δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. We should draw the same conclusion from the seeming quotation in Can. Apost. vi. 4 (οὗ µισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ) οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπή- σεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου), which occurs also, with the omission of the cause οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις in the Didaché ii. 7.
. Two classes only are distinguished in the following: Syrp. Et quosdam de illis quidem ex igne rapite; cum autem resipuerint, miseremint super eis in timore, representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινοµένους δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. Syrh. et hos quidem misere- mint resipiscentes, hos autem servate de igne rvapientes in timore, representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. (Adumbr.) quosdam autem salvate de igne rapientes, quibusdam vero miseremini in timore,’ representing οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. Clem. Sivom. vi. 773, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινοµένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε, implying that he was acquainted with two different recensions. With these we may compare the texts of B, followed by WH. and B. Weiss, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω, of C, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν Φόβω, and of KLP, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόµενοι, οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες.
St. Jude’s predilection for triplets, as in vv. 2, 4, 8, in the examples of judgment in vv. 5-7, and of sin in v. 11, is prima facie favourable to the triple division in this passage. Supposing we take A and §& to represent the original, consisting of three members, a b c, we find B complete in a and c, but confused as to b. As it stands, it gives an impossible reading ; since it requires οὓς µέν to be taken as the rela- tive, introducing the subordinate verb ἐλεᾶτε, depending on the prin- cipal verb σώζετε; while οὓς δέ, on the other hand, must be taken as demonstrative. WH suggest that ἐλεᾶτε has crept in from below. Omitting this, we get the sense, “Some who doubt save, snatching them from fire; others compassionate in fear’’. It seems an easier explanation to suppose that ἐλεᾶτε was written in error for ἐλέγχετε and ots omitted in error after διακρινοµένους. The latter phenomenon is exemplified in the readings of Syrp. and Clem. Sir. 773. The texts of C and KLP are complete in a and 3, but insert a phrase from cin b. The most natural explanation here seems to be that the duplication of ἐλεᾶτε in a and c (as in 8) caused the omission of
1The paraphrase continues, id est ut eos qui in ignem cadunt doceatis ut semet ipsos liberent. (It would seem that this clause has got misplaced and should be in- serted after rapientes.) Odientes, inquit, eam, quae carnalis est, maculatam tunicam ;
animae videlicet tunica macula (read maculata) est, spivitus concupiscentiis pollutus carnalibus.