Work overview
Author

Homily III.

[1] [The first twenty-eight chapters of this homily have no exact parallel in the Recognitions; much of the matter is peculiar to this work.—R.]

[2] The text manifestly corrupt.

[3] Perhaps, rather, “the greatest part.”

[4] Matt. xxiv. 2, 34; Luke xix. 43, 44.

[5] [Here we find another view, suggesting the speculative opinions for which the author desires the indorsement of Peter.—R.]

[6] Deut. xxxii. 7.

[7] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

[8] From a conjectural reading by Neander.

[9] Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34; Luke xxiii. 34.

[10] Matt. v. 44.

[11] Gen. ii. 20.

[12] That is, the present world is female, and is under the rule of the female; the world to come is male, and is under the rule of the male.

[13] The allusion is to the fact that John the Baptist is called the greatest of those born of woman, while Christ is called the Son of man.

[14] Literally, “Let there be to us two genuine prophecies.”

[15] [The doctrine of these chapters is tinged with Gnostic dualism; much of the matter might, according to tradition, have been equally well put in the mouth of Simon.—R.]

[16] [Note the fantastic mysticism of this interpretation here given.—R.]

[17] Qu. “towards Abel”?

[18] [For a general comparison of the discussions with Simon, see Recognitions, ii. 19. Comp. Homily XVI. 1.—R.]

[19] [In Recognitions, ii. 20, this sentence occurs; but the opening discourse of Peter is quite different, far more dignified and consistent with the real character of the Apostle.—R.]

[20] Matt. x. 12, etc.; Mark. vi. 11, etc.; Luke. x. 5, etc. [Comp. Recognitions, ii. 20, where the exordium is quite different, presenting the righteousness of God.—R.]

[21] This is rather a paraphrase than a strict translation.

[22] Various reading, “assigned it the sea as a habitation for aquatic animals.”

[23] Literally, “of their life,” according to the idea prevalent of old, that the heavenly bodies were living creatures.

[24] [The reply of Simon in the Recognitions is quite different, though the substance of this attack is given in the progress of this discussion; see Recognitions, ii. 39.—R.]

[25] [The Ebionitic tendency appears in this representation of Simon, as opposing the monotheism of the Old Testament. Comp. Recognitions, ii. 38.—R.]

[30] Gen. xxii. 1. [These objections from the anthropomorphism of the Jewish Scriptures are not found in the Recognitions.—R.]

[31] The text of this passage in all the editions is meaningless. It becomes clear by change of punctuation.

[32] [Comp. ii. 38 and many other passages for this view of the errors of Scripture. The test of truth as here stated is noteworthy. It suggests some modern affinities.—R.]

[33] Gen. xv. 13–16.

[34] That is, Kibroth-Hattaavah; Num. xi. 34.

[35] Deut. xxxiv. 6, LXX.

[36] [It is curious to find the post-exilian theory of the Pentateuch in this place, put in the mouth of the Apostle Peter.—R.]

[37] Gen. xlix. 10.

[38] From the amended reading of Davis.

[39] [Comp. Homily II. 40. The attitude of Peter, as here represented, disparaging the Old Testament, appearing to exalt the author of Christ’s teachings, and yet ignoring the claims of His Person and Work, seeks its justification in rationalistic interpretation. The attitude is not an uncommon one at present.—R.]

[40] Matt. xxii. 29. [Misquoted and misapplied here, as in Homily II. 51.—R.]

[41] This is frequently quoted as a saying of Christ. It is probably from one of the apocryphal Gospels. [Comp. Homily II. 51.—R.]

[50] Matt. xiii. 17; Luke x. 24.

[51] Deut. xviii. 15–19; Acts iii. 22; vii. 37.

[52] [A curious confusion of two Gospel narratives, mistaking the significance of both.—R.]

[53] Matt. xix. 8; Mark x. 5, 6.

[54] Matt. v. 37.

[55] Matt. xxii. 32; Mark xii. 27; Luke xx. 38.

[56] Perhaps Matt. xiii. 39.

[57] Matt. vi. 8, 32.

[58] Matt. vi. 6.

[59] Matt. vii. 9–11.

[60] Matt. v. 34, 35.

[61] Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7. [Comp. Hos. vi. 6.—R.]

[62] Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.

[63] Matt. v. 44, 45.

[64] Mark xii. 29. [Comp. Deut. vi. 4.—R.]

[65] [The three days’ discussion is detailed in Recognitions, ii. 20–iii. 48; the account here is confined to the first day.—R.]

[66] [Comp. Recognitions, iii. 73. The historical incidents of the two narratives vary greatly from this point onward.—R.]

[67] Matt. xxiv. 45–50.

[68] Matt. xxv. 27–30.

[69] Probably from an apocryphal Gospel.

[70] [Comp. Recognitions, iii. 66. The account here is much fuller.—R.]

[71] Luke xix. 5, etc.

[72] Luke xii. 42.

[73] There seems to be a corruption of the text here, but the general meaning is evident enough.

[74] There are several conjectural readings of this sentence. We have not exactly followed anyone of them, but have ventured on a conjecture of our own.

[75] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

Connections

Select a sentence to see related works.

Previous Chapter LIII.—Close of the Conference Next Chapter I.—The Morning of the Discussion

Royal Archives Beta

A modern reader for Scripture and the Patristic Corpus

Library Encyclopedia Graph My notes Progress About