Xptarbv iv aapKi iXrjXvBevai, dvri- Xptarcni iv aapKt eXrjXvBdra iK tov
Xptards ianv. Kai os dv pfj dpoXoyS Geov e'oriv Kat ttov nveiipa b pfj
rb papriiptov tov o-ravpov, e'K tov dpoXoyei (v. 1. Xvet) rbv 'irjaovv iK
8ta/3dXov e'o-Tiv. roii Geov ovk eoTiv.
3' d TrotSv rrjv dpapriav eK tov
SiajSdXov iariv.
Cf. 2 John ^ OTt TToXXoi TrXdvot
i^fjXBov els rbv Koapov, oi pfj dpoXo-
yovvTes 'irjaoiiv Xptarbv ipxdpevov
iv aapKi. ovrds ianv 0 nXdvos kcu 6
dvrixptaros.
Notice especially opokoyelv, iv o-apKi ekrjkvOevai, drTixpioros, «
TOV Sia^o'Xov, which are all characteristic of i John throughout.
The numerous coincidences of language render it probable that
Polycarp either used i John or was personally acquainted with
its author. [See also Stanton, The Gospels a^ Historical Docu
ments, i. ao, notes 3 and 4 ; and in Hibbert Journal, u. 805.J
d
(68) Pol. i. I. I John 4^ '«.
rd pipfjpara rfjs dXrjBoiis dydrrrjs. d Geds dyaTri; iariv.
The expression of Polycarp has an Ignatian rather than
a Johannine sound ; cf for instance Ign. Magn. vii. i.

POLYCARP loi
D
Colossians d
(69) Pol. i. 2. Col. i'. \
These passages are parallel in thought, but except for the
one word Kapirocfiopei there is no verbal connexion between
them.(70) Pol. X. I. Col. 1^
See under i Corinthians (6).
(71) Pol. xi. 2. Col. 3".
See under Ephesians (38).
(72) Pol. xii. 2. Col. i^\
See under Acts {6^).
GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
Unclassed
(73) Pol. V. 2. Mark 9=". Matt. 20^'.
Kard T^v dX^^etav rov et ns BeXei nparos d vibs roii dvBpanov
Kvpiov, OS iyevero Sid- eivai, earai ndvrav e- oiiK ^XBev SiaKovrjB^vai
Kovos ndvrav. axaros, Kai ndvrav Sid- dXXd SutKovfjaai.
KOVOS.
The sentence in Polycarp reads Uke a homiletic appUcation
of the saying in Mark, suggested by the mention of Sk^kot^oi on
the one hand, and by the example of Christ, as the great fulfiUer
of His own precept, on the other. The actual words 'navroav
bidKovos are only found in Mark, but the conception is appUed
to Christ in Matthew, and tbe application is so natural as to
make it impossible to treat the passage as serious evidence for
Polycarp's use of Mark.
(74) Pol. xi. 2. Matt. 18".
'tanquam inter gentes.' dlo-Trep d iBvtKds.
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(75) Pol. ii. 3. Matt. f. Luke 6'1 i Clem. xiii. i f
pvrjpovevovres Se pfj Kpivere, tva pfj Kai pfj Kpivere, Kai pdXiara pepvrjpemi
&v einev d Kvpios KpiBfjre' iv ^ ydp pe- oil pfj KptBfjre . . . a tSv Xdytov tov Kvpiov
SiSdo-Kcov' pfj Kpivere, rpa perpeXre, perprj- ydp perpa perpeX- 'Irjaoii, ovs eXaXijaev
tva pfj KpiBfjre' dcjii- Bfj'aerai iipiv. re, dvnperprjBfjaerai SiSdaKav inieiKeiav
ere, Kai dc^ieBfjaerai 5' paKdpioi oi iipXv, Kai paKpoBvpiav' ov-

loa THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
iipXv iXedre, tva nraxol ra nvevpart, 6'° paKaptoi oi ras ydp einev' iXedre
eXerjB^re' co perpco on aiirav iarlv fj nraxoi, on iiperepa tva iXerjBfjre, dtfiiere
perpeXre, dvnperprj- ^aaiXeia tSv ovpa- e'o'riv fj fiaatXeta rod tva dc^eBfj iipXv 015
Bfjaerai iipXv Kat on vmv. Geov. Troieire, ovno notrjdrj-
paKdpioi oi nraxol ^^^ paKdptoi oi Se- aerai iipXv' its SiSore
Kai oi StaKopevot eve- Staypevot evcKcv St- ovras SoBrjaerat iipXv.
Kev StKaioaiiVTjS, on Katoaiivrjs, on aiirav as Kpivere, ovras Kpt-
airrav iariv fj /3acrt- e'trrlv fj ^aaiXeia rdiv 6fjaea6e' its xpi-
Xeia roii Geov. oiipavav, areveaBe, ovras xp>j-
<Trev6fjaerai vptv a
perpco perpeire, e'v
aiira perprjBfjaerai
iipXv.
Polycarp assumes that a body of teaching, oral or written,
similar to the Sermon on the Mount, was familiar to the
PhiUppian Church. It is possible that his language, including
the form of citation [cf. Acts (6i)], may have been influenced
by Clement. Polycarp does not, however, quote Clement
directly, as he omits some of Clement's most characteristic
phrases. In detail he agrees almost equaUy with Matthew
and Luke, but not completely with either. Compai-e the dis
cussion on I Clem. {^^),
(76) Pol. vi. I, 2. Matt. 6'\ Luke 11*.
pfjTaxeasniarevovres Kai acpes fjpXv rd Kai defies fjpXv tos
Kara Ttvos,p^ dTrdropoi e'v dcjieiXfjpara fjpav, as dpaprias fjpav, Kat ydp
Kpiaet, elSdres on ndvres Kai fjpets dcpfjKapev roXs aiiroi dcpiepev Travri
dcfieiXeraiiapev dpaprias. dcjieiXerats fjpav, dcjieiXovn fjpXv.
elovvSedpeBaroiiKvpiov Cf 6".'=, l8'^
tva fjpXv dcj)fj, dcjjetXopev
Kai fjjxeXs dcptevai.
The words beopeda rov KvpCov evidently introduce a reference
to the Lord's Prayer. But no quotation from the Lord's
Prayer can be used as evidence for acquaintance with our
Gospels, as there are clear signs of its early ecclesiastical use
as current elsewhere (see e, g. Didache (n)). Possibly, the
context here, emphasizing a large charity in judgement, points
to the context of the Sermon on the Mount as colouring Poly
carp's thoughts (see Matt. 6^*, 7^~^). But even if Polycarp
were inclined to treat the Lord's Prayer as belonging to the
Sermon on the Mount, this would not necessarily imply a
knowledge of our Matthew.

POLYCARP

103

(77) Pol. vii. 2.
Sefjaeatv alrovpevot
rbv navrendnrrjv Geov
pfj elaeveyKeXv fjpds els
neipaapdv, KaBas einev
d Kvptos" rb pev nvevpa
npoBvpov, fj Se adp^
a aBevfjs,

Mark I4=».
yprjyopeXre Kai npoa-
evxeade, tva pfj eXBrjre
els neipaapdv rb pev
nvevpa npoBvpov, fj Se
crdp^ daBevfjs.

Matt.6''(=Lukeii*). Kai pfj elaeveyKTjs
7;pas els neipaapdv.
2 6* yprjyopeXre Kai
npoaevxeaBe, tva pfj
elaeXBrjre els neipaapdv,
rb pev nveiijMi npdBvpov,
fj Se adp^ daBevfjs.
For the quotation from the Lord's Prayer (Polycarp's words
are identical with those of Matthew and Luke), see the note
to the preceding passage. The quotation introduced by Kado)s
einev 0 KT^pios agrees verbatim with Matthew and Mark, and
appeai-s in a very similar context to that in the Gospels.
But this quotation might well be due to oral tradition ; or it
might be from a document akin to our Gospels, though not
necessarily those Gospels themselves.
(78) Pol. xii. 3. Matt. 5". Luke 6^'.
'orate etiam . . . dyaTrdre rovs ixBpoiis dyandre roiis ix6poiis
pro persequentibus vpav, koI npoaevxeaBe vpav, KoXdis noteXre rots
et odientibus vos.' VTrep tSv SiaKovrav ptaovatv iipds, eiiXo-
vpds. yeire tovs Karapapevovs
iipds, npoaevxeaBe nepl
Toiv inrjpea^dvrav iipds.
Here again the language of Polycarp seems to be influenced
by teaching Uke that of the Sermon on the Mount, but the
passage affords no evidence for the use of either of our Gospels
in its present form.
(79) Pol. i. 3- Matt. 13".
eis ^v TToXXoi iniBvpovaiv elaeXBeXv, Luke I O .
There is no reason to suppose that the paraUel here is more
than accidental. (Ill) The Fourth Gospel.
C
(80) Pol. V. 2. C John 5".
KaBas iineaxero fjpXv iyeXpai fjpds aanep ydp d narfjp iyeipei tovs
eK vcKpSsv, veKpoiis Kcii ^aonoieX, oCra Kai d vibs
' ovs BeXei ^aonoieX.
5^° oi veKpol aKovaovrai rfjs cpavfjs
roii viov roii Qeov, Kai 01 aKovaavres
^fjaovrai. 6" Kai iya dvaarfjaa aiirbv iv rfj
iaxdrjj fjpepa.

I04 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
No such promise is given in the Synoptic Gospels, whereas
it is put plainly in John. ¦ The reference seems certainly to
be to a Johannine tradition, though it need not necessarily be
to our Fourth Gospel. Unclassed
(8i) Pol. xii. 3 John i^''.
' ut fructus vester manifestuS tva vpeis indyrjre Kai Kapnov
sit in omnibus.' ^eprjre, koI d Kapnbs iipav peirj.
The sentence in Polycarp sounds like a reminiscence of
I Tim. 4^^, see (54) ; the only point of contact with John is
in the word fructus, and this might be accounted for, e. g. by
Gal. 5^^, if so natural an expression requires any assignable
source. (IV) Apocryphal Gospels.
The passages resembling the Sermon on the Mount, (75)-(78),
have appeared to some to suggest a use by Polycarp of some
non-canonical source ; but, in view of the inexactness of some
of his other quotations, this inference does not seem to be
justified. Unclassed
(8a) In vi. i the formula elbores on introduces the words
¦ndvres ocjieikerai eapev dpaprCas, which, in view of their style,
are probably a quotation; there is, however, nothing to
indicate the source from which the quotation (if such it be) is
derived.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
INTRODUCTION.
The author of the Shepherd of Hermas nowhere suppUes
us with a direct quotation from the Old or New Testament,
and we are therefore obliged to fall back upon allusions
which always admit of some degree of doubt. He may
sometimes be consciously borrowing ideas from N. T. writers
when the reference is veiled by an intentional change of
words; and sometimes he may use identical words, and
yet have derived them from some other source, oral or
written. In these circumstances it is clear that references
which might reasonably be assumed if we knew that the
author was familiar with our canonical books, cannot be used
to establish his famiUarity with them in opposition to critics
who dispute it. The foUowing arrangement of passages,
therefore, does not represent what the editors may consider
historicaUy probable, but what they think may be reasonably
deduced from a mere comparison of texts.
EPISTLES, ^CTS.
B
I Corinthians b
(i) Mand. IV. iv. i, 2. i Cor. 7''.^°,
'Edv yvvTj, . . . fj naXiv dvfjp tis idv Se KotprjBfj d dvfjp, iXevBepa
KotprjBfj, Kai yapfjarj ns i^ aiirav, iarlv co BeXei yaprjBfjvat . . , paKa-
pfjn dpaprdvei d yapav ; Ovx dpap- piarepa Se ianv idv ovra peivrj, . . .
rdvet, cjirjaiv idv Se icfi' eavra peivrj SoKa Se Kaya Uvevpa Qeov exeiv,
ns, nepiaaorepav eavra npfjv . . . -ys.^" idv Se Kalyfjpijs*, oix fjpapres.
nepmoieXrai npbs rbv Kvptov' idv Se
Kai yapfjarj, ovx dpaprdvei. * yapfjarjs, Tisch., W. H.
d
(2) Sim. IX. xu. I. I Cor. io\
'H Tre'rpa . . . avTT; koi fj niiXr] fj Se Trerpa fjv d Xptards.
d vibs roii Geov e'o-n'.
The resemblance here seems purely accidental, tbe rock
being quite different in the two cases.

io6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Ephesians b
(3) Mand. X. u. i, 2, 4, 5. Eph. 4'°-
ij Xvnrj e'KTpi^et rd nvevpa rb dyiov pfj XvTreire rd Ilvevpa Td Ayiov
Kai TrdXtv crco^et . , . fj Xinrrj avrrj roii Geov.
elanopeverai els rbv dvBpanov, Kai 5''' '° nXrjpoiiaBe iv Uveiipan, . , .
XvTret rb nvevpa rb aytov Kai iKTpifiei i/'dXXovTes.
avrd , . . fj pev St\/^vxia . . . 17 Se
d^vxoXia XvTTei rb nvevpa . , , pfj
BXXI3e rb nvevpa rb dyiov.
See also iii. 2, and Mand.
IIL 4.
In view of the originaUty and boldness of the phrase in
Ephesians, it seems likely that Hermas is developing in his
own way a phrase that has lodged in his mind. On the other
hand, it is to be noticed that his conception of the Holy
Spfrit as essentially joyous might have led him up to the
idea in a way suggested by the expression, ' grief enters and
grieves.' Nevertheless, this does not seem to explain fuUy so
remarkable a phrase.
(4) Sim. IX. xiu. 5. Eph. 4'-^
ot ntarevaavres , . . eaovrai els ev ¦ iv dydnrj . . . ev aapa Kai ev Ilvevpa,
nveiipa, Kai ev aapa, pia XP"? tcov ... e'v pid iXniSi ... ets Kvptos, pt'a
ipariav avrav. 'j ev nvevpa Kai ev nians, ev ^dnriapa, ets Geds.
aapa. Xvil. 4 Xa/Sdvres ovv rfjv 5^^' ^° d Xptarbs fjydnrjae rfjV eK-
(r(|)payiSa [ = baptism] piavc^pdvijo'tv KXrjaiav . . . tva avrfjv dyidarj KaBa-
eaxoV Kat eva vovv, Kai pia niarts aiirav piaas.
iyevero Kai [pia] dydnrj. xviiii 4 l", 4'° iacppayiaBrjre.
earai fj iKKXrjaia roil Qeov ev aapa,
pia cfipdvrjals, els vovs; pia nians, pia
dydnrj. Kai rdre d vibs tov Geoi)
ayctkXtdaerai . . . dneiXrjcjias rbv Xabv
aiiroii KaBapov.
These passages have all the appearance of being imitated
from Ephesians. It is the way of Hermas not to quote, but to
take suggestions, and alter to suit his own purposes.

(5) Mand. III. i. Eph. 4'^
AXrjBetav dydna, Kai ndaa dXfjBeia XaXeXre dXfjBeiav. ^' ttSs Xdyos
eK TOV crrdpaTos aov iKnopeveaBa. aanpbs e'K roi) ardparos iipav pfj
iKnopevea6a.
Both the language and the sentiment ai-e too common to

afford evidence of borrowing.
eKiropevo/xe'i/ep 6ia aTopiaros Qeov.
(6) Sun. IX. iv. 3.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 107
Cf. Matt. 4* eTTt Tiavrl (rrjpan

Eph. 22".
inoiKoSoprjBevres inl rw BepeXlca
rav anoardXav kcli npocbrjrav,
4 • dnoardXovs . . . StSaaKoXovs
. . . els o'tKodopfjv.

ovTot TrdvTes ifiXfjBrjaav els rfjv
oiKoSoprjv TOV TTvpyoV iyivovro ovv
OToixot reaaapes iv tois BepeXiots rov
nvpyov. XV. 4 oi Se rprnKovra Tre'vre
npocjifjrai . . . oi Se Teo-o-apoKovra
aTTOoToXot Kai StSdcrKaXoi,
There may be here a reminiscence of Ephesians, and indeed
the whole figure of the tower may have been suseested bv
Eph. a"-22. ^^ ^
(7) Sim. IX. xvi. 2, 3. Eph. 2'.
tva Caonotrjeaatv , , . nplv ydp, (j}rjai, vpds ovras veKpoiis roXs napanra-
(jiopeaat rbv avBpanov rb dvopa [tov pao-t.

VSi ^ crvvefojoTroiT/o-e.

viovj rov Qeov, veKpds ianv.
Hebrews
(8) Vis. IL ui. 2.
(Ttofei CTC TO pfj dnoar^vai ae dnb
Geov ^avros. Vis. III. vii. 2.
oi els reXos dnoardvres rov Geov
roii ^avros.
(9) Sim. I. i, ii.
otSare, cjirjaiv, on inl ^emjs Karoi-
KeXre iipeXs . . . fj ydp ndXts iipav
paKpdv ianv dnb rfjs ndXeas raiirrjs'
. . . Tt SiSe iipeis eroipd^ere dypoiis
. . . ; ravra ovv d iroijid^av els
ravrrjv rfjv ndXtv oil npoaSoKa inava-
Kap^ai els rfjv ISiav TrdXtv.
Both the ideas and the words in these passages seem to
indicate dependence.

Heb. 3"-
KapSia novrjpd dntarias
anoarfjvai dnb Geov ^avros.

Heb. ii'=-
ndppaBev . . . iSdvres . . . ^evot
etxov dv Katpbv dvaKdp'\jrai .
fjrotpaaev ydp aiiroXs ndXiv.

13"
TToXlV.

OV yap exopev code pevovaav

(10) Mand. TV. iii. i, 2.
fjKovaa . . . napd nvav SiSaaKdXav,
on erepa perdvoia oiiK eanv el pfj
eKeivTj, ore els vSo)p Kare^rjpev . . .
KciXas fjKovaas' ovra ydp exei.
Sim. IX. xxvi. 6.
aSvvarov ydp eon aaBfjvat rbv peX-
Xovra viiv dpveiaBat rbv Kvpiov.

Heb. 6*-«.
dSvvarov ydp roiis dna^ cjiartaBevras
. . TrdXiv dvaKaivi^eiv els perdvotav.

io8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
The allusion to teachers, showing that the question was
a subject of discussion, and the want of verbal correspondence,
make the reference to Hebrews doubtful.

James
(ii) Mand. IX. i.
dpov dnb aeavrov rfjv
Sir/'VX'av Kai prjSev oXiBS
Si'\frvxfjaTjS alrfjaaaBai
napd roii Geov. 2 pfj
StaXoyifov ravTO, dXX'
, . . alroii nap' aiiroii
dSiaraKras. 4 idv dSi-
ardKras alrrjarjs. 5 ^dv
Se Stardarjs . . . oi ydp
Siard^ovres ets tov Gfdv,
ovroi elatv oi Sf^vxot,
Kai ovSev dXas inirvy-
xdvovai tSv alrrjpdrav
aiirSiv. There are
several other refer
ences to Sti/rvxia in
the same passage :
see also Herm. (39).
Sim. I. iii.
dcjipov Kai Si-^vxe Kat
raXainape dvBpane.
Mand. IX. vi.
oi Se dXoreXeis dvres e'v rfj niarei
ndvra alroUvrai.

Mand. IX. i.
prjSev dXas Sf^jrvxfjarjs alrrjaaaBai
napd roii Qeoii. 2 a'lrod nap' aiiroii
[4 and 7) '"apd rov Kvpiov]. 3 ovk
eerrt ydp d Geds iis oi avBpanoi oi
pvrjatKOKOvvres. Sim. IX. xxiv. i, 2.
oi TTicTTevcravTes . . . ndvrore dirXot
Kai oKaKot, . , , kcu iK t£v KdTrcDV
avrdiv Travri dvBpanco ixopfjyrjaav
dvovetSiaras Kai aStardKras,

Jas. l'""'.
alreira Se iv niarei
prjSev SiaKptvdpevos' , . .
pfj ydp o'leaBa d avBpa
nos iKeXvos on Xfj^erai
n napd roii Kvpiov, dvfjp
St'il'vxos, OKardo'TaTos ev
ndaais raXs dSois aiiroii.

Clem. Rom. I. xxiii. 3.
^ ypacpfj avrrj, onov
Xeyei" TdXainapoi elatv
ol Siijrvxoi, ol Stard-
fovres rfjv i/'vx'jv [tj
KapSia in Clem. II.
xi. 2, where it is
quoted as d npocfirj-
riKbs Xdyos]. Did. iv. 4.
oil St\lrvx^aeis, ndre-
pov earai ^ oii.
Barn. xix. 5.
oil pij SiyjnixfjoTjs.

Jas. I*.
TO SoKi'piov vpoiv T^s niOTeas Kar-
epyd feral imojiovfjv. fj Se imopovfj
epyov reXeiov e'xero), tva ^re TcXetot
Kai dXdKXi;pot. Jas. I^
aireino Trapd tov SiSdvTos Geov
Trdcrtv dTrXcos Kai p^ dvetSifovros.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

109

Jas. 5".
TroXvoTrXayxvds ianv d Kvptos Kai
oiKTippcov. Jas. i^'.
Trdo-a Sdo-ts dya^^ Kat ttov Saprjpa
reXeiov avaBev iart, KarafiaXvov dnb
TOV narpbs Toiv cparav. 3" fj Se
avaBev aocfiia nparov pev dyvfj ianv,
eneira elprjviKfj.

Jas. 3«.
oiiK eartv avrrj fj aocjiia avaBev
Karepxopevrj, dXX iniyeios, yjrvxtK^,
SatpoviaSrjs.

Mand. IX. ii.
aiTov . . . Kai yvatarj rfjV noXvev-
imXayxviav aiirov.
Mand. IX. xi.
7; jrioTis avaBev ian napd rod
Kvpiov.
Mand. XL v.
Trdv ydp nvevpa dnb Geov So^ev
. . , avaBev ianv. 8 nparov pev d
exav TO jrvevpa to avaBev npais
ian KCLi fjcriixios. Mand. IX. xi.
7) Se Siijfvxta iniyetov nveHpd ian
napd roii Sia/3dXov. Mand. XI. vi.
TO Se TTvevpa . . . Kard rds iniBv
pias . . . iniyetov iart. xi Trepi tov
nvevjiaros rov iniyetov.
In the foregoing passages there is sufficient similarity of
thought and language to suggest a Uterary connexion with
James ; but some of the most striking expressions in James
are absent from Hermas, and where the language is similar,
the connexion of thought is sometimes quite different. The
resemblance, therefore, is not sufficient to prove direct de
pendence, and may perhaps be explained by the use of a
common source, such as is actually quoted by Clement in
regard to the bC^vxoi. A npo^rjTiKos Xo'yos was likely to be used
by Hermas ; e. g. Eldad and Modat, cited below (i6).
Jas. 4"' ''•
pjr] KaroKoKelre dXKrjXav^ dScA0ot.
6 KaraXaXav dSeX^ou , , . KaraXaXel
vofjLOv . . . eiff iartv 6 voixoBirrjs kqI
KpirrjSj 6 bvvdfxevos aa(rai Ka\ airoXeirai'
(TV Se TLs ei 6 Kplvav rov TrXTjaiov ;
Cf Matt. IO^» cfioPfjBrjre . . .
rbv Svvdpevov Kai ijfvxfjv Kai aapa
dnoXeaai.

(12) Sim. IX. xxui. 2-4.
aTTO rav KaraXaXiSv eavrav pepa-
paapevot elaiv iv rfj niarei . . . ai
KardXaXiai . . . raXs KaraXaXiaXs aiirav
. . . el d Geds . . . iXecas yiverai,
avBpanos . . . dvBpana pvrjaiKaKeX as
Svvdpevos dnoXeaai fj aaaai avrov ;
Mand. XII. vi. 3.
(jiofifjBrjre rbv ndvra Svvdpevov
aaaai Kai dnoXecrat.

Here both the identity of expression and the resemblance
in the context are strongly suggestive of literary dependence.
It is possible that both writers used a common document;
but there is no evidence of this in the present case.

no THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(13) Vis. IL ii. 7.

jiaKapiot vpets oaot
vnopevere rfjv BXX^iv rfjv
epxopeVYjv rfjv peydXrjv,
Kai oaot oiiK dpvfjaovrai
rfjV ^afjv aiirav.

d
Jas. i'^
MoKapios dvtjp OS
iinopevei neipaapdv' . . .
Xfjyj/erai rbv arecjiavov
T^s i(»5s.

Rev. 7".
01 ipxdpevoi iK t^s
BXiyjreas rfjs peydXrjs.
Matt. 1 0=2 and 24".
d Se imopeivas els
reXos, oZros aaBfjaerat.
There is some verbal resemblance ; but the words are very
common, the deviations are strongly marked, and the senti
ment is quite different.

(i4)Vis.IILix4-6. avTi; ovv fj davv-
Kpaaia )SXa/3epd vptv
TOts exovaiv Kai pfj
peraSiSoiiaiv roXs iiare-
povpevois. /3Xe'7reT€ r^v
Kpiatv rfjv inepxopeVTjv
. . . pfjnore arevd^ovaiv
ol iiarepovpevot, Kai d
crrevaypbs avrav dva-
^rjaerai npbs rbv Kv
ptov.

Lev. 19".
oil pfj KoiprjBfjaerai 6
ptaBbs roii piaBaroii
napa aoi eas npai.
Deut. 24^^
nevrjs . . . Kara^ofj-
aerat Kara aoii npbs
Kvptov.
Ps. ll\
rov (TrevaypLov rav
TrevTjrav. Ps. 17''.
fj Kpavyfj pov . . .
elaeXevaerai els rd &ra
aiirov. Cf. Enoch xciv.
7-10.
With a resemblance of sentiment and expression, the
differences are considerable, and both may be explained from
the 0. T.

Jas. 5'>*.
oi TrXovo-tot, . . . KXav-
aare dXoXv^ovres inl raXs
raXatnapiats iipdiv raXs
inepxopevais . . . d
pia6bs rav ipyarav . . .
d aneareprjpevos dcji'
iipav Kpd^et' Kai ai ^odi
rdjv Bepiadvrav els rd
ara Kvpiov ^a^aaB
elaeXrjXiiBaaiv.

(15) Mand. ILii, iii.

Jas,

.4".

Prov. 26^'.

prjSevbs KaraXdXei . . .

pfj

KoraXaXeire

d\-

crrdjia Se dareyov

novrjpd fj KaraXaXtd,

XfjXav,

noieX aKaraaraaias.
aKardararov Saipdvtov,
3\
rfjv
Oe yXao'o-av
20'' pfj dydna Kara-
V. U. 7 dKaraarareX
. . , aKardararov kcikov.
XctXeXv.
ev ndajj npd^ei avroii.
I«
OKaraararos
iv
Wisd. l".
Sim. VI. iii. 4, 5.
TTa'o-ats
raXs
oboLS avrov.
dn-d KardXdXids cpei-
npapovvrat , . , oko-
aaaBe yXaacrrjs.
raaraaia . . . dKoraara-
See also Ps. 49"",
Todvres raXs /SovXais
100°.
avrdiv.
Isa. 54".
aKardararos ov jrape-
KkfjBrjs. See also Tobit 4"-
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS m
The sentiment and the words are sufficiently common.
'AKardcTTaTov baipoviov reminds one of James ; but with the
change from KaKov, the connexion is too slight to be relied on.
Jas. 4°.
T) SoKeXre on KevUs
Tj ypacpfj Xe'yet; Trpds
cjiddvov intnodei rb nveii-
jui 0 KaraKiaev iv fjpXv ;

Test, of Twelve
Patriarchs, Simeon 4
extov TTvev^ia Geov e'v
aiira, Joseph 10 Kv
ptos KaroiKijo-ei e'v vptv
. . . KaroiKet ... d e'v
airra KaroiKav, Benj. 6
Kvpios ydp e'v airra
KaroiKei.

(i6) Mand. in. i.
rd nvevpa b d Geds
KarcfKiaev iv rfj aapKl
ravrrj . , . d Kvpios d iv
aoi KaroiKav.
Mand. V. u. 5-7.
ov Kai rd Trvevpa rd
dyiov KOToiKei . . . Karot-
Kfiv . . . fijrei KaroiKetv
. . . ov KOTOtKet.
Sim. V. vi. 5, 7.
TO nvevpa rb dyiov . . .
KarcoKtaev d Geds ets
adpKa ... e'v fj Karco-
Ktjae rb nveiipa rb
aytov . . . iv ^ rb Trvevpa
TO ayiov KarciKTjaev.
Though the paraUels in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs show that the idea of a Divine indwelling, ex
pressed by the word KaroiKetv is not unusual, nevertheless the
words of Hermas are sufficiently close to those of James to
indicate some kind of Uterary connexion ; but as the latter is
avowedly quoting an unknown scripture, Hermas and he may
be dependent on a common source, possibly Eldad and
Modat, which is quoted in Vision II. iii. 4 'Eyyvs Kvpios tois
eTTicrrpecfiopivoLS, &s yiypanrai kv t(S 'EX6a5 Kai Moobdr. We
should note that the striking expression in James, Trpos (pOdvov
nmoOel, is wanting in Hermas.
(17) Mand. XIL i. i.

piaijaeis rrjv novrjpav
eniBvpiav kcu x*^Xtva-
yaryfjcreis aiirfjv KaBas
fiavXei. 2 SvaKoXas^pepoiirai.

Polycarp v. 3.
XaXtvaycoyovvTes eav-
roiis dnd navrbs KaKoii.

Jas. 1=^".
pij x'^XtvaycoySv
yXSo'crav aiirov.
3^ Svvarbs x"^"'""
yayfjaai Kai oXov rb
aapa. VS. * ottov . . .
/SoT/Xerai. VS. * r^v
Se yXaaaav ovSeis Sv
varai . . . Sapdaat.
The metaphorical use of ' bridling ' is not uncommon, but
the word is of rare occurrence. It is found, however, in

na THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Lucian, applied to Tas r&v fjbov&v dpi^eis, which shows how
unsafe it is to infer literary connexion from a mere re
semblance of words and thought. Here, however, we must
notice the presence of the ideas of willing and taming, which
occur also in the context of James.

(i8)Mand. Xn.ii. 4.
fj iniBvpia . . . cpeii-
^erat dnb aoii.
iv. 7 d SidjSoXos pdvov
cjldl^ov exei . . . pfj cpo^fj-
6rjre ovv avrov, Kai cpeii-
^erat dip' iipav.
V. 2 edv ovv dvTt-
araBfjre aiira, viKrjBels
Cpev^erat dcp' iipav.
4 dvBearrjKaaiv aiira . . .
KaKeXvos dnoxcupei dn
aiirav.

Jas. 4^.
dvriarrjre Se ra Sia-
/SdXfi), Kai cpeii^erai d(p'
iipav.

Tobit 6".
oacppavBfjaerai rb Sai
pdvtov KCU. cpeii^erai.
Test, of Twelve
Patr., Simeon 3.
dnorpexei rb novrjpov
nvevpa dn aiirov.
Isachar 7.
Trdv nveiipxt tov Be-
Xidp cpev^ercu dcp' iipav.
Napht. 8.
d SidjSoXos cpev^eriu
dcp' vpav. I Pet. 5'.
a dvriarrjre arepeol rg
TTto-Tet.
The words and the thought in the above passages are
sufficiently close to James to justify the conclusion that they
are probably based on the Epistle. But a doubt is permissible
because the words are few and in regular use, and the senti
ment may have been common in Christian circles.
(19) Sim. I. viii. Jas. i*'.
X'7pas Koi opcpavoiis intaKenreaBe. intaKenreaBai dpcpavoiis Kai XW"^
Mand. VIH. X. ^'' "^S SXiyjfei avrav.
X^pais iinrjpereXv, dpcpavoiis Kai
iiarepovpevovs intaKenreaBai.
Vis. III. ix. 2.
intaKenreaBe dXXijXovs.
The verbal resemblance in the first passage is striking;
but enicTKinrecrOai is a common word in this kind of con
nexion, being very frequent in the LXX, and the union of
orphans and widows as specially entitled to kindness is met
with several times in the O. T. (see in the LXX Exod.
33^2 ; Deut. 10I8 ; Job aa^ ; Ps. 93^ 145' ; Isa. i", 9" ; Jer. 76,
aa^ ; Ezek. aa'' ; Zech. 71"). Moreover, the parallel passages in

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 113
Hermas deviate much more widely from James. It is therefore
impossible to feel confident that there is dependence.
(20) Sim. II. V. Jas. 2^.
d pev nXovaios exei xprjpara TroXXd, d Geds i^eXe^aro roiis nraxoiis . . .
rd Se Trpds tov Kvpiov TrrcoxeT^et . . . TrXovo-iovs e'v niarei.
0 nevrjs nXovatds ianv iv ry ivreii^ei, g'* ttoXv laxiiei Serjais StKaiov
Kai Svvaptv peydXrjv exet fj evrev^is ivepyovpevrj.
airrov napd ra Gem.
The idea of the poor man as richer in spiritual life is
common to the two works ; but this is suggested also by
Luke 620, 1321, 1619-31 ; 3 Cor. 6", 8^ The idea of the power
of prayer is differently connected and applied ; and there is
no verbal resemblance that can suggest literary dependence.
(21) Sim. VIII. vi 4. Jas. 5^
Stv al pdjSSot ^rjpal Kai /3e/3p6>pe'vai d nXovros iipav aearjne, Kai ra
vnb arjrbs eiipeBrjaav, ovrot elaiv oi dno- ijidria iipav arjro^para yeyovev.
ardrai . . . Kai ^XaaCprjpfjaavres iv 2"^ oiiK avroi (sc. ol nXovaioi)
rats dpapriais aiirav rbv Kvpiov, en ^XaaCprjpoiiai rb KaXbv ovopa rb int-
Se Kai inaiaxvvBevres rb bvojia Kvpiov icXrjBev icp iipds ;
rd iniKkrjBev en aiirovs. See also I Pet. 4'^ (31)-
(22) The following passages may also be compared; but
it is not necessary to present them, as the language which
is used in common by the two writers is not sufficiently
characteristic to require remark. The context is quite different,
and the use of the same words or figures may be explained
from the 0. T., or from general literary usage.
Vis.LL8,ii.i. CfMand.IV.i.2. Jas. i"."-
Mand. IL iv. Sim. IL vu. i^'".
Mand. XII. vi. 5. 1", 4'.
Sim. VL i. i. i^
Sim. VI. i. 2. Vis. IV. i. 8. 2'- ".
Sim. VI. i. 6, ii. 4. 5"-
Sim. VIII. ix. I. 2'*.
Sim. IX. xbc. 2. 31,14, 18^214. 17, .o_
Sim. IX. xxi (especially 3). i"- " 2'.
Sim. IX. xxvi. 7. 3'-
Although the passages which point to dependence on James
fail to reach, when taken one by one, a high degree of proba-
bUity, yet coUectively they present a fairly strong case, but
we should be hardly justified in placing the Epistle higher
than Class C.

114 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
D

Acts

d

(23) Vis. IV. ii. 4.

Acts 4''.

Isa, 24".

e'jri rbv Qebv . . . npbs

ovSe ydp Svopd ianv

rd ovopa Kvpiov evSo-

rbv Kvpiov, niarevaas

erepov iinb rbv oiipavbv

|ov.

on St' ovSevds Svvi; aa-

rb SeSopevov ev dvBpa

43" OVK eanv Trape|

Bfjvai el pfj Std TOV

nois, iv a Set aaB^vai

ipov aa(av.

peydXov Kai e'vSd^ov

fjpas.

Ps. 53".

dvdparos.

'0 Geds, e'v ra dvdpan'
irov aaadv pe.
11^ 2aadv pe, Kvpie.
19^ iinepaaniaai aov
rb ovopa roii Qeoii.
See also Ps. 32",
78', io5», i23«, &c.

It seems doubtful whether ' the Lord ' and ' the name ' refer
to God or to Christ. In IH. i. 9 and u. i, where suffering
for the sake of the name (in v. 2 ' the name of the Lord ') is
alluded to, the name is most naturally understood as that of
Christ. But in IH. iv. 3 ' the name of God ' is expressly
mentioned ; and in IV. i. 3 ' his great and glorious name '
seems most probably to refer to God. The same may be said
of ' the almighty and glorious name ' in IH. iii. 5. In
HI. vii. 3 Ki/ptos seems to be used of Christ. This ambiguity
quaUfies the first impression of resemblance. In any case the
usage of the O. T. may furnish a sufficient basis for the
passage ; and even the negative form of the sentence, which
particularly reminds us of Acts, has a parallel in Isa. 43I1.
The context is totaUy different from that in Acts.
(24) Mand. IV. ui. 4. Acts i".
KapStoyvaarrjs ydp itv d Kvptos. Kvpte, KapSioyvatrra ndvrav.
15* d KapSioyvacrrrjS Qeds.
The only appearance of dependence here is in the use of an
uncommon word. But even if that word originated with the
author of Acts, it may have passed into Christian use, so- as
to be familiar to many who had not read Acts. If we suppose
a direct connexion, there is nothing to show on which side
the priority lies.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 115

Romans

(25) Mand. X. ii. 5. Eom. S^''.".
prj BXX^e rb nvevpa rb dyiov rb iv aiirb rb nveiipa iinepevrvyxdvei . . .
aoi KarotKovv, pfjnore evrev^rjrai [xard ivrvyxdvei iinep dyiav.
o"ovj TQ) Qea.
I Thessalonians
(26) Vis. III. ix. 10. I Thess. 5"f-
TTOtSevere ovv uXXtjXovs Kai etpij- elprjvevere iv eavroXs' napaKaXovpev
vevere ev avrois. Se iipds, dSeXcpoi, vovBereXre roiis
araKTovs . . .
These passages use the same phrase in rather similar
contexts dealing with mutual exhortation.
I Peter d
(27) Vis. III. iu. 5. I Pet. 3'^°' ^\
fj (afj iipav Std vSaros iaaBrj Kai iv fjpepats Nfie, KaraaKeva^opevrjs
aaBrjaerai. Ki^arov, els fjv dXiyoi . , . SteaaBrjaav
Si vSaros . . . (ra^ei ^dnrtapa.
The context is quite different, the reference to Noah and
the ark being absent from Hermas. The idea of salvation
through water springs directly from the practice of baptism,
and would readUy suggest the figure of founding the tower
eTTt vbaroiv.
(28) Vis. in. xi. 3. I Pet. 5^. Ps. 54"-
OVK inepi'^are eavrav ndaav rfjv peptpvav inipi^ov inl Kvptov rfjv
Tas pepipvas inl rbv iipav intpi'^avres in peptpvdv aov, Kai avrds
Kvpiov. aiirdv [rbv Gedv], on ere Sia6pe'\}ret.
TV. ii. 4 i^ecpvyes aiir^ peXei nepl iipSiv.
. . . on T^v peptpvdv aov
inl rbv Qebv inepii\ras.
... 5 intpi^are tos
jiepipvas iipav enl rbv
Kvpiov, Kot aiirbs Karop-
Baaei aiirds.
The quotation seems taken independently from the Psalm ;
for, though the latter part differs from the LXX, it differs
more widely from Peter. The huge beast, introduced as a
type of the great tribulation, might be suggested by the
* roaring lion ' of Peter ; but the figure, as used by Hermas, is
too obvious to require such an explanation.
I 3

II 6 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(29) Vis. IV. iu. 4.
aanep ydp rb xp^alov SoKtpd^erai
Std rov nvpos, . . . ovras Kai vpeis
SoKipd^eaBe.

I Pet. i'.
rb SoKtptov iipav rfjs niareas noXv-
npdrepov XP^"^"^ rod dnoXXvpevov
Std nvpbs Se SoKipafopevov.

The words are not sufficiently close, and the comparison is
far too obvious and common, to prove literary dependence.

(30) Sim. IX. xii. 2,3.
d pev vibs roii Geov
ndarjs rfjs Kriaeas aiirov
npoyevearepds ianv
. . , en iaxdrav rav
fjpepav rfjs avvreXeias
cpavepbs iyevero.
* Not used in N. T.

I Pet. i^o.
Xpia-Tov Trpoeyvaaiie-
vov p.ev TTpo Kara^oXrjs
Koapov (j>avepad€vros de
ijT i(rxdrov roiv xpovav.

Heb. i^.
in iaxdrav [al. iaxd-
ravj rav fjpepav.
I John 3^
e'Keivos itpavepaBrj.
Also 3*.
I^ fj ^afj icpavepaBrj,
Col. i"-
nparoroKos ndtrrjs Kri
aeas.

The antithesis which is here expressed reminds one of the
Epistle ; but the thought is somewhat different, and the
phraseology, as the parallels show, is not necessarily con
nected with Peter. If we suppose that there is a Uterary
connexion, we may observe that the doctrine is rather more
developed in Hermas, and so may indicate that the de
pendence is on that side.

(31) Sim. IX. xiv. 6.
oiiK inataxvvovrat rb
ovopa aiiroii cpopeiv.
xxi. 3 orav BXX^tv
aKOvaaai, , . , rb dvopa
enaia'xyvovrai rov Kvpiov
aiirav. XXviii. 5, 6
oi ndaxovres evcKev rov
dvdparos So|dfeiv d^ei-
Xere rbv Gedv, on daiovs
iipds fjyfjaaro d Geds tva
roiiro ro ovopa ^aard-
Crjre . . . nendvBare eve-
Kev rov dvdparos Kvpiov,
VIII. vi. 4 e'jrai-
cTxwBevres to 'dvopa
Kvpiov rb entKKrjBev in
aiirovs. See (21),

I Pet. 4'*-".
ei oveiSi^eaBe ev ovd-
part Xptarov . . . na-
axera' . . . el Se its
Xpianavds, p^ alaxv
veaBa, Solafe'ro) Se rdv
Gedv e'v toJ dvdpan rov-
T6).

Polycarp viii. 2.
e'dv ndaxapev Std rb
ovopa avrov, So^d^apev
airrov. rovrov ydp fjpXv
rbv vnoypappbv eBrjKe
St' eavToiJ.
Marks"; Luke 9'«-
ds ydp dv inaiaxyvBjj
pe. Cf Acts 5": see
(46).

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 117
The probability that there is here a reminiscence of i Peter
is confirmed by the parallel from Polycarp ; for the latter has
just quoted i Peter, and that he still has the Epistle in mind
is indicated by the last clause: see i Pet. 3^i- But the
citation is not sufficiently close to make us feel confident
that there is direct literary dependence.
(32) Sim. IX. xxis. i Pet. 2'. \ Matt. 18'.
1> 3- dnoBepevoi o3v Trdo'av yevrjaBe its rd TratSia.
d)s vfjnta fipecprj elatv, KaKtav . . . d)S dpnyevvrjra j Cor 14.''°
ots oiiSepia KOKia dva- Bpecprj. . , ,y
,,,,., ' r r I _„ xaKia vnTTiaCeTe.
paivei eTrt ttjv Kapoiav ...
oo'ot oiv, ktX.
The comparison is too obvious to require borrowing; and
if Hermas uses the bpecprj of i Peter, he fails to use the more
striking dpTiyevvrjra.
On the whole, then, the evidence seems to place i Peter on
the border Une between C and D.

GOSPELS.
Dr. C. Taylor has elaborated a striking argument in support
of the thesis that Hermas based the Church upon four
Gospels 1. It is impossible to do justice to this in a meagre
summary, and the reader ought to consult the work for
himself The important passages are the following : —
Vis. III. xiu. 3 OTt e-d avpfekCov elbes Kadrjp.evrjv, l^xvpa rj
fleo-is* OTt ria-a-apas irobas exei to crvp-^ikiov koi Icrxvp&s ecTrrjKev
Kai ydp 6 Kocrp-os bid rea-crdpoov o-TOixetcoi' Kpareirai.
Sim. IX. iv. 3 eyevovro ovv oroixoi recra-apes ev tois 6ep.ekCois
rov ¦n'upyov. xv. 4 ot pev irp&TOi [Xt'flot], (prjcrCv, ot 8e'Ka oi ets rd
6ep.ekia reOeipevoi, nparrj yeved' ol bi eiKoo-t Tre'zre bevrepa yeved
&vbp&v biKaCoiv' ol be TpidKovra nevre upo^rjTai tov ©eov koi
bidKOvoi avTov' oi be rea-a-apdKovra dnoarokoi Kai bibiaKaXoi rod
KTijpvypaTOs TOV viov TOV ©eoC.
Dr. Taylor finds the key to this allusion to the four
elements in the well-known passage of Irenaeus ^ in which
1 The Witness ofEermas to the Four Gospels, i8g2.
' III. xi. 8, 9 Stiei-en ; ii, 12 Harvey.

ii8 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
he tries to prove that there must be neither more nor fewer
than four Gospels. He connects the four o-toixoi in the
foundation of the tower with the o-Toixeia. The four genera
tions have their paraUel in the four covenants of Irenaeus.
'The numbers of the stones in the four rows are lo, 35, 35,
and 40 respectively, of which the decades are expressed in
Greek by the initials of John, Cephas, Luke, and Matthew.
St. Peter was the traditional authority for St. Mark's Gospel.'
The bench, with its four feet, represents the four Gospels
united in the one Gospel.
The argument is certainly plausible, and if we knew that
Hermas had four and only four Gospels, the explanation of
his imagery would be probable. But on the hypothesis that
the Church had not yet definitely selected the Four Canonical
Gospels, it may be that Hermas had other reasons for his use
of the number four, and that nevertheless his use of that
number may have helped to guide the decision of the Church,
and to furnish Irenaeus with arguments. It is curious that
Irenaeus, though referring to four regions of the world and
four cathoUc winds, makes no mention of elements even when
he speaks of the world as 'compounded and fitted together.'
Moreover, the mere correspondence of numbers is not to be
depended upon. Thus twelve mountains represent the twelve
tribes or nations of the world. The twelve virgins at the
gates of the tower, of whom four were more glorious than
the rest, do not stand for Apostles and EvangeUsts, but for
the virtues, of which the first four are faith, temperance,
power, and long-suffering. Dr. Taylor, however, makes them
represent the Holy Spirit as distributed to the twelve
Apostles. While we fuUy recognize the value of Dr. Taylor's
interpretations, we cannot place much confidence in them as
an independent proof of the use of our four Gospels by
Hermas. Dr. Taylor supports his principal ai-gument by pointing out
several apparent allusions to special features in our Gospels ;
but here again, though the references are probable on the
assumption that Hermas had our Gospels, they are not of
a kind to prove that he had them to any one who is disposed
to deny their currency at that time.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 119
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
C
Matthew C
(33) Mand. XII. i. 2. Matt. 22".
TOVS pfj exovras evSvpa rfjs iniBv- eiSev e'Kei avBpanov oiiK ivSeSvpevov
puis rfjs dyaBfjs. evSvpa ydpov.
Sim. IX. xui. 2. " n-Ss eio^X^es SSe ;
n a > s' ' /K ' ' CK^dXere aiirdv.
avopanos ov ovvarat evpeorjvat ets
T^v jSutrtXeiav rov Qeoii, edv pfj avrai
[ai napBevoi = dyta nvevpara, or
Svvdpeis TOV viov tov Geov] avrov
ivSiiaaai rb evSvpa avrSv.
This might have been suggested by the parable of the
marriage feast ; but the resemblance is not very close.
(34) Sim. III. iii. Matt. i3»°-
e'v ra alavt tovto) ov cpaivovrat acpere avvav^aveaBai apcPorepa
oiire oi SiKaiot ovre oi dpapraXoi, pexpi tov Beptapoii . . . avXXe^are
dXXd ndvres dpotot elatv. nparov ra ^i^dvta . . . aXrov avva-
IV. 2 d ydp alav d ipxdpevos ydyere.
Bepos ecrri rots SiKaiois, tois Se dpap- nvpi KaraKaierat.
raXoXs xetpav. 4 its ^iiXa KaraKav- '* d Se dypds e'^nv d Kdapos.
Brjaovrai. V. V. 2 d dypbs d Kdapos oUrds
ianv. This might certainly have been suggested by the parable
of the tares, the general idea being simUar, and the last-quoted
words being almost identical. It is the custom of Hermas to
transform ideas of which he avails himself, and adapt them
to his own composition.
(35) Sim. V. vi. 4. Matt. 28''.
i^ovaiav ndaav Xa^itv napd roii iSdBrj pot ndaa i^ovata.
narpbs aiiroii, 11^' ndvra pot napeSoBrj iinb roii
narpds pov.
The words are sufficiently related to suggest dependence,
but are too few to admit of a confident inference.
d
(36) Vis. III. ix. 8. Matt. 5'=.
Trapd rod fiaatXeas roii peydXov. rod peydXov ^aaiXeas.
The expression is a fairly common one (see Ps. 46*, 47*,
94^ ; also Tobit 131^), and the context is quite different.

I30 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(37) Mand. XL xvi. Matt. 7"- ".
SoKipafe ovv dnb rSiv epyav Kai t£v ¦\jfevSonpocprjrav . . . dnb Ttov
T^s ftoijs rdv dvBpanov rbv Xeyovra Kapnav aiirav iniyvaaeaBe avrovs.
eavrbv nvevjuirocpdpov eivai.
The resemblance here is solely in the sentiment, and that
is not sufficiently characteristic to be of weight apart from
verbal coincidence.
Mark C
(38) Mand. IV. u. 1. Mark 6»^-
ov avvia oiiSev, Kai fj KapSia pov oil ydp avvfJKav . , . aXX tjv fj KapSia
nenitparat. aiirav nenapapevrj [see also 8"].
The combination of words is confined to Mark, where it
occurs twice, and the verbal agreement is sufficient to suggest
dependence. It is as if Hermas said, ' I am like those men
who are reproached in the Gospel.' Nevertheless, we cannot,
on the strength of this single passage, assign a very high
degree of probabUity to the use of Mark by Hermas. See
also (43) and the references in (46), which exclude Matthew,
as that Gospel does not use enaia'x'uvea-dai.
Luke D
(39) Mand. IX. viu. Luke i8i-
o-v ovv pij SiaXinrjs alrovpevos , . , npbs rb Seiv Trdvrore npoaevxeaBai
idv Se iKKaKfjarjs. avrovs Kai pfj iyKOKeXv [al. e'K-].
This connexion of ideas is confined to Luke in the N. T.,
and the expression is sufficiently close to suggest dependence.
The last word is used by Paul, 3 Cor. 4I' i« ; Gal. 6' ; Eph. 313 ;
3 Thess. 3!^, but not in reference to prayer, as it is in 3 Clem.
ii. 3. See also (11). (II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(40) Vis. IIL vi. 5. Matt. 13^.^'.
exovres pev niartv, exovres Se Kai d rdv Xdyov aKoiiav Kai eiiBiis perd
ttXovtov tov aidjvos TOVTOV. orav x^P^f Xap^dvav aiirdv . , . yevopevrjs
yevrjrat BXiijns, Std rbv ttXovtov aiirav Se 6Xi\peas , . . aKavSdXi^erai.
Kai Std rds npaypareias dnapvoiivrai Mark !l^*> ^'
rdv Kvpiov aiirav. , , , . , -
„. -|-_ <" fts ras OKavBas anetpdpevoi , , .
. A. XX. I, 2. aJ pepipvai roii alavos Kai fj dndrrjrov
oi pev rpt^oXoi elaiv oi nXoiiatot, nXovrov Kai al nepi rd XoiTrd iniBvpiat
al Se aKavBai oi iv rais npaypareiais . . . avpnviyovatv rbv Xdyov.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 131
TOIS TrotKi'Xats ipnecpvppevoi . . . nvtyd- Luke 8"*
uevot VTrd t£v npdSeav aiirav, r ,
ovroi . , , avpnvtyovrat.
See also xxi. 3.
The resemblance here may very well indicate acquaintance
with the parable of the sower, though it is impossible to
connect this acquaintance with a particular Gospel.
(41) Vis. IV. ii. 6. Matt. 26^*; Marku". i Clem. xlvi. 8.
ovai TOIS . . . napaKov- KaXdv ^v aiira, el oiiK einev ydp' Ovai no
aaaiv' alperiirepov rjv iyevvfjBrj d dvBpanos dvBpanco eKetvca' KoXbv
aiiroXs rb pfj yevvrjBfjvat, eKeXvos, rjv avra el ovk iyevvfjBrj.
This might certainly be borrowed from the Synoptic
saying, the change being no greater than we may expect
when there is no express quotation. The quotation in
Clement (56) proves that the saying was known in Rome, but
does not attach it to a particular Gospel.
(42) Mand. IV. i. i. Matt. 5"'-
pij dva^atvera aov inl rfjv KapSiav ttSs d ^Xenav yvvaXKa npbs rb inidv-
nepl yvvaiKos dXXcyrpias. pfjaai aiirfjs ^Stj ipoixevaev aiirfjv iv
rfj KapSia aiirov.
Mand. IV. i. 6. Matt. 19" ; Mark 10".
edv Se oTroXvo^as t^v yvvaiKa erepov os dv dnoXvarj rfjv yvvdiKa avroii, el
yapfjarj, Kai avrds potxdrai, pfj e'jri nopveici [Mk. om.], Kai yapfjarj
aXXrjv, potxdrai [Mk. add. in avrfjv j.
The first of these passages is similar in sentiment, though
not in words, to Matthew. The second resembles the Gospels
both in thought and language. It goes beyond i Cor. 71"' n,
and, with Mark, omits the quaUfication in Matthew. Paul's
reference shows there was a Christian doctrine on the
subject apart from a written Gospel ; but the words here are
so much closer to the Gospels than are Paul's that we may
reasonably infer some kind of literary dependence. At all
events, the passages indicate acquaintance with the Synoptic
tradition. (43) Sun. IX. XX. 2. Matt. 19'=.
01 nXoiiatot . . . SvaKdXas elaeXev- SvaKoXas nXovatos [Tisch. ttX.
aovTai els rfjv jSatrtXeiav roii Qeoii, Svo'.J eio-eXevo'eTat eis rfjv fiaaiXeiav
rdtv oiipavav. Mark I O^* nas SvaKo-
XcBS oi rd xPWaTa exovres els rfjv ^aai-
Xeiav roil Qeov elaeXeiiaovrat, Luke
1 8^^ nearly the same as Mark.
We can hardly doubt that this is a quotation.

122 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

(44) Sim. V. ii. i.
TJJV 7rapa^okr]v, 2 i<Pvr€vcrev apire-
\ava . . . dovKov , . . TrapeKoKecraro
avTov , . . i^r]\6e 5e 6 beaTTorrjs . . .
els rrjv diroBripiav. g pera xpdvov JjkBev
6 Beo'TTorrjs rov SouXou. ^ SiXa avrov
OTjyKKrjpovop^ov ra via pov 7roii](rai.

Matt. 21^' ; Mark 12^ ; Luke 20^
7rapa^o\r}v [Mk. iv napa^oXais^
. . , i(J3vr€V(rev dp^neXava [Mk. dp.Tr.
c0ur.J , . . divehrip.rjtTev. Matt. 25".
e'KaXecrev . . . SovXovs [Lk. 1 9"].
^° perd Se noXiiv xP^""" epxerai
d Kvptos rav SoiiXav.
Mark 12' ; Luke 20".
d KXrjpovdpos [d vids].
This may possibly have been suggested by the Gospels ;
and the whole parable seems framed on the model of the
evangelical parables.
(45) Sim. IX. xxix. i, 2, 3.
IBS vfjnia bpecprj . . . oi rotovroi . . .
KaroiKfjaovatv iv rfj ^aaiXeia roii
Qeov . . . ndvra ydp rd bpecprj evSo^d
ian napd ra Gera Kai TrpSra Trap'
aiira. See also xxxi. 3 ' felices vos
iudicio omnes . . . quicumque
estis innocentes sicut infantes,
quoniam pars vestra bona est

Matt. 1 8'.
edv pfj . . . yevrjaBe as rd natSia,
oil pfj elaeXBrjre els rfjv ^aatXeiav tSv
oiipavav. ^^ oi dyyeXot aiirav . . .
^Xenovai rb npdaanov roii narpds
pov. * d pei^av iv r^ ^aatXeia rmv
oiipavav. I9"; Mark lo" tSv ydp
Toiovrcov e'o"Tiv fj ^aaiXeia Tojv oiipavav
[Mark tov
TrpaJTOs.

GeoC]. Cf Matt. 20"'

et honorata apud Deum.'
It is not improbable that this is derived from some such
saying as we find in the Gospels.
(46) Sim. VIII. vi. 4. Mark S''; Luke 9^=.
inaiaxvvBevres rb 'ovopa Kvpiov. ds ydp dv inataxwBj pe Kai roiis
Sim. IX. xiv. 6. epoijs Xdyovs.
on oiiK inaiaxiivovrai rb 'dvopaaiiroii Comp. (31).
t^opeiv. Sim. IX. xxi. 3.
rb dvopa inaiaxiivovrai rov Kvpiov.

John
(47) Vis. IL u. 8.
TOVS dpvTjaapevovs rbv
Kvptov aiirav dneyva-
piaBai dnb rfjs C^fjs
aiirav.

(Ill) The Fourth Gospel.
D d
John ii'^ 14^
'Eya elpi . . . fj ^afj.

Col. 3*.
d Xpicrrds ., . . ^ f"*")
i7p£v. Matt. lo".
dans S' dv dpvrjcrrjrat
pe epnpoaBev t£v dvBpa
nav, dpvfjaopcu avrov
Koyo). Also Luke 12',
somewhat varied.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 133
The only connexion is in the word C«>^, and it is by no
means certain that it refers to Christ in Hermas ; in any case,
the verse in Colossians is sufficient to show that the expres
sion need not be borrowed from John. The sentiment of the
passage is closer to the Synoptics.
(48) Sim. V. vi. 3. John lo'^.
Sovs avTots TOV vdpov bv eXa^e napd ravrrjv rfjv ivroXfjv eXa/3ov Trapd
TOV TTOrpds avTOv. roii narpds pov. Cf. I 2'", I 4'^, 15'°.
The identity of expression may be accidental, for it is
sufficiently explained by the context.
(49) Sim. IX. xu. I. John lo^. ".
^ ttvXtj d vids TOV Geov e'orn. 5 iyd, dfu fj diipa. VS. " Sid rovrd
eis rfjv ^aaiXeiav roii Qeoii dXXas pe d narfjp dyand.
eiaeXBeXi oil Svvarai dv6panos el pfj \ 46 ovSeis epxerai Trpds tov narepa,
Std rov dvdparos roii viov avrov roii el pfj St' epov.
ffyajnjpevov im' aiiroii. 6 fj Se nvXrj
d vibs roii Qeoii iariv' avrrj pia eiaoSds
itrn npbs rbv Kvpiov. aXXas o^v ovSels
eio*eXevo"eTat Trpds aiirbv el pfj Sid roii
viov avrov.
The figure of a gate admitting to the tower which repre
sents the Church is a natural one, and need not be borrowed.
Nevertheless, the passage has a Johannine colouring; but
whether this is sufficient to prove a literary connexion may
be reasonably questioned. Such sentiments must have spread
among Christians apart from direct literary influence.
(50) Sim. IX. XV. 3. John 3'"'.
ravra rd dvdpara [of VariouS oil Siivarat ISeXv rfjv j3aatXeiav roii
vices] d cpopav TOV Geov SovXos tijv Geov . . . ov Siivarat elaeXBeXv els rrjv
^aaiXeiav pev o\|'eTat rod Qeoii, els /SafftXeiav tov Geov.
aiirfjv Se ovk eicreXevcrerat,
The two expressions remind one of the passage in John ;
but in the latter they are synonymous, whereas in Hermas
they are contrasted. The idea of entering into the kingdom
of God is too common to be an indication of any particular
passage ; and the idea of seeing it, though not so frequently
expressed, occurs in Mark 9I, with the paraUel in Luke 9^^
and the notion of seeing it without entering it is suggested by
Matthew 26^\ with the parallel in Mark 14=^ where the word
oi/feo-0e is used. See also Luke 31^''.

II CLEMENT
INTRODUCTION.
Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 136) says of 3 Clement, prjrd nva m
dnb rrjs BeCas ypacpfjs ^evC^ovra napeiadyei, 5>v ovb' rj np&rrj dnrjk-
kaKTo 'navrek&s. A case of such aUen ' scripture ' quotation
common to i and 2 Clement is that found most fuUy in
3 Clem. xi. 3-4 (i Clem, xxiii. 3 f) Xe'yet ydp Kai 6 itpocprjriKbs
koyos, TakaCninpoC elcriv 01 bC-^vxoi, Krk. ' The prophetic dis
course ' in question may or may not be ' Eldad and Modat ' :
but at any rate it shows that our homilist's quotations of
divinely authoritative words are not controlled by any strict
canonical idea, even in relation to O. T. writings. Yet we
must beware of mistaking free citations for verbal quotations
from unknown Gospels. For what follows the words Xe'yet ^
ypacprj ev rw 'IefeKt?jX, in vi. 8, is in fact a free paraphrase ; and
he is apt to use cprjcrCv with words which merely give the
effect of a passage (e. g. xii. 6 with allusion to xii. 3 ; cf vii. 6
where words of Isa. 66^* are adapted). In v. 3, however, he
certainly cites a non-canonical Gospel with Xe'yet 6 Kvpios, as
also in viii. 5, with the addition ev rSi evayyeXiio.
In xiv. 3 our author appeals, for teaching about the Church,
to ' The Books (ra /3i/3Xta + prophetarum, Syriac) and the
Apostles.' Thus, on the one hand, he co-ordinates the apostoUc
writings with the 0. T. as to authority ; but, on the other, he
does not include them under the same term, ' the Books,' i. e.
his Bible. Whether, again, he reckons Gospel narratives
under ' the Apostles ' must be held doubtful, in view of his
free use of at least one apocryphal Gospel, possibly that
' According to (the) Egyptians '¦ — which he can hardly have
believed Apostolic in origin (assuming that he cites it at
aU). This suggests that he thought only of the sayings of the
Lord in such narratives as the authoritative element ; just as he
tefers (xiii. 3) to ' the Oracles of God ' on the lips of Christians,
and cites the substance of words found in Luke 6^^' ^, as
embodying a divine oracle (X^yet 6 ©eo's). Here God is con-

II CLEMENT 135
ceived as speaking in Christ, who elsewhere is Himself cited
as the authority behind the Gospel, e. g. ' For the Lord saith
in the Gospel' (vui. 5), where an Evangelic source distinct
from any of our Gospels seems to be cited. All this prevents
any very strict inference from the fact that words found in
Matt. 9l^ Mark 3" (cf Luke f^) are cited (ii. 4), after an
0. T. passage, with Kai erepa be ypacprj Xe'yei. Thus the book
in question is ' a scripture ' primarily because of what it
embodies, viz. part of the Gospel spoken by the Lord ; and
elsewhere he can quote with equal deference matter certainly
not found in any of our Gospels. Indeed, all the facts would
be fairly satisfied by the hypothesis that our homilist quotes
throughout from a single Evangelic source, if we were at
liberty to imagine it a sort of combined recension of two or
more of our Synoptists, embodying such additions as made it
correspond more completely to the notion of Christ's ' Gospel '
prevalent in the non- Jewish part of the Alexandrine Church.
In that case it would be an earUer local type of harmony 1
than Tatian's Diatessaron, which so largely superseded our
Gospels, even at a later date,among Syriac-speaking Christians.
As regards the N. T. Epistles, the phrase ' The Books and the
Apostles' prepares us to find pretty free use of them, even
though they are not fonnally quoted.
EPISTLES. C
Hebrews c
(i) 2 Clem. xi. 6. Heb. lo''^
ntarbs ydp ianv d inayyeiXdpevos. ntarbs yap d ina-yyetXapevos.
The context of the two passages is similar, referring to the
need of hope in the presence of grounds for doubt.
d
(2) 2 Clem. i. 6. Heb. 12^
dnoBepevoi iKeXvo o nepiKeipeBa roaovrov exovres nepiKeipevov fjpXv
vicpos rfj aiirov 6eXfjaei. vecpos papriipav, oyKov dnoBipevoi
ndvra . . .
• On such a view we should of course have to treat the phenomena pointing
to Clement's use of any of our Synoptists as evidence of indirect or second
hand use— so pushing back the origin of such a Gospel to a period prior
to that of the immediate source.

136 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Although the thought of these two passages is so different,
it seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to resist
the conclusion that the language of 3 Clement is unconsciously
influenced by that of Hebrews.
The following points of similarity may be added, though they
cannot be classed.
(a) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. Heb. 13^*-
npoaevxfj ... e'K KaX^s trvvetSij- npoaevxeaBe nepl fjpav' nei6dpe6a
aeas, ydp on KaXfjv avveiSrjaiv exopev.
The expression koXt) o-vz'ei'Sjjo-is does not occur elsewhere in
N.T.
(6) XX. 3 has a general similarity with Heb. lo^'^-^' ; and the
expression ©eoi; C&vtos occurs in 3 Clem. xx. 3 and Heb. 10^1
(cf 31^).

D

I Corinthians

d
(3) 2 Clem. is.
3-
Sec ovv ^pds cos vadv
Geov
cpvXda-
o-etv rfjV adpKa.
I Cor. 6".
rj OVK oldarc ort ro a-apta vpav vaos
rov iv vp.lv 'Ayiov Uvevparos iariVj
ov e)(ere diro Qeov ;
I Cor. 3^^
OVK oiSare ort vabs GeoC iare . . . ;
Cf. Eph. 2^'^^K
The phrase in 3 Clement has the same meaning as that of
I Cor. 61^, and it is very possible that it is derived from
St. Paul ; but the conception had probably become a common
place among Christians, and we cannot assert a necessary
dependence upon any particular passage.
Unclassed
(4) 2 Clem. vii. I. i Cor. 9".'^
The metaphor of the games is very common in ancient
literature. Cf Lightfoot, ad loc.
(5) 2 Clem. xi. 7, xiv. 5. i Cor. 2'.
See note on the passage in relation to i Clem. (14).
Ephesians d
(6) 2 Clem. xiv. 2. Eph. i"".
OVK oiopat Se iipds dyvoeXv on Kai aiirbv eSaKe Kecpdkfjv imep
iKKXrjaia ^aaa aapd ian Xpiarov ndvra rfj iKKXrjaia, fjns e'crri rd aStpa
(Xe'yei ydp fj ypacpfj' 'Enoirjaev d 6ebs aiiroii, rb nXfjpapa rov rd ndvra iv
rbv avBpanov dpaev kcu BfjXv' rb ndai nXrjpovpevov.
II CLEMENT 137
apaev iariv d Xptards, rb BfjXv fj Eph. ^^^.
iKKXrjcria), Kai Sn rd /St^Xia Kai^ oi g^, ^^^^ ^Vn Ke^iaXfj rfjs yvvaiKds,
dndaroXoi rfjv iKicXrjaiav oil viiv etvat iy ^al d Xptarbs KecpaXfj t^s eKKX.)-
dXXd avaBev [cpaaiv]. o.,'aj^ ^^^X. Eph. I'.
KaBas i^eXe^aro fjjjtds iv aiira npb
KarafioXfjs Koapov.
We have to notice here : —
I. The treatment of the Church as the body of Christ.
3. The comparison of the union of Christ and the Church to
the union of man and woman.
3. The conception of the Church as pre-existing, which
possibly corresponds in some degree with St. Paul's concep
tion of the election before the foundation of the world.
Unclassed
(7) 2 Clem. xix. 2. Eph. 4'*
iaKoriapeBa rfjv Sidvoiav, Cf. (17)'
(8) 2 Clem. xui. i. Eph. 6^
dvBpandpeaKOt. Cf. Col, ^''^.
James d
(9) 2 Clem. vi. 3, 5. Jas. 4*.
ecrnv Se oStos d alav Kai d peXXav ovk o'iSare on fj 0iXia rov Koapov
Svo ixBpoi , , . oil SvvdpeBa ovv rav exBpa rov Qeov ianv ; os dv ovv
Svo 0iXot etvat' Set Se fjpds rovrco ^ovXrjBfj CpiXos etvat roii Koapov,
dnora^apevovs iKeiva xpdaBai. exBpbs roii Qeoii KaBiararai,
There is a similarity of feeling between these passages, but
no verbal parallel, except in the occurrence of ^I'Xoi and ^iXia.
(10) 2 Clem. XV. I. Jas. 5"
piaBbs ydp ovk eanv piKpbs TrXavto- eiixeaBe iinep dXXfjXav, ottibs laBfjre,
pevTjV -^vxfjv Kai dnoXXvpevrjv dno- noXii laxuei Serjais StKaiov ivepyov-
arpe'\jrai els rb aa6fjvai. pevrj.
(11) 2 Clem. xvi. 4- J^^- S'"-
Kpeiaaav vrjareia npoaevxfji, ikerj- d iniarpeyjfas dpaprrnXdv eK TrXdvijs
poo-vvT; Se dpCporipaV dydnrj Se dSoii avroii adiaei yjrvxfjv eK bavdrov,
KaXinrei nXfjBos dpapnav' npoaevxfj Kcit KaXv^et nXfjBos dpapnav.
Se iK KaXfjs avveiSfjaeas iK Bavdrov
pverai. The occurrence in 3 Clement of so many points similar to
those in Jas. S^^' '" is worthy of notice, although none of the
resemblances may be very striking in themselves.

138 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(12) 2 Clem. XX. 2-4. Jas. 5'' *' ""-
niareiiapev ovv, dSeX0oi Kat dSeX- jxaKpoBvpfjaare oZv, dSeXcpoi, etos
c^at* Geov ^avros neXpav dSXovpev, rfjs napovaias roii Kvpiov, ISoii, 6
Kai yvpva^dpeBa ra viiv ^ia tva ra yeapybs iKSexerat rbv ripiov Kapnbv
peXXovri arecpavaBapev, ovSeis Toiv T^s y^s, paKpoBvpStv in aiira, eas
SiKalav raxiiv Kapnbv eXa/3ev, dXX' XdjSi; verdv npaipov Kai o^ipov.
iKSexerat aiirov, el ydp rbv piaBbv paKpoBvpfjaare Kai iipeXs , . . vird-
rStv SiKaiav d Beds avvrdpas dneSiSov, Setypa Xd/Sere, dSeXcpoi, rfjs koko-
eiiBeas ipnopiav fjaKovpev Kai oil naBeias kcu rfjs jiaKpoBvptas roils
Beoae^eiav, npocpfjras.
There is a general similarity between these passages in the
spirit of their teaching, but these paraUels, like the others
cited with passages in James, are insufficient to give positive
evidence in favour of literary dependence.
I Peter d
(13) 2 Clem. xiv. 2. i Pet. i''"-
itpavepaBrj Se en iaxdrav rav cpavepaBevros Se in iaxdrav rav
fjpepav tva fjpds aaarj. xpdvav St iipds.
Cf. also aTTO TTJS eKKkrjaCas rfjs Ccorjs and eKKkrjaCa (&iTa (occurring
in the same section of 2 Clement) with Xi^ot C&vres (i Pet. 3*).
(14) 2 Clem. xvi. 4. i Pet. 4°.
dydTri; Se KaXvTrrei ttX^^os djiapnav. aydnrj KoXvTrret ttX^^os dpapnav.
See note on i Clement (48).
Unclassed
Romans
(15) 2 Clem. i. 8. Rom. 4".
iKoXeaev ydp fjpds oiiK ovras Kat KciXoiivros rd pfj ovra d)s ovra.
rjBeXrjaev c'k pfj ovros etvat rjpds.
The con-espondence is superficial, and the phrase in some
sense is not uncommon. Cf. Lightfoot, ad loc.
(16) 2 Clem. vui. 2. Rom. 9'^
The metaphor of the clay and the potter is used by Jeremiah
(i8*f*'-), and it would therefore be unsafe to assert the depen
dence of 3 Clement on Romans.
(17) 2 Clem. xix. 2. Eom. i".
eaKortapeBa rfjv Stdvotav. Kai iaKoriaBrj fj davveros avruv
KapSia.
Eph. 4".
ecTKonapevoi rfj Siavoii}.

II CLEMENT 129
The phrase is parallel to that of Romans and Ephesians,
but closer to the latter. Cf. (7).
I Timothy
(18) 2 Clem. XX. 5. I Tim. i".
There is considerable resemblance between these doxologies,
but it seems to us impossible to lay much stress upon this,
as it is very possible that they are both based upon liturgical
forms. (19) 2 Clem. XV. I. I Tim. 4"
Cf Jas. 5^». ^"(ii).
3 Peter
(20) 2 Clem. xvi. 3.
ytvcio-KeTe Se on epxerai fjSrj tj
fjpepa T^s Kpiaeas q>s KXt/3avos Kaio-
pevos, Kai roKfjaovrai rives tSv ovpa-
vav, Kai Trdo-a fj yfj its pdXi^os inl
TTVpt TJjKdpevos, Kai rdre cpavfjaerai
TO Kpvcpta Kai cpavepd epya t£v av-
Bpairav. Mai. 4' iSov fjpepa epxerai Kaiopevrj as KXi^avos,
Isa. 34* roKfjaovrai ndaai ai Svvdpeis rav ovpavav.
This affords parallels to 2 Pet. 3'-'' " ; notice also the
variant eipeB^crerai in 3 Pet. 31°, which is near to cpavifjtreTai
in 3 Clem. xvi. 3.
[Lightfoot thinks the agreement of 2 Clem. xi. 3 with
3 Pet. I" in 6 TrpocprjnKbs Xo'yos, and with 3« in fjpipav i$
fjpepas, worthy of notice.]
Jude ^
(21) 2 Clem. XX. 4- '^ , ' ,
Std ToCro ^eta Kpi'<rts e^ka^ev dyye'Xovs re tovs p^ njp.cravrcis
Trvevpa pfj tv SlKatov, Kai i^dpvvev rfjv iavrSiv apxrjv . . • ,!" ^^'f^
8 ^ . peydXTjs we'pas Seapots a.S.ots vtto
^ocpov rerfjprjKev.
These passages seem paraUel, but it is to be remembered
that the interpretation of 3 Clem. xx. 4 is very doubtful, that
the variant Secrpo's (C) is found for SecrpoTs (S, considerably
weakening the paraUel), and that changes of the text have
also been proposed.

130 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
GOSPELS.
(I) The Synoptic Gospels.
0
Matthew C
(22) 2 Clem. V. 5, vi. 7 Matt. 11'* f-, 25" f-
(vui. 4).
fj Se ina-yyeXia rov XpiaroO peydXrj Sevre Trpds pe, . . . Kaya dvanavaa
KCU Bavpaarfj ianv, kcu [ -|- ^, CJ dvd- iipds' Spare rbv (,vydv pov icp' iipds,
navais rfjs peXXoiiarjs ^aaiXeias Kai , , . koi eiipfjaere dvdnavaiv rats
^afjs alaviov. ¦^vxais iipav.
TToiovvres ydp rb 6eXTjpa rod icp' daov oiiK inoifjaare . . . Kai
Xptarov eiipfjaopev dvdnavaiv' el Se dneXevaovrai ovrot els KdXaaiv aiaviav,
pfjye, oiiSev fjpds piiaerat iK ttjs oi Se SlKatoi eis fuijv alaviov.
alaviov KoXdaeas, idv napaKovaapev
rdiv ivToXav aiiroii.
rds e'vroXds tov Kvpiov cpvXd^avres
Xrjyj/djieBa ^afjv alaviov,
Matthew alone has (i) Christ's promise of rest to those who
do His wiU — such persons ' finding rest ' ; (3) the warning as to
Ko'Xacris aiiiSrios (only here in N. T.) for those who do not His
commands, as set forth in the Judgement Scene, while the prize
is fj {p^kkovcra) jiaa-ikeCa and (cot) aicoj'tos. Hence it is hard to
escape the impression that our homiUst is using this Gospel
directly or indirectly. d
(23) 2 Clem. iii. 2. Matt. 10" (Luke 12*).
Xe'yet Se Kai avrds' Tdv dpoXoy^- Trds ovv Sans dpoXo-yfjaei iv e'pot
aavrd pe [ivdmiov rav dvBpanav, epnpoaBev tSv dvBpanav, dpoXoyfjaa
om. Syr.], dpoXoy^aa aiirbv ivatniov Kaya iv aiira epnpoaBev roi) Trarpds
TOV narpds pov. pov roii iv oiipavoXs.
Clement's quotation is nearer Matthew than Luke (who has
6 vios TOV dvBpdtnov . . . ^pntpocrdev t&v dyyekcov tov ©eoC). But
even retaining kvdniov ktX. (Matthew and Luke have ip,npocrdev
KTk.), Clement's wording is sufficiently different to suggest
the direct use of another source altoge,ther, whether oral or
written. See the next note.
(24) 2 Clem. iv. 2. Matt. 7**-
Xeyet ydp" Ov Trds d Xe'ymv pot, ov irds d Xe'yav pot, Kvpic, Kvpte,
Kvpie, Kvpte, aaBfjaerat, dXX' d Trotaiv eto-eXeilo'erat els rfjv fiaaiXeiav tbv
T^v StKaiocrvvijv. oiipavav, dXX' d noiSiv rb BeXrjiui rod
narpds pov tov e'v ovpavoXs,

n CLEMENT 131
Sco^ijo-erai may simply echo ov ydp tovto o-dStrei Tjpas, just
before (cf in. 3, also i. 1,4, ii. 3, 4, 7), especiaUy as Matthew's
phrase is rather Jewish ; and 8ikoioo-vi;t)v may be a paraphrase
to suit the context, which has Christ's will directly in view
(cf xi. 7, xix. 3 for Clement's use of the phrase). Or the
quotation may have stood in this form in the same source from
which iv. 5, V. 3-4 seem to come, the subject being akin.
Or, again, it may come from oral tradition.
(25) 2 Clem. vi. 9. Matt. 22" f-
fjpeXs, idv pfj rrjpfjaapev rb ^dnri- . , . d ^aaiXeiis . , , Xe'yet aiira,
apa d-yvbv Kai dplavrov, noia nenoi- EraXpe, nas elafjXBes itSe pfj exo)v
6fjaei elaeXevadpe6a els rb jSaeriXetov evSvpa ydpov ;
TOV Geov ; . . . e'dv p^ evpeBSipev epya
exovres data Kai SiKaia ;
Here resemblance turns on the meaning of rb ^acrCkeiov. It
is true that it can mean ' kingdom,' but rather in the abstract
sense of 'sovereignty,' as in xvii. 5 Ibovres rb ^acrCkeiov rov
Koa-pov ev t& 'Irjtrov — a sense which ill suits the contrast here,
where it is a matter of ' entering into ' to ^aaCkeiov ' with
assurance.' Elsewhere ^acrikeCa is used of the Kingdom men
hope to enter, see xi. 7 ela-rj^opev ets ttjv ^acnkeCav avroC. Hence
paaCkeiov may well have the usual sense of 'royal palace,'
and so allude to the situation in Matthew's parable of the
Wedding Garment, here represented by the baptismal gar
ment kept pure by a holy Ufe {epya exovres oo'ia Kai bCKaia),
cf. Acta Barnabae, 12 to evbvp.a kKelvo, onep ecrnv d^Oaprov els
TOV al&va,
Unclassed
(26) 2 Clem. xvii. I. Matt. 28" f-
et ydp e'vToXds exopev [tva, Syr.] nopevBevres ovv paBrjrevaare ndvra
Kai TOVTO npdaaopev {-apev, Syr.), rd e^vij, ^anri^ovres avrovs els rb
dnb rdtv elSaXav dnoandv Kai Karrj- 'dvopa tov narpbs ktX. . . . , StSd-
X*iv ktX. aKovres airroiis rrjpeXv ndvra oaa
ivereiXdprjv iipXv.
Just a possible allusion, in view of the reference to missionary
evTokds : yet aTro r&v elbcakuiv dnoavav Kai Karrjxelv rather recalls
the gist of the Kerygma Petri. K 3

133 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
D
Luke d
(27) 2 Clem. ii. 5, 7. Luke 19!".
toCto Xe'yet, Sn SeX rods dnoX- V^^e ydp d vids toO dv5pci)Trov
Xvpe'vovB o-cifeiv . . . ovtcds Kai d ^T^o-at Kai aaaai rb dnoXaXds.
Xptarbs rjdeXrjaev aaaai ra anoX-
Xiipeva, Kai eaaaev noXXoiis, eXBav
Kai KaXeaas fjpds fjSrj dnoXXvpevovs.
Here, in spite of certain echoes (e. g. ek6a>v Kai Kakea-as) of
ii. 4, discussed below (30), there might be good reason to suspect
allusion to the passage in Luke, but for the fact that Clement
certainly uses at least one non-canonical Gospel.
(28) 2 Clem. xiii. 4. Luke 6'^' '". Didache i. 3.
orav ydp dKoiiaaatv Kat ei dyaTrdre roiis noia ydp x^P^'^r ^^^
nap' fjpav on Xe'yet d dyaTrwvras iipds, noia ayandre rovs ayanav-
Geds, Ov x°P'5 "A'''' *' ^pl" X^P" '<''" J - . • ras iipds ; . . . vpets Se
dyaTrdre rods dyaTTrnvras ttXjjv dyandre rovs ex- dyaTrdre rovs ptaoiivras
iipds, dXXd X°P'^ iipXv Bpoiis iipav . . . Kai earai iipds, Kai ovx ^^cre
el dyandre roiis e'x^povs d ptaBbs iijiav noXvs. exBpdv.
Kai roiis ptaoiivras vpds.
No sure argument for the use of Luke can be based on this
passage. It departs considerably from Luke's wording ; while
it is simply as one of ' God's oracles ' {rd koyia tov Qeov) found
on Christian lips that it is cited. The addition of Kai rovs
pio-ovvras vpas finds parallels in Did. i. 3 and Justin, Apol. i. 15
dyaTrare tovs pno'ovvTas iipds. Such a variant for tovs ex^povs
would arise naturally in common use as a more exact anti
thesis to dyaTrare. Possibly, however, 3 Clement quotes the
whole saying as known to him in an apocryphal Gospel.
Unclassed
(29) 2 Clem. viu. 5. Luke 16"^.
Xe'yet ydp d Kvpios e'v ra evayyeXia)' d TTierTds e'v iXaxiarco Kai iv TToXXa
Ei rd ptKpbv oiiK errjprjaare, rb peya ntards ian . . . el ovv iv ra dStKo)
TIS vpiv Sdjo'et ; Xeyo) ydp vpiv on papavd TrtOToi oiiK iyeveaBe, rb
d ntarbs iv iXaxiarcf Kai iv noXXa dXrjBtvbv ris vptv Trtcrrevcrei ;
TrifTTos ianv.
Iren. Adv. Haer. ii. 34, 3 'Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis
exsistentibus in eum: Si in ¦modico fideles iion fuistis, quod magnum
est quis dabit vobis ? significans quoniam qui in modica temporali
vita ingrati exstiterunt ei qui earn praestitit, iuste non percipient
ab 60 in saeculum saeculi longitudinem dierum.
Cf. Hippol. Refut. X. 33 vndKove ra ncnotrjKdn kcu pfj dvri^aive viiv, iva
ini T^ ptKpa Trtcrrds eiipeBeis kcu rb peya ntarevBfjvai SvvrjBfjs.

II CLEMENT 133
While the latter part of Clement's citation of Christ's words
'in the Gospel' agrees exactly with the beginning of the
passage in Luke, its former part differs so widely that it is
best to regard the whole as quoted from another source
altogether. For Irenaeus, followed by Hippolytus, discoun
tenances the idea that the deviation of form is accidental (or
represents a glossing of Matt. 3521' ^^). That Irenaeus is
not quoting Luke 1611 seems clear from the way in which
he introduces the words, viz. 'Dominus dicebat ingratis ex
sistentibus in eum,' which (a) does not suit Luke's context
[rather that of Matt. 351*"^°], while (6) dicebat is not his
usual phrase in citing a definite passage in our Gospels, but
points rather to some logion handed down as characteristic of
his attitude to a class of hearers. Thus, whatever the exact
relation of the saying in our two witnesses, they point to its
currency outside our Gospels ; and if we may argue from the
divergence in form — ovk erripijcraTe (which must stand, in view
of what foUows) and fideles non fuistis — it was not confined
to one circle before Irenaeus's day. Cf (31), which relates to
the same context in Luke (i6i^), also (34).
(II) The Synoptic Tradition.
(30) 2 Clem. u. 4. Matt. 9" ; Mark 2"
Kai eVe'pa Se ypacp^ Xe'yei on Ovk (Luke 5 ).
rjXBov KaXeaat SiKaiovs, dXXd dpap- oil {ydp. Matt.) ^XBov KaXiaat
raXoiis. SiKaiovs, dXXd dpapnoXovs.
Cf. Barn. v. 9 iva Sei^jj on OVK ^XBev KdXeaai SiKaiovs, dXXd dpap-
TcoXovs. The paraUeUsm with our two first Synoptics (Luke has ovk
eXijXv^a ... eis p-erdvoiav) is exact; and Clement, unlike
Barnabas, cites it as ' a scripture.' But what the Gospel
writing referred to may be, is a question complicated by
Clement's known use of some source distinct from our
Gospels; see Introduction ad fin.
(31) 2 Clem. vi. I f. Luke 16"; Matt. i6'».
X/ye. Se d Kdpios' OdSeis oiKe'r-js VerbaUy as Luke 16"; Matt.
StJvarat Svo-i Kvpiots SovXeveiV e'dv 6'* lacks ot'Kenjs.
ijpeit 6eXap€V Kai Qea SovXeveiv kcu

134 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
papavd, davpcpopov fjpXv iariv. Tt Nearer Matt. 1 6^ (cf Mark
•ydp TO d'c^eXos, e'dv ns tov Kdapov 8") than Luke ^^^ ; neither
oXov KepSfjajj, rfjv Se ^vx^v (rjptaBfj ; has ri to ScpeXos ;
It looks as if Clement knew both Matthew and Luke, or a
document based on them (cf. Introd. ad fin.).
(32) 2 Clem. ix. II. Luke 8*^.
Kai ydp einev d Kiipios' 'ASeXcpoi PVVP f*"" *"¦' dSeXcpoi pov oSroi
pov ovroi elaiv, oi notovvres rb BiXrjpa elaiv 01 rbv Xdyov rov Qeoii oKOvovres
rov narpds pov. Kai notovvres. Matt. I2"f' (Mark 3'").
iSov, ^ P^rrjp pov Kai 01 dSeXcpoi
pov' Sans ydp &v notfjarj rb BeXrjpa
Toi) narpds pov rau iv oiipavois, aiirds
pov dSeXcpds, KrX.
EpiphaniuS, Haer. XXX. 14 ovroi elatv oi dSeXcpoi pov Kai fj pfjTTjp, oi
noioiivres rd BeXrjpara roii narpds pov,
Clem. Alex. Eel. Proph. 20 dyet ovv els iXevBepiav rfjv rov narpbs
avyiiXrjpovdpovs vioiis Kai cpiXovs' 'ASeXcpoi pov ydp, cprjalv d Kvptos, Kai
avy KXrjpovdpoi oi noioiivres ro BeXrjjia rov narpds pov.
Here we seem to have a fusion of the structure of Luke
with the phrasing of Matthew. Yet the resemblance between
3 Clement and the Eel. Proph. suggests that these both
knew the saying in the same form, whether written or in
traditional use. Epiphanius seems to be citing the Ebionite
Gospel, or our Gospels loosely in his own words. See also {^^).
(33) 2 Clem. ui. 4 (cf 5). Mark 12'°, cf Matt. 22*^; Luke
e'^ oKrjs KapSias koi i^ oXrjs r^s ^^ •
Siavoias. ' A reference ultimately to Deut. 6^ ; but as both words
biavoCas and KapbCas do not seem to occur in that passage in
any one text of the LXX, we must suppose that the writer
had in mind the saying rather as it is quoted in the Gospels,
especially Mark xii. 30 i^ okrjs rrjs KapbCas a-ov . . . koi e^ oXrjs
TTJS biavoCas aov . . . (comp. Matt. 33" ; Luke 10^').' So
Lightfoot ad loc. Yet Mark may follow a current LXX text.
The same may be said of Clement's deviation from Cod. B of
the LXX in the quotation from Isa. 391^ which immediately
foUows. This appears in a form found also in 1 Clem. xv. a
and closely related to ^^AQ of the LXX. See p. 63.

n CLEMENT

^35

(III) Apocryphal Gospels.

(34) 2 Clem. iv. 5.
Sid TOVTO . . . e?Trev d Kvpios
['Iijo-ovs, Syr., cf V. 4]' 'Edv pre
per ipov avvrjypevoi iv ra KdXna pov,
Koi pfj TTotijre rds e'vroXds pov, diro-
^dXSt iipds Kai ipa vptv, vndyere an
ipov, OVK otSa vpds noBev iare, ipydrai
dvopias. Ps. 6^

Luke 13".
Kai ipei, Aeya fipXv, ovk oiSa Tro'^ev
eore' aTrdo-TTjre dn ipoii ndvres ipydrai
dSiKias. Matt. 7^.
Kat rdre dpoXoyijo-co aiiroXs Sn
OvSenore eyvav vpds' diroxwpeire dn
epoii 01 ipya^dpevoi rfjv dvopiav.

anoarrjre an epov Travres oi epyafdpevot njv dvopiav.
Justin, Apol i. 16 Kai rdre ipa niiroXs' dnoxapeXre dn ipoii, 'epydrat
TTJS avoptas, ct. Dtal 76 Kai ipS, aiiroXs' dvaxapeXre dn' ipov.
The points in common with Luke, -bpiv, ovk oi6a . . . Tio'^ei;
ecrre, epydrai, point to knowledge of the saying in his form
rather than Matthew's. Nor need the setting be different from
Luke's, as would be the case if its imagery were that of sheep
and their shepherd, as in Isa. 40". This, indeed, would suit
the thought of the whole section iu. 3 (or iv. 3) — v. 4. But
another interpretation of avvjjypevoi is possible, which would
make it continue the imagery of Luke 13^'' ecpdyopev
evdoniov aov, Krk. Yet compare (39), {35).
(35) 2 Clem. V. 2-4.

Xeyei ydp d Kvptos, EaeaBe as
dpvia iv peaco XvKav' dnoKpiBeis Se
d nirpos aiira Xe'yet" 'Edv ovv Sia-
cmapa^aaiv oi Xvkoi rd dpvia ; emev
d 'Irjaovs r<^ Uerpa' Mfj cpo^eia6aaav
TO dpvia rovs Xvkovs perd rb dno-
6aveXv aiira' Ktii vpeis pfj cpo^eXa6e
roiis dnoKrevvovras iijids Kai prjSev
vpiv Svvapevovs noteXv, dXXd cpofieXaBe
rbv perd rb dnoBaveXv iipds exovra
i^ovcriav ¦\jrvxfjs Kai aaparos, tov
/SaXetv els yeewav mipds.

apvas
XvKcuv.

Luke 10'; Matt. 10".
V, iyat anocrreXXa iijids its
{npd^ara, Matt.) ev peaco

Luke I2**''
p^ CpofirjBfjre dnb rav dnoKreivdvrav
rb aapa Kai perd radra pfj ixdvrav
nepiaadrepdv ri noifjaai . . . cpo^fjBrjre
rbv perd rb dnoKreXvat i^ovaiav exovra
ip^aXeXv els rfjv yeewav.
Matt. lo^'.
Kai pij cpo^TjBfjre (oTrd) . . . r^v Se i/rv-
X^v pfj Svvapevav dnoKreXvai' ^o^fjBrjre
Se pdXXov rbv Svvdpevov Kai ^jnixfjv
Kai aapa dnoXeaai iv yeevvjj.
Justin, Apol. i. 19 pij cpo^eXaBe roiis dvaipovvras iipds Kai perd ravra pfj
Svvapevovs ri noifjaai, elne, cpo^fjBrjre Se rbv perd rb dnoBaveXv Svvdpevov Kai
¦^Xh^ KCU aapa els yeewav ip^aXeXv.
Here the phenomena of 3 Clem. (34), (29) recur, viz. closer
verbal resemblance (in the parts common) to Luke than to

136 THE N. T. IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Matthew, though the reference to ¦^¦vxrj Kai a&pa is found only
in Matthew — where moreover both passages occur in the same
discourse. The like is true of Justin's citation, which also
shows the change of construction from <po/3rj9fJTe and to
(pojSelade with accusative. All this points to the use by
Clement of a source fusing the forms found in Luke and
Matthew (as Justin does), and adding fresh matter, in the
form of question and answer, tending to connect two logia
not thus connected even in Matthew, where they are in the
same address. In this same source {ut vid.) the idea of
Christ's lambs is perhaps also introduced to give a context
to another logion (see above). [Whether this source be
identical with that used in xii. 3, which was probably the
Gospel according to the Egyptians, may be considered an open
question. Its character corresponds more nearly to what we
know of tbe Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus, than to that
Gospel as usually conceived. But it is quite likely that the
Egyptian Gospel embodied much matter from earlier Gospels,
including the Oxyrhynchus ' Sayings ' or Gospel (? cited by
Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 9. 45 as the local Gospel Kar 'E^paCovs) ;
in which case the Gospel according to the Egyptians may be
the one source cited by 3 Clem, thi-oughout. — J. V. B.]
(36) 2 Clem. xii. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom, iu. 13, 92.
ineparrjBels ydp aiirbs d Kvptos Std tovto rot, d Kaaatavds cprjat,
ind nvos, Trdre ^|ei avrov ^ fiaaiXeia, nvvBavopevrjs rfjs SaXaprjs ndre yva-
eiTrev' Orav earat rd Svo ev, Kai rb aBfjaerat rd nepl Stv fjpero, ecptj d
e^a its rb eaa, Kai rb apaev perd rfjs Kvptos' 'Orav rb rfjs alaxvvrjs evSvjui
BrjXeias oiire apaev oiire B^Xv. narfjarjre Kai Srav yevrjrat rd Svo ev,
Kai rb appev perd r^s BrjXeias oiire
appev odre BfjXv.
Clem. Alex, vouches that what Cassian cites occurs in the
Gospel Kar AlyvnrCovs, and it looks as if 2 Clement quotes
from the same passage. Only 3 Clement omits its opening
clause, as not to his purpose (perhaps as Uable to Encratite
exegesis) ; while Cassian omits the third clause, koi rb e^co as
rb ea-m, as not to his purpose.

137

TABLES OF RESULTS

TABLE

I

a
-e
Author
i
Didache.
CO
•_r!
c3
CO
M
CDaCD
O M
affording
s c3
Two
Ways.'
Rest.
5
1 — 1
o >^
o
CM
first
marked trace.
Synoptic Tra- )
dition )
-1-
?
-H
-f
H-
¦+
-1-
-1-
Barnabas
Didache
Matthew
D
C?[D]
B
C
c*
Didache
Mark
D?
• • •
C
Hermas
Luke
?
j)"\h]
D
D
D*
Didache
John
?
?
B
c
D
• ••
Ignatius
Acts
...
i)"?
...
C
D
c
D
I Clement
Barnabas
Romans
B
D?
...
A
C
B
D
?
X Clement
I Corinthians
D
D
A
A
A
B
D
X Clement
2 Corinthians
D
D
C?
B
Polycarp
Galatians
...
D
C
B
Ignatius Barnabas
Ephesians
C
...
D
B
B
B
D
Ignatius
PhilippiansColossians I Thessalonians
D
...
...
DD
C
D
D?
B D
D
Ignatius ? Barnabas
? Hermas
2 Thessalonians
...
D?
B
...
Polycarp
I Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
DDD
...
...
'ii C
CC C
BB
9
Ignatius Ignatius I Clement
Philemon
...
...
...
D?
...
( Barnabas
( X Clement
Hebrews
C
?
...
A
D
C
C
c
.Tampsi
c
D
Hermas
1 V." "¦" 1 ro!
1 io"
1 D
A
D
D ?
Polycarp
C
Polycarp
1 o\iu.i±
2 John
...
...
3 John
...
...
...
'?
Jude Apocalypse
'?
?
i)
...
? I Clement
? - 'Unclassed,' or to qualify the value of the letter which it foUows.
f f= Kd i 3 i. I, not witnessed to by other early documents
* To be token in connexion with the suggestion on p- 123, ^''^'j^^f
the apoc^pfal source known to 2 Clement itself used Matt, and Luke.
138

TABLE II
The following classification is not in aU cases to be taken
strictly, but in the Ught of the qualifications indicated in the
body of the work itself. References to ' Synoptic Tradition '
have been omitted altogether, as not seeming to admit of any
such classification.
Bamahas. B Rom.
C Eph. Heb.
D Matt. X Cor. 2 Cor. Col. i Tim. 2 Tim. Titus, I Pet.
Unclassed : Luke, John, Apoc.
Didache. (i) ' Two Ways ' • D ? Acts, Rom.
Unclassed : Heb. Jude.
(ii) Rest : B Synop. Trad.
C? Matthew.
D Luke, I Cor. i Pet.
Unclassed: John.
I Clement. A Rom. i Cor. Heb.
C Acts, Titus.
D 2 Cor. Gal. PhU. CoL i Tim. i Pet. i John, Apoc.
Ignatius. A i Cor.
B Matt. John, Eph.
C Rom. 2 Cor. (?), Gal. PhU. x Tim. 2 Tim. Titus.
D Mark (?), Luke, Acts, Col. i Thess. (?), 2 Thess. (?),
Philem. (?), Heb. i Pet.
Poll/carp. A x Cor. x Pet.
B Rom. 2 Cor. Gal. Eph. Phil. 2 Thess. i Tim. 2 Tim.
C John, Acts, Heb. i John.
D Col.
Hermas. B x Cor. Eph.
C Matt. Mark, Heb. Jas.
D Luke, John, Acts, Rom. i Thess. i Pet.
2 Clement. C Matt. Heb.
D Luke, I Cor. Eph. Jas. i Pet.
Unclassed : Rom. i Tim. 2 Pet. Jude.

139

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES EXAMINED

39-42
44

Matthew

5" 526528 5"55' 5''65. '-^
6"616624 7^ ,12,15 ,15,16,21,23gl?gll,13 9I396O 10'IOI6
Io22 I0«8
ID'S Io33
10*0 IO«

12=
I23i

13
I3I713^. IglS
16^6
18^ 18"i8"i19^19I2 192s

Page

Matthi

w

Page]

Mabk

Page

81

20^* . . . lOI

1427 ... 20

76

2l85 .

122
14S8 .
103
26
221^12,13 .
119, 131
I4«i'
21
58
22" .
i8
15".
21
81
2213 _
78
15'*.
20
34
22" .
134
121
2237-39 _
26
Luke
119
2241-46 .
21
5' . . . 19
35
2334 f .
20
5'^ . •
19, 133
34.103
24IO-IS
32
5" .
32
34
24I3 .
no
627 .
34, 103
28
242*.
32
627-33
34
102
24™ f
32
629,30
35
28
24*2.
31,32
631,36
58
133
25".
122
632,35
132
loi
25451
130
es" .
58, lOI
a6
26T . .
78
6«
80
32
262*.
61, 121
8^
62
120
26^1.
20
814
121
130
26«"
21
821
134
13s
27".
17
925
134
77
2,28.
21
925
80,
1 16, 122
19
2,35 _
20
Io3
135
19-133
2752.
78
IO»
30
81
28I8.
119
I02*
103
135
28"'
131
Io27
134
30
77. 135no
II*
102, 103
Maek 21". . . 19
11"128
20
130
109
2"
133
1235
32
130
3^^
29
1327
135
122
335
134
14'*
81
77,78 78
130134 29
80
4'4I8.1
652
)
62
120
120
16"
I6I' 17^
132133 61
1'
816
62
134
18I19"
120 132
838
79,
116, 122
I9I3
122
62
935
lOI
2o9
122
103120 62 76
81, 133
117, 122
942 9"
g60 I2II23-S
7
61 79
81
121 122 21
20"20". 22"-22™' 237-
2334
42 19 2
122 21
3° 217920
10 1
12^
122
2439 ... /y
77
121 77
121
123°1237I3I31421
134 2132
121
John 33-5 3'
123 82
I40

INDEX I

John
ql4f _
4", "
5^^ .
633 _
651 _
658 _
828, 29
I07,9

12'
13'14'
15'19'

Acts

224
4I2
4325",52 io«10*2
13221520,
2o3'2613
Romans l3,4
l21 .
j29— 32
43. 10 '
4" .
61 .
6* .
826,279' .
97-lS9'' .
Il33.12* .
129 _
I2I7.

15"=".
I COEIHTHIANS

1'° .
1 11-13
jl8, 20
I 24, 30
2'
0,10

2381
103 8222
22
82
123
123 122 8282
122
104 23

114 73
98
114 25
1X6 98 73
98
4826
50,98
50,99

70
39, 128 37 3
3,128 38
69
"5 38 4
128 44
3925
91 70

66
66
4064
67
42, 126
44,66 66
11,65 65

I Corinthians 3153I6
4' 4*
5'626'
610615
619 ,10,29,39,
8109I69249"
9 10*
id",
I024 ,33

q27

ID'128, i

12-'

134-7I3I3.
I4IO .
142" .
14^'15'-15*
152315281^36, 37
15*'
156,I6I7 .
I618 .
l622 _

J 8-10
1-20

545,47
,-68

Page 126
II, 15,65 65
65
6585
64,85 64
39,66
15, 126 67
66
105 85
66
42, 126
126 65
105 6644 44
42
40,67 40
4086
41 85
85
117 86
6541
41,44 86
41 67
66,86 44
66 27

2 Cokinthia 3^ .
3" .

NS 91
51

4" .

• 70, 91

5" .
5" .

¦ 11,89,91 4

67 .
6" .

90 70

821 _
9' .
^"9 •
II .
Il23-27

91
51 44

¦ 44, 70
52

12" .

70

Galatians

ii .

• 70,89

Galatians

3^ ,21tf

4-'o5"5"
5"5"^
676"

Ephesians

210,21

40-4*
4=3422 ¦
4^*4=5
4204304=2
5'
s"5'
6«613-17

c25

39,

Philippians t"

2="
3" 3I5
3I8
3"

92,94 52 71
52 IS
9271
90, 92-
88,92 70
9271

67
127 6
53
126
107 6
92 4
6868
68, I07
68, 126 4
68 4
68
106
40,53 53
:27, 128 4
68
40, 106 93
106 89
68 6
127 67
127 68

53,95 71
94 94
71,94 444271
94
94

INDEX
I
141
Philippians Page
2 Timothy
Page
Hebrews Paqe
4" • . . 54
i" .
13
13''. . . 6,9
i^" .
72
13^' - . . 126
2' . . .
72
Colossians
2" .
97
James
I^* . . . lOI
221 .
51
1^,= ... 108
l7 .
74
q25
97
j6— tf
108
i' .
54
3' ".
72
1 12
no
ii2 .
54, loi
3" • . .
51
I"
109
i" .
54
4' .
14
j26 _
in
Il5
116
4' • .
73
l27
112
iio .
12, 74
4" . . .
97
2*
113
i" .
74
3I5
109
l23 .
74,
86, loi
4*
127
l24
44
Titus
4,
in
l26
74
l2 .
14
4^
112
2l
54
l7 .
73
4"
109, no
2=
74
i" .
73
4"
109
ai3
89
2-','! .
50
5'
no
2»
74
210 _
14,89
5!
113
3*
122
8^, • •
51
5*
no
3'
93, loi
3^".
14
5^,'
128
3"
12
3' . .
73
5^°
128
322
127
5"
109
4^
14.
5''
127
Philemon 20
5'°
56, 127
I Thessalonians
75
I Petek
2* . . . 74
t1 a
5;;'. . . 115
S" ¦ . . 74
Hebrews
l2
57
9,57
I . 6, 44
45,116
l7
116
2=-9 .
7
18
86
a Thessalonians
2" .
6,7
jlO t
14
I* . . . 95
2i3 .
47
1I2
88
3 . . . 75
3' • .
47
ll3
87
3'^ . . . 95
3= ¦ .
46
ll7
n
3^2 . .
107
ll8,19
55
I Ttkotht
4' • •
8
l20 ,
13,
116, 128
ii . . . 96
4-" .
10
l21
87,89
l3-»
71
4" • ¦
48
2l,^
IIS
1I2
72
5" . •
100
26-8
15
ll3
72
61 .
9
2"
57
j-15 t
12
6*-" .
107
2"
33,88
l"
. 54, 129
613 .
48
2"
87
2I
96
&" .
99
2"
57
28
55
f ¦ ¦
99
221
86
3=
97
f ¦ ¦
75
2=5
76,88
3'
96
7I9 . .
75
3«
89
316
13
,22, 23, 26
75
3\
88
415
97
913 « . !
10
3^'
89
4I6
129
1023 . .
. 48, 125
320,21
115
5'
96
Io2* .
8
4'
88
5''
30
Io32-S9
126
^\
56, 128
524/
15
nil .
48
4I3
75
62
72
11" .
107
14-1
116
67
95
„37,39 ,
47
4I6
113, 116
610
95
I2I .
. 47, 125
4"
57
'
122 .
6
5'
76
2 Timothy
126,7,8 _
48
5»
• 55,76
18 . . . 73
122* .
9
5'
115
l5
98
1228 ,
99
5'
. 57, 112
143

INDEX I

2 Peter

Page

2 John Pa^e

Apocalypse

Page

3' . .

15

' . . . 15

l7,13
7" . .

i6
no

I John

21" .
i6
4^ . .
15
Jude
22l» .
17
4^« . .
57
^" . . . 25
2212 .
¦ 17,58
II
INDEX TO PASSAGES OF THE APOSTOLIC
FATHEES EXAMINED
Barnabas
Page
Barnabas
Page
Clement of Rome Paae
i. 3, 4, 6 .
14
xvi. 8
¦ 4,5
xiii. I
58
ii. I .
6
xvi. 9
7
XV. 2
62
iii. 6 .
6
xxi. 2
10
xvii. I
47
iv. 9, 10 .
8
xxi. 3
17
xvii. 5
46
iv. II ff
II
xxi. 7
10
xviii. I
48
iv. 12
15
xxi. 9
16
xix. 2
47
iv. 13
8
xxi. I
53
iv. 14
18
Didache
xxi. 9
. 48
V. i. .
• 9,22
i. 2 .
26
xxiv. I
41
V. 5 .
V.6 .
14
13.14
i. 3 •
i. 4 .
i. 4-6
34
33 35
xxiv. 4
xxiv. 5
¦ 41, 51
41, 62
V. 7 .
V. 9 .
14
12, 19
xxvii. I, 2
xxix. I
. 4855
55
38
V. loff
V. II, 12 .
16
20
i. 5 .
ii. 7 . .
iii. 7.
3425
26
XXX. I, a .
xxxiii. I .
VI. ii— 4
vi. 3 .
vi.6 .
vi. 7 ,
vi. n
vi. 12 ff
vi. 13
IS
22
20 14
4,20 12
16
iv. I .
iv. 8 .
V. a .
vii. I
viii. r
ix. a .
X. 6 .
2525
25
27 28
3027293031
xxxiv. 3 .
xxxiv. 8 .
AAXV.5, 6 .
xxxvi. I .
xxxvi. 2 . 39
XXXVII. 3 .
5842 37
47
, 51, 524444
vi. 17-19 .
vi. 19
vii. 3 .
vii. 9
7
9
17
. 16, ai
xi. 7 .
xiii. I
xvi. I
xxxvii. 5 .
xxxviii. I .
xxxviii. -.£ .
xl. I .
40
39,40 44
vii. II
viii. iff.
ai 10
xvi. 3-5 .
xvi. 6
3232
xlvi. 6 '.
xlvi. 7
4453
39,61
viii. 5
a2
xlvi. 7, 8 .
61
ix. 2 .
22
Clement of Eome
xlvii. I
40
54
xi. I ff .
23
Introduction
57
xlvii. I, 2 .
xi. 10
22
i. 3 .
50
xlviii. 5 .
42
xii. 7
12,23
ii. I .
50,52
xlviii. 6 .
44
xii. 10
21
ii. 2 .
57
xlix. 5 . 41
, 56, 57
xiii. 2, 3 .
4
ii. 4 •
54, 57
1.3 . . .
57
xiii. 7
3
ii. 7 .
51
1-6,7 . .
39
xiv. 4
ID
iii. 4 .
53
Ii. 5 . . .
39
xiv. 4-6 .
ID
V. I, 5
42
Ivi. 4
48
xiv. 5
7, 14
V. 2 .
52
lix. 2 . 50
, 54, 57
XV.
10
V. 5, 6
52
lix. 3
53
XV. 4
15
vii. 2, 4 .
55
Ixi. a
54
INDEX II

143

Ignaiius

Page

Ignatius

Page

Page
MAS
Eph. i. I .
68
Philad. iii.
I . 76
Shepherd op Hep
ii. I .
72, 74
iv. I .
66
Mand. III. I
[06,111
ii. a .
66,75
vi. 3 .
70
IV. i. 1,6.
121
ii. 3 •
66
vii. I ,
. 66, 82
IV. ii. I .
120
iv. 2 .
66
viii. a
71
IV. iii, 1, 2
107
114 105
in
V. a . .63
77,82
ix. I .
¦ 75, 83
IV. iii. 4 .
V. 3 .
76
Smyrn. i. i
. 68, 70
IV. iv. I, 2
vi. I .
77, 82
i. 2 ,
64, 74, 79
V. ii. 5-7 .
viii. 2
66,69
iii. a
79
V. ii. 7 . I
10, in
ix. I .
66, 68
iii. 3
73
VIII. 10 .
112
X. I .
74
iv. a
• 71, 72
IX. I
iq8
X. 2 .
66,74
vi. I .
77
IX. 2
109
xi. I .
81
X. a .
72, 79, 80
IX. 6
108
xiv. I
71
xi. 3
71
IX. 8
120
xiv. a
80
Smyrn. Inaorip. 66
IX. n
109
XV. I .
63
Polyc. i. a
68
X. ii. 1, 2, 4, 5
106
XV. 3.
65, 70
i- 2, 3
77
X. ii. 5 . I
06, 115
xvi. I . 64
70, 79
ii. 2 .
77
XI. 5, 6 . .
109
xvii. J.
78,82
iv. 3.
72
XII. i. I .
III
xvii. 2
67, 74
V. c .
• 67
XII. i. 2 .
119
xviii. I
64,71
vi. i .
73
XII. ii. 4 .
112
xix. .
68
vi. 2 .
. 68, 72
XII. iv. 7 .
112
xix. 2
74
XII. vi. 3
109
xix. 3
69
Polycarp
Sim. I. i. 2
107
XX. I . .67
68,71
i. 1 .
94, ICO
1.3 . .
108
Eph. Inscript.
67, 70
i. 2 .
98, lOI
I. 8 .
112
Magn. iii. a
75
i-3 .
36,88,92,103
11.5
113
V. I .
73
ii. I .
86, 87, 94, 98
III. 3
119
V. a .
. 78
ii. 2 .
. 88, 91
IV. 2
119
vii. I .
82
ii. 3 •
98, lOI
V. ii. I .
122
viii. I
• 71, 73
iii. 2
85, 91, 94
V. V. 2 .
119
viii. a
82
iii. 3
85, 90, 92
V. vi. 3 .
123
ix. 3 .
. 78
iv. I .
• 90, 95
V. vi. 4 .
119
X. 2 .
. 63, 81
iv. 3.
. 86, 96
V. vi. 5, 7
III
X. 3 .
65
V. I .
• 91, 92
VI. iii. 4, 5
no
xii. I .
¦ 63
V. 2 •
• 89, 95, 96,
VIII. vi. 4 I
13, 116,
xiii. I
63
97, loi, 103
122
Trail, ii. 3 .
65
V. 3 ¦
. 85, 88
IX. iv. 3 . 107, 117
V. I .
65
vi. I .
88, 89, 102
IX. xii. I . 105, 123
V. a .
74
vi. 2.
89, 91, 102
IX. xii. 2, 3
116
vi. I
67
vi. 3.
89, 98, 99
IX. xiii. 2
119
vii. 2
73
vii. I
100
IX. xiii. 5
106
viii. 2
63
vii. n
88, 103
IX. xiv. 6 . I
16, 122
ix. 2.
70
viii. I
. 96
IX. XV. 3 .
123
X. I .
71
ix. I
100
IX xvi. 2, 3
107
xi. I .
76
ix. 2 . c
0, 92, 94, 97
IX. XX. I, 2
120
xi. :d.
67
X. I .
86, 90, loi
IX. XX. 2 . I
20, 121
xii. 3
65
X. 2 .
• 87
IX. xxi. 3.
122
Eom. ii. I .
74
xi. 2 .
• 85, 97, loi
IX. xxiii. 2-4
109
ii. 2 .
73
xi. 3.
• 91, 95
IX. xxiv, I, 2
. 108
ii. and iv.
71
xi. 4 .
. 85,86,88,
IX. xxvi. 6
. 107
iv. 3 .
65
95, 97
IX. xxix. I, 2, ,
J 122
V. I .
65, 76
xii. I
• 93, 98
Vis. II. ii. 7
no
vi. I.
66,81
xii. -^
85, 89,
II. ii. 8 .
122
vii. 2
71, 81
99, loi
II. iii. 2 .
. 107
vii. 3
82
xii. 3
• 94, 96, 97,
III. iii. 5 .
. 115
ix. 2 .
65, 72
103, 104
III. vi. 5 •
120
ix. 3 .
78
III. vii. 2
107
X. 3 .
75
Shepherd oi
^ Hermas
III. ix. 2 .
112
Philad. i. i .
70, 71
Mand. II. -.!
, 3 • iio
III. ix. 4-6
no
144

INDEX II

Page
Shepherd of Hermas

Vis. III. ix. i
III. ix. lo
III. xi. 3 .
III. xiii. 3
IV. ii. 4 .
IV. ii. 6 .
IV. iii. 4 .
II Clement
i. 6 .
i. 8 .
ii. 4 .
11- 5, 7
iii. 2

. 119
• 115115
• 117
114, 115121116

125
128

133132130

II Clement

Page

iii. 4

134

iv. a .

130

iv. 5 .

135

V. 2-4

135

v. 5 .

130

vi. I f

133

vi. 3, 5 •

127

vi. 7 .

130

vi. 9 .

131

vii. I

126

viii. 2

128

viii. 4

130

viii. 5

. 132

ix.3.

126

ix. II

134

II Clement
xi. 6 .
xi. 7.
xii. 2
xiii. J.
xiii. 4
xiv. 2
xiv. 5
XV. I
xvi. 3
xvi. 4
xvii. I
xix. 2
XX. 2-4
XX. 4, 5

Page
, 125
126
136 127
132
126, 128
126
127, 129
129
126, 127, 128
¦ 131
127, 128
128
129

Oxford : Printed at the Clarendon Press by Horace Hart, M.A.

SELECT LIST

STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS

PRINTED AT

The Clarendon Press, Oxford.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC. . page i
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, ETC. „ 4
ECCLESLiSTICAL HISTORY, ETC. „ 5

ENGLISH THEOLOGY
LITURGIOLOGY

page 6

1. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ETC.

HEBREW, etc. Notes on the
Text of the Book of Genesis. By
G. J. Spurrell, M.A. Second Edition.
Crov?n Svo. 12s. 6d.
 Notes on the Hebreiu
Text of the Books of Kings. By C. F.
Burney, M.A. 8vo. 14s. net.
 Notes on the Hebrew
Text of the Books of Samuel. By S. K.
Driver, D.D. Svo. 14s.
 Treatise on the use of
the Tenses in Hebrew. By S. E. Driver,
D.D. Third Edition. Crovrn Svo.
7s. 6d.
¦  The Psalms in Hebrew
without points. Stiff covers, 2s.
¦  A Commentary on the
Book of Prover'bs. Attributed to Abra
ham Ibn Ezra. Edited from a MS.
in the Bodleian Library by S. E.
Driver, D.D. Crown Svo, paper
covers, 3s. 6d.
 Ecclesiasticus (xxxix. 15-
xlix. II). The Original Hebrew,
with Early Versions and English
Translation, &c. Edited by A. E.

the Original Hebrew, with a Fac
simile. Crown Svo, stiff covers, 2s.6d.
Facsimiles of the

Fragments hitherto recovered of
the Book of Ecclesiasticus in
Hebrew. 60 leaves. Collotype.
In a Cloth Box. il. is. net. (Pub
lished jointly by the Oxford and
Cambridge University Presses.)

 The Book of Tobit.
A Chaldee Text, from a unique MS.
in the Bodleian Library. Edited by
Ad. Neubauer, M.A. Crown Svo. 6s.
 A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an
Appendix containing the Biblical
Aramaic, based on the Thesaums
and Lexicon of Geseniua, by Francis
Brown, D.D., S. E. Driver, D.D.,
and C. A. Briggs, D.D. Parts I-XI.
Small 4to. 2s. 6d. each.
 Gesenius' Hebrew Gram
mar. Aa Edited and Enlarged by
E. Kautzseh. Translated from the
Twenty-fifth German Edition by
the late Eev. G. W. Collins, M.A.
The Translation revised and ad
justed to the Twenty-sixth Edition
by A. E. Cowley, M.A. Svo. 21s.
Hebrew Accentuation of

Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. By William
Wickes, D.D. Svo. ss.
 Hebrew Prose Accentu-
By the same Author. Svo.

los. 6d.
The Booh of Hebrew

Boots, by Abu '1-Walid Marwftn ibn
Janah, otherwise called Eabbi
Y6nah. Now first edited, with an
appendix, by Ad. Neubauer. 4to.
2l. 7s. 6d.
ETHIOPIC. The Booh of
Enoch. Translated from Dillmann'a
Ethiopic Text (emended and re
vised), and edited by K. H. Charles,
M.A. Svo. 16s.

Oxford ;

Clarendon Frees. London: Henbt Fbowde, Amen Corner, E.C.

F. TOGO.

HOLY SCRIPTURES.

GBEEE. A Concordance to
the Septuagint and the other Greek Ver
sions of the Old Testament, including the
Apocryphal Books. By the late Edwin
Hatch, M.A., and H. A. Eedpath,
M.A. In six Parts, imperial 4to,
2 IS. each.
 Supplement to the above,
Fasc. I. Containing a Concordance
to the Proper Names occurring in
the Septuagint. By H. A. Red-
path, M.A. Imperial 4to. i6s.
 Essays in Biblical Greek.
By Edwin Hatch, D.D. Svo. ios.6rf.
Ongenis Hexaplorum

quae supersunt ; sive, Veterum Interpre-
trim Graecorum in totum Vetus Testa
mentum Fragmenta. Edidit Fridericus
Field, A.M. 2 vols. 4to. 5!. 5s.
 New Testament. Novum

Testamentum G^-aece. Antiquissimo-
rum Codicum Textus in ordine
parallelo dispositi. Accedit collatio
Codicis Sinaitici. Edidit E. H. Han-
sell, S.T.B. Tomi III. Svo. 24s.
 Novum Testamentum

Graece. Accedunt parallela S. Scrip-
turae loca, etc. Edidit Carolus
Lloyd, S.T.P.R. iSmo. 3s.
On writing-paper, with wide
margin, 7s. 6d.
 Appendices ad Novum
Testamentum Steplianicum, jam inde
a Millii temporibus Oxoniensium
manibus tritum ; curante Gulmo.
Sanday, A.M., S.T.P., LL.D. L Col
latio textusWestcottio-Hortiani(jure
perraisso) cumtextu Stephanico anni
MDL. II. Delectus lectionum notatu
dignissimarum. III. Lectiones
quaedam ex codicibus versionum
Memphiticae Armeniacae Aethio-
pioae fuaius illustratae. Extra feap.
Svo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
GREEK. Novum Testamen
tum Graece juxta Exemplar Millianum.
i8mo. 2s. 6d. On writing-paper,
with wide margin, 7s. 6d.

 • The Greeh Testament,
with the Readings adopted by the
Revisers of the Authorised Ver
sion, and Marginal References —
(i) Svo. Second Edition. los. 6d.
(2) Fcap. Svo. NewEdition. 4s. 6d.
Also, on India Paper, doth, 6s.,
and in leather bindings.
(3) The same, on writing-paper,
with wide margin, 15s.
 The Parallel New Testa

ment, Greek and English; being the
Authorised Version, 161 1 ; the Re
vised Version, 1S81 ; and the Greek
Text followed in the Revised Ver
sion. Svo. I2S. 6d.

 Outlines of Textual Criti
cism applied to the New Testament. By
C. E. Hammond, M.A. Sixth Editicm
Revised. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d.
 A Greek Testament Pn-

mer. An Easy Grammar and Read
ing Book for the use of Students
beginning Greek. By E. Miller,
M.A. Second Edition. Extra feap.
Svo, 2S. ; cloth, 3s. 6d.
 The New Tedaonent in
the Apostolic Fathers. By a Com
mittee of the Oxford Society of
Historical Theology. Svo. 6s. net.
 Horae Synopticcte. Con
tributions to the study of the
Synoptic Problem. By Sir John C.
Hawkins, Bart., M.A. Svo. 7s. 6d.
 Facsimiles of the Athos
Fragments of Codex B of the Pauline
Epistles. Photographed and de
ciphered by K. Lake, M.A. Large
4to, in an envelope, 21s. net.
LATIN. Libri Pscdmoruvi
Versio antiqua Latina, cum Paraphrasi
Anglo-Saxonica. Edidit B. Thoi-pe,
F.A.S. Svo. los. 6d.
 Old-Latin Biblical
Texts. Edited with Introductions
and Appendices by John Words
worth, D.D., and H. J. White, M.A.
Small 4to, stiff covers.
No. I. 6s. No. II. 2 IS.
No. III. I2S. 6d. No. IV. ss.

Oxfoi-d; Clarendon Press. London Henby Fbowde, Amen Corner, E.C.

HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Nouum Testamentum Domini
Nostri lesu Christi liatine, se
cundum Editionem S. Hieronymi.
Ad Codicum Manuscriptorum fidem
recensuit lohannes Wordsworth,
S.T.P., Episcopus Sarisburiensis.
In operis societatem adsumto
Henrico luliano White, A.M. 4to.
Pars I, buckiam, 2I. 1 2s. 6d.
Also separately —
Fasc. I, I2S. 6d. Fase. II, 7s. 6d.
,, III, I2S. 6rf. ,, IV, ios.6d.
Fasc. V, I OS. 6d.
A Binding case /or the fire Fasciculi in
Pars I is issued af 3s.
Part II, Fasc, I, 12s. 6d.
COPTIC. The Gopitic Version
of the Neio Testament, in ihe Northern
Hialed; otherwise called Memphitic
and Bohairic ; with Introduction,
Critical Apparatus, and literal
English Translation. Svo. 4 vols.
Vols. I and II, 42s. net.
Vols. Ill and IV, 42s. net.
OLD-FRENCH. Libri Psal-
marum Versio antiqua Gallica e Cod. ms.
in Bibl. Bodleiana adservato, una cum
Versione Metrica aliisque Monumentis
' pervetuslis. Nunc primum descripsit
et edidit Franciscus Michel, Phil.
Doc. Svo. 10s. dd.
ENGLISH. The Books of
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and
the Song of Solomon. According to the
-WycliffiteVersionofHerefordandPurve-y.
. With Introduction and Glossary
by W. W. Skeat, Litt. D. 3s. 6rf.
The New Testament. Ac
cording to the same Version. 6s.
 The Holy Bible,
Eeoised Version".
Cheap Editions for School Use.
Revised Bible. Pearl i6mo, cloth
boards, lod.
Revised New Testament. Non
pareil 32mo, id. ', Brevier i6mo,
6d. ', Long Primer Svo, gd.

ENGLISH. The Oxford Bible
for Teachers, containing the Holy
Scriptures, together with a new, en
larged, and illustrated edition of the
Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible,
comprising Introductions to the
several Books, the History and Anti
quities of the Jews, the results of
Modern Discoveries, and theNatural
Histoi-y of Palestine, with copious
Tables, Concordance and Indices,
and a series of Maps. Prices
in various sizes and bindings from
3s. to 50s.
 Helps to the Study of the
Bible, taken from the Oxford Bible for
Teachers. New, Enlarged, and Illus
trated Edition.
Pearl i6mo, stiff covers, is. net.
Nonpareil Svo, cloth boards, 2s.6d.
Large Type edition, long primer
Svo, cloth boards, 6s.
 The Prayer-booh Version
of the Psalms, printed parallel with
a NewVersion, by S. R. Driver, D.D.
Second Edition. Extra fcap. Svo.
3s. dd. net.
The Psalter, or Psalms

of David, and certain Canticles, with a
Translation and Exposition in Eng
lish, by Richard Rolie of Hampole.
Edited by H. R. Bramley, M.A.
With an Introduction and Glos
sary. Demy Svo. iL is.
 Studia Biblica et Eccle-
siastica. Essays in Biblical and
Patristic Criticism, and kindred
subjects. By Members of the Uni
versity of Oxford. Svo.
Vol.1. 10s. 6d. Vol.11. I2s.6d.
Vol III. i6s. Vol. IV. i2s.6d.
Vol.V, Pt. L 3s.6d. Vol.V,Pt.II.
3S. 6d. Vol. V, Part III. 2S. 6d.
Vol. V, Pt, IV. 4S. 6rf.
The Booh of Wisdom :

the Greek Text, the Latin Vul
gate, and the Authorised English
Version ; with an Introduction,
Critical Apparatus, and a Com
mentary. By W. J. Deane, M.A.
4to. I2S. 6d. 

Also at EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, NEW YoBK and Toronto.

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.

2. FATHERS OP THE CHURCH, ETC.

St. Athanasius : Orations
against the Arians. With an account
of his Life by William Bright, D.D.
Crown Svo. 9s.
 Historiccd Writings, ac
cording to the Benedictine Text. With
an Introduction by W. Bright, D.D.
Crown Svo. los. 6d.
St. Augustine : Select Anti-
Pelagian Treatises, and the Acts of the
Second Council of Orange. With an
Introduction by William Bright,
D.D. Crown Svo. 9s.
St. Basil: The Book of St.
Basil on the Holy Spirit. A Revised
Text, with Notes and Introduction
by C. F. H. Johnston, M.A. Crown
Svo. 7s. 6d.
Canons of the First Four
General Councils of Nicaea, Constanti
nople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. With
Notes by W. Bright, D.D. Second
Edition. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
Catenae Graecorum Patrum
in Novum Testamentum. Edidit J. A.
Cramer, S.T.P. Tomi VIII. Svo.
2I. Ss. net.
Clementis Alexandrini Opera,
ex recensions Guil. Bindorfii. Tomi IV.
Svo. 3?. net.
Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexan-
drini in XII Prophetas. Edidit P. E.
Pusey, A.M. Tomi II. Svo. 2I. 2S.
 in D. Joannis Evan
geUum. Accedunt Fragmenta Varia
necnon Traotatus ad Tiberium Dia-
conum Duo. Edidit post Aubertum
P. E. Pusey, A.M. Tomi III. Svo.
2l. SS.
 Commentarii in Lucae
EvangeUum quae supersunt Syriace. E
mss. apud Mus. Britan. edidit R.
Payne Smith, A.M. 4to. il. 2s.

Cyrilli Commentarii in Lucae
Evangdium quae supersunt S'yriace.
Translated by R. Payne Smith,
M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 14s.
Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Epi-
scapi Edesseni, Balaei, aliorumque Opera
Selecta. E Codd. Syriacis mss. iu
Museo Britaimico et Bibliotheca
Bodleiana asservatis primus edidit
J. J. Overbeck. Svo. il. is.
Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae
Praeparationis Libri XV. Ad Codd.
mss. denuo eollatos recensuit An-
glice nunc primum reddidit notis
et iudicibus instruxit E. H. Gifford,
S.T.P. Tomi IV. Svo. 5L 5s. net.
(Translation only, 2 vols., 2ss. net.)
 Evangelicae Praepara
tionis Libri XV. Ad Codd. mss. re-
censuitT. Gaisford, S.T.P. Tomi IV.
Svo. ij. los.
 Evangelical Hemonstra-
tionis Libri X. Recensuit T. Gaisford,
S.T.P. Tomi IL Svo. 15s.
 contra Hieroclem et
MarceUum Libri. Recensuit T. Gais
ford, S.T.P. Svo. 7s.
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical His
tory, according to the text of Burton,
with an Introduction by W. Bright,
D.D. Crown Svo. 8s. 6d.
Evagrii Historia Ecclesiastica,
ex recensione H. Valesii. Svo. 4s.
Irenaeus : The Third Booh of
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, against s
Heresies. With short Notes and a
Glossary by H. Deane, B.D. Crown
Svo. ss. 6d.
Patrum Apostolicorum, S. de
mentis Romani, S. Ignalii, S. Polycarpi,
qxiae supersunt. Edidit Guil. Jacobson,
S.T.P.R. Tomi H. Svo. il. is.

Oxford ! Clarendon Press, London ; Henry Fbowde, Amen Corner, E.C.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,

Philo. About the Contem
plative Life ; ar, the Fourth Book of the
Treatise concerning Virtues. Critically
edited, with a defenceof its genuine
ness. By Fred. C. Conybeare, M.A.
Svo. 14s.
Reliquiae Sacrae secundi ter-
tiique saeculi. Recensuit M. J. Eouth,
S.T.P. Tomi V. Svo. \l. 5s.
Seriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Opuscula. Eecensuit M. J. Routh,
S.T.P. Tomi II. Svo. los.
Socrates' Ecclesiastical His
tory, according to the Text of Hussey,
with an Introduction by William
Bright, D.D. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.

Sozomeni Historia Ecclesia
stica. Edidit R. Hussey, S.T.B.
Tomi III. Svo. ISS.
TertuUiani Apologeticus ad-
versus Gentes pro Christianis. Edited,
with Introduction and Notes, by
T. Herbert Bindley, B.D. Crown
Svo. 6s.
 de Praescriptione
Raereticorum : ad Martyras : ad Scapu-
lam. Edited, with Introduction and
Notes, by T. Herbert Bindley, B.D.
Crown Svo. 6s.
Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae His-
toriae Libri V. Recensuit T. Gaisford,
S.T.P. Svo. 7s. 6d.

3. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ETC.

Adamnani Vita S. Columbae.
Edited, with Introduction, Notes,
and Glossary, by J. T. Fowler, M.A.,
D.C.L. Crown Svo, half-bound,
Ss. 6d. net.
 The same, together with
Translation. 9s. 6d. net.
Raedae Historia Ecclesiastica.
A New Edition. Edited, with Intro
duction, English Notes, &c., by C.
Plummer, M.A. 2 vols. Crown
Svo. 2 IS. net.
Bedford (W.K.R.). The Blazon
of Episcopacy. Bein g the Arms borne
by, or attributed to, the Arch
bishops and Bishops of England
and Wales. With an Ordinary of
the Coats described and of other
Episcopal Arms. Second Edition,
Remsed and Enlarged. With One
Thousand Illustrations. Sm. 4to,
buckram, 31s. 6d. net.
Bigg. The Christian Platonists
of Alexandria. By Charles Bigg, D.D.
Svo. los. 6d.
Bingham's Antiquities of the
Christian Church, and other Works. 10
vols. Svo. 3I. 3s.
Bright. Chapters of Early
English Church History. By W. Bright,
D.D. Third Edition. Svo. 12s.

Burnet's History of the Refor
mation of the Church of England. A
new Edition, by N. Pocock, M.A.
7 vols. Svo. i^ los.
Cardwell's Documentary An
nals of the Reformed Church of England ;
being a Collection of Injunctions,
Declarations, Orders, Articles of
Inquiry, &c. from 1546 to 1716.
2 vols. Svo. 1 8s.
Carleton. The Part of Rh e ims
in the Making of the English Bible. By
J.G. Carleton, D.D. Svo. qs.6d.net
Conybeare. The Key of Truth.
A Manual of the Paulician Church
of Armenia. The Armenian Text,
edited and translated with illus
trative Documents and Introduc
tion by F. C. Conybeare, M.A. Svo.
15s. net.
Councils and Ecclesiastical
Documents relating to Great Britain and
Ireland. Edited, after Spelman and
Wilkins, by A. W. Haddan, B.D.,
and W. Stubbs, D.D. Vols. I and
III. Medium 8vo, each il. is.
Vol. II, Part I. Med. Svo, los. 6d.
Vol. II, Part II. Church of Ireland ;
Memorials of St. Patrick. Stiff
covers, 3s. 6d.

Also at Bdinbdegh, Glasgow, New York and Toronto.

ENGLISH THEOLOGY.

Puller's Church History of
Britain. Edited by J. S. Brewer,
M.A. 6 vols. Svo. 2l. 12S. dd. net.
Gee. The Elizabethan Clergy
and the Settlement of Religion, 155S-
1564. By Henry Gee, B.D., F.'s.A.
With Illustrative Documents and
Lists. Svo. los. 6d. net.
Gibson's Synodus Anglicana.
Edited byE.Cardwell, D.D. Svo. 6s.
Hamilton's {Archbishop John)
Catechism, 1552. Edited, with In
troduction and Glossary, by Thomas
Graves Law. With a Preface by
the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
Demy Svo. 12s. 6d.
Horstman. Nova Legenda
Angliae ; As collected by John of
Tynemouth, John Capgrave, and
others, and first pi'inted, with
New Lives, by Wynkyn de Worde,
1516. Now re-edi(ed, with fresh
material from MS. and printed
sources by Carl Horstman, Ph.D.
2 vols. Svo. ll. 1 6s. net.
John, Bishop of Ephesus. The
TJiird Part of his Ecclesiastical History.
[In Syriac] Now first edited by
William Cureton, M.A. 4to. il. 1 2s.
 The same, translated by
R. Payne Smith, M.A. Svo. los.
Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiae
Angl'icanae. Corrected and continued
from 1715 to iSs3 by T. Duffus
Hardy. 3 vols. Svo. il. los. net
Noelli (A.) Catechismus sive
prima institutio disciplinaque Pietatis
Christianae Latine explicata. Editio
nova cura Guil. Jacobson, A.M. Svo.
SS. 6d.
4. ENGLISH
Bigg. The Church's Task
under the Rotnan Empire. With Pre
face. Notes, and an Excursus by
C. Bigg, D.D. Svo. ss. net.
Bradley. Lectures on the
Book of Job. By George Granville
Bradley, D.D., Dean of Westmin
ster. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.

Ommanney. A Critical Dis
sertation on the Athanasian Creed.
By G. D. W. Ommanney, M.A.
Svo. 1 6s.
Records of the Reformation.
Tlie Divorce, 1527-1533. Mostly now
for the first time printed from MSS.
in the British Museum and other
Libraries. Collected and arranged
by N. Pocock, M.A. 2 vols. Svo.
II. 16s.
Reformatio Legum Ecclesias-
ticarum. The Reformation of Eccle
siastical Laws, as attempted in the
reigns of Hemy VIII, Edward VI,
and Elizabeth. Edited by E. Card-
well, D.D. Svo. 6s. dd.
Rogers. Baptism and Chris
tian Archaeology By Clement F.
Rogers, M A. With many Illus
trations. Svo. (Offprint of Studia
Biblica, Vol. V, Part IV.) Cloth,
5s. net.
Shirley. Some Account of the
Church in the Apostolic Age. ByW.W.
Shirley, D.D. Second Edition, Fcap.
Svo. 3s. 6d.
Stubbs. Registrum Sacrum,
Anglicanum. An attempt to exhibit
the course of Episcopal Succession
in England. By W. Stubbs, D.D.
Small 4to. Second Edition. los. 6ri.
Turner. Eccleniae Occiden-
talis Moimmenta luris Antiquissima:
Canonum et Conciliorum Grae
corum Interpretationes Latiuae.
Edidit Cuthbertus Hamilton
Turner, A. M. 4to, stiff covers.
Fasc. I, pars I, los. 6d. Fasc. I,
pars II, 21S.
THEOLOGY.
Bradley. Lectures on Eccle
siastes. By the same. Second Edition.
Crown Svo. s*- 6d.
Bull's Works, with Nelson's
Life. Edited by E. Burton, D.D.
S vols. Svo. 2l. 9s.
Burnet's Exposition of the
XXXIX Articles. Svo. 7,9.

Oxford : Glai'endon Press. London : Henry Fbowde, Amen Corner, E.C.

ENGLISH THEOLOGY.

Butler's Worhs. Divided into
Sections; with Sectional Headings ;
an Index to each volume ; and some
occasional Notes; also Prefatory
Matter. Edited by the Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone. 2 vols. Medium
Svo. 14s. each.
Cranmer 's Works. Collected
and arranged by H. Jenkyns, M. A.,
Fellow of Oriel College. 4 vols.
Svo. i;. los.
Enchiridion Theologieum
Anti-Romanum. Vol. I. Jeremy Taylor's Dissua
sive from Popery, and I'reatise
on the Real Presence. Svo. Ss.
Vol. II. Barrow on the Suprem
acy of the Pope, with his Dis
course on the Unity of the
Church. Svo. 7s. dd.
Vol. III. Tracts selected from
Wake, Patrick, Stilliagfleet,
Clagett, and others. Svo. lis.
Greswell's Harmonia Evan-
gelica. Fifth Edition. Svo. gs. 6d.
Hall's Works. Edited by P.
Wynter, D.D. 10 vols. Svo. 3^. 3s.
Heurtley. Harmonia Sym-
bolica : Creeds of the Westem Church.
By C. Heurtley, D.D. Svo. 6s. 6d.
Homilies appointed to be read
in Churches. Edited by J. Griffiths,
D.D. Svo. 7s. 6d.
Hooker. An Introduction to
the Fifth Book of Hooker's Treatise of
the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. By
F.Paget, D.D. Medium Svo. ys.dd.
 Works, with his Life
by Walton, arranged by John Keble,
M.A. Seventh Edition. Revised by
R. W. Chm-ch, M.A., Dean of St.
Paul's, and F. Paget, D.D. 3 vols.
medium Svo. il. i6s.
For the convenience of purchasers. Vol, II
of this edition {Ecclesiastical Polity,
Book V), is sold separately, price Twelve
Shillings.
Hooker. The Text as arranged
by J. Keble, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. iis.

Jackson's (Dr. Thomas) Works.
1 2 vols. Svo. 3;. 6s.
Jewel's Works. Edited by R.
W. Jelf, D.D. S vols. Svo. il, los:
Martineau. A Study of Re
ligion : its Sources and Contents. By
James Martineau, D.D. Second Edi
tion, 2 vols. Crown Svo. 15s.
Patrick's Theological Works.
9 vols. Svo. II. IS.
Pearson's Exposition of the
Creed. Revised and corrected by
E. Burton, D.D. Sixth Edition. Svo.
los. 6d.
 Minor Theological Works.
Edited vrith a Memoir, by Edward
Churton, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 10s.
Sanday. The Sacred Sites of
the Gospels. By W. Sanday, D.D.
With many Illustrations, including
drawings of the Temple by Paul
Waterhouse. Svo. 13s. 6d. net.
Sanderson's Works. Edited by
W. Jacobson, D. D. 6 vols. Svo. li. los.
Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae.
2 vols. Svo. 9s.
 Rcdional Account of the
Grounds of Protestant Religion ; being
a vindication of Archbishop Laud's
Relation of a Conference, &c. 2
vols. Svo. I OS.
Taylor. The Oxyrhynchus
Logia and the Apocryphai Gospels. By
the Eev. Charles Taylor, D.D. Svo,
paper covers, 2s. 6d. net.
Wall's History of Infant Bap
tism. Edited by H. Cotton, D.C.L.
2 vols. Svo. II. IS.
"Waterland's Wo7'ks, with Life,
by Bp. Van Mildert. A new Edition,
with copious Indexes. 6 vols. Svo.
2l. IIS.
 Review of the Doctrine
of the Eucharist, with a Preface by
the late Bishop of London. Crown
Svo. 6s. 6d.

Also at Edinburgh, Glasgow, New York and Toronto.

8

LITURGIOLOGY,

Wheatly's Illustration of the
Book of Common Prayer. Svo. ss.
"Wyclif. A Gatcdogue of the
Original Works of John Wyclif. By
W. W. Shirley, D.D. Svo. 3s. 6d.

Wyclif. Select English Works.
ByT. Arnold, M.A. 3 vols. Svo.

II. IS. net.

Trialogus. With the

Supplement now first edited.
Gotthard Lechler. Svo. 7s.

By

5. LITURGIOLOGY.

Cardwell's Two Books of Com
mon Prayer, set forth by authority
in the Reign of King Edward VI,
compared with each other. Tliird
Edition. Svo. 7s.
History of Conferences

on the Book of Common Prayer from
ISS I '0 1690. Svo. 7s. 6d.
The Gelasian Sacramentary.
Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ec
clesiae. Edited, with Introduction,
Critical Notes, and Appendix, by
H. A. Wilson, M.A. Medium Svo.
iSs.
Liturgies, Eastern and
Western. Edited, with Introduc
tions and Appendices, by F. E.
Brightman, M.A., on the Basis of
the former Work by C. E. Ham
mond, M.A.
Vol. I. Eastern Liturgies. Demy
Svo. II. is.
The Administration of the
Sacrament and other Rites of the
Armenian Church, together with
the Greek Rites of Baptism and
Epiphany ; edited from the oldest
MSS., by F. C. Conybeare, M.A.,
and The East Syrian Epiphany
Rites, translated by A. J. Maclean,
D.D. Svo. In the press.

Helps to the Study of the
Book of Common Prayer : Being
a Companion to Church Worship.
By the Very Rev. W. R. Stephens,
B.D., Dean of Winchester. Crown
Svo. 2s. 6d. net ; also in leather
bindings.
Leoftic Missal, The, as used
in the Cathedral of Exeter during
the Episcopate of its first Bishop,
A.I). 10S0-1072 ; together with some
Account of the Red Book of Derby,
the Missal of Robert of Jumifeges,
&c. Edited, with Introduction and
Notes, by F.E. Warren, B.D., F.S.A.
4to, half-morocco, il. 15s.
Maskell. Ancient Liturgy of
the Church of England, according to
the uses of Sarum, York, Hereford,
and Bangor, and the Roman Liturgy
arranged in parallel columns, with
preface and notes. By W. Maskell,
M.A. Third Edition. Svo. 15s.
 Monumenta Ritualia
EccUsiae Anglicaiuxe. The occasional
Offices of the Church of England
according to the old use of Salisbury,
the Prymer in English, and other
prayers and forms, with disserta
tions and notes. Second Edition.
3 vols. Svo. 2I. los.
Warren. The Liturgy and
Ritual of the Celtic Church. By F. E.
Warren, B.D. Svo. 14s.

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.C.
EDINBURGH: 12 FREDERICK STREET; GLASGOW: IO4 WEST GEORGE STREET;
NEW YORK: 91 & 93 FIFTH AVENUE;
TORONTO: 25 & 27 RICHMOND STREET WEST.

3 9002 00754 7061

o.-I

i:

ki'L

M'

fr;;;'; /

:>*'),' > -'.h"