| << | Contents | >> |
ANF Pseudo-Clementine The Recognitions of Clement
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 525
Introductory Notice to The Recognitions of Clement.
[521] [See supra, p. 69, and Introductory Notice to Homilies.—R.]
[522] Die Clementinischen Rekognitionen und Homilien, nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt, von Dr. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Jena, 1848, p. 1. [Despite the morbid taste of this school for heretical writings, and the now proven incorrectness of the “tendency-theory,” due credit must be given to Baur and his followers for awakening a better critical discernment among the students of ecclesiastical history. Hilgenfeld’s judgments, in the higher and lower criticism also, are frequently very incorrect; but he has done much to further a correct estimate of the Clementina. See Introductory Notice, supra.—R.]
[523] [The title, which varies in different manuscripts, is derived from the “narrating, in the last books, of the re-union of the scattered members of the Clementine family, who all at last find themselves together in Christianity, and are baptized by Peter” (Schaff, History).—R.]
[524] See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 1844, p. 295.
[525] [See a brief account of the discussion supra, p, 70.—R.]
[526] Philocalia, cap. 22.
[527] See Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, Halle, 1863, p. 113.
[528] Die Homilien und Rekognitionen des Clemens Romanus, nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt, von Gerhard Uhlhorn, Göttingen, 1854, p. 429. [Schaff thinks “the Homilies probably originated in East Syria, the Recognitions in Rome.” But Rufinus gives no intimation of the Roman origin of the Greek work he translated. Still, the apparently more orthodox character of the Recognitions suggests an editor from the Western Church.—R.]
[529] Var. readings: “magnanimous one,” “my lord,” “my friend.”
[530] [The reference is probably to the transformation of the father of Clement into the appearance of Simon Magus. This is narrated in both the Recognitions (book x. 53, etc.) and in the Homilies (xx. 12, etc.), though the latter book closes without any statement of the restoration. It would seem unlikely, then, that Rufinus refers to the Homilies as the “other” collection. The recovery of the closing portion of that work has given us its account of the transformation.—R.]
[531] [How far Rufinus has omitted portions which occurred in Greek cannot be known. It is quite probable that the apparent heresy of some passages, rather than their incomprehensibility, led him to omit them. This may be urged in favour of the priority of the Homilies, but is not conclusive.—R.]
[532] [There is no good reason for doubting that Rufinus refers to the extant epistle prefixed to the Homilies, and forming, with “the Epistle of Peter to James,” which precedes it, a preface and fictitious authentication of that collection.—R.]
[533] [The language of Rufinus confirms that of Irenæus, Eusebius, and Jerome, as to the episcopal succession at Rome (assuming that Cletus and Anacletus, named by Irenæus, is identical with Cletus). For other variations, see Church Histories and Encyclopædias (under Clemens Romanus). The current opinion at Rome in the beginning of the fifth century is evident from this passage. Comp. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. i. pp. 1, 2.—R.]
Chapter I.—Clement’s Early History; Doubts.
[534] [The first six chapters closely resemble the corresponding chapters of Homily I. The variations are no greater than might readily appear in a version.—R.]
[535] V. R. in the time of Tiberius Cæsar.
Chapter VII.—Arrival of Barnabas at Rome.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0036 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page