1202

XYSTUS

XYSTUS

of our Lord (Matt. xv. 11, 17, 19), of theCouncil of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 28), and of St.Paul (Rom. xiv. 15, 21; 1 Cor. viii. 13), andthen proceeds, “And when I am on this topic, itis not without cogency ( cmiBavov ) that 1 shouldmake mention of a very admirable sentencewhich also most Christians meet with, as itstands in the Sentences of Sextus (p *ai ol iroAAoirwv XpnTriay&v ai’ayfypajxjxevp iv ratsyv&fxais evrvyxdvovo'tv'), as follows:

Xp7)o"is fxey a$ia<popov, airoxb Ao-yiKCtfrepoy.”This is s. 109 in Rufinus, “ Animantium omniumusus quidem in cibis indifferens, abstinere verorationabilius est.” He then goes on to contrastthe rule laid down for Christians on this subjectin Acts xv., its limitations and its grounds, withthe absolute prohibition against eating fleshwhich Pythagoras founded on the doctrine ofthe transmigration of human souls into thebodies of lower animals. Some scholars haveunderstood Origen to refer here to Sextus as aheathen authority, and Heumann (ap. Harles’ed. of Fabricius’ Biblioth. Gr. t, i. lib. ii. c. 13,p. 870) even asserts that he describes him as aPythagorean. But this is not so; on the con-trary, it is plain that Origen is contrasting theteaching of Sextus, who held that to eat fleshwas a5id<f>opoj/, with the Pythagorean doctrine,according to which it was an abomination tanta-mount to cannibalism. And it seems that thegeneral drift of the passage is pretty nearly asfollows: “I have adduced passages from theHew Testament to show what are the Christianrules and principles touching the use of animalfood ; I have to add, as bearing on the samepoint, that a work also in the hands of mostChristians pronounces that use to be a thing in-different.” If this be a fair representation ofhis meaning, it is not easy to avoid the conclusionthat a book quoted thus to yield evidence on amatter of Christian teaching and usage—a bookwhich “most Christians” (ot iroAAoi, not merelymany) knew familiarly—must have been aChristian work.

2. The second passage where Origen refers toSextus is in his Commentary on Matthew , t. xv.4, p. 654, where on the text Matt. xix. 12 hecites two of our Sentences as bearing on the inter-pretation of the saying, “ There be eunuchswhich have made themselves eunuchs for thekingdom of heaven’s sake.” He holds it need-ful (he says) to discuss the subject, because hehas met with (ivr^rix oi t JL€V ') some teachers whohave wrought on ardent souls, stronger in faiththan in reason, to act on a literal constructionof that saying, and he thus proceeds, “ Sextusin his Gnomes , a book current among many asapproved (5o/c(ua>), says, nay /x4pos rb avan€iOov(re txb (ra xppoveiv, piijtow &fj.etyoy yap x w P^ rovIuepovs <ra)<pp6y<»>$, [xerct rov pspovs oAeflpfas

£= Rufinus 13 (as above cited), ‘ Omne mem-brum corporis quod suadet te contra pudicitiamagere, abiciendum; melius est enim sine unomembro vivere quam cum eo puniri *]. Thenagain, farther on in the same book, he gives asuggestion to the like effect when he says,*Av6p<t)irovs tfiois hv vtt ep rov rb Aonrbv rov<T(t)fxaros exety eppca/xeyov aTtoKOTtrovras avrcoufcal piirroyras (x4pri • irSrep fieAnoy vtt ep rov<rco(ppov€'iv; [= Rufinus 273, ‘Solent hominesabscidere aliqua membrorum suorum pro sani-tate reliquorum • quanto id praestantius pro

pudicitia fiet?’]” He here distinctly classesSextus as a writer held in repute among manyChristians, as one of the teachers by whomenthusiastic spirits were in danger of beingmisled in this matter; a fact which surely leads,as before, to the conclusion that he knew himas a Christian writer. And Origen’s citationof these two sentences, which carry on theirface evidence of their Christian origin and oftheir author’s knowledge of St. Matthew’sGospel, proves them to be no interpolation ofRufinus, but to belong to the Greek originalwhich Rufinus had before him, and whence hetranslated them with substantial fidelity/

Assuming then that the work which is knownto us in the Latin and Syriac versions is sub-stantially identical with that which Origenknew as familiarly current among Christians inhis time, and that he regarded it as a Christianwork, we may accept it on his authority as theproduction of a Christian author prior in dateto him,—Sextus, Sixtus, or Xystus. Nor doesthis conclusion rest on Origen’s opinion merely;but on the proof which lies in the fact that ofthe three sentences preserved by him, two bearsuch close affinity to the singular passage of theNew Testament on which he quotes them as toexclude the possibility of heathen authorship.The work was therefore composed, or at leastput into its present shape, before Origen’s time,and is thus determined as belonging to thesecond century; and there is no direct evidenceto prove that it ever existed in an earlier shape,in which the Christian sentences such as Originfound in it -were not present. It is true indeedthat, except the two sentences referred to, noneof the fragments preserved in Greek has adistinctively Christian character; but it doesnot follow hence that the original Greek col-lection contained no sentences of such character.It is easy to understand that a thought orprecept borrowed by Xystus from the Scriptureswould be unlikely to attract the choice of acompiler of extracts, inasmuch as such thoughtor precept would already be familiar to hisreaders in the superior authority and force ofits original form. It must however be admittedthat the Gnomes as a whole savour more ofGreek philosophy, and its exclusiveness, than ofthe world-wide Gospel/ But there is nothingimprobable in the theory that we have herethe work of a Christian writer of the early periodspecified, deeply imbued by early training in thetenets of that philosophy, possibly a recent con-vert to the faith of Christ, who has made forChristian use a collection of the best results ofGentile-wisdom, modified more or less by aninfusion of the spirit of the Gospel, and inter-gpersed here and there with sentences foundedon the Christian Scriptures. Such a combinationof ethnic and evangelic teaching might naturallybe suggested by the example of St. Paul, in hisreferences to the moral and theistic principles

f Both these sentences are found in Syr. II. (IX. 10; 20,13), the latter also in Syr. I. (5. 18). It is interesting toobserve how both Syriac translators modify its conclud-ing words: Syr. I. so as to avoid, Syr. II. so as to givewarning against, the dangerous suggestion it implies.

s The translators showed themselves conscious of thiswhen they replaced 6 o-o<J>os by “the faithful.” Thecharacter of the work is well brought, out by the sum-mary of its topics in GiMcn-eistcr’s olition.

'[ii the other l

mil nr 6***

;;w|li»8 an

(sill’s SUMnattier M«it last *

a 1st the; umpuitel notukti i heithinil, tat in

.iritis sonrttJltm livingmini 1; itswiMne,■slats, most ofVerigin, com 1

fta ht itIflle lad leer•“fainted•'split t

iiiflu

Jss^Gnomi

•N. 1 ^

•'Until

?,Set

7«Ue

N,

C»*k

VN

sN

v

s,