The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr = Apostolikē paradosis [Reprint ed.] 0700702326, 9780700702329

Citation preview

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF ST HIPPOLYTUS

~ l T O C " r O ~KH J lT~j'~.AOCIC

THE TREATISE ON

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF ST HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME Bishop and Martyr

Edited by

THE REV. GREGORY DIX MONK OF NASHDOM ABBEY

Reissued with corrections preface and bibliography by HENRY CHADWICK

Master of Peterhouse College in the University of Cambridge

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 1937 Second revised edition 1968 Reissued with additional corrections 1992 Transferred to Digital Printing 2006 Published in UK & USA by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN 270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016 ISBN 0 7007 0232 6 (c) Elmore Abbey 1991 All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hippolytus, Antipope, ca. 170-235 or 6. [Traditio apostolica. English] The treatise on the apostolic tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, bishop and martyr = Apostolike paradosis] I edited by Gregory Dix, reissued with corrections, preface, and bibliography by Henry Chadwick. p. em. Parallel title romanized. Translation of: Traditio apostolica, the Latin text of the lost Greek treatise Apostolike paradosis (title romanized). Reprint with additional corr. Originally published: 2nd rev. ed. London: S. P. C. K., 1968. Includes index. 1. Christian life-Early church, ca. 30-600-Sources. 2. Church history-Early church. ca. 30-600-Sources. I. Dix. Gregory. II. Chadwick, Henry, 1920- . III. Title. IV. Title: Apostolike paradosis. V. Title: Apostolic tradition. BR65.H84T7313 1991 270.1-dc20 91-7205 CIP Publisher's Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent

REVERENDISSIMO DOMINO DOMINO

GUALTERO HOWARD FRERE, C.R., S.T.P.,

PRAESULI, PATRI, MAGISTRO

CONTENTS PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION AND SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

pageix ptUJeix

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

i. The A Apostolic poBtolic Tradition ii. St Hippolytus Apostolic iii. Date of the· the A poBtolic Tradition

xi

xii xxxv

iv. The RepresentativeValue of the Evidenceof the postolic Tradition xxxvii A poBtolic xxxvii v. The Inftuence Infl.uence of the A poBtolic postolic Tradition xliv THE TEXTUAL MATERIALS

i. 11. ii. Ill. iii. iv. iv . v. VI.

Iii lili liii lvii lxvi lxxi lxxi

The Latin Version SahidicandBohairicVersions The Arabic,Ethiopic,SahidicandBohairic The Testamentof our Lord The Apostolic Constitutions The" Epitomeof Apostolic Constitutions,Bk viii The "Epitome viii"" or "Constitutionsthrough Hippolytus" lxxiv The Canonsof Hippolytus lxxvi

SYMBOLS USED IN THE TEXT

lxxxii

ABBREVIATIONS

lxxxii

THE ApOSTOLIC TRADITION

page 1

Part I. Of the Clergy Part II. Of the Laity Part III. Church Observances

2

23 43

TEXTUAL NOTES

73

INDEX

87

I have to acknowledgemy deepobligation to the Managers of the Rort Hort Memorial Fund of the University of Cambridge andto variousfriends,without whosegenerousfinancial help the publicationof this volume would have beenimpoBBible. I wish also to expreBB expressmy cordieJ cordial thanksto the staff of the CambridgeUniversity PreBB, whose patience,care and skill in this somewhatcomplicated piece of book-making have been beyond all praise. Above all, lowe a great debt of gratitude to Dr W. K. Lowther Clarke of the S.P.C.K., S.P.C.K., without whosefrequentand resourcefulcounselthesepages would e.imost almost certainly havehad to remainin manuscript.

Gr. D.

PREFACE SECOND EDITION PREFACE TO TO THE THE SECOND EDITION SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY This book first appearedin 1937, 1937,and was a pioneercritical edition of a documentwith a transmissionof extraordinarycomplexity. For technicalscholarsits text has now been replaced replacedby the fine edition producedby Dom BernardBotte in 1963. H163.11 Nevertheless, there remainsa considerabledemandfor the earlier book, partly becauseof Dom Gregory Dix Dix's 's brilliantly acute introduction, partly becausehis judgementon the textual problems retains because high value in its own right, and partly becaus e he provided an In many English version for the convenience of students. students. In respects 's edition is still a very necessarycomplementto respects Dix Dix's Botte's. Botte's. Dix 's English translationwas not the first. He was anticipated Dix's by the well-known American scholarB. S. Easton((IS7i-19iiO) 1877- 1950) in 1934. An unrevisedreprint of this translationwas issued in 1 \)62 1962 bv S.A. Easton's Easton's volume is handy handv for the by Archon Books, U. U.S.A. b~ginner and easy to use: but it has beginner and has to be admitterl" admitterl that the studentpaysa high pricefor theconvenience,sincethe truth about the complexitiesof the textual evidenceis largely hiddenfrom his sight. Moreover, Easton not only only left out a few well-attested passagesbut took risks in his translationwhich the readercann ot cannot check or correct books. In one respect correct without recourseto other books. In onc Easton prescribeda pattern for Dix: Dix : he divided the the work into chapterdivisions and sub-divisions sub-divisionswhich Dix (against his own better judgement) decided to keep for the convenienceof a uniform system ed systemof reference. reference. The samenumberingwas preserv preserved in the littl littlee edition of the Latin and Greek fragments fragments together together with a French translationproducedby Dom Botte in Ul46. I !l4(P2 In his large critical edition, however however, , Dom Botte has felt free to adopt new chapter divisions. At one important point he has rearran ged the order (see p. j below), and the presenteditor is rearra.nged convinced convinced that he is right to have done so. But there have been e nts to making any far-reac hing changes strong practical deterr deterrents far-reaching in the printing of this seco second nd edition. Accordingly, I give here here aa concordancetable of the relation betweenthe two editions. editions. 1 La Tradit ioll Apostoliqlt r,colIstitllfiOIl par anl Tradit;o/l A1,osto/iqll(,(' d, Saillt Saint Hippolyte: Hi ppolyte: fssni e88f1.i de "constitul;on pitr Bel'll IkrllaJ'{1 BottI'. Quellen Forschungen3!J (MiillRter, IHIi:l). Botte. LiturgiewiRsenRchaftlich(' LiturJo(i('wissens~haftli('h{' ucllen und Forsehungen 3\J (Miillstj! w ' ~ -1.. I R \ ~ ' El\ata> TOVTOV, Ot tEp€ t>, 7TpO't'7JTa>, paatl\€ L> TE Kat JLapTvpa> Kat evi.Svaa> Tfj XPTJaTOTT)Tl aov StKaLOaVVT)> evSvJLa, iva I \ ""' '\ ..J..,. I \ I , N \ ) .J. 1\ YEV7JTat 7Tavn T£P ai\EL't"'JL€V£P Kat Y£VOJL€V£P EL> OVT)atV Kat w't'£1\Hav ~f-• ,.... \ I ( \ ) I , ' \ \ ,.. 't'vXTJS Kat aWJLaTO> Kat 7TV€VJLaTO>, Et> a7TOTp07T7JV 7TaVTO> KaKOV, El> Uy£lav Tip XPLOJLI.vr.p Sul. TOV Kvplov ~wvv 'l7JaofJ [XptaTofJ].

Segelberg draws attention to other descendants of Hippolytus' prayer scattered in strangely diverse places, such as the Coptic Euchologion of the White Monastery (edited by E. Lanne in Patrologia Orientalis XXVIII, 2, 393ff) and the "Gelasian" sacramentary (p. 70 Wilson, no. 381 Mohlberg). Tidner's edition of the Latin text in the Verona palimpsest has been mentioned above. In the present reprint I have tried to take account of his revised readings, but have not consistently altered Dix's Latin text to make it conform with Tidner's printed text except where Tidner explicitly corrects Hauler. Hauler's work of 1900 was masterly, and left relatively little for later study to glean. There are a few places where Tidner diverges from Hauler without noting the fact (lxxiii.15; lxxv. 20; lxxx. 20), but as Tidner was not always impeccably served by his printer these divergences may be simply misprints.

The Debate about the Authorship R. H. Connolly in 1916 first made it a matter of argument (rather than inspired conjecture) that an early third-century church' order must be the foundation document underlying the Latin of the Verona manuscript, the Oriental canon collections in Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, and The Testament of our Lord. Connolly's monograph 9 remains an education to read, and contains much illuminating commentary on the content of the work. His basic conclusion has 8 E. i:legelberg, "The Benedictio Olei in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus", in Oriens Christimws 48 ( 1964 ), pp. 268-81. As Segel berg notes, its u_,xt suppor·ts the Latin sanitatem against Dix's emendation (accepted by Botte) sanrtitntem. 9 The so.called Egyptian Church Order and derived dOf'uments, Texts and Htudics VIII, 4 (1916).

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

e

remainedsecure.But not everyonehasacceptedhis identification of this recoveredchurch order orderwith the work entitled Apostolic Aposwlic Tradition known to have been written by Hippolytus of Rome. The principal argumentsfor identifying the recoveredchurch order with Ap. Tr. may be tersely summarizedas follows: (a) Hippolytus' name appearsas author in two of the derived Apostolic documents, namely the so-called Epitome of the Aposf,olic Canons of Hippolytus (his name Constitutions and the Arabic Carwns appearsin Arabic as Aboulides). The Epitome introduces his name at precisely the place where the compiler first begins to incorporatematter directly from the recoveredchurch order. (b) The statueof Hippolytus found in Romein 1551, now in the Library,lO Vatican Library, 10 gives a list of his writings, and namesa work On charismatic gifts immediatelybefore the Apostolic Tradition. The initial chapterof the recoveredchurch order, as attestedby au-thor, having said Latin, Greek,and Ethiopic, explainsthat the author, everything necessaryconcerningcharismaticgifts, is now going to deal with "the tradition that befits the churches".

argued,l1 It has been argued, II with some reason,that these considerations taken by themselvesare not sufficient to prove what they are claimed to show. The first point is especially weak, since the ascription of an apostolic church order orderto Hippolytus might be comparedwith the claim of the Apostolic Constitutionsto be mediated by Clement of Rome, disciple of St Peter. In the Lausiac History of Palladius(c. (c. 420), Hippolytus is said to have been "known to the apostles" (H.L. 65). Accordingly, the argument runs, the occurrence of Hippolytus' name in the Epitomeand in the Arabic Carwns Canonsof Hippolytus can be explained on the hypothesisthat Hippolytus, with the reputationof being a disciple of the apostles,was the kind of personto whom church orders were easily ascribed. This argument, however, can be 10 moved to ,. The statuestood in the Vatican until the time of Pius IX, was then lllOVNI the Lateran Museum, and was placed in the Vatican Library by John X XIII. The best picturesand information about the discovery may be found in the inexpensive little book by G. Bovini, Sant'Ippolito San/'Ippolito dottore e martire del III 8ecolo secolo (Rome 1943). 1943). 11 The Dutch thesis of R. Lorentz, De Egyptische Egypti8cheKerkordening en Hippol!lts Hippolyts van l'an (Haarlem 1929) Rome (Ha.a.rlem 1929) was answeredin a very good monographby H. Elfers, Die Kirchenordnung Hippolyts von Rome (Paderborn1938). 1938). A strong sceptical attack camefrom Dom H. Engberding,"Das angeblicheDokumentromischerLiturgie Litllrgie aus ails dem Begiun des dritten JahrhundertB", Jahrhunderts",in Mi8cellanea MisceUanealiturgica in honorem L. C. answeredhim in ReA'h. Thfol. Anc. Mohlberg i (Rome 1948), 1948), pp. 47-71. Botte anRwered Rerh. de Thlol. Med. 16 (1949), (1949), pp. 177-85 177-85.. Mid.

f

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

quickly reversed;that is, the existenceof a church order current underthe nameof Hippolytus entitled Apostolic Ap08tolic Tradition would make it natural for a fifth-century writer to imagine that Hippolytus must have beendirectly known to the apostles. A much more formidable argument against ascribing the recoveredchurch order to Hippolytus is the extremepaucity of contactsand parallels between the church order and the later liturgical practice of the Roman community.12 The principal descendantsand imitators of the recoveredchurch church order lay in oj our Lord and the Apostolic Ap08tolic Constitu the East. The Testamentof Constitutions point to currency in Syria. The Coptic archetype,from which the extant Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions are all ultimately derived, proves that the work was influential in Egypt. The only strange figure is the Latin version of the Verona palimpsest. This Latin version, indeed, bears so little relation to other early Latin liturgies that there is at leastsome a priori attractivenessabout the conjecture that the Latin versionwas producedfor one of the Arian communitiesin North bishop, Auxentius Italy about350-40013 (Milan itself had anArian bishop, from 355 to 373, 373, and there were other Western Arian centres). The Arians tended strongly towards a liturgical conservatism. It was one of their better theological argumentsthat the precontroversial, pre-Constantinianeucharistic formulas assumed the subordination of the Son in mediating to the Father the Church's prayers and thanksgivings.14 a An Arian group might cal work have been specially interestedin a pre-Nicene liturgi liturgical with so augusta title. Nevertheless,it is not easyto discover in the Verona Latin text any clear traces of Arianisms, Arianisms, that is, phrases which look like modifications in a specifically Arian direction. So the conjecturecannotbe more than an interesting guess. 12 This has been best argued /l e de 12 a"gued in a long paper by A. Salles i:lalles in He/} Ro'", ri, l'his/oirf [,hisloi" des religions (1955). Salles has has also publisheda useful study of the baptis,"al baptislllal prayers prayers, , fr om Hippolytus but certainly certainl y early, early. interpolatedin the Ethiopi" Ethiopi(' ver,ion vl' l',io11 after not from pl'Ovisional discussion discussion in Trois antiquesritu.els rituels du dn III/pUmp, flllpt pwp, :-iollrc('s ~()ul'('.( ·S ch. xxvii. Seehis provisional Chretiennes59 (Paris. (Paris, 19.')8). Chretiennes 13 The suggestionthat the translation'Jriginated originatedin an Arian miliell mili eu was first fil'8t l1Iad(', Illadt', J,T.S. XXXI (1930), p. 261. The h.vpoth('si" hypothpsi8 is loohd lookpd on I believe, by F. C. Burkitt in J.T.S. Stll.dia Patristica, Pa/ristira, iii, Texte und un" Untersllchungen, Untel'suphungell, with favour e.g. by A. F. Walls in Stud-ia Crehan in J. J.T.S. (l!J!m), p. -t21. 78 (Berlin 1961), p. 161, and by J. H. Crehan T.S. n.S. xX (19M!). p . .ttl. Ie." r.redpndi rrpdpl1dl: Illay In ay he 14 A striking striking exampleof the Arian argumentfrom lex orandi lP.r be ~Iai, Sfripl. found in the fifth-century Arian fragmentsdiscoveredby Cardinal ~Iai. Scripl. I'I'pl pl.. Nova call coll.. III (1827), ii, pp, pp. 208ft'; are discussedby G. Merea!i Stud; e .vol'a 208ff; they are Men'ati in St/ldi Testi 7 (1902). (1902). Test;

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

g

The fact that the recoveredchurchorderhadso largea posterity in Egypt led ProfessorHanssensin 1959 to proposea series of ls He suggestedthat Hippolytus was 15 conjectural hypotheses. originally an Alexandrian who moved to Rome to become a Apo8tolic Tradition he was presbyter there, and that in the Apostolic describinghis liturgical ideals with his memories of Alexandria as a model. This hypothesiswould account for the Egyptian affinities of his churchorder. ProfessorHanssens'book is a mine of learnedinformation, but his principal thesisis highly speculative, and its plausibility might even appearweakenedif all his argumentswere here to be rehearsed. The crux of the entire debatemust be the internal evidenceof the work itself. On any showing the recoveredchurch order is century.. unquestionablya product of the first half of the third century The Church is liable to persecutionand needsa ruling about the statusof "confessors"who have been imprisonedfor their faith (x.I-2, cf. xix.2). The church building is a private house(xvi. 1 I}.). The liturgical practices fit well with other early third-century evidence, for example in Tertullian and Cyprian. There is nothing that requiresor even suggestsa later date: the rules for the admissionof widows, virgins, subdeacons,and readers;the organizationof the catechumenate;the admissionof infants to baptism; the offerings of cheese,ls cheese,16olives, and fruit (but not vegetables;see p. mm below); the segregationof the sexes in church services; the pattern of eucharistic rite with its basic structure of thanksgiving, recitation of the Institution, the Anamnesis, Invocation, and final doxology. Some curious features actually point towards rather than away from Rome. Rome. The Sanctusis absentfrom the Anaphora(if the transmittedtext of the Latin and Ethiopic is what Hippolytus wrote; see below, p. I). It is not certain that the Sanctushad a place in the •• J. M. Hanssens,La Liturgie 1. L-itury'i . d'Hippolyte, d' H-ippolyte, Orientalia Christiana' Analecta 155 appearedin 1965 with a substantialappendix appel\dix of additional (Rome 1959). A reprint appearcd notes. principal thesis of the book is precarious,and the argument notes . Although the principal sometimesextravagant,the book containsmuch learning and valuablecomment. 16 The blessingof cheesein ch. vi (the prayer seemsto echo Job x. x.l0) l0) is preserved only in the Latin. It It. helps to explain why St Perpetuahad a vision of a heavenly paradise. Hippolytus' blessing of cheesegoes shepherdfeeding her with cheesein paradise . Hippolytus' from the tree of life was the elixir of immortality with a blessingof olive oil: the oil frolll Life of Adam and Et'e accordingto many ancienttexts. e.g. Life Eu 36; II Enoch viii.3-5; Apocalypseof Mosesix.3; Actsof Pilaff Pilal, 3 (19); Acts(If Thomas157. 157. For gnosticsources seemy note on Origen, c.eds. c.Cels. vi.27. So both cheeseand olive oil are associatedwith paradise.

,6

h

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Roman liturgy before the fifth centuryY The baptismalinterrogationsare closely akin to later Romanforms, for examplein the so-called"Gelasianum"(p. 86 Wilson = = 449 Mohlberg). The Latin pontifical (Gelas. (Gelas . p. 144 144 Wilson = = 740 Mohlberg) has a preciseparallel to the direction that the deaconis ordainednon in sacerdotiosedin ministerio (ix.2). Moreover,in the "Gelasian" prayers for Maundy Thursday (p. 70 Wilson = Mohlberg 381) there is the parallel, alreadynoted above (p. d), to Hippolytus' prayer for consecratingoil for the sick. The atmosphereof the Eucharistin this church order stands much nearer to the second century than to the fourth. The dominantidea is that it is a thank-offeringsacrifice. There is no languagesuggestinga propitiatory re-enactmentof the deathof Christ. Thereis no mementoof the living and dead. The absence of any commemorationof the saints points to a date before the middle of the third century. The objection that all the affinities of the church order lie in Egypt andSyria is a real one; but it can be answeredby a number of cumulativeconsiderations.First, thereis one obviousanalogy. The letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians cameto have a very similar history. The closing pagesof the letter contain a long prayer with manifestechoesof the contemporaryliturgical intercessionsat Romein the last decadeof the first century. The future influence of this unquestionablyRoman documentlay in the Greek East. A papyrusleaf of the latter part of the third century, now at Wiirzburg,18 contains liturgical intercessions, some of which are nearly related to the languageof 1 I Clement. The papyrus is the earliest scrap of Egyptian liturgy hitherto found. It would be hard to find any discernibleinfluence of the letter of Clementon later Romanliturgy. As the languagespoken by the Christians of Rome gradually changedfrom Greek to Latin (a processgoing on during the centuryfrom 230 to 330), the Romancommunitydid not remembervery much aboutits Greek past. The writings of the greatesttheologian to live at Rome 17 A very interesting sermon transmitted under the name of St Ambrol!e and )7 Sanctus,though universal in the Greek probably of about A.D. 400 says that the Sanctus. East, West:: de Spiritu sanctoiv.2 (Migne, P.L. 17.1005-12)re·edited East , was not so in the West 8acris Erudiri xi (1960). (1960), pp. 136--92. 136-92. The authoris dependenton by L. Chavoutierin Sncris Ambrose and is to be placed probably in Northern Italy; but whether he is Niceta (as K. Gamberproposesin Ostkirch}. Ostkirrhl. Studienxi (1962). (1962), pp. 204--6) 204-6) must of Remesiana(as guesswork. remain guesswork . 18 Wiirzburg papyrus3. 3, saec.III. ed. U. Wilcken in Ahhandl. Berl. Akad. (1933). (1933), )8 no. 6, pp. 31-6. 31-6.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

during the secondcentury,JustinMartyr, did not achievetranslation into Latin until the sixteenthcentury; and Justin did not even gain entry to the Latin Kalender of saints until the ninth century.l9 century.19 It is impossible to know what degreeof continuity was maintained when the liturgy at Rome was first put into Latin, probablyin the time of PopeDamasus(366-84).20 In any event, in the third century liturgical forms were still extremely fluid. The author of the recoveredchurch order was apparently trying to resist rapid changes,but he makesit explicit that his prayersare only models,designedto show the kind of thing that is desirable. He neversupposedthat he was taking an important step towards the establishmentof fixed forms.

The Order and Integrity of the Text Liturgies in the ancientChurch were never thought of as immutable documents. Each bishop (as Justinputs it) "prayedto the bestof his ability". 21 Somewere long. Justinsaysthat the Greek anaphoraat Rome c. c. 1.'50 150 was of considerablelength.22 But whereasGreek liturgies tended to be long, as in the immense prayers in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, the Latin genius was for brevity. Cyprian believedthat high-flown prose and grandiloquent periods were out of place in public worship, and thoughtthat the prayersof the Eucharistshouldbe restrainedand quiet (orat. dom. 4). So eachbishopwould in some degreemake his own liturgy. Hippolytus' work probablycontributed much to making for more stable usages. But all liturgies before 600 were subjectto a continual processof alteration and adaptationas they were broughtup to dateby subsequent users.23 A text such as the Apostolic Tradition had a long snowball 19 •• I have collected evidence in my Early Christian Thought and the Classical (1966), p. l27. 127. Tradition (l966), Uehergangder romischen Kirche von der griechischenzur 20 T. Klauser, "Der Uebergang 121 (Rome 1946), lateinischenSprache"in Miscellanea G. Mercati I, Studi tltudi e Testi l2l \'ictorinus, adv. Arium pp. 467-82. The two principal piecesof evidenceare Marius Victorinus, liturgy in Greek, ii.8. written about 360, who cites partsof the contemporaryRomanliturll:Y Novi TestamentilO9.2l 109.21 (ed. Hauter, Souter,C.S.E.L. and Ambrosiaster,QuaestionesVeteris et }Olovi 50.268), written between374 and 382, who cites the Roman liturgy in Latin. 21 Justin. Justin, Apol. i.67.5. 2. Apol. 22 A pol. i.65.3. 23 There is much food for thought in the programmaticremarks of F. L. Cross, J. T.S.n.s. xvi (l965), (1965).pp. 6l-7. 61-7. Cf. R. R. P.C. "Early WesternLiturgical Manuscripts",in J.T.S. Hanson. "The Liberty of the Bishop to improvise prayer in the eucharist", in Hanson, Christianae xv (l96l), (1961), pp. l73-76. 173-76. Vigiliae Chrisfianae

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

history in which it sufferedadditionsand modificationswith each successiverecension. This processis most obviously seenin the actual differencesof order among the various witnesses. The order of the chaptersis virtually consistentin threeof the witnesses, namely the Latin, Coptic, and Arabic; and the deviationofthe of the Testamentof our Lord from this norm is not great. In the Canons of Hippolytus, however, chapters xxiv-xxviii (= 22-32 in Botte) appearafter xxix-xxxvii (= 33-42 33- 42 Botte). Botte). The Ethiopic has been less drastically arranged, but has two importanttranspositions.The openingchapterasit standsin the Latin appearsin the Ethiopic just before the section about offering the first-fruits (xxviii = 31 Botte). The Ethiopic, moreover,disagreeswith all other witnessesin its placing of the sectionson the deacon'sduties in taking the breadround to the sick and poor, and on the prayersat the bringing in of the lamps at the evening Agape (xxvi.l4-32).24 (xxvi .14-32).24 For most of thesesections the Ethiopic (E) is the sole witness. Neverthelessparts of the material occur in Test. Dom. and the Canonsof Hippolytus (K), where they are placed before xxvi.2. Since in E the words of xxvi.2 are repeatedas a doublet after xxvi.32, it is easy to see . In 1937 Dix that E bearswitnessagainstits own arrangement arrangement. acceptedE's order as original, and was thereforefaced with the difficulty that the Latin goes straight on from xxvi to xxvii. 1 , and apparentlyomits the section in a way that must raise the gravestdoubts about the authenticity of the block if E's order is right. Everything falls into place if E's material is indeed acceptedas authentic Hippolytus but if the true order is that Test. Dom. andK. The entire block then falls at a point given by Test. where, owing to a lacunain the VeronaMS., the Latin is deficient. where, No objection to the authenticity of the block can then be version. groundedon its "omission" by the Latin version. A very minor additional reason can be givert given fur regarding xxvi. 14-32 as being at least no invention of the Ethiopic tradition, namely that the transmitted text of E in xxvi.I4-17 xxvi.l4-17 is obscureand corrupt and bearsall the marks of a poor rendering by an uncomprehendingtranslator. ,>'apov, "0 gladsome gladsome light", long traditional in the time of Basil .. The hymn 4>w~ "'W~ ').apov, third·century hymn sung the Great and still sung at Greek Vespers,was probably a third·century at this point. The momentwhen lights were brought in at a feast in antiquity was marked by an acclamationand was the signal for the party to becomeexcited. This is the backgroundof the vulgar slandersaboutthe Christianagapeand the enormities that followed the bringing in and extinction of the lights. In fact the Christians salutedthe entry of the light with praise and prayer prayer..

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION EDITIO~

k

alone,, For the prayers in chapter vii, E again stands quite alone without a morsel of support from any other version. These prayers prayen; were rightly marked by Dix as a much later addition, and the ehapteris entirely left out by Botte.

The Anaphora The most mOHt controversialplace where modification of the original iv).. Its text has been suspectedis in the Anaphora (chapter iv) external attestation by LET (three completely independent witnesHeH), witnesses) , with somepartial support support fn)lllAp. from A p. Const.,is extremely powerful in its itH favour. The languageof the first part of it fits magiHtral HippolytuH Hippolytus perfectly. It is sufficient to refer hereto the magistral commentaryon the Anaphorain the article by R. H. Connolly in J.T.S. 3;)()-o!1. Controversyhas concentrated J.T.S. xxxix (I !I:IH), !I:~H), pp. 3;")()-o!l. epiclesis. witnesHesdivide, LE being on the epiclesis . At this point the witnesses surprising.. abandonedby T and Ap. ('onst. This is not in itself surprising epicleHis underwent conHiderable modification towards the The epiclesis considerablemodificatioll fourt h century, century. and beeanw end of the f(llIrth Iweanw much more prominentin Greek liturgies. Here is the point at which modernizationwould be natural and predictable. predictable. In tIlt' the Ap. Con8t. ConBt. it has becomean unambigllollH invocation ~pirit ' it upon ··this unambiguous invocatioll of the ~pil .. this sacrifice" to body of thy Christ and thil'; thii" cup the blood "make this bread bl'ecul the bod.\' ChriHt". In LE, of thy Christ". LE , on the other hand, hand, the purpose of the invocation iH not to changethe bread and wille but to is Ilot t.o bless the Chur('h in making that offering that it may he he' a hond bond of unity Chureh alld a lIIl'all:-l allll lIl('iWS of graet'. In T almo:-lt Hip)lolytllls' anaphora anaphol"ais inl'orpOl'ated ilH'orpol"ated within almost all of Hippolytus' Illlleh long!'I' long!'!" lind borat!' pray!'r. pl"ay!,r. Tile The cOlllpiler eompiler took a 1I111(:h Hnd mort' ilion' f'la claborat!' Hippolytn:-l' t~'t~·:.-\t.;t tilled it out with expaJl,.;ioll:-l Home minor HiPI'0lytlls' and filled l':-,;pHn"iolls and anel some omi:-l:-lioll:-l. . But p(tllintlent omissiuns Bot T has no ('(1'1 i \"(\Ient of thp t ht' worl. anc. mea. ;; a. Rome", Rome", Rech. theol. med. I) (1933), pp. 129-54. 129- 54. Cast'I, revit'w O. Casel, review of Elfers' book in Archiv Jiir Jilr Liturgiewis8enschaJt LiturgiewissenschaJt 2 (1952), authorship). pp. 1I5-130 115- 130 (acceptingHippolytus' authorship) . R. H. Connolly, "An ancient ancit'nt prayer in the tht' mediaeval mt'diaeval !'uchologia", euchologia", J.T.S. 19 19 (1918), pp. 132-44. 132-44. ---~, - "The "Th!' prologueof the Apostolic Tradition", J.T. J.T.S. S. 22 (1921), pp. 356-61. 356·,6J. cre!'d of Hippolytus", J.T.S J.T.S.. 25 (1924), - - "On the text of th!' the baptismal creed (192~), pp. 131-9. 131-9. eucharistic Hippolytus", J.T.S. J.T.S. 39 (1938), pp. :l50350-69. - - "The " The eucharisti c prayt'r of Hippolytus", 69. J. H. Crehan,Early Christian Christian Baptis/f! Bapti8tft and the Creed (London, 1950), pp. 159 7[). J. 71). Elf!'rs, Die K KirchenordnulI1J Hippolyts (defencpof H. Elfers, irch~nordnung H ippol!Jts von Rom (Paderborn,19:J8) 1938) (defenc{' HippolytuR' Hippolytlls' authorship). "X!'uee l'ntt'rsuchungen - - "X{'u l'ntl-rsllchungen iiber tiber die Kirchenordnung Kirehenordnllng Hippolyts", Festschrift (Diisseldorf, 1952), Pl'. pp. 169 211. K. Adam (Dtisseldorf, 21J. H. Engbt'rding, Engberding,"Das " Das angebli angt'bliche che Dokument Dokumentromischer romischer Liturgie Litllrgi{' aus dem dem Beginn C, lJlohlberg Mohlberg dt's rlrittt'n .Tahrhunderts", dritten .Jahrhund erts", MiscellaneaLitllrgiw, Li tllrgica ill horlOrem honore1fl L. C. des I (l{om{', 47 -il -il (attack on attribution to Hippol.vtus). Hippol.vtus). 1 (H.om!', 1948), pp. 4i F. UQ\'in, Uayin, "l{abbinic "Rabbinic Parall!'ls ordprs", Parall{'ls in early church ord('rs ", Hebrew Union Colley€ Colleye II II lIal 6 (1929), pp. 5i-6i, A .-Illnual6 57- 67. .J. ~l. Hanssens, cdn, l{.ome, l{ome, 1965). •J. )1. Hanssens, La Litl/rgie Liturgie d' Hippolyte Hippo/yte (2nd edn, ..Jungmann, Fortleb!'n von Hippolyts Apostolischcr J. A .• Jllngmann, ""Bpobaehtungen B('obachtungenzum Fortleb{'n Apostolischcr Zeitschriftfiir klttholisch~ 85.. l't' eberlieferung ", ZeitschrijZ eberlit'ferung". Jiir katholische Theologie53 (1929), (1929), pp. 5795i9-8.'5 Kirchenordnung Hippolyts", ibid.. 86 (1964), . --. "Die --"Di{' Doxologien in del' Kirchenordnllng Hippolyts", ibid 321-6 pp, :121 -6. . pp. f't pr('sbyterat presbyteratdalls dans les ecrits d'Hippolyte de Rome" Rome",, .J. Lecuyer, U('uyer, "Episcopat " Episcopat et 30-50. religi ellse 41 (1953), pp. 30-50. Recherchesde srience religieuse

p

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. G. Martimort, "La Tradition apostoliqu d'Hippol~·tpet le rituel baptismal antique", Bulletin de litteratttre eccU8ia8tique 60 (Tl ·.douse, 1959), pp. 57-62 (criticism of Salles). P. ::\'autin, .Je croi8 rll'E.~prit-Sain.tdan8ln 81"inte pour la ri~urrectionde la choir (Paris, 1!!47). K C. Ratt-Iiff, "'The Sandus and the Pattern of the t'arly Ana ph ora··, .Journal nf EcclP."'iastiwJ }/ istor11 I (I 9.')0), pp. 29 -:ln, 12;) -:14. C. ('. Hkhardson, "'ThP so-eall~>dEpil"IPsi~in Hippolytus'', Hanvml Theological ReriPII' 40 ( l!I.J.i ). pp. 10 I -S. ··"A nntP on thP t>pi.i Rahmani,Uniat Patriarchof Antioch, whole text by H. B. IgnatiusEphra.em version.:j: An English tra.n~lation tran"lation with copiousDOtes with a Latin version.t notesand introduction by Prof. Cooper and the presentPrimus of Scotland appearedin 1902.§ All theseare now out of print. The work also also exists in an Arabic recensionstill unpublished,and in Ethiopic, also also unpublished. Some readingsof the Arabic T. from a MS. in the Borgian Collection of the Vatican Library are given by Rahmani in his edition of the Syria.c. A colla.tion coUation of photographsof part of MSS. of Ethiopic T. in the British Museum makes it this Borgian MS. with MSS. Syriac. It is clear that the la.tter latter is a translation tmnsla.tion from the Arabic not the Syria.c. probabl e that both T.Ar. and T.Eth. come from a lost Coptic version and not probable lea.st certain that they are independentof from the original Greek, and it is at least the Syria.c, which seems soomson the whole much more faithful to the original than small portionsof the Arabic hitherto published published. T.Eth. the sma.ll . The Liturgy only of T.Eth. was published by the late Bishop J. J. M. M. Harden(J.T.S. xxiii.. 44). It is pra.cprac(J.T.S. xxiii tica.lly AbYB8inian "Anaphora. " Anaphoraof our Lord". Lord" . tically identical with the current Abyssinian • The Greek codex underlying L. containsthe Ap06tolie Apo&tolic CAureA Church Order, which in A..D. 300 and might well come from its presentform can hardly be older than c. A.D. c. ".D. 325--350.A marginoftime of time must be be allowed for Ap. CA. Ck. O. to gain a circulation A.D. 325-350. and 80me Bome repute before it could be included in a collection with genuine thirdcentury works like the Ap. Didascalia and Tradition. Rel.jur. Syr., Vienna, 1856. Cf. an attemptedrestorationof the Greek, t Rel. jur. eccl. eccl. ant. Syr., jur. eccl. ant. Graue, 1856, Rel. JUT. 1856, pp. 80-89. t Testamentum Te8tamentumD.N.J.C., D.N.J.C., Maintz, 1899. § TM The Tutamentof our O1lT Lord, J. Cooperand A. J. Maclean, Edinburgh, 1902.

TEXTUAL TEXTUAL MATERIALS

IV.

lxxi lxn

The Apostolic Constitutions(A.)

This is the longest, and at least so far as concernsthe liturgy of its eighth book, the most widely known of the Church Orders. It professesto consist of "Constitutions" laid down by the Apostles jointly or severally and recorded by St Clement of Rome. It comesin reality from the pen of someingeniousand well-read Syrian of the region of Antioch in the later fourth centurywhom thereis very good reasonto supposea full-blown Arian. * He is now generally identified with the writer who interpolatedthe Ignatian Epistles.t Books i-vi consistof a revision of the Apostolic Didascalia, in places capriciously emendedand altered, but treated on the whole much less cavalierly than the documentsunderlying vii and viii. Bk vii. 1-32 is based on the Didache very much exadapted. pandedand adapted . The rest of Bk vii is taken up with liturgical matter from a numberof unknownsources,anda good part of it may be the author's free composition based on current practice rather than documents.Among other piecesthere appears a markedly subordinationist version of the Gloria in excelsis. Book viii opens with a discussionof charismata. Since the time of Lightfoot it has been customaryto assumethat this is based on the treatise of Hippolytus, llEpt llEPL Xaptup.G:TWV, XaptUfLO:TWV, which both in the Statue-catalogueof his works and by the opening words of the A postolic Tradition is closely associatedwith the latter work. But a careful comparisonof Ap. Const. viii. I1 and 2 with passagesin other books which undoubtedlycome from the "Constitutor's" "Constitutor's" own pen reveals so very much which is characteristic of his markedly individual style that it seemshighly doubtful if any trace of Hippolytus' llEpt llEPL Xapwp.aTwv XapwfL(J:rwv is really to be found in it; if the "Constitutor" used the work he has altogether. undoubtedlyrecastit altogether . But in fact thesetwo chapters •* This was establishedbeyondreasonable reasonabl e doubt by Turner, J.T.S. xv. 53.

t There is a handy discussionof the characteristicsof his style by Brightman, L.E. L. E. W. p. xxiv sq., which is too little known. Schwartz, Ueber die p8eudoapostop8eudoaposto. li,.chen K irchenordnungen, irchenordnu1I1Jen,attemptsto distinguishfour separatehandsin this group lischen of writings, but his argumentswere entirely disposedof by Turner, J.T.S. xvi. 54 8q. sq.

lxxii

TEXTUAL MATERIALS

might conceivablyhave been suggestedby Ap. Trad. i. 11 quite apart from the n€pt XapLop,a:rwv. nEp~ XaptUI-'cJ.TWV . viii is basedmore or less-chieflylessThe remainderof Bk viii It contains oontainslike its sourcean ordinal, on the ApostolicTradition. It an anaphora(of the fourth-century Syrian type), and a large variety of other ecclesiasticalregulations,arrangedroughly in the order of Hippolytus' treatise,from which it frequently draws words and phrases. But so much has been added, altered, p. Const. viii omitted or expandedthat A Ap. viii can hardly be called a new edition of Hippolytus. It is really a fresh work for which the A postolic Tradition has supplied the general outline and a certain amount of the language. But the author was evidently not in the least concernedto preservethe Apostolic Tradition for its own sake. The remnantsof its text are usually swamped e.g. in the anaphora,where words with supplementarymatter, e.g. Apostolic and phrases certainly referable to the A postolic Tradition all of an anaphoraoccupyingnine amountto abouteight lines in all pages in Brightman's L.E.W. In this eighth book, the most practical part of his work, the author's author's main guide was undoubtedly current Antiochene practice, as was natural if he wished his book to influence his own contemporariesat Antioch. Where we know for certain that Antiochene practice in the fourth century differed from that laid down by Hippolytus, e.g. e.g. without imposition of handsby the other in ordainingpresbyterswitlwut presbytersbut by the bishop alone, or in ordaining lectors with bishop'S hands, the Apostolic Constitutions imposition of the bishop's follows Antiochenecustom,not the Apostolic Tradition. Nevertheless,though its use of Hippolytus is everywherediscontinuous and generally very free, the Apostolic A postolic Constitutions hassomevalue for the reconstructionof Hippolytus' Greek text the "Constitutor's" wherever this can be detectedunderlying the" Constitutor's" verbiage. But it is as well to emphasisethe fact that it only assumesthis value on accountof the inadequatematerialsotherwise available. No fair estimateof the reliance to be placed on it can be made without careful considerationof the" Constitutor's" treatmentof other documentsin Bks i-vii. This author was equippedwith a perverseingenuity in the maltreatmentof

TEXTUAL MATERIALS

lxxiii

earlier documents,while sometimesleaving the whole structure of their sentences intact,which hasto bestudiedto be adequately appreciated. He everywherefuses the languageof his sources with phrasesand sentimentsentirely of his own devising. A certain tendencyto what can only be called moral reproof of the " Constitutor" on this head is observablein the writings of scholarswho have had to struggle with his exasperatinghabit of adaptingtexts. It is but fair to say that in this he only follows the general practice of other authors of similar documents, though with a competenceand a consistentthoroughnesswhich none of his rivals can claim. If his work succeeded-as it didin retaining its public for a thousandyears after all the other Church Orders had virtually disappearedfrom Greek ecclesiastical literature, that was becauseit deservedto do so. With its profuse and ingenioususe of scripture, its verboseprayers and its inflated rhetoric, the A postolic Constitutionswas excellently adaptedto catch the later Byzantine taste. And almost everything before it of any value in this class of documenthad been absorbedinto it and presentedafresh in compactand practical form by an able and pious, pious, if plainly heretical,editor. It is not only the climax but also the summaryof the Church Orders. So far as concernsits use of Hippolytus, the following observations may be made. The Apostolic Tradition has been treated,if possible, more rudely than any of the other sources of which this writer made use. Only about half the text of Hippolytus is representedat all in the Apostolic Constituti'Jns, whereas th~ "Constitutor's" omissions from the Didache and Didascalia are small and unimportant. '~What W hat does remain of Hippolytus is frequently summarisedin languagewhich, while reminiscentof the original, is not identical. In the Didache and the Didascalia the "Constitutor" has reproducedhis sources with muchgreaterfidelity. I have,I think, succeededin extractthe" Constitutor"everythingwhich may be ing from the text of the " Constitutor" said to bear traces of Hippolytus' wording. The surrounding matter of the "Constitutor's" " Constitutor's" own invention has been largely omitted, which gives a wholly misleading impression of the extent of his adherenceto his source. Much less than tha.n a quarter

lxxiv

TEXTUAL TEXTUAL MATERIALS MATERIALS

of Bk viii has in fact any verbal connectionwith the Apostolic Tradition. And in thosepartsof it which do reston the latter and in part preserveits language,cautionis necessaryto detectthe frequent small changes of case and construction which the "Constitutor" has made. Words and phrasesreproduceddo not necessarilyrepresentexactly Hippolytus' Greek. The standardtext is that of F. X. Funk (Didasca1iae (Didasoaliaeet Constituti0ne8 ClYMtituti0ne8Ap08Apw. toiorum, tolorum, 2 vola., vols., Paderborn,1905), a beautiful book to work with, even though its text is sometimessusceptibleof improvement. * There is an English transimprovement.· lation in the Library of the ante-Nicene ante-NjceneFathers. Father8.

v. The "Epitome of Apostolic Constitutions,Bk viii" (Ep.) or "Constitutionsthrough Hippolytus" Neither of the titles by which this work is known accurately representsits contents. On the one hand it is not, strictly speaking,an Epitome of Ap. A p. Const. Canst. viii so much as a series of extracts,someof them a little altered, but most of them given in the exactwordsof theApostolic A postolicConstitutions.On theother,the title "Constitutionsof the Holy Apostles through Hippolytus concerningOrdinations"is restrictedby thoseMSS. in which it is found to the secondonly of the five chaptersinto which the work is divided. Its extensionby some modernwriters to the whole work seemsto be due to an unfortunate theory put out by Achelis and patronisedfor a time by Harnackthat the Epitome is really a sourceor first draft of Ap. Const. viii. The title of the whole work in the MSS., Epitome, was therefore regardedby them as misleading. But there is now no question that the Epitome is dependenton and later than the Apostolic Constitutions, and the title Epitome has therefore a certain convenience as emphasisingthis dependence. The importanceof the Epitome lies solely in this: that the "Epitomator" was aware that Ap. Const. viii made use of the Apostolic A postolic Tradition, and in three or four passages-the election of the bishop, the prayer for the consecrationof a bishop, the •* Turner hasshownthat all MSS. exceptVat. 1506 (Funk'sMS. d) "tone down" the original Arianism of the work. The peculiar readingsof d are generally placed apparatWi. by Funk in the apparatus.

TEXTUAL MATERIALS lIrlATERIALS

lxxv

appointmentof a lector and (perhaps)for the regulation concerning concubinagewith slavesin xvi. 24b-hasfor reasonsno longer obvious preferred to reproduce Hippolytus' own text rather than the adaptedtext in his usua.l . Clearly the usual source source. original Greek text of the Apostolic Tradition lay before the "Epitomator" besidesthe ApostolicConstitutions,and in a MS. which still retainedthe author'sname. That the Epitome is later than the Apostolic Constitutionsis obvious; how muchlater thereis no satisfactorymeansof telling. obvious; The excellenceof the text which it extractedfrom the Apostolic Constitutionssuggestsa fairly early date,but the oldest known MSS. are of the eleventhcentury. It is extantin a large number of MSS. differing considerablyamongthemselvesas to the portions of the ApostolicConstitutionsreproduced,which suggestsa long but not authoritative career for the work in the underliterature. . Weareequally in the dark world of Greek canonicalliterature as to iN! ibs place of origin. The portions of the A postolic Constitutions which it omits consist almost entirely of prayers and liturgical matter, which the" Epitomator" presumablythought superfluousas not being those in use in his own Church. Church. But sinceit is probablethat they wereneverin usequite in this form in any Church this gives no clue. In a single MS. of this work, Vienna, Hist. Gr. vii, there are found two additionalfragmentsof the A postolic Tradition, from xxv. 1I and xxxvi. 6 respectively.This MS. is the only one to preserve the full Greek text of another Church Order, the ApostolicChurch Order. Though it is only of the twelfth century its contentssuggestderivation from an older MS., probably of Syrian origin.* Relianceon the obsoletematter of the Church Orders to the extent found in this MS. is unusual in Greek canonical collections, and indicates a non-Constantinopolitan origin for this one. The Epitomeis alone amongour sourcesin offering us one or passagesof Hippolytus' Greek text. It It is untwo continuouspassa.ges fortunate that even here one should have to point out that Quae8tiones • It containsextractsfrom the Q-uae 8tiones of Anastasiusof Sinai, a writer on canonlaw popular in Syria in the eighth and ninth centuries.

lxxvi

TEXTUAL MATERIALS TEXTU.AL

HippolytUB Hippolytus has haa undergoneslight but tendenciousmodification. In the prayerfor the consecrationof a bishop (iii. 3) it is the two Greek texts which have for oppositedoctrinal reasonsdifferently modified the words of their original and the translationswhich have preserved Hippolytus' own wording. This is one more exclusivelyto anyonesourcein the cautionagainsttrusting too exclUBively presentstateof our materials. The Greek text of the Epitome W88 L&ga.rde (Rel. was first printed in full by Lagarde

JUT. I-IS) and has timell refur. ecd. eccl. ant. Gr., Vienna, 1856, pp. 1-18) ha.s been several timee

printed since, by Pitm Pitrn and others. I have used here that of F. X. Funk a.nd Homer (op. cit. p. viii) (op. cit. ii. 72 sq.). IKJ.). There is also a Syriac Syriac version, and speaksof an Arabic version, but of these I have no knowledge. There is no English version of the Epitome.

VI. The Canonsof Hippolytus (K.) vi.

With this documentwe really passout of the ChurchOrdersinto a somewhatdifferent group of writings. But since K. is largely Apostolic basedon the A postolic Tradition, which is conventionallyplaced within them, them, it is convenientandusualto classK classK.. asaChurch a ChurchOrder. In reality it belongsto an age when collectionsof Canonshad becomethe recognisedauthority on ChurchUBage usageand the fiction that all prescriptionson Church Order of necessityderivedfrom the Apostles had been abandoned. But canonicalliterature in Egypt continuedto cover itself with the veneratednamesof the Athanasius,Baail, past. Similar sets of Canons attributed to AthanasiUB, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and other Doctors are known, and a.nd seem to representmuch the samestate of things. They are all in part baaed upon genuine extracts from the works of the Fathers based whose namesthey bear, very freely adapted;a date in the late fifth or sixth centuryand an Egyptianorigin seemsattributable to all of them. K. is thereforenot an isolateddocument,even though it rea.lly really standsoutsidethe Church Orders. A hesitation to place it in its proper setting of these later Egyptian canonicalcollections, which are still very imperfectly known,- has haa obscuredthe characterof K. in modern study. known,· •* The only texts of someof them are German Oerma.nversionsor summariesin Riedel's tkanaaiUII has beenedited by Riedel and a.nd irchenreckt8quellen.CanoftS Ca7Wr18 oj A tkana.nu" pioneer K irc1aenreckt8que1le:n. Crum, London, 1904.

TEXTUAL MATERIALS

lxxvii

Achelis arrived at the unfortunateconclusionthat K. was the original of the whole group of Church Orders (Ap. Trad., Ap. Const., 001/,8t., Ep., Test.) Test.) which contain Hippolyteanmatter, and from K. he supposedall the othersto derive. K. is in fact the latest of the group and his theory was fruitful of impossible conclusions. Though it is now universally abandonedthis false start seemsin some way still to secureK. more consideration from scholarsthan its real characterand date would justify. Apostolic K. is no more than a drasticre-castingof the A po8toli (all) the presbyterate,in which the presbytersshare,but that which is entrustedto him under the bishop'sauthority. M.E.S. Ar.E.S.

Nor (OVDE:') (ovoi) is he appointed (Ku8wT(1.VUL) (KU8tGTC1.VUt) to receivethe Spirit of seniority which the presbytersshaI:e (fLETEXELV)

Ar. but to give attention andto beworthy of the bishop'strust and to be diligent aboutwhat is fitting.

E. S. but to occupy but to beworthy himself with that (ae£Os) (ael.Os) for the which is properthat bishop to trust thebishopmaytrust (1T£OTEVEW)him with (1T'O'T£vnv)himwith him and that he the things which may acquaint the it is fitting. bishopwith what is fitting. S Whereforethe bishop alone shall make (xnpo-roVEtV (xnpo-rov£,vS.) the deacon. Prubyt68' ordi7Wtion PrubyW8' ordination

6 But upon the presbyterthe (otMr) presbytersalso lay their hands becauseof the similar Spirit i8) common to (all) the clergy.

L. (p.109).4 non &eeipienscommunem oommunempraesbyteri"; "; but it is not the eucharist(EuxaptaTLa) (t:vxapLrwiq.); = fV "apov~iq.). 10. do not place muchconfidencein the verbal fidelity of this reconstruction,though 1 o. I do represenMthe generalsenseof the original. Noneof oj the textsmakessense again I think it represents stands.' explanation]L.T. WOrd=AOyO'. be asked) asked] so 80 T.; asks L.Ar.E.S. as it stands. I The explanation) WOrd=AO/,O'. I be him] L. only. I, to him)

48

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

(3£) if if the faithful (?naTos) And (0£) (1TLU'TOS) should be present at a supper (OEL1TJIOV) (3EL1I'VOV) without the bishop, but with a presbyteror deaconpresent,let them similarly partakerin orderly fashion1. l. .,bread bread(EvAoywv) But let everyonebe carefulto receivethe blessed deacon. from the handof the presbyteror deacon . Similarly a catechumen shall receivethe r8ame 11 rbreadl, rbreadl, exorcised. 12 If laymen (AaOs) (AaOS") (only> . 4 tV fV (l. t'rr,) t7rL) 1Tiiutv rraULV vfLlIovp.iv vJLvovp.iv (Tf 0 Bfo" BfoS', f'7Tl Err! 1TafTLY 7TU(nV or, orr fV. fV+ 1]p-yfT1](Ja. «0(J/-,r,(J0IpHv). Let the rose (+ f-L€v) p,Iv) and the lily (Kp{VOV) (KpLVOV) be offered (7Tpoac/>.) (7Tpoac/>.),, but (0/) not others. (8€) 8 And (o€) (0/) for all things which are eaten eatenthey shall give thanks to [the Holy] God, eating them to His glory. mala. u m, amygmala grania, oliua, pyrus, malum, sycaminum, syeaminum,Persicum, Persieum, cerase eeraseum, dalum, Damascena, Damaseena, melopepon,non cucumeres, eueumeres,non cepa, eepa,non daluID, non pepon,non mclopepon, aleus, nec nee aliut de aliis oleribus. 7 Sed et aliquotiens et flores offeruntur. ssedAr.8.; Ar.S. ; The priests priestsshall Mhall blessthesefrl'its frcits E. 7. sometimes] sometimes]lit. it will be that S, S. (= ( = lIJO' ("O· OH?), OT( ?). I also] so 80 L.Ar.; L.AI.; om. E.S.(T), E.S.(T). I rose 7. lil y] so L.T,; L.T.; pl. Ar.E.S. AI.E.S. (om. (am. and the lily Ar.E.). I not others] so 80 L.; let let them them and lily] not bring others Ar,E.S. Ar.E.S. I After rrrrpov¢' pou¢