7 We have here adopted a conjectural reading of Davis. The common text is thus translated: "whose faces I remember, and who as being living images are satisfactory testimonies. These it is left," etc.
8 The Vatican ms. and Epit. Have "the power of speaking well."
9 Lit., "I met each one beforehand secretly." The Latin has, "unicuique praevius occurri."
11 The Paris ms. reads fqo/nou, "envy," instead of fo/nou, "murder."
12 [Here the two accounts become again closely parallel.-R.]
13 The text is corrupt. Dressel's reading is adopted in the text, being based on Rufinus's translation. Some conjecture, "as you will know of your own accord."
14 A conjectural reading, "being without the house," seems preferable.
15 [Comp. Recognitions, i. 16, where the discourse is more fully given.-R.]
16 The text is probably corrupt or defective. As it stands, grammatically Peter writes the discourse and sends it, and yet "by his order" must also apply to Peter. The Recognitions make Clement write the book and send it. The passage is deemed important, and is accordingly discussed in Schliemann, p. 83; Hilgenfeld, p. 37; and Uhlhorn, p. 101. [See Recognitions, i. 17. Both passages, despite the variation, may be urged in support of the existence of an earlier document as the common basis of the Clementine literature.-R.]
17 [Comp. Homily XIII. 4. And Recognitions, i. 19.-R.]
1 [With but two exceptions, these names, or their equivalents, occur in Recognitions, iii. 68, where importance is attached to the number twelve. Comp. Also Recogntions, ii. 1. A Comparison of these lists favors the theory of a common documentary basis.-R.]
2 Literally, "to be boiled out of me."
4 "Were deceived" is not in the text, but the sense demands some such expression should be supplied.
5 filo/logoi, ou0 filo/sofoi, "lovers of words, not lovers of wisdom."