Clementine Literature

CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, the name generally given to the writings which at one time or another were fathered upon Pope Clement I. (q.v.), commonly called Clemens Romanus, who was early regarded as a disciple of St. Peter. Chief among them are : (I) The so-called Second Epistle; (2) two Epistles on Vir ginity ; (3) the Homilies and Recognitions, with which may be classed the Epistle of Clement to James; (4) the Apostolical Con stitutions (q.v.) ; and (5) five epistles forming part of the Forged Decretals (see DECRETALS). The present article deals mainly with the third group, to which the title "Clementine literature" is usu ally confined, owing to the stress laid upon it in the famous Tubingen reconstruction of primitive Christianity, in which it played a leading part ; but later criticism has lowered its impor tance as its true date and historical relations have been progres sively ascertained. (1) and (2) became "Clementine" only by chance, but (3) was so originally by literary device or fiction, the cause at work also in (4) and (5). But while in all cases the sug gestion of Clement's authorship came ultimately from his prestige as writer of the genuine Epistle of Clement (see CLEMENT I.), both (3) and (4) were due to this idea as operative on Syrian soil; (5) is a secondary formation based on (3) as known to the West.

(1) The Second Epistle of Clement.—This is really the earli est extant Christian homily (see AposToLic FATHERS). Its theme is the duty of Christian repentance, with a view to obedience to Christ's precepts as the true confession and homage which He requires. Its special charge is "Preserve the flesh pure and the seal (i.e., baptism) unstained" (viii. 6). But the peculiar way in which it enforces its morals in terms of the Platonic contrast between the spiritual and sensuous worlds, as archetype and temporal manifestation, and the fact that the preacher seems to quote the Gospel according to the Egyptians (in ch. xii. and pos sibly elsewhere) as if familiar to his hearers, and indeed its liter ary affinities generally, all point to Alexandria as the original home of the homily, at a date about 120-140.

(2) The Two Epistles to Virgins, i.e.,

to Christian celibates of both sexes. These are known in their entirety only in Syriac, and were first published by Wetstein (1752), who held them genuine. This view is now generally discredited, even by Roman Catholics like Funk, their best recent editor (Patres Apost., vol. ii.). There is no trace of their use in the West. Their Syrian origin is mani fest, the more so that in the Syriac ms. they are appended to the New Testament, like the better-known epistles of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus. Special occasion for such hortatory letters may be discerned in their polemic against intimate relations be tween ascetics of opposite sex, implied to exist among its readers, in contrast to usage in the writer's own locality. Now we know that spiritual unions, prompted originally by highstrung Christian idealism as to a religious fellowship transcending the law of nature in relation to sex, did exist between persons living under vows of celibacy during the 3rd century in particular, and not least in Syria (cf. the case of Paul of Samosata, c. 265, and the Synod of Ancyra in Galatia, c. 314) .

(3a) The Epistle of Clement to James (the Lord's brother). This was originally part of (3b), in connection with which its origin and date are discussed. But as known to the West through Rufinus' Latin version, it was quoted as genuine throughout the middle ages. It became the starting point of the most momentous and gigantic of mediaeval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals, where it stands at the head of the pontifical letters, extended to more than twice its original length.

(3b) The Homilies and Recognitions.

"The two chief extant Clementine writings, differing considerably in some respects in doctrine, are both evidently the outcome of a peculiar specu lative type of Judaistic Christianity, for which the most char acteristic name of Christ was `the true Prophet.' The framework of both is a narrative purporting to be written by Clement (of Rome) to St. James, the Lord's brother, describing at the begin ning his own conversion and the circumstances of his first acquaint ance with St. Peter, and then a long succession of incidents accompanying St. Peter's discourses and disputations, leading up to a romantic recognition of Clement's father, mother and two brothers, from whom he had been separated since childhood. The problems discussed under this fictitious guise are with rare excep tions fundamental problems for every age; and, whatever may be thought of the positions maintained, the discussions are hardly ever feeble or trivial. Regarded simply as mirroring the past, few, if any, remains of Christian antiquity present us with so vivid a picture of the working of men's minds under the influence of the new leaven which had entered into the world" (Hort, Clem. Recog., p. xiv.). Recent criticism builds on the principle, which emerges alike from the external and internal evidence that both writings used a common basis or parent document. Towards the determination of its nature, origin and antecedents, two contri butions of prime importance have been made. The earlier of these is by F. J. A. Hort, and was delivered in the form of lec tures as far back as 1884, though issued posthumously only in 1901 ; the other is the elaborate monograph of Dr. Hans Waitz External Evidence.—The evidence of ancient writers really begins, not with Origen, but with Eusebius of Caesarea, who in his Eccl. Hist. iii. 38, writes as follows : "Certain men have quite lately brought forward as written by him (Clement) other verbose and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter, forsooth, and Apion, whereof not the slightest mention is to be found among the ancients, for they do not even preserve in purity the stamp of the Apostolic orthodoxy." Apion, the Alexandrine grammarian and foe of Judaism, whose criticism was answered by Josephus, ap pears in this character both in Homilies and Recognitions, though mainly in the former (iv. 6–vii. 5). Thus Eusebius implies (1) a spurious Clementine work containing matter found also in our Homilies at any rate; and (2) its quite recent origin. Next we note that an extract in the Philocalia of Origen is introduced as follows: "Yea, and Clement the Roman, a disciple of Peter the Apostle, after using words in harmony with these on the present problem, in conversation with his father at Laodicea in the Cir cuits, speaks a very necessary word touching this matter" (astro logical divination). The extract answers to Recognitions, x. 10-13, but it is absent from our Homilies. Here we observe that (1) the extract agrees this time with Recognitions, not with Homilies; (2) its framework is that of the Clementine romance found in both ; (3) the tenth and last book of Recognitions is here parallel to book xiv. of a work called Circuits (Periodoi). This last point leads on naturally to the witness of Epiphanius (c. 375), who, speaking of Ebionites or Judaizing Christians of various sorts, and particularly the Essene type, says (Haer. xxx. 15) that "they use certain other books likewise, to wit, the so-called Circuits of Peter, which were written by the hand of Clement. . . . In the Circuits, then, they adapted the whole to their own views, repre senting Peter falsely in many ways, as that he was daily baptized for the sake of purification, as these also do; and they say that he likewise abstained from animal food and meat, as they themselves also do." Now all the points here noted in the Circuits can be traced in our Homilies and Recognitions, though toned down in different degrees. The witness of the Arianizing Opus Imper fectum in Matthaeum (c. 400) is in general similar. Its usual form of citation is "Peter in Clement" (apud Clementem), and points to "Clement" as a brief title for the Clementine Periodoi.

It has been needful to cite so much of the evidence proving that our Homilies and Recognitions are both recensions of a corn mon basis, at first known as the Circuits of Peter and later by titles connecting it rather with Clement, its ostensible author, because it affords data also for the historical problems touching (a) the contents and origin of the primary Clementine work, and (b) the conditions under which our extant recensions of it arose.

(a) The Circuits of Peter, as defined on the one hand by the epistle of Clement to James originally prefixed to it and by patris tic evidence, and on the other by the common element in our Homilies and Recognitions, may be conceived as follows. It con tained accounts of Peter's teachings and discussions at various points on a route beginning at Caesarea, and extending north wards along the coast-lands of Syria as far as Antioch. During this tour he meets with persons of typically erroneous views, which it was presumably the aim of the work to refute in the interests of true Christianity, conceived as the final form of divine revelation—a revelation given through true prophecy embodied in a succession of persons, the chief of whom were Moses and the prophet whom Moses foretold, Jesus the Christ. The prime ex ponent of the spurious religion is Simon Magus. A second pro tagonist of error, this time of Gentile philosophic criticism directed against fundamental Judaism, is Apion, the notorious anti-Jewish Alexandrine grammarian of Peter's day ; while the role of upholder of astrological fatalism (Genesis) is played by Faustus, father of Clement, with whom Peter and Clement debate at Laodicea. Finally, all this is already embedded in a setting determined by the romance of Clement and his lost relatives, "recognition" of whom forms the denouement of the story.

There is no reason to doubt that such, roughly speaking, were the contents of the Clementine work to which Eusebius alludes slightingly, in connection with that section of it which had to his eye least verisimilitude, viz., the dialogues between Peter and Apion. Now Eusebius believed the work to have been of quite recent and suspicious origin. This points to a date about the last quarter of the 3rd century; and the prevailing doctrinal tone of the contents, as known to us, leads to the same result. The stand point is that of the peculiar Judaizing Christianity due to persist ence among Christians of the tendencies known among pre Christian Jews as Essene. The Essenes, while clinging to what they held to be original Mosaism, yet conceived and practised their ancestral faith in ways which showed distinct traces of syncretism, or the operation of influences foreign to Judaism proper. They thus occupied an ambiguous position on the borders of Judaism. Similarly Christian Essenism was syncretist in spirit, as we see from its best-known representatives, the Elchasaites, of whom we first hear about 220, when a certain Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria (some 6om. south of Antioch) brought to Rome the Book of Helxai—the manifesto of their distinctive message (Hippol., Philos. ix. 13)—and again some 20 years later, when Origen refers to one of their leaders as having lately arrived at Caesarea (Euseb. vi. 38).

The Periodoi or Circuits must not be thought of as strictly El chasaite, since it knew no baptism distinct from the ordinary Christian one. It seems rather to represent a later and modified Essene Christianity, already half Catholic, such as would suit a date after 25o, in keeping with Eusebius's evidence. Confirmation of such a date is afforded by the silence of the Syrian Didascalia, itself perhaps dating from about 25o, as to any visit of Simon Magus of Caesarea, in contiast to the reference in its later form, the Apostolical Constitutions (c. 350-400), which is plainly col oured (vi. 9) by the Clementine story. On the other hand, the Didascalia seems to have been evoked partly by Judaizing propa ganda in north Syria. If, then, it helps to date the Periodoi as after 25o, it may also suggest as place of origin one of the large cities lying south of Antioch, say Laodicea (itself on the coast about 3om. from Apamea), where the Clementine story reaches its climax. The intimacy of local knowledge touching this 'region implied in the narrative common to Homilies and Recognitions is notable, and tells against an origin for the Periodoi outside Syria (e.g., in Rome, as Waitz and Harnack hold, but Lightfoot dis proves, Clem. i. 55 f ., 64,10o, cf. Hort, p. 131). Further, though the curtain even in it fell on Peter at Antioch itself (our one com plete ms. of the Homilies is prcved by the Epitome, based on the Homilies, to be here abridged), the interest of the story culminates at Laodicea.

Ii we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines arose in Syria, perhaps, c. 265, had it also a written source or sources which we can trace? Though Hort doubts it, most scholars (e.g., Waitz, Harnack) infer the existence of at least one source, "Preachings (Kerygmata) of Peter," containing no reference at all to Clement. Such a work seems implied by the epistle of Peter to James and its appended adjuration, pre fixed in our mss. to the Homilies along with the epistle of Clement to James. Thus the later work aimed at superseding the earlier, much as Photius suggests (see above). It was, then, to these "Preachings of Peter" that the most Ebionite features, and espe cially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still in hering in the Periodoi (as implied by Homilies in particular), originally belonged. The fact, however, that these were not more completely suppressed in the later work, proves that it, too, arose in circles of kindred, though largely modified, Judaeo-Christian sentiment (cf. Homilies, vii., e.g., ch. 8). The differences of stand point may be due not only to lapse of time, and the emergence of new problems on the horizon of Syrian Christianity generally, but also to change in locality and in the degree of Greek culture represented by the two works. A probable date for the "Preach ings" used in the Periodoi is c. 200.

If the home of the Periodoi was the region of the Syrian Laodicea, we can readily explain most of its characteristics. Photius refers to the "excellences of its language and its learn ing"; while Waitz describes the aim and spirit of its contents as those of an apology for Christianity against heresy and paganism, in the widest sense of the word, written in order to win over both Jews (cf. Recognitions, i. 53-70) and pagans, but mainly the latter. In particular it had in view persons of culture, as most apt to be swayed by the philosophical tendencies in the sphere of religion prevalent in that age, the age of neo-Platonism. It was in fact designed for propaganda among religious seekers in a time of singular religious restlessness and varied inquiry, and, above all, for use by catechumens (cf. Ep. Clem. 2, 13) in the earlier stages of their preparation for Christian baptism. To such its ro mantic setting would be specially adapted, as falling in with the literary habits and tastes of the period ; while its doctrinal peculi arities would least give offence in a work of the aim and character just described.

(b) That the Periodoi was a longer work than either our Homilies or Recognitions is practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as Hort suggests, have been a chief cause of the changes of form. Yet Homilies and Recognitions are abridgments made on different principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers. The Homilies care most for doctrine, especially philosophical doctrine, and seem to transpose very freely for doc trinal purposes; the Recognitions care most for the story, as a means of religious edification, and have preserved the general framework much more nearly. They arose in different circles; indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syraic ms. of A.D. 411 (who gives a selection of discourses from the Homilies after Recognitions, iii.), not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books in any form. Both probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good deal in religious standpoint. Homilies was a sort of second edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a generation or two after the Periodoi appeared. The Recogni tions, in both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others in the West, was more Catholic in tone.

The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity, and proves that it embraced more intermediate types, between Ebio nism proper and Catholicism, than has generally been realized. Incidentally, too, its successive forms illustrate many matters of belief and usage among Syrian Christians generally in the 3rd and 4th centuries, notably their apologetic and catechetical needs and methods. Further, it discusses, as Hort observes, certain indestructible problems which much early Christian theology passes by or deals with rather perfunctorily; and it does so with a freshness and reality which we see to be not unconnected with origin in an age as yet free from the trammels of formal ortho doxy. The romance to which it owed much of its popular appeal, became, through the medium of Rufinus' Latin, the parent of the late mediaeval legend of Faust, and so the ancestor of a famous type in modern literature.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See Hans \\raia, "Die Pseudoklementinen" (Texte Bibliography.--See Hans \\raia, "Die Pseudoklementinen" (Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr. Literatur, neue Folge, Bd. x. Heft 4), and A. Harnack, Chronologie der altchr. Literatur (19o4), ii. 518f. In English, besides Hort's work, there are articles by G. Salmon, in Dict. of Christ. Biog., C. Bigg, Studia Biblica, ii., A. C. Headlam, Journal of Theol. Studies, iii., and in Hastings' Encyclo paedia of Religion and Ethics.