Freethought Archives > Walter R. Cassels > Supernatural Religion 

FOOTNOTES

Part 3, Chapter 1 (Concl'd) (pp. 486-509)

[486:3] P. 300 f.

[486:4] Hilgenfeld, who had maintained that the Clementines did not use the fourth Gospel, was induced by the passage to which we refer to admit its use. Cf. Die Evv. Justin's, p. 385 f.; Die Evangelien, p. 346 f.; Der Kanon, p. 29; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 534, anm. 1; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p. 338. Volkmar is inclined to the same opinion, although not with the same decision. Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 448 f.

[486:5] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 90 f.

[486:6] On the Canon, p. 252.

[487:1] P. 438 f.

[487:2] Ps. 107:20, Sept.

[487:3] P. 308 f.

[487:4] Hom., 3:18.

[487:5] Ib., 3:53.

[487:6] Acts 3:22.

[487:7] Ib., 7:37.

[487:8] Deut. 30:15.

[487:9] Hom., 18:17.

[488:1] Hom., 3:20.

[488:2] Cf. Isaiah 40:11; 53:6; Ezek. 34; Zech. 11; Hebrews 13:20.

[489:1] P. 472 f.

[489:2] Hom., 3:50, cf. 9, 42 f. 2:38. The author denies that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Hom., 3:47 f.).

[489:3] Hom., 3:20 f., 42 f., 8:10. "Die Lehre von einem Sündenfalle des ersten Menschen musste der Verfasser der Clementinen als Gotteslästerung bekämpfen" (Neander, K. G., ii., p. 612 f.). The Jews at that period held a similar belief (Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenthum, i., p. 336). Adam, according to the Homiles, not only did not sin, but, as a true prophet possessed of the Spirit of God which afterwards was in Jesus, he was incapable of sin (Schliemann, Die Clementinen, pp. 130, 176 f., 178 f.).

[490:1] Hom., 19:20.

[490:2] Ib., 19:21. According to the author of the Clementines, evil is the consequence of sin, and is, on one hand, necessary for the punishment of sin; but, on the other, beneficial as leading men to improvement and upward progress. Suffering is represented as wholesome, and intended for the elevation of man (cf. Hom., 2:13; 7:2; 8:11). Death was originally designed for man, and was not introduced by Adam's "fall," but is really necessary to nature, the Homilist considers (cf. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 177, p. 168 f.).

[490:3] Ib., 19:22.

[490:4] Ib., 19:22.

[490:5] Ib., 19:22.

[492:1] Hom., 17:4; 18:14; 8:6.

[493:1] Petri ad Jacob., § 1.

[493:2] Cf. Galatians 2:7.

[493:3] Contestatio, § 1.

[493:4] Hom., 4:22.

[493:5] Ib., 7:4; cf. 2:19, 20; 13:4.

[493:6] Ib., 8:6, cf. 7.

[493:7] Ib., 8:10.

[493:8] Ib., 3:51.

[493:9] John 12:46; 1:4, 5, 7 f.; 3:19-21; 5:24; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35 f.; 14:6.

[493:10] Ib., 2:13; 4: 20 f.; 5:1, 16, 18; 6:4; 7:2, 19, 22; 8:17; 9:16, 28, 29; 10:34; 15:25, etc.

[493:11] Ib., 6:42, 52, etc.

[493:12] Ib., 1:18; 8:19, 31 f., 54, 55; 15:21 f.; 17:25, 26.

[494:1] John 1:16, 17; cf. 10:1, 8.

[494:2] Ib., 6:32 f.

[494:3] Hom., 16:15 f.

[494:4] Cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i., p. 334.

[494:5] John 1:1.

[494:6] Ib., 1:18. This is the reading of the Cod. Sinaiticus, of the Cod. Vaticanus, and Cod. C, as well as of other ancient MSS., and it must be accepted as the best authenticated.

[494:7] Ib., 1:2; 5:17 f.; 10:30 f., 38; 14:7 f., 23; 17:5, 21 f., etc.

[494:8] Hom., 3:20 f.; 2:15; 8:10; 17:4; 18:14.

[494:9] Ib., 3:20.

[494:10] K. G., ii., p. 622; cf. Hom., 3:18 f.

[495:1] Hom., 3:6 f.

[495:2] John 1:29; cf. 3: 4 f., 4:42, etc.

[495:3] Ib., 3:36; cf. 16 f.

[495:4] Ib., 8:24.

[495:5] Ib., 3:14 f.; 5:24 f.; 6:29, 35 f, 40, 47, 65; 7:38; 8:24, 51; 9:25 f.; 10:9, 28; 11:25 f.; 12:47; 14:6; 15:5 f.; 16:9; 17:2 f.; 20:31.

[495:6] Ep. Clem. ad. Jacobum, § 1.

[496:1] Cf. John 13:23-25; 19:26 f.; 20:2 f.; 21:3 f., 7, 20 f.

[496:2] Gal. 1:12 f.

[496:3] Hom., 17:19.

[496:4] K. G., ii., p. 624, anm. 1.

[496:5] P. 320 f.

[496:6] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 40. We may mention that neither Tischendorf nor Dr. Westcott gives the Greek of any of the passages pointed out in the Epistle, nor do they give the original text of the parallels in the Gospel.

[497:1] This is a reference to the admitted fact that the first ten chapters are by a different author from the writer of the last two.

[497:2] On the Canon, p. 77. Dr. Westcott continues, referring to the later and more recent part of the Epistle: 'So in the conclusion we read that 'the Word who was from the beginning … at His appearance speaking boldly manifested the mysteries of the Father to those who were judged faithful by Him.' And these again to whom the Word speaks, 'from love of that which is revealed to them,' share their knowledge with others." It is not necessary to discuss this, both because of the late date of the two chapters and because there is certainly no reference at all to the Gospel in the words. We must however, add that, as the quotation is given, it conveys quite a false impression of the text. We may just mention that the phrase which Dr. Westcott quotes as "the Word who was from the beginning" is in the text, "This is he who was from the beginning" (outos ho ap' arches) although "the Word" is in the context, and no doubt intended.

[497:3] Ib., p. 78.

[498:1] Readers interested in more minutely discussing the point whether the Epistle even indicates the existence of the fourth Gospel are referred to the Complete Edition, 1879, ii., pp. 355-368, in which the question was argued and printed in smaller type.

[498:2] P. 322 f.

[498:3] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 52.

[498:4] On the Canon, p. 256, note 3.

[498:5] 7:22, 27.

[498:6] P. 330 f.

[498:7] Adv. Haer., 6:35.

[499:1] Adv. Marc., 4:3, 4.

[499:2] On the Canon, p. 276, note 1.

[500:1] P. 366 f.

[500:2] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 17.

[500:3] On the Canon, p. 278, note 2. (In the 4th ed., however, Dr. Westcott puts it within brackets, adding: "This reference is not certain" -- p. 317, n. 2)

[500:4] Orat. ad Graecos, § 5. As this passage is of some obscurity, we subjoin, for the sake of impartiality, an independent translation taken from Dr. Donaldson's able History of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, iii., p. 42: "God was in the beginning, but we have understood that the beginning was a power of reason. For the Lord of all, Himself being the substance of all, was alone in so far as the creation had not yet taken place, but as far as He was all power and the substance of things seen and unseen, all things were with Him: along with Him also by means of rational power, the reason which was in Him supported them. But by the will of his simplicity, the reason leaps forth; but the reason, not having gone from one who became empty thereby, is the first-born work of the Father. Him we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into existence by sharing (merismos), not by cutting off; for that which is cut off is separated from the first; but that which is shared, receiving a selection of the work, did not render Him defective from whom it was taken, etc. And as the Word begotten in the beginning begot in his turn our creation, He Himself fashioning the material for Himself, so I, etc." (cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christ, i., p. 437 f.

[501:1] § 12, cf. § 20.

[501:2] Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 43.

[501:3] Dial. 61.

[501:4] Ib., 62.

[501:5] We have already mentioned that the Gospel according to Peter contained the doctrine of the Logos.

[502:1]Orat. ad Graecos, § 13.

[502:2] De Somniis, i., § 13, Mangey, i. 632; cf. 5:14 f., De Mundi op., § 9, ib., i. 7 (see p. 463, note 1).

[502:3] De Somniis, i., § 13.

[502:4] Ib., i. § 14.

[502:5] 2 Cor. 4:6; Ephes. 5:8-14; Coloss. 1:12-13; 1 Thess. 5:5; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Rev. 21:23-24; 22:5.

[503:1] Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Ephes. 3:9; Heb. 1:2.

[503:2] Contemp.Rev., 1877, p. 1135.

[504:1] Zahn, for instance, as has already been pointed out, dates it "soon after AD 173" (Forsch., p. 290 f.).

[505:1] P. 381 f.

[505:2] P. 387 f.

[505:3] P. 395 f.

[505:4] P. 398 f.

[505:5] On the Canon, p. 103.

[505:6] Leg. pro Christ., § 10.

[505:7] P. 404.

[505:8] P. 404 f.

[506:1] Matt. 10:16-22, 24:9 f.; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-17.

[506:2] P. 408 f.

[506:3] Epiphanius, Haer., 33 § 3.

[506:4] The passages are quoted by Grabe (Spicil. Patr., ii., p. 85 f.).

[506:5] P. 422 f.

[507:1] Cf. Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 71 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 356.

[507:2] Origen, Contra Cels., 2:47.

[507:3] Ib., 2:27.

[507:4] P. 428 f.

[507:5] It is admitted that the whole passage from this point to "futurum est" is abrupt and without connection with the context, as well as most confused. Cf. Tregelles, Can. Murat., p. 36; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 205.

[507:6] Credner reads here: "quod ratum est" (Zur Gesch. d. Kan., p. 74). Dr. Westcott reads: "quod fuit" (On the Canon, p. 478).

[508:1] Dr. Tregelles calls attention to the resemblance of this passage to one of Tertullian (Apol., § 21): "Duobus enim adventibus eius significatis, primo, qui iam expunctus est in humilitate conditionis humanae; secundo, qui concludendo seculo imminet in sublimitate divinitatis exsertae: primum non intelligendo secundum, quem manifestius praedicatum sperant unum existimaverunt" (Can. Murat., p. 36). This is another reason for dating the fragment in the third century.

[508:2] 1 John 1:1-3.

[509:1] Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 158 f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 301.
 


Return to Pt 3, Ch 1 (Concl'd)      Return to Contents
HTML © 2002 -