Chapter 84

[1678]Tischendorf (1876), pp. xxiii-xxiv.[1679]Mâle (1913), pp. 207-8.[1680]Since writing this, I find that Mâle has been impressed by the same resemblance. He writes (1913), p. 207, “Some chapters in the apocryphal gospels are like theLife of Apollonius of Tyanaor even likeThe Golden Ass, permeated with the belief in witchcraft and magic.” The resemblance to Apuleius is also noted in AN, VIII, 353.[1681]Tischendorf,Evang. Infantiae Arabicum, caps. 20-21.[1682]Ibid., cap. 17.[1683]Ibid., cap. 20, “nullum in mundo doctum aut magum aut incantatorem omisimus quin illum accerseremus; sed nihil nobis profuit.”[1684]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 35, “Extemplo exivit ex puero illo satanas fugiens cani rabido similis.” The apocryphal gospel adds, “This same boy who struck Jesus,” i. e., while he was still possessed by the demon, “and out of whom Satan went in the form of a dog, was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him to the Jews. And that same side, on which Judas struck him, the Jews pierced with a lance.”[1685]Ibid., cap. 44;Evang. Thomae Lat., cap. 7;Ps. Matth., cap. 32.[1686]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 15.[1687]Ibid., cap. 19, “qui veneficio tactus uxore frui non poterat.”[1688]Ibid., cap. 14.[1689]Ibid., cap. 16.[1690]See below, chapter 24.[1691]Evang. Inf. Arab., caps. 33-34.[1692]Ibid., caps. 10-11.[1693]Ibid., caps. 27-32.[1694]Ibid., cap. 30.[1695]Ibid., cap. 24.[1696]Ibid., caps. 42-43;Ps. Matth., 41;Evang. Thom. Lat., 14. Compare pp. 279-80 above.[1697]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 37.[1698]Ibid., 38-39;Ps. Matth., 37;Evang. Thom. Lat., 11.[1699]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 36;Ps. Matth., 27;Evang. Thom. Lat., 4.[1700]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 40. See Ad-Damîrî, translated by A. S. G. Jayakar, 1906, I, 703, for a Moslem tale of Jews who called Jesus “the enchanter the son of the enchantress,” and were transformed into pigs.[1701]Evang. Inf. Arab., 46;Evang. Thom. Lat., 4;Ps. Matth., 26, where Mary afterwards induces Jesus to restore him to life, and 28.[1702]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 47;Evang. Thom. Lat., 5;Ps. Matth., 29.[1703]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 49;Evang. Thom. Lat., 12;Ps. Matth., 38.[1704]Ps. Matth., caps. 35-36.[1705]Ibid., cap. 29.[1706]Ibid., cap. 40.[1707]Later the same gospel (cap. 54) rather inconsistently represents Jesus as engaged in the study of law until his thirtieth year.[1708]Evang. Inf. Arab., caps. 51-52.[1709]Eusebius states that he discovered these letters written in Syriac in the public records of Edessa. Hone says that it used to be a common practice among English people to have the epistle ascribed to Christ framed and place a picture of the Saviour before it.[1710]Gospel of Nicodemus, I, 1-2.[1711]CE,Apocrypha, p. 611.[1712]Greek text in Tischendorf,Apocalypses Apocryph., pp. 161-7; English translation,The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, 526-7.[1713]Evang. Inf. Arab., 7-8.[1714]Cap. 19 (AN, I, 57).[1715]Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, 494.[1716]W. Anz,Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizisnus(1897), pp. 36-41. Lipsius et Bonnet,Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1891-.[1717]Mâle (1913), 299. For the text of this apocryphal work see Migne,Dictionnaire des Apocryphes, II, 759,et seq., or more recently, Bonnet,Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1898, II, 151-216.[1718]Mâle (1913), 300. But one would think that they must needs be Byzantine alchemists, if the legend did not reach the west until the sixteenth century.[1719]HL, XV, 42.When the gems, all smashed to pieces,He had mended, then their pricesTo the poor he handed;Quite exhaustless was his treasureWho from sticks made gold at pleasure,Gems from stones commanded.[1720]René Basset,Les apocryphes Éthiopiens, Paris, 1893-1894, vol. iv.[1721]See Migne, PG, X (1857), for the old Latin version; the Greek text is extant only in fragments; the tradition, going back to Jerome, that there was a Syriac original is unfounded; the work is first cited by Cyril.[1722]The Ethiopic version, made from the Greek between the fifth and seventh centuries, is translated by Basset (1894), vol. iii; and was printed before him by Dillmann,Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine, Leipzig, 1877, and by Laurence,Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum pseudepigraphus, Oxford, 1819. See also R. H. Charles,Ascension of Isaiah, 1900; reprinted 1917 in Oesterley and Box,Translations of Early Documents, Series I, vol. 7.[1723]The fragments of theBook of Baruchby Justin, preserved in thePhilosophumenaof Hippolytus, are from an entirely different Gnostic work.[1724]R. Basset,Les apocryphes Éthiopiens, Paris, 1893-1894, vol. i,Le Livre de Baruch et la légende de Jérémie.[1725]Text ofThe Recognitionsin Migne, PG, I; ofThe Homiliesin PG, II, or P. de Lagarde,Clementina, 1865. E. C. Richardson had an edition ofThe Recognitionsin preparation in 1893, when a list of some seventy MSS communicated by him was published in A. Harnack’sGesch. d. altchr. Lit., I, 229-30, but it has not yet appeared. In quotingThe RecognitionsI often avail myself of the language of the English translation in theAnte-Nicene Fathers.Since A. Hilgenfeld,Die klement. Rekogn. u. Homilien, 1848, the Pseudo-Clementines have provided a much frequented field of research and controversy, of which the articles in CE, EB, andRealencyklopädie(1913), XXIII, 312-6, provide fairly recent summaries from varying ecclesiastical standpoints. For bibliography see pp. 4-5 in the recent monograph of W. Heintze,Der Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen, 1914, in TU, XL, 2. In the same series, TU, XXV, 4, H. Waitz,Die Pseudo-Klementinen, 1904.Concerning Simon Magus may be mentioned: H. Schlurick,De Simonis Magi fatis Romanis; A. Hilgenfeld,Der Magier Simon, inZeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., XII (1869), 353 ff.; G. Frommberger,De Simone Mago, Pars I,De origine Pseudo-Clementinorum, Diss. inaug., Warsaw, 1866; G. R. S. Mead (Fellow of the Theosophical Society),Simon Magus, 1892; H. Waitz,Simon Magus in d. altchr. Lit., inZeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., V (1904), 121-43.[1726]BN, Greek, 930; Ottobon, 443.[1727]Isidore,De natura rerum, caps. xxxi, xxxvi, xxxix-xli (PL, 83, 1003-12).[1728]PL, 83, 1003, note, “Sunt haec lib. VIII Recognitionum sed apparet Isidorum alia interpretatione usum ac dubitare posse an ea quae circumfertur Rufini sit.”[1729]See CU, Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 7-105, “Inc. prologus in librum quem moderni itinerarium beati Petri vocant.”[1730]Valois (1880), p. 204.[1731]PL, 59, 162, “Notitia librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur.”[1732]Vincent of Beauvais,Speculum naturale, 1485, I, 14.[1733]PL, 176, 787-8,Erudit. Didasc., IV, 15.[1734]“Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli quod appellatur sancti Clementis libri octo apocryphum (or, apocryphi).”[1735]Speculum naturale, XXXII, 129, concerning the morality of the Seres.[1736]CompareRecognitions, I, 27 (PG, I, 122) with Rabanus,Comment. in Genesim, I, 2 (PL, 107, 450).[1737]Speculum naturale, I, 7. Peter is represented as saying, “When anyone has derived from divine Scripture a sound and firm rule of truth, it will not be absurd if to the assertion of true dogma he joins something from the education and liberal studies which he may have pursued from boyhood. Yet so that in all points he teaches what is true and shuns what is false and pretense.” This corresponds to the close of the 42nd chapter of the tenth book ofThe Recognitions.[1738]Since writing this I learn that Professor E. C. Richardson has examined most of the known MSS ofThe Recognitionsand has found them all to be the version by Rufinus, except for a few additional chapters which someone has added in the French group of MSS,—chapters which Rufinus seems to have omitted because they were difficult to translate.[1739]Heintze (1914), 23, however, argues that the conclusion ofThe Recognitionsis dependent uponThe Homilies.[1740]Professor E. C. Richardson, after kindly reading this chapter in manuscript, writes me (Sept. 5, 1921) that he doubts if this Syriac MS is correctly described as three books ofThe Recognitionsand four books ofThe Homilies, and that he thinks it may represent an earlier form in the evolution than either of them. He writes further, “I have a strong notion that a study of Greek MSS of the Epitomes will reveal still more variant forms in Greek, and there are certainly other oriental compilations not yet brought into comparison with the Greek, Latin, and Syriac forms.”[1741]InThe Homiliesit is a trip only from Alexandria to Caesarea that consumes this number of days.[1742]About 375 A.D. Epiphanius (Dindorf, II, 107-9) describesThe Circuitsin such a way that he might have eitherThe HomiliesorThe Recognitionsin mind. On the other hand, thePhilocalia, composed about 358 by Basil and Gregory, cites a passage on astrology from the fourteenth book ofThe Circuitswhich is in the tenth book ofThe Recognitionsand not inThe Homiliesat all.[1743]Heintze (1914), p. 113.[1744]Waitz (1904), pp. 151 and 243.[1745]See E. C. Richardson inPapers of the American Society of Church History, VI (1894).[1746]Neither Philostratus nor Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned, however, in the index of W. Heintze’sDer Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen(1914), 144 pp.[1747]Recogs., VII, 6.[1748]Recogs., I, 29; not mentioned in the corresponding chapter ofThe Homilies, VIII, 15.[1749]Recogs., IX, 19-29.[1750]Recogs., VII, 12.[1751]Recogs., X, 15,et seq.[1752]Recogs., I, 8;Homilies, I, 10.[1753]Extraordinary, of course, only in that single animals instead of angels, as in the Enoch literature, are set over birds, beasts, serpents, etc.[1754]Recogs., I, 27 and 45.[1755]Recogs., VI, 8.[1756]Recogs., VIII, 9, 20-22.[1757]Recogs., VIII, 15-17.[1758]Recogs., VIII, 21.[1759]Recogs., VIII, 25-32.[1760]On the other hand, in the apocryphalEpistle of Barnabas, IX, 9, it is stated that the weasel conceives with its mouth and hence typifies persons with unclean mouths.[1761]Recogs., II, 7.[1762]Recogs., VIII, 31.[1763]Recogs., VIII, 30.[1764]Recogs., VIII, 42.[1765]Recogs., VIII, 34.[1766]Recogs., VIII, 44.[1767]Recogs., VIII, 45.[1768]Recogs., VIII, 46.[1769]Recogs., VIII, 47.[1770]Recogs., V, 27.[1771]Recogs., I, 28.[1772]Recogs., VIII, 57, “frater meus Clemens tibi diligentius respondebit qui plenius scientiam mathesis attigit;” IX, 18, “quoniam quidem scientia mihi mathesis nota est.”[1773]Recogs., X, 11-12.[1774]Recogs., IX, 18.[1775]Recogs., VIII, 2.[1776]Recogs., I, 32.[1777]Recogs., I, 21, 43, 72.[1778]Recogs., IV, 35.[1779]Irenaeus, I, 3.[1780]Recogs., III, 68.[1781]Recogs., VIII, 28, “qui est parvus in alio mundus.”[1782]Recogs., VIII, 45.[1783]Recogs., X, 12. InHomilies, XIV, 5, the existence of astrological medicine is implied when Peter promises to cure by prayer to God any bodily ill, even “if it is utterly incurable and entirely beyond the range of the medical profession—a case, indeed, which not even the astrologers profess to cure.”[1784]Recogs., VIII, 2. InThe Homilies, however, Peter argues that, even if Genesis prevails, which he does not admit, still he can “worship Him who is also Lord of the stars,” and that the doctrine of genesis is far more destructive to polytheism and pagan worship.[1785]Recogs., IX, 16-17.[1786]Recogs., IX, 6 and 12.[1787]Recogs., IX, 30.[1788]Recogs., X, 11.[1789]Recogs., X, 12.[1790]Recogs., IX, 32-7.[1791]Recogs., IX, 19, and VIII, 48.[1792]Recogs., X, 66.[1793]Recogs., II, 42.[1794]Recogs., IV, 7.[1795]Recogs., IX, 38.[1796]Recogs., IX, 6 and 12; IV, 21; V, 20 and 31.[1797]Recogs., II, 71; IV, 16.[1798]Recogs., IV, 30.[1799]Recogs., IX, 9.[1800]Recogs., IV, 32-33.[1801]Recogs., IV, 21.[1802]Recogs., IV, 26.[1803]Reminding one of Benjamin Franklin’s more successful attempt to “snatch the thunderbolt from heaven.”[1804]Recogs., IV, 27, and I, 30.[1805]Recogs., IV, 29.[1806]Dindorf, I, 282, 286-7.[1807]Recogs., X, 55; III, 64.[1808]Recogs., I, 70.[1809]Recogs., I, 42 and 58; III, 12, 47, and 73; X, 54.[1810]Recogs., I, 72.[1811]Recogs., X, 22 and 25.[1812]But by no means always in early Christian writings: thus Clement of Alexandria (c150-c220) in theStromata, II, 1, asserts that the Greeks eulogize “astrology and mathematics and magic and sorcery” as the highest sciences.[1813]In contrast to Lucian’sMenippusorNecromancy, in which the Cynic philosopher Menippus resorts to aMagusat Babylon in order to gain entrance to the lower world and question Teiresias.Necromancy is given as a proof of the immortality of the soul in Justin’sFirst Apology, cap. 18, where we read, “For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by means of immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls ... let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.”[1814]Recogs., I, 5.[1815]Recogs., II, 9.[1816]Recogs., II, 15.[1817]Recogs., II, 6.[1818]Recogs., III, 57.[1819]Recogs., II, 11.[1820]Recogs., II, 12.[1821]Recogs., X, 53,et seq.[1822]Recogs., III, 57-60; X, 66.[1823]Recogs., VIII, 53.[1824]Recogs., VIII, 60.[1825]Recogs., II, 5.[1826]Recogs., II, 10.[1827]Recogs., II, 16, and III, 49.[1828]Similarly, in a passage contained only inThe Homilies, V, 5, Appion, recommending to Clement a love incantation which he had learned from an Egyptian who was well versed in magic, explains that demons obey the magician when invoked by the names of superior angels, who in their turn may be adjured by the name of God.[1829]Concerning this boy seeRecogs., II, 13-15; III, 44-45;,Homilies, II, 25-30.[1830]Recogs., II, 6; III, 13.[1831]Recogs., III, 73; X, 54.[1832]Recogs., X, 58.[1833]Recogs., III, 63.[1834]Recogs., II, 7.[1835]Recogs., II, 5.[1836]Recogs., II, 9, “Multa etenim iam mihi experimenti causa consummata sunt.“[1837]First Apology, caps. 26 and 56;Dialogue with Trypho, 120.[1838]Adv. haer., I, 23.[1839]See above, chapter 15, p. 365.[1840]Tertullian,De anima, cap. 57, in PL, II, 794;De idolatria, cap. 9.

[1678]Tischendorf (1876), pp. xxiii-xxiv.

[1679]Mâle (1913), pp. 207-8.

[1680]Since writing this, I find that Mâle has been impressed by the same resemblance. He writes (1913), p. 207, “Some chapters in the apocryphal gospels are like theLife of Apollonius of Tyanaor even likeThe Golden Ass, permeated with the belief in witchcraft and magic.” The resemblance to Apuleius is also noted in AN, VIII, 353.

[1681]Tischendorf,Evang. Infantiae Arabicum, caps. 20-21.

[1682]Ibid., cap. 17.

[1683]Ibid., cap. 20, “nullum in mundo doctum aut magum aut incantatorem omisimus quin illum accerseremus; sed nihil nobis profuit.”

[1684]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 35, “Extemplo exivit ex puero illo satanas fugiens cani rabido similis.” The apocryphal gospel adds, “This same boy who struck Jesus,” i. e., while he was still possessed by the demon, “and out of whom Satan went in the form of a dog, was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him to the Jews. And that same side, on which Judas struck him, the Jews pierced with a lance.”

[1685]Ibid., cap. 44;Evang. Thomae Lat., cap. 7;Ps. Matth., cap. 32.

[1686]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 15.

[1687]Ibid., cap. 19, “qui veneficio tactus uxore frui non poterat.”

[1688]Ibid., cap. 14.

[1689]Ibid., cap. 16.

[1690]See below, chapter 24.

[1691]Evang. Inf. Arab., caps. 33-34.

[1692]Ibid., caps. 10-11.

[1693]Ibid., caps. 27-32.

[1694]Ibid., cap. 30.

[1695]Ibid., cap. 24.

[1696]Ibid., caps. 42-43;Ps. Matth., 41;Evang. Thom. Lat., 14. Compare pp. 279-80 above.

[1697]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 37.

[1698]Ibid., 38-39;Ps. Matth., 37;Evang. Thom. Lat., 11.

[1699]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 36;Ps. Matth., 27;Evang. Thom. Lat., 4.

[1700]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 40. See Ad-Damîrî, translated by A. S. G. Jayakar, 1906, I, 703, for a Moslem tale of Jews who called Jesus “the enchanter the son of the enchantress,” and were transformed into pigs.

[1701]Evang. Inf. Arab., 46;Evang. Thom. Lat., 4;Ps. Matth., 26, where Mary afterwards induces Jesus to restore him to life, and 28.

[1702]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 47;Evang. Thom. Lat., 5;Ps. Matth., 29.

[1703]Evang. Inf. Arab., cap. 49;Evang. Thom. Lat., 12;Ps. Matth., 38.

[1704]Ps. Matth., caps. 35-36.

[1705]Ibid., cap. 29.

[1706]Ibid., cap. 40.

[1707]Later the same gospel (cap. 54) rather inconsistently represents Jesus as engaged in the study of law until his thirtieth year.

[1708]Evang. Inf. Arab., caps. 51-52.

[1709]Eusebius states that he discovered these letters written in Syriac in the public records of Edessa. Hone says that it used to be a common practice among English people to have the epistle ascribed to Christ framed and place a picture of the Saviour before it.

[1710]Gospel of Nicodemus, I, 1-2.

[1711]CE,Apocrypha, p. 611.

[1712]Greek text in Tischendorf,Apocalypses Apocryph., pp. 161-7; English translation,The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, 526-7.

[1713]Evang. Inf. Arab., 7-8.

[1714]Cap. 19 (AN, I, 57).

[1715]Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, 494.

[1716]W. Anz,Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizisnus(1897), pp. 36-41. Lipsius et Bonnet,Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1891-.

[1717]Mâle (1913), 299. For the text of this apocryphal work see Migne,Dictionnaire des Apocryphes, II, 759,et seq., or more recently, Bonnet,Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1898, II, 151-216.

[1718]Mâle (1913), 300. But one would think that they must needs be Byzantine alchemists, if the legend did not reach the west until the sixteenth century.

[1719]HL, XV, 42.When the gems, all smashed to pieces,He had mended, then their pricesTo the poor he handed;Quite exhaustless was his treasureWho from sticks made gold at pleasure,Gems from stones commanded.

[1719]HL, XV, 42.

When the gems, all smashed to pieces,He had mended, then their pricesTo the poor he handed;Quite exhaustless was his treasureWho from sticks made gold at pleasure,Gems from stones commanded.

When the gems, all smashed to pieces,

He had mended, then their prices

To the poor he handed;

Quite exhaustless was his treasure

Who from sticks made gold at pleasure,

Gems from stones commanded.

[1720]René Basset,Les apocryphes Éthiopiens, Paris, 1893-1894, vol. iv.

[1721]See Migne, PG, X (1857), for the old Latin version; the Greek text is extant only in fragments; the tradition, going back to Jerome, that there was a Syriac original is unfounded; the work is first cited by Cyril.

[1722]The Ethiopic version, made from the Greek between the fifth and seventh centuries, is translated by Basset (1894), vol. iii; and was printed before him by Dillmann,Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine, Leipzig, 1877, and by Laurence,Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum pseudepigraphus, Oxford, 1819. See also R. H. Charles,Ascension of Isaiah, 1900; reprinted 1917 in Oesterley and Box,Translations of Early Documents, Series I, vol. 7.

[1723]The fragments of theBook of Baruchby Justin, preserved in thePhilosophumenaof Hippolytus, are from an entirely different Gnostic work.

[1724]R. Basset,Les apocryphes Éthiopiens, Paris, 1893-1894, vol. i,Le Livre de Baruch et la légende de Jérémie.

[1725]Text ofThe Recognitionsin Migne, PG, I; ofThe Homiliesin PG, II, or P. de Lagarde,Clementina, 1865. E. C. Richardson had an edition ofThe Recognitionsin preparation in 1893, when a list of some seventy MSS communicated by him was published in A. Harnack’sGesch. d. altchr. Lit., I, 229-30, but it has not yet appeared. In quotingThe RecognitionsI often avail myself of the language of the English translation in theAnte-Nicene Fathers.Since A. Hilgenfeld,Die klement. Rekogn. u. Homilien, 1848, the Pseudo-Clementines have provided a much frequented field of research and controversy, of which the articles in CE, EB, andRealencyklopädie(1913), XXIII, 312-6, provide fairly recent summaries from varying ecclesiastical standpoints. For bibliography see pp. 4-5 in the recent monograph of W. Heintze,Der Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen, 1914, in TU, XL, 2. In the same series, TU, XXV, 4, H. Waitz,Die Pseudo-Klementinen, 1904.Concerning Simon Magus may be mentioned: H. Schlurick,De Simonis Magi fatis Romanis; A. Hilgenfeld,Der Magier Simon, inZeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., XII (1869), 353 ff.; G. Frommberger,De Simone Mago, Pars I,De origine Pseudo-Clementinorum, Diss. inaug., Warsaw, 1866; G. R. S. Mead (Fellow of the Theosophical Society),Simon Magus, 1892; H. Waitz,Simon Magus in d. altchr. Lit., inZeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., V (1904), 121-43.

Since A. Hilgenfeld,Die klement. Rekogn. u. Homilien, 1848, the Pseudo-Clementines have provided a much frequented field of research and controversy, of which the articles in CE, EB, andRealencyklopädie(1913), XXIII, 312-6, provide fairly recent summaries from varying ecclesiastical standpoints. For bibliography see pp. 4-5 in the recent monograph of W. Heintze,Der Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen, 1914, in TU, XL, 2. In the same series, TU, XXV, 4, H. Waitz,Die Pseudo-Klementinen, 1904.

Concerning Simon Magus may be mentioned: H. Schlurick,De Simonis Magi fatis Romanis; A. Hilgenfeld,Der Magier Simon, inZeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., XII (1869), 353 ff.; G. Frommberger,De Simone Mago, Pars I,De origine Pseudo-Clementinorum, Diss. inaug., Warsaw, 1866; G. R. S. Mead (Fellow of the Theosophical Society),Simon Magus, 1892; H. Waitz,Simon Magus in d. altchr. Lit., inZeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., V (1904), 121-43.

[1726]BN, Greek, 930; Ottobon, 443.

[1727]Isidore,De natura rerum, caps. xxxi, xxxvi, xxxix-xli (PL, 83, 1003-12).

[1728]PL, 83, 1003, note, “Sunt haec lib. VIII Recognitionum sed apparet Isidorum alia interpretatione usum ac dubitare posse an ea quae circumfertur Rufini sit.”

[1729]See CU, Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 7-105, “Inc. prologus in librum quem moderni itinerarium beati Petri vocant.”

[1730]Valois (1880), p. 204.

[1731]PL, 59, 162, “Notitia librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur.”

[1732]Vincent of Beauvais,Speculum naturale, 1485, I, 14.

[1733]PL, 176, 787-8,Erudit. Didasc., IV, 15.

[1734]“Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli quod appellatur sancti Clementis libri octo apocryphum (or, apocryphi).”

[1735]Speculum naturale, XXXII, 129, concerning the morality of the Seres.

[1736]CompareRecognitions, I, 27 (PG, I, 122) with Rabanus,Comment. in Genesim, I, 2 (PL, 107, 450).

[1737]Speculum naturale, I, 7. Peter is represented as saying, “When anyone has derived from divine Scripture a sound and firm rule of truth, it will not be absurd if to the assertion of true dogma he joins something from the education and liberal studies which he may have pursued from boyhood. Yet so that in all points he teaches what is true and shuns what is false and pretense.” This corresponds to the close of the 42nd chapter of the tenth book ofThe Recognitions.

[1738]Since writing this I learn that Professor E. C. Richardson has examined most of the known MSS ofThe Recognitionsand has found them all to be the version by Rufinus, except for a few additional chapters which someone has added in the French group of MSS,—chapters which Rufinus seems to have omitted because they were difficult to translate.

[1739]Heintze (1914), 23, however, argues that the conclusion ofThe Recognitionsis dependent uponThe Homilies.

[1740]Professor E. C. Richardson, after kindly reading this chapter in manuscript, writes me (Sept. 5, 1921) that he doubts if this Syriac MS is correctly described as three books ofThe Recognitionsand four books ofThe Homilies, and that he thinks it may represent an earlier form in the evolution than either of them. He writes further, “I have a strong notion that a study of Greek MSS of the Epitomes will reveal still more variant forms in Greek, and there are certainly other oriental compilations not yet brought into comparison with the Greek, Latin, and Syriac forms.”

[1741]InThe Homiliesit is a trip only from Alexandria to Caesarea that consumes this number of days.

[1742]About 375 A.D. Epiphanius (Dindorf, II, 107-9) describesThe Circuitsin such a way that he might have eitherThe HomiliesorThe Recognitionsin mind. On the other hand, thePhilocalia, composed about 358 by Basil and Gregory, cites a passage on astrology from the fourteenth book ofThe Circuitswhich is in the tenth book ofThe Recognitionsand not inThe Homiliesat all.

[1743]Heintze (1914), p. 113.

[1744]Waitz (1904), pp. 151 and 243.

[1745]See E. C. Richardson inPapers of the American Society of Church History, VI (1894).

[1746]Neither Philostratus nor Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned, however, in the index of W. Heintze’sDer Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen(1914), 144 pp.

[1747]Recogs., VII, 6.

[1748]Recogs., I, 29; not mentioned in the corresponding chapter ofThe Homilies, VIII, 15.

[1749]Recogs., IX, 19-29.

[1750]Recogs., VII, 12.

[1751]Recogs., X, 15,et seq.

[1752]Recogs., I, 8;Homilies, I, 10.

[1753]Extraordinary, of course, only in that single animals instead of angels, as in the Enoch literature, are set over birds, beasts, serpents, etc.

[1754]Recogs., I, 27 and 45.

[1755]Recogs., VI, 8.

[1756]Recogs., VIII, 9, 20-22.

[1757]Recogs., VIII, 15-17.

[1758]Recogs., VIII, 21.

[1759]Recogs., VIII, 25-32.

[1760]On the other hand, in the apocryphalEpistle of Barnabas, IX, 9, it is stated that the weasel conceives with its mouth and hence typifies persons with unclean mouths.

[1761]Recogs., II, 7.

[1762]Recogs., VIII, 31.

[1763]Recogs., VIII, 30.

[1764]Recogs., VIII, 42.

[1765]Recogs., VIII, 34.

[1766]Recogs., VIII, 44.

[1767]Recogs., VIII, 45.

[1768]Recogs., VIII, 46.

[1769]Recogs., VIII, 47.

[1770]Recogs., V, 27.

[1771]Recogs., I, 28.

[1772]Recogs., VIII, 57, “frater meus Clemens tibi diligentius respondebit qui plenius scientiam mathesis attigit;” IX, 18, “quoniam quidem scientia mihi mathesis nota est.”

[1773]Recogs., X, 11-12.

[1774]Recogs., IX, 18.

[1775]Recogs., VIII, 2.

[1776]Recogs., I, 32.

[1777]Recogs., I, 21, 43, 72.

[1778]Recogs., IV, 35.

[1779]Irenaeus, I, 3.

[1780]Recogs., III, 68.

[1781]Recogs., VIII, 28, “qui est parvus in alio mundus.”

[1782]Recogs., VIII, 45.

[1783]Recogs., X, 12. InHomilies, XIV, 5, the existence of astrological medicine is implied when Peter promises to cure by prayer to God any bodily ill, even “if it is utterly incurable and entirely beyond the range of the medical profession—a case, indeed, which not even the astrologers profess to cure.”

[1784]Recogs., VIII, 2. InThe Homilies, however, Peter argues that, even if Genesis prevails, which he does not admit, still he can “worship Him who is also Lord of the stars,” and that the doctrine of genesis is far more destructive to polytheism and pagan worship.

[1785]Recogs., IX, 16-17.

[1786]Recogs., IX, 6 and 12.

[1787]Recogs., IX, 30.

[1788]Recogs., X, 11.

[1789]Recogs., X, 12.

[1790]Recogs., IX, 32-7.

[1791]Recogs., IX, 19, and VIII, 48.

[1792]Recogs., X, 66.

[1793]Recogs., II, 42.

[1794]Recogs., IV, 7.

[1795]Recogs., IX, 38.

[1796]Recogs., IX, 6 and 12; IV, 21; V, 20 and 31.

[1797]Recogs., II, 71; IV, 16.

[1798]Recogs., IV, 30.

[1799]Recogs., IX, 9.

[1800]Recogs., IV, 32-33.

[1801]Recogs., IV, 21.

[1802]Recogs., IV, 26.

[1803]Reminding one of Benjamin Franklin’s more successful attempt to “snatch the thunderbolt from heaven.”

[1804]Recogs., IV, 27, and I, 30.

[1805]Recogs., IV, 29.

[1806]Dindorf, I, 282, 286-7.

[1807]Recogs., X, 55; III, 64.

[1808]Recogs., I, 70.

[1809]Recogs., I, 42 and 58; III, 12, 47, and 73; X, 54.

[1810]Recogs., I, 72.

[1811]Recogs., X, 22 and 25.

[1812]But by no means always in early Christian writings: thus Clement of Alexandria (c150-c220) in theStromata, II, 1, asserts that the Greeks eulogize “astrology and mathematics and magic and sorcery” as the highest sciences.

[1813]In contrast to Lucian’sMenippusorNecromancy, in which the Cynic philosopher Menippus resorts to aMagusat Babylon in order to gain entrance to the lower world and question Teiresias.Necromancy is given as a proof of the immortality of the soul in Justin’sFirst Apology, cap. 18, where we read, “For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by means of immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls ... let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.”

[1813]In contrast to Lucian’sMenippusorNecromancy, in which the Cynic philosopher Menippus resorts to aMagusat Babylon in order to gain entrance to the lower world and question Teiresias.

Necromancy is given as a proof of the immortality of the soul in Justin’sFirst Apology, cap. 18, where we read, “For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by means of immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls ... let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.”

[1814]Recogs., I, 5.

[1815]Recogs., II, 9.

[1816]Recogs., II, 15.

[1817]Recogs., II, 6.

[1818]Recogs., III, 57.

[1819]Recogs., II, 11.

[1820]Recogs., II, 12.

[1821]Recogs., X, 53,et seq.

[1822]Recogs., III, 57-60; X, 66.

[1823]Recogs., VIII, 53.

[1824]Recogs., VIII, 60.

[1825]Recogs., II, 5.

[1826]Recogs., II, 10.

[1827]Recogs., II, 16, and III, 49.

[1828]Similarly, in a passage contained only inThe Homilies, V, 5, Appion, recommending to Clement a love incantation which he had learned from an Egyptian who was well versed in magic, explains that demons obey the magician when invoked by the names of superior angels, who in their turn may be adjured by the name of God.

[1829]Concerning this boy seeRecogs., II, 13-15; III, 44-45;,Homilies, II, 25-30.

[1830]Recogs., II, 6; III, 13.

[1831]Recogs., III, 73; X, 54.

[1832]Recogs., X, 58.

[1833]Recogs., III, 63.

[1834]Recogs., II, 7.

[1835]Recogs., II, 5.

[1836]Recogs., II, 9, “Multa etenim iam mihi experimenti causa consummata sunt.“

[1837]First Apology, caps. 26 and 56;Dialogue with Trypho, 120.

[1838]Adv. haer., I, 23.

[1839]See above, chapter 15, p. 365.

[1840]Tertullian,De anima, cap. 57, in PL, II, 794;De idolatria, cap. 9.

Back to Index Next