The main Greek and Latin fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel are presented here without critical apparatus. These fragments have survived as quotations in the following ancient authors:
| Fragment 1 | Epiphanius, Panarion 64.70.5-17 |
| Cf. b. Sanh. 91a-b; Leviticus Rabbah 4.5; Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael on Exod 15:1; Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai on Exod 15:1; Midrash Tanhuma on Lev 4:1, all printed in Mueller, Five Fragments, 84-95. | |
| Fragment 2 | 1 Clement 8:3 |
| Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.10.91.2 | |
| Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur 39.4 | |
| Cf. Exegesis on the Soul 135.30-136.4 (Coptic), printed in Mueller, Five Fragments. | |
| Fragment 3 | Epiphanius, Panarion 30.30.3 |
| Acts of Peter (Actus Petri cum Simone) 24 (Latin) | |
| Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.16.94.2 | |
| Tertullian, De carne Christi 23 (Latin). | |
| ** Note that Tertullian cites two versions of this fragment, one short (lines 7-8) and the other longer (lines 28-29). These line numbers are from the print edition of Evans (see "Text Sources" below). | |
| Gregory of Nyssa, Against the Jews 3 | |
| Fragment 4 | Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 47.5 |
| Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur 40.2. | |
| Cf. the many close parallels in, e.g., Cyprian, De Mortalitate 17; Basil, Epistle 42 Ad Chilonem 1; Evagrius, Vita Antonii 18; Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel; Jerome, Epistle 122 to Rusticus 3,9; Augustine, Epistle 199 2; Amphilocius, De Poenitentia; Liber Graduum; Pseudo-Athanasius, Quaestio ad Antiochum 36; Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 2.18; Testamentum XL Mart.; John Climacus, Scala Paradisi 7. The text of these and other later parallels is printed in Mueller, Five Fragments, 145-46 and Denis, Fragmenta, 124. | |
| Fragment 5 | Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.9.84.2-4 |
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII |
Note that the reconstructions in frag. 1 and frag. 2 are from Bonner, Homily (see below) and are also published in Denis, Fragmenta. Mueller (pp. 149-50) omits these reconstructions (except where they overlap with the parallel from Clement, Paed.) as too conjectural, though he discusses Bonner's proposals in his comments on the fragments.
In each case the text presented here is that found in the standard critical edition of each ancient writer. See below for a bibliography of these sources. The surviving Hebrew and Coptic evidence still waits to be encoded.
For further bibliography, see DiTommaso, Bibliography, 457-67.
| Epiphanius, Haer. | K. Holl, Epiphanius, Bände 1-3: Ancoratus und Panarion (3 vols.; GCS 25, 31, 37; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915-33), 1:374 (frag. 3); 2:515-18 (frag. 1). |
| See also PG 41, 457 C (frag. 3). | |
| 1 Clement | Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL 24-25; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1912-13), 20. |
| A. Jaubert, Clément de Rome: Épître aux Corinthiens (SC 167; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1971). | |
| K. Bihlmeyer and W. Schneemelcher (post F.X. Funk), Die apostolischen Väter (3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1970), 39. | |
| Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL 24-25; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 48. | |
| Cf. Migne, PG 1, 225 A-B. | |
| ** The text of 8:3 in Lake is nearly identical to that of more recent editions by Jaubert, Funk-Bihlmeyer-Schneemelcher, and Ehrman. The only differences between these editions involve punctuation and accentuation. We have here followed Jaubert and Ehrman instead of Lake in placing a Greek semicolon (anō teleia) after εἶπον τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ μου. Lake places a full stop at this point. We have also placed the whole fragment in quotation marks, as does Jaubert. The accentuation on πρός με here follows that of Lake and Funk-Bihlmeyer-Schneemelcher, against Jaubert and Ehrman whose texts read πρὸς μὲ. | |
| Acts of Peter (Actus Petri cum Simone) | Ricardus A. Lipsius and Maximilianus Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (3 vols.; Hildesheim : G. Olms, 1959 [1891]), 1:72. |
| Clement of Alexandria, Stromata | Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel, eds., Stromata, buch VII und VIII. Excerpta ex Theodato. Eclogae propheticae. Quis dives salvetur. Fragmente. (2d ed.; vol. 3 of Clemens Alexandrinus Werke; GCS 17; Berlin: Akademie, 1970 [1st ed 1909]), 3:66. |
| Cf. Hort and Mayor, F. J. A. Hort and J. B. Mayor, Clement of Alexandria: Miscellanies, Book VII: The Greek Text (London: Macmillan, 1902). | |
| Cf. Migne, PG 9, 532A | |
| Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus | Otto Stählin and Ursula Treu, eds. Protrepticus und Paedagogus (3d ed.; vol 1 of Clemens Alexandrinus Werke; GCS 56[12]; Berlin: Akademie, 1972 [1st ed. 1905]). |
| Cf. M. Harl, H.-I. Marrou, C. Matray, and C. Mondésert, eds., Clément d'Alexandrie: Le pédagogue (3 vols.; SC 70, 108, 158; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960-70), 1:258-260 (frag. 5), 270 (frag. 2). | |
| Cf. Migne, PG 8, 357C (frag. 2), 349C-352B (frag. 5). | |
| Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur | Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel, eds., Stromata, buch VII und VIII. Excerpta ex Theodato. Eclogae propheticae. Quis dives salvetur. Fragmente. (2d ed.; vol. 3 of Clemens Alexandrinus Werke; GCS 17; Berlin: Akademie, 1970 [1st ed 1909]). |
| Cf. Migne PG 9, 644D (frag. 2), 645B (frag. 4). | |
| Tertullian, De carni Christi | Ernest Evans, Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De carne Christi liber: Tertullian's treatise on the Incarnation (London: S.P.C.K., 1956), 76. |
| Jean-Pierre Mahé, La chair du Christ: Tertullien (2 vols.; SC 216-217; Paris: Cerf, 1975), 1:303-4. | |
| Cf. Migne, PL 2.790C. | |
| ** The text of this extract is nearly identical in Evans and Mahé. The only differences involve punctuation and Mahé's use of the letter "u" in place of "v". On these points the OCP edition has followed the older version of Evans. | |
| [Pseudo-]Gregory of Nyssa, Testimonia Adversus Iudaeos (Jews) | Migne, PG 46.208C. |
| Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho | Edgar J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914), 146. |
| Cf. Migne, PG 6, 580A. | |
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII | Campbell Bonner, The Homily on The Passion By Melito of Sardis with Some Fragments of The Apocryphal Ezekiel (SD 12; London: Christophers, 1940), 5-8, 183-202. |
| ** Note that the relevant fragments were not included by F. G. Kenyon in his facsimile edition of the papyrus codex (see fasc. 8 of Frederic G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible [8 vols.; London: E. Walker, 1933-58]). |
The following corrections have been made to the published edition of James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study (JSPSS 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), based on the published editions of the various authors listed above:
| Fragment 1 | Epiphanius, Haer. 64.70.5-17 | An iota subscript is missing under the η in τῆ (p. 81, l. 6). |
| The acute accent on τυφλός (p. 81, l. 13) should be grave. | ||
| The word τῶς on p. 81, l. 18 should be πῶς. | ||
| There should be an acute accent on the last syllable of ὀφθαλμοι (p. 81, l. 24). | ||
| There should be an acute accent on the last syllable of πικρᾶναι (p. 82, l. 3). | ||
| The smooth breathing on ἐκάτεροι (p. 82, l. 7) should be rough. | ||
| The word σονάπτεται (p. 82, l. 11) should be συνάπτεται. | ||
| Fragment 2 | 1 Clement 8:3 | Although it is not included in the OCP edition of Frag. 2, in Mueller's transcription of 1 Clem. 8:2 γυώμην should be γνώμην (p. 106, l. 1 of quotation). |
| The last two words of 1 Clem 8:3 are dative in Mueller's text, but genitive in the OCP edition (following Jaubert, Funk-Bihlmeyer-Schneemelcher, and Lake). This is not an error in Mueller, but rather a text-critical decision. | ||
| Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.10.91.2 | The third last word of the quotation has should be ὥσπερ instead of Mueller's ὥστερ (p. 108). | |
| Fragment 5 | Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 1, recto | In line 1 the ν which Mueller reads as a reconstruction (i.e., within the square brackets) is transcribed by Bonner as being present in the extant fragment (i.e., outside the square brackets) (p. 150). |
| In line 10 Mueller reads an unreconstructed lacuna after ημ̣[ων και ι, but Bonner reads no such gap (p. 150). | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 1, verso | In line 7 the final word is reconstructed by Bonner (and presented in Denis, Fragmenta) as ανε[ωξε. Mueller's reconstruction as ανε[ωζε (p. 152) seems to be a typographical error in which ζ has been substituted for ξ. | |
| In line 9 Mueller reads an unreconstructed lacuna after διακριν[ω κριον (p. 152), but Denis (Fragmenta) reads no such gap and the continuation of Bonner's reconstruction at the opening of line 10 implies that no gap exists. | ||
| In the final line Mueller (p. 152) did not include the overscore above Bonner's reconstructed κ̅ς̅ which marks it as an abbreviation for κύριος. | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 2, recto | In line 7 (p. 154) the word υη should be μη. | |
| In line 10 Mueller (p. 154) omits the dot which is transcribed by Bonner at the beginning of the line, indicating the presence of an unrecognizable letter. | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 2, verso | In line three Mueller has omitted the dot which Bonner transcribed following the π, indicating the presence of an unrecognizable letter (p. 154). | |
| In line five Mueller has omitted the dot which Bonner transcribed preceding the initial τ, indicating the presence of an unrecognizable letter (p. 154). | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 3, recto | In line three the word μο]χ̣θνρων should be μο]χ̣θηρων (p. 156). |
When one compares the text of Pap. Chester Beatty XII included in the "Corpus des Textes" in Denis' Concordance (p. 906) with the transcription of this papyrus in Bonner, Homily, one will notice several errors in Denis' edition. Note that none of these errors appear in the text of his Fragmenta.
| Fragment 5 | Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 1, recto | In several lines Denis treats a reconstructed word which must have crossed the line-break as if it fit in its entirety at the end of the line. This is true of [εγω] in line 1, [ακουσθη]σεται in line 2, [δοκιμαζο]μαι in line 6, [ηλεησας] in line 9, [ισακ'] in line 10. In other cases, such words have been shifted entirely to the following line. See διαλελ[υμαι] in line 8. |
| In line 5 Denis omits the apostrophe in ελλεγ’ξης. | ||
| The δε which is reconstructed at the end of line 5 would have to be present at the beginning of line 6 because of space restrictions. | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 1, verso | In line 1 Denis treats the words επ[εσ]τρεψατε και as if they are present in the manuscript, only two letters (εσ) being reconstructed. In fact, most of these letters are reconstructed and the words should be transcribed επ[εσ]τρε[ψατε και]. | |
| Similarly, in line 2 Denis reads εθ[ε]ραπευσατε, but this should be transcribed εθ[ε]ρα[πευσατε], indicating that most of the letters have been reconstructed to fill lacunae. Here again, Denis often treats a reconstructed word which must have crossed the line-break as if it fit entirely at the end of the line. See [απο] in line 3, [στομα] in line 7, [εγενοντο] in line 8, [ενο[χλουμενον] in line 11, [επιστρεψω] in line 12, [αναπαυσω] in line 13, [εσομαι] in line 14, [παρειμι] in line 17, [ολισθησουσιν] in line 18. | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 2, recto | Denis omits the division between this fragment and the verso of frag. 1, so that they appear (erroneously) to be a single piece of papyrus. | |
| In line 6 Denis omits the diaeresis to mark rough breathing over the υ in ϋψηλα. | ||
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 2, verso | Denis omits the overscore above the abbreviations κ̅ν̅ and θ̅ν̅. | |
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII, frag. 3 | Denis again omits the division between frag. 2 and frag. 3, as well as the division between the recto and verso of frag. 3, so that all three appear to be one side of a single fragment. |
The text published by Denis in his Fragmenta is very accurate and only four minor typographical error were observed in the process of preparing the OCP edition.
| Pap. Chester Beatty XII | In frag. 1, recto, line 14 Denis lacks the dot (indicating an uncertain reading) which Bonner places under the final μ. |
| In frag. 1, recto, line 15 Denis lacks the dot (indicating an uncertain reading) which Bonner places under the final ε. | |
| In frag. 1, verso, line 2 the final π which Bonner transcribes as being present in the extant fragment (i.e., outside the square brackets) is transcribed by Denis (Fragmenta) as having been reconstructed (i.e., within the square brackets). | |
| In frag. 2, recto, line 9, Denis erroneously reads a smooth breathing mark on the initial α in ανεβλεψα. The scribe has employed no smooth breathing marks, though the diaeresis (umlaut) has been used elsewhere in the mansucript to mark rough breathing. |
Almost all of the sources employed in this edition are in the public domain or contain a text identical with that of earlier editions, now in the public domain. The only question arises over the editions of writings by Clement of Alexandria edited by Stählin, Früchtel, and Treu. These too are most likely in the public domain, assuming that the main text is unchanged from Stählin's first edition. In any case, the OCP editors consider the use of short extracts such as these in a specialised collection to constitute "fair use" of the original editors' work. Before using this or any other OCP text for another purpose, please click on the "copyright and permissions" link in the "Help and Information" menu at top to read the policy on re-use and re-publication.