The Apostolic Fathers

511 Pages·2017·19.22 MB·English

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
PART I.
S. CLEMENT OF ROME.
A REVISED TEXT
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS,
AND TRANSLATIONS.
BY THE LATE
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.
VOL. I.
Uonfcon :
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.
1890
[All Rights reserved.]
/-
PREFATORY NOTE.
THE present volumes complete a work of which the first
part was issued in 1869. In that year Bishop Lightfoot,
being then Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, pub
lished 'a revised text' of 'Clement of Rome—the two Epistles
'to the Corinthians—with introduction and notes.' Six years
afterwards the first complete text of 'the Epistles' was pub
lished by Bryennios (1875)1, and in the following year a com
plete Syrian translation was found by Prof. Bensly in a MS.
purchased for the University Library at Cambridge, and prepared
by him for publication. In 1877 Dr Lightfoot embodied the
chief results of these important discoveries in "An Appendix
"containing the newly recovered portions [of the Epistles of
"Clement], with introductions, notes and translations." In 1879
he was called away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric
of Durham. At that time a large portion of the edition of the
Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp was already printed8. He
steadily pressed forward the completion of this second part of
the whole work as he had originally planned it in the scanty
leisure left by his official duties, and'it was issuedin 188^ (second
edition, revised and somewhatenlarged, 1889). Hethen resumed
his labours on Clement, and continued them with unflagging
interest and zeal up to the time of his illness in the Autumn of
1 An autotypeof thepart ofthe 'Con- between these writings and the Epistles
stantinopolitan' MS. which contains the of Clement, Ignatius,and Polycarp, per-
two Epistles isgiven I. pp. 415—474. haps from school associations with the
2 He had also made preparations for edition of Jacobson in which he first
an edition of Barnabasand Hermas; but studiedthem.
I always understood him to draw a line
CLEM. b
VI PREFATORY NOTE.
1888 and after his partial recovery. Even when he was suffer
ing from the relapse in the following yearwhich proved speedily
fatal, he retained his passion for work and was busy with
Clement till he fell into a half-unconscious state three days be
fore his death. The last words which he wrote formed part of
an imperfect sentence of the fragmentary Essay on St Peter's
Visit to Rome. But, in spite of some gaps, the book was sub
stantiallyfinished before the end came. He was happilyallowed
to treat of'Clement the Doctor,"Ignatius the Martyr,"Polycarp
the Elder,' in a manner answering to his own noble ideal; and
the "complete edition of the Apostolic Fathers," such as he had
designed more than thirty years before, was ready at his death
to be a monument of learning, sagacity and judgment unsur
passed in the present age1.
It is worth while to recal these dates in order that the
student may realise how the purpose which the work embodies
extended through theBishop's whole literary life. Before he was
appointed to the Hulsean Chair in 1861 he was keenly interested
in the Ignatian controversy; and after his appointment he de
voted even more time to the study of sub-apostolic Christian
literature than to his Commentaries on St Paul. Whatever
his friends might think or plead, he held that his discussion
of the Ignatian Epistles was the task of his life. This, as he
said, was "the motive and core" of the work which is now
finished ; and in breadth and thoroughness of treatment, in
vigour and independence, in suggestiveness and fertility of re
source, this new edition of Clement will justly rank beside the
" monumental edition " of Ignatius.
A comparison of the edition of Clement in its three stages
is an instructive lesson in the development of a scholar's work.
The commentary remains essentially unchanged from first to
last. Fresh illustrations, and a few new notes, were added in
the Appendix and in this edition, but a judgment on interpre-
1 It was the Bishop's intention to materials for this purpose, which it is
superintend anedition of 'The Clement- hopedmaystill beused,
ines', andhe made acollection ofcritical
PREFATORY NOTE. VII
tation once formed has very rarely been changed. On the other
hand the broad historic relations of the First Epistle have been
examined again and again with increasing fulness. The Essays
on 'Clement the Doctor,' on the ' Early Roman Succession,' and
on *Hippolytus,' which appear now for the first time and form
nearly half of the present book, supply an exhaustive study of
the chief records of the history of the Roman Church to the
third century. They deal with many questions which have been
keenly debated ; and, to single out one only, perhaps it is not
too much to say that the problem of the order of the first five
Bishops of Rome is now finally settled.
The section on the'Philosophumena' of Hippolytus is wholly
wanting, and the Essay on ' St Peter in Rome' is unfinished ;
but though it would have been a great gain to have had in detail
Bishop Lightfoot's views on these subjects, he has expressed his
general opinion on the main questions which are involved in
them (see Index). With these we must be content, for he has
left no other indication of the lines which his fuller investigation
would have taken. His method of work was characteristic.
When a subject was chosen, he mastered, stored, arranged in
his mind, all the materials which were available for its complete
treatment, but he drew up no systematic notes, and sketched no
plan. As soon as the scope of the Essay was distinctly con
ceived,he wrote continuouslyand rapidly,trustingto his memory
for the authorities which he used, and adding them as he went
forward, but so that every reference was again carefully verified
in proof. One subject in which he was deeply interested he has
touched lightly, the relation of the Early Liturgies to the Syna
gogue Service (i. 384 ff). There is, I venture to think, no
subject which would better reward thorough discussion, and it
may be that Bishop Lightfoot's last work will encourage some
young student to make it his own1.
1 The indices have been prepared by the indices to the second part of the
the Rev.J. R. Harmer, FellowofCorpus work; and to him the best thanks of
ChristiCollege,andlateFellowofKing's everyreaderaredue.
College, Cambridge, who also prepared
vill PREFATORY NOTE.
To write these few lines is a task of singular pathos. Here
indeed the parts are inverted. But at least no one can have the
knowledge which I have of the self-forgetful generosity of Dr
Lightfoot's work at Cambridge, and of the abiding effect of his
episcopal work in Durham. He called me to Cambridge to
occupy a place which was his own by right; and having done
this he spared no pains to secure for his colleague favourable
opportunities for action while he himselfwithdrew in some sense
from the position which he had long virtually occupied. And
now when I have been charged to fulfil according to the measure
of my strength the office which he held here, I find in every
parish an inheritance of reverence and affection which he has
bequeathed to his successor.
So it is that from the historic house which he delighted to
fill with the memorials of his predecessors, under the shadow of
the Chapel, which he made a true symbol of our Church in its
foundation and its catholicity, surrounded by personal relics
which speak of common labours through twenty years, it is my
duty to commend to the welcome of all serious students the last
mature fruit of labours pursued with unwearied devotion at
Cambridge, at St Paul's, and at Durham, by one whose "sole
desire" it was, in his own words written a few months before his
death, in "great things and in small, to be found avvepyos t0
akydelq."
B. F. DUNELM.
Auckland Castle,
Bishop Auckland,
Sept. i2(/i, i8yo.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
FIRST VOLUME.
i. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. i—13
Fragmentarycharacter of early Christian literature; the writings of the
sub-apostolic age neglected [1]. The epithet 'apostolic' [2]. The title
•Apostolic Fathers', writingssodesignated [3—6]. Theirexternal form [6].
Their internal character and spirit [7, 8]. Their relation to the apostolic
teachingand the Canon [8—11]. Theircurrencyandimportance[11—13].
a. CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 14—103
Story of Clement the bishop in the Clementine romance [14—16]. It
leads us to the imperial palace[16]. The stemma Flaviorum, and Flavins
Clemens [16—11]. The identification of Clement the bishop, theories
disposed of [u—25]. His social status [25]. Christianity in the imperial
household [15—19]. Its upward social tendency [29, 30]. Pomponia
Gnecina, a Christian [30—33]. Flavia Domitilla and Flavius Clemens,
Christians [33—35]. The evidence of the catacombs to other Christian
Flavii [35—39]. Domitian's assassination due to his treatment of Flavia
Domitilla [39—42]. Domitilla the Virgin [42—44]. Her existence trace
able to Eusebius, and improbable; Eusebius's authorities Bruttius and
Africanus [45—51]. Clement the consul and Clement the bishop distinct
[52—58]. The writer of the Epistle a Hellenist Jew [58—60]. Probably
a freedman of the household of Flavius Clemens [61]. Social status of
early bishops [61, 61]. Date of Clement's episcopate and order in the
episcopal succession [63—67]. Nature of his episcopal office [67—69].
The Roman Church at this time [69—72]. Events in his life; S. Peter
and S. Paul at Rome, the Neronian persecution, the episcopates of Linus
and Anencletus[71—81]. Hisepiscopate and the persecution of Domitian
[81]. His Epistle to the Corinthians [81—84]. His death [84]. Legend
of his martyrdom and reliques [85—91]. His basilica at Rome [91—95].
Characteristicsof his Epistle[95—98]. His memoryneglected in the West
[98]. Writings assigned to him [99—103]. The designation 'the Doctor'
[103].
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Notices relating to the Persecution under Domitian, and the
family of flavius clemens. io4—115
Dion Cassius [i°4]; Melito [104]; Tertullian [105]; Lactantius [105];
Eusebius [105—108]; Hieronymus [108]; Theodoret [109]; Antiochene
Acts of Ignatius [109]; John Malalas [iog]; Chronicon Paschale [no];
Georgius Syncellus [no]; Georgius Hamartolus [in]; Acts of Nereus
[in]; Suetonius [m, in]; Quintilian [in]; Philostratus [112, 113];
TrebelliusPollio[113]; AnthologiaLatina[113]; Inscriptions[114, 115].
3. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 116—147
The three authorities [116]. (1) Alexandrian Manuscript; history and
date [116, 117]. Position and title of the Clementine Epistles [117, 118].
Collations and facsimiles [118—120]. Character of the text [no, m].
(2) Constantinopolitan Manuscript; history, contents and discovery [m—
123]. The Clementine textindependentoftheAlexandrian Manuscript, but
inferior [123, 124]. Its characteristic features [124—128]. Its importance
[iag]. (3) Syriac Version; the manuscript [129, 130]. Position and title
of the Clementine Epistles [131, 132]. Date and headings [133]. The
table of lessons [134]. The Clementine Epistles not part of the Harcleo-
Philoxenian version [135]. Character of the version [136—138]. The
underlying Greek text, its independence and characteristics [138—142].
Our three authorities compared [142—145]. Date and corruptions in the
archetype [145, 146]. Possibility ofother manuscripts and versions [146,
147]-
4. QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 148—200
1 Barnabas [148, 149]. 2 Ignatius [149]. 3 Polycarp [149—152].
4 Hermas [152]. 5 Second Clementine Epistle [153]. 6 Justin Martyr
[153]. 7 Letter of the Smyrnaans [153]. 8 Hegcsippus [153, 154].
9 Dionysius of Corinth [154, 155]. 10 Theophilus of Antioch [155].
n Ircnaeus [156, 157]. 12 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions [157,
158]. 13 Clement of Alexandria [158—160]. 14 Tertullian [160].
15 ClementineEpistlestoVirgins[160]. 16 Hippolytus [161]. 17 Origen
[161, 162]. 18 Dionysius of Alexandria [162]. 19 Apostolical Con
stitutions [162, 163]. 20 Peter of Alexandria [164]. 21 Eusebius of
Csesarea [164—167]. 22 Cyril of Jerusalem [167, 168]. 23 Liberian
Chronographer [168]. 24 Ephraem Syrus [168]. 25 Basil of Ca:sarea
[169]. 26 Epiphanius[169, 170]. 27 Pseudo-Ignatius[171]. 28Optatus
[171]. 29 Philastrius[172]. 30 Ambrosius [172]. 31 Hieronymus[172,
•73]- 32 Macarius Magnes [174]. 33 Augustinus [174]. 34 Paulinus
of Nola [174]. 35 Rufinus [174, 175]. 36 Pseudo-Tertullian [176].
37 Didymus of Alexandria [176]. 38 Zosimus [176]. 39 Pnedestinatus
[177]. 40 Eucherius of Lugdunum [177]. 41 Synod of Vaison [177].
42 Pseudo-Justin [178—180]. 43 Timothcus of Alexandria [180—182].
44 Euthalius [182]. 45 Severus of Antioch [182, 183]. 46 Anonymous
Syriac writers [183—186]. 47 Liber Felicianus [186]. 48 Gregory of
Tours [186]. 49 Gregory the Great [187]. 50 Joannes Diaconus [187].
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
PAGE
51 Apostolical Canons[187]. 52 StephanusGobarus[188]. 53 Leontius
andJoannes[188—190]. 54 Dorotheus Archimandrita[190]. 55 Chroni-
con Paschale [190]. 56 Isidorus of Seville[190]. 57 Maximus theCon
fessor [191]. 58 Liber Pontificalis [191, 192]. 59 Earlier Western
Martyrologies [192]. 60 Beda [191, 193]. 61 John of Damascus [193,
194]. 61 Georgius Syncellus [195]. 63 Theodoras Studita [195].
64 Nicephoras of Constantinople [195, 196]. 65 Georgius Hamartolus
[196]. 66 Photius [197, 198]. 67 Anonymous Chronographer [198].
68 Arsenius [199]. 69 Antonius Melissa [199]. 70 Menxa [199, 100].
Concluding remarks [200].
5. EARLYROMANSUCCESSION. 201—345
The literature [201, 202]. (1) The Earliest Lists; of Hegesippus,
Irenaeus, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus [202—206]. (2) The Euse/nan
Catalogues, in (a) the History [206, 207]. (b) the Chronicle. The two
partsofthe Chronicle, titlesandversions[207—212]. (i) Armenian Version
[212—216]. (ii) Hieronymian Version [217, 218]. (iii) Syriac Version
[218—221]. Their mutual relation [221]. Did Jerome readjust Eusebius'
papal chronology? [222, 223]. The schematism theories of Ilamack,
Lipsius and Hort [223, 224]. The theory of two recensions by Eusebius
[224]. The divergences explainable by textual corruption [245—231].
Results; ourcombined authorities represent thesinglejudgmentof Eusebius
alone[232]. Comparativechronologicalaccuracyofthedocuments. Lipsius'
theories[232—240]. Light thrown byEastern Papal Catalogues[240—246].
TheEusebian Catalogue restored [246]. (3) TheLibtrian Catalogue. The
document of which it forms part, transcripts, manuscripts, contents [246—
252]. Text of the Liberian Catalogue [253—258]. Relation of the
ChronicleoftheWorldtotheCatalogue; HippolytusauthoroftheChronicle
and his papal list embodied in the Catalogue [258—262]. The three
continuators of the Catalogue [263, 264]. Examination of the document,
(a) The earlier period: S. Peter to Pontianus, (i) consulships [264].
(ii) Imperial synchronisms [265]. Months and days [266—269]. Names
and years [270—284]. Result; the original list coincides with the
Eusebian Catalogue [284]. {b) The later period: Pontianus to Liberius
[284—300]. Conclusionastothedocument: stagesand corruptions[300—
303]. (4) TheLiberPontificalis. The authorship [303, 304]. The earlier
edition, or Felician Book, extant in two abridgments [304—306]. The
later,orCononian, edition[307—309]. The editions compared [309, 310].
The Liber Pontificalis founded on the Liberian and Leonine Catalogues
[310, 311]. History of the Leonine Catalogue [311—318]. The papal
frescoes[318—320]. Names and order of bishops in the Liber Pontificalis
derivedfrom the LiberianCatalogue[321]. Term-numbersfromthe Leonine
Catalogue [321]. A Syriac papal catalogue [322—325]. (5) Historical
Results. The one original list of the first twelve episcopates [325, 326].
Thislist the list of Hegesippus preserved in Epiphanius [327—333]. The
two documents in the hands of Eusebius: (i) A Catalogue [333]. (ii) A
Chronicle[334]. Lipsius' theory[334—337]. ThisChronicle the Chrono-
graphy of Julius Africanus, perhaps based on Bruttius [337—339]. Afri-
xii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
cuius' papal chronology taken from Ilegesippus [339]. Hegesippus' list,
its sources and contents [340, 341]. Its accuracy to be tested by inde
pendent dates [341, 341]. Date of Clement's episcopate [343]. His
position in the various catalogues [343, 344]. Three divisions in the
episcopal list upto Constantine, andmutual relation ofEastern andWestern
catalogues[344, 345].
6. THELETTER OFTHEROMANS TO THE CORINTHIANS. 346—405
The date [346—358]. The authorship [358—361]. The genuineness
and integrity [361—365]. The ecclesiastical authority [366—378]. The
purposeand contents [378—381]. The liturgical ending[382—396]. The
doctrine[396—400]. Theprintedtextand editions[400—405].
The letters ascribed to S. Clement. 406—470
The First Epistle to the Corinthians [406]. The Second Epistle to
the Corinthians [406]. The Two Epistles on Virginity [407—414]- The
EpistletoJamesthe Lord'sbrother[414, 415]. Asecond Epistle toJames
[415, 416]. Popularityof theseletters[416—418]. Otherlettersforged for
the False Decretals [419]. 'The two letters of Clement,' meaning of the
expression[419]. Lost lettersoncecirculated in Clement'sname[420].
AN AUTOTYPE OF THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT.411—474
INDEX. 475—496
I.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
'"
' T ITERATURE', says Goethe, 'is the fragment of fragments.
1 > Only a very small portion of what was uttered was written
down, and of what was written down only a very small portion sur
vives'.' This is preeminently true of early Christian literature. The
Christian teachers in primitive ages were evangelists, not authors,
preachers, not historians. The written literature was only the casual
efflorescence of the spoken. Literary distinction and posthumous fame
were the last thoughts which could have had any place in their minds.
They were too intensely occupied with the present and the immediate
to spare a glance for the more remote future. When the heavens might
part asunder at any moment, and reveal the final doom, it was a matter
of infinitely little consequence how after-ages—ifafter-ages there should
be—would estimate their written words.
Moreover time has pressed with a heavy hand upon such literature
astheearly Church produced. The unique positionoftheApostles and
Evangelists might shield their writings from its ravages; but the litera
ture of the succeeding generation had no such immunity. It was too
desultory in form and too vague in doctrine to satisfy the requirements
of more literary circles and a more dogmatic age. Hence, while
Athanasius and Basil and Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine and
Ambrose, were widely read and frequently transcribed, comparatively
little attention was paid to those writings of the first and second
centuries which were not included in the sacred Canon. The literary
remains of the primitive ages of Christianity, which to ourselves are of
priceless value, were suffered to perish from neglect—a few fragments
here and there alone escaping the general fate, like the scattered
Sibylline leaves in the old story.
1 Spriichein Praia, Goethe's WerkeIII. p. 196.
CLEM. I