Clement - Two Epistles Concerning Virginity

3. The use of Scripture in these letters seems to be conclusive against the Clementine authorship. A comparison with the citations in the genuine Epistle of Clement shows that these writings make much greater use of the Pauline (particularly the Pastoral) Epistles; that the Old Testament is less frequently cited, and that the mode of handling proof-texts is that of a later age.

4. The judgment of the most candid patristic scholars is against the genuineness. Of Protestants, Wetstein stands alone in supporting the Clementine authorship; and his position is readily explained by the fact that he discovered the Syriac version which restored the writings to modern scholars (see below). The genuineness is defended by Villecourt and Beelen (see below), also by Möhler, Champagny, and Brück. But such experts as Mansi, Hefele, Alzog, and Funk, among Roman Catholics, unite with Protestant scholars in assigning a later date, and consequently in denying the Clementine authorship.

Translator's Introductory Notice.

Their literary history in modern times is somewhat curious. Wetstein unexpectedly discovered them appended to a copy of the Syriac Peschito version of the New Testament furnished to him by Sir James Porter, then British ambassador at Constantinople. He soon afterwards (1752) published them in Syriac, accompanied by a Latin version of his own, with Prolegomena, in which he upheld their genuineness. This speedily called forth two works, one by Lardner (1753), and a second by Venema (1754), in both of which their authenticity was disputed. To these writings Wetstein himself, and, after his death, Gallandius, published rejoinders; but the question remained as far from positive settlement as ever, and continues sub-judice even at the present day

It is generally admitted (and, of course, asserted by those that maintain their truly Clementine origin) that Greek was the original language of these epistles. Many have argued that they contain plain references to the sub-introductæ spoken of in the literature of the third century, and that therefore they were probably composed in the Oriental Church about that period.

These epistles have been very carefully edited in recent times by the Roman Catholic scholars Villecourt (1853) and Beelen (1856). Both have argued strenuously for the genuineness of the letters, but it may be doubted if they have succeeded in repelling all the objections of Lardner and Venema. Beelen's work is a highly scholarly production, and his Prolegomena are marked by great fulness and perspicuity.

A German translation of these epistles was published by Zingerle (1821). They are now for the first time translated into the English language.

The translation is made from the text of Beelen.

The division into chapters is due to Wetstein.

Footnotes

Two Epistles Concerning Virginity

The First Epistle of the Blessed Clement, the Disciple of Peter the Apostle.

Chapter I.--The Salutation.

Footnotes

Chapter II.--For True Virginity Perfect Virtue is Necessary.

Footnotes

Chapter III.--True Virgins Prove Themselves Such by Self-Denial, as Does the True Believer by Good Works.

Footnotes

Chapter IV.--Continuation of the Remarks on Self-Denial; Object and Reward of True Virgins.

Footnotes

Chapter V.--The Irksomeness and the Enemies of Virginity.

Footnotes

Chapter VI.--Divinity of Virginity.

Footnotes

Chapter VII.--The True Virgin.

Footnotes

Chapter VIII.--Virgins, by the Laying Aside of All Carnal Affection, are Imitators of God.

Footnotes

Chapter IX.--Continuation of the Subject of Mortification; Dignity of Persons Consecrated to God.

Footnotes

Chapter X.--Denunciation of Dangerous and Scandalous Association with Maidens.

Footnotes

Chapter XI.--Perniciousness of Idleness; Warning Against the Empty Longing to Be Teachers; Advice About Teaching and the Use of Divine Gifts.

Footnotes

Chapter XII.--Rules for Visits, Exorcisms, and How People are to Assist the Sick, and to Walk in All Things Without Offence.

Footnotes

Chapter XIII.--What Priests Should Be and Should Not Be.

Let us, therefore, contemplate and imitate the faithful who have conducted themselves well in the Lord, as is becoming and suitable to our calling and profession. Thus let us do service before God in justice and righteousness, and without blemish, "occupying ourselves with things good and comely before God and also before men." [432] For this is comely, that God be glorified in us in all things.

Here endeth the first Epistle of Clement.

Footnotes

The Second Epistle of the Same Clement.

Chapter I.--He Describes the Circumspectness of His Intercourse with the Other Sex, and Tells How in His Journeys He Acts at Places Where There are Brethren Only.

Footnotes

Chapter II.--His Behaviour in Places Where There Were Christians of Both Sexes.

Footnotes

Chapter III.--Rules for the Conduct of Celibate Brethren in Places Where There are Only Married Christians.

Footnotes

Chapter IV.--Conduct of the Holy Man Where There are Women Only.

Footnotes

Chapter V.--Where There is Only One Woman, the Father Does Not Make a Stay; How Carefully Stumbling-Blocks Must Be Avoided.

Footnotes

Chapter VI.--How Christians Should Behave Themselves Among Heathens.

Footnotes

Chapter VII.--Uses of Considering Admonitory Examples, as Well as Instructive Patterns.

Footnotes

Chapter VIII.--Joseph and Potiphar's Wife; Of What Kind Love to Females Ought to Be.

Footnotes

Chapter IX.--Samson's Admonitory Fall.

Footnotes

Chapter X.--David's Sin, So Admonitory to Us Weak Men.

Footnotes

Chapter XI.--Admonitory History of the Incestuous Children of David.

Footnotes

Chapter XII.--Solomon's Infatuation Through Women.

Footnotes

Chapter XIII.--The History of Susanna Teaches Circumspection with the Eyes and in Society.

Footnotes

Chapter XIV.--Examples of Circumspect Behaviour from the Old Testament.

Footnotes

Chapter XV.--The Example of Jesus; How We May Allow Ourselves to Be Served by Women.

Footnotes

Chapter XVI.--Exhortation to Union and to Obedience; Conclusion.

Here endeth the Second Epistle of Clement, the disciple of Peter. His prayer be with us! So be it.

Pseudo-Clementine Literature.

Introductory Notice to the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

The name "Pseudo-Clementine Literature" (or, more briefly, "Clementina") is applied to a series of writings, closely resembling each other, purporting to emanate from the great Roman Father. But, as Dr. Schaff remarks, in this literature he is evidently confounded with "Flavius Clement, kinsman of the Emperor Domitian." [504]These writings are three in number: (1) the Recognitions, of which only the Latin translation of Rufinus has been preserved; [505] (2) the Homilies, twenty in number, of which a complete collection has been known since 1853; (3) the Epitome, "an uninteresting extract from the Homilies, to which are added extracts from the letter of Clement to James, from the Martyrium of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, etc." [506]Other writings may be classed with these; but they are of the same general character, except that most of them show the influence of a later age, adapting the material more closely to the orthodox doctrine.

The Recognitions and the Homilies appear in the pages which follow. The former are given a prior position, as in the Edinburgh series. It probably cannot be proven that these represent the earlier form of this theological romance; but the Homilies, "in any case, present the more doctrinally developed and historically important form of the other treatises, which are essentially similar." [507]They are therefore with propriety placed after the Recognitions, which do not seem to have been based upon them, but upon some earlier document. [508]

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:--

(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to "James, the Lord's brother," in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul. The doctrinal statements, "though not perfectly homogeneous" (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin. This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system. [509]This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites, [510] and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter. [511]

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature, naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of the origin of the Gospels.

(3) The discussion leaves it quite probable, though not yet certain, that all the works are "independent elaborations--perhaps at first hand, perhaps at second or third--of some older tract not now extant." [512]Some of the opinions held respecting the relations of the two principal works are given by the Edinburgh translator in his Introductory Notice. It is only necessary here to indicate the progress of the modern discussion. Neander, as early as 1818, gave some prominence to the doctrinal view of the Homilies. He was followed by Baur, who found in these writings, as indicated above, support for his theory of the origin of historical Christianity. It is to be noted, however, that the heterogeneous mixture of Ebionism and Gnosticism in the doctrinal views proved perplexing to the leader of the Tübingen school. Schliemann [513] took ground against Baur, collecting much material, and carefully investigating the question. Both authors give the priority to the Homilies. While Baur went too far in one direction, Schliemann, perhaps, failed to recognise fully the basis of truth in the position of the former. The next important step in the discussion was made by Hilgenfeld, [514] whose views are briefly given in the Notice which follows. Hilgenfeld assigned the priority to the Recognitions, though he traced all the literature to an earlier work. Uhlhorn [515] at first attempted to prove that the Recognitions were a revision of the Homilies. Further contributions were made by Lehmann [516] and Lipsius. [517]The former discovered in the Recognitions two distinct parts by different authors (i.-iii., iv.-ix.), tracing all the literature to the Kerygma of Peter. The latter finds the basis of the whole in the Acta Petri, which show a strong anti-Pauline tendency.

Influenced by these investigations, Uhlhorn modified his views. Lechler, [518] while not positive in his convictions, makes the following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title, Kerygmen des Petrus. [519]To this document sometimes the Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies." Other views, some of them quite fanciful, have been presented.

The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing, cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second century.

How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent Paul; [520] but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.

For convenience in comparison of the two works, the following table has been prepared, based on the order of the Recognitions. The correspondences are not exact, and the reader is referred to the footnotes for fuller details. This table gives a general view of the arrangement of the two narratives:--

Recognitions......Homilies

I.......I., II.

II., III.......III.

------......IV.-VII.

IV.......VIII., IX.

V.......X., XV.

VI.......XI.

VII.......XII., XIII.

VIII., IX.......XIV., XV.

------......XVI.-XIX.

X.......XX.

Footnotes

Introductory Notice to The Recognitions of Clement

The Recognitions of Clement is a kind of philosophical and theological romance. The writer of the work seems to have had no intention of presenting his statements as facts; but, choosing the disciples of Christ and their followers as his principal characters, he has put into their mouths the most important of his beliefs, and woven the whole together by a thread of fictitious narrative.

The Recognitions is one of a series; the other members of which that have come down to us are the Clementine Homilies and two Epitomes. [521]

The authorship, the date, and the doctrinal character of these books have been subjects of keen discussion in modern times. Especial prominence has been given to them by the Tübingen school. Hilgenfeld says: "There is scarcely a single writing which is of so great importance for the history of Christianity in its first stage, and which has already given such brilliant disclosures at the hands of the most renowned critics in regard to the earliest history of the Christian Church, as the writings ascribed to the Roman Clement, the Recognitions and Homilies." [522]The importance thus attached to these strange and curious documents by one school of theologians, has compelled men of all shades of belief to investigate the subject; but after all their investigations, a great variety of opinion still prevails on almost every point connected with these books.

We leave our readers to judge for themselves in regard to the doctrinal statements, and confine ourselves to a notice of some of the opinions in regard to the authorship and date of the Recognitions. [523]

The first question that suggests itself in regard to the Recognitions is, whether the Recognitions or the Homilies are the earliest form of the book, and what relation do they bear to each other? Some maintain that they are both the productions of the same author, and that the one is a later and altered edition of the other; and they find some confirmation of this in the preface of Rufinus. Others think that both books are expansions of another work which formed the basis. And others maintain that the one book is a rifacimento of the other by a different hand. Of this third party, some, like Cave, Whiston, Rosenmüller, Staüdlin, Hilgenfeld, and many others, believe that the Recognitions was the earliest [524] of the two forms; while others, as Clericus, Möhler, Lücke, Schliemann, and Uhlhorn, give priority to the Clementines. Hilgenfeld supposes that the original writing was the Kerugma Petrou, which still remains in the work; that besides this there are three parts,--one directed against Basilides, the second the Travels of Peter (periodoi) and the third the Recognitions. There are also, he believes, many interpolated passages of a much later date than any of these parts. [525]

No conclusion has been reached in regard to the author. Some have believed that it is a genuine work of Clement. Whiston maintained that it was written by some of his hearers and companions. Others have attributed the work to Bardesanes. But most acknowledge that there is no possibility of discovering who was the author.

Various opinions exist as to the date of the book. It has been attributed to the first, second, third, and fourth centuries, and some have assigned even a later date. If we were to base our arguments on the work as it stands, the date assigned would be somewhere in the first half of the third century. A passage from the Recognitions is quoted by Origen [526] in his Commentary on Genesis, written in 231; and mention is made in the work of the extension of the Roman franchise to all nations under the dominion of Rome,--an event which took place in the region of Caracalla, a.d. 211. The Recognitions also contains a large extract from the work De Fato, ascribed to Bardesanes, but really written by a scholar of his. Some have thought that Bardesanes or his scholar borrowed from the Recognitions; but more recently the opinion has prevailed, that the passage was not originally in the Recognitions, but was inserted in the Recognitions towards the middle of the third century, or even later. [527]

Those who believe the work made up of various documents assign various dates to these documents. Hilgenfeld, for instance, believes that the Kerugma Petrou was written before the time of Trojan, and the Travels of Peter about the time of his reign.

Nothing is known of the place in which the Recognitions was written. Some, as Schliemann, have supposed Rome, some Asia Minor, and recently Uhlhorn has tried to trace it to Eastern Syria. [528]

The Greek of the Recognitions is lost. The work has come down to us in the form of a translation by Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410 a.d.). In his letter to Gaudentius, Rufinus states that he omitted some portions difficult of comprehension, but that in regard to the other parts he had translated with care, and an endeavour to be exact even in rendering the phraseology.

The best editions of the Recognitions are those by Cotelerius, often reprinted, and by Gersdorf, Lipsiæ, 1838; but the text is not in a satisfactory condition.

Footnotes

Recognitions of Clement

To Bishop Gaudentius.

To thee, indeed, O Gaudentius, thou choice glory of our doctors, belongs such vigour of mind, yea, such grace of the Spirit, that whatever you say even in the course of your daily preaching, whatever you deliver in the church, ought to be preserved in books, and handed down to posterity for their instruction. But we, whom slenderness of wit renders less ready, and now old age renders slow and inactive, though after many delays, yet at length present to you the work which once the virgin Sylvia of venerable memory enjoined upon us, that we should render Clement into our language, and you afterwards by hereditary right demanded of us; and thus we contribute to the use and profit of our people, no small spoil, as I think, taken from the libraries of the Greeks, so that we may feed with foreign nourishment those whom we cannot with our own. For foreign things usually seem both more pleasant, and sometimes also more profitable. In short, almost everything is foreign that brings healing to our bodies, that opposes diseases, and neutralizes poisons. For Judæa sends us Lacryma balsami, Crete Coma dictamni, Arabia her flower of spices, India reaps her crop of spikenard; which, although they reach us in a somewhat more broken condition than when they leave their native fields, yet retain entire the sweetness of their odour and their healing virtue. Receive therefore, my soul, [529] Clement returning to you; receive him now in a Roman dress. And wonder not if haply the florid countenance of eloquence appear less in him than usual. It matters not, provided the sense tastes the same. Therefore we transport foreign merchandise into our country with much labour. And I know not with how grateful countenances my countrymen welcome me, bringing to them the rich spoils of Greece, and unlocking hidden treasures of wisdom with the key of our language. But may God grant your prayers, that no unlucky eye nor any livid aspect may meet us, lest, by an extreme kind of prodigy, while those from whom he is taken do not envy, yet those upon whom he is bestowed should repine. Truly it is right to point out the plan of our translation to you, who have read these works also in Greek, lest haply in some parts you may think the order of translation not kept. I suppose you are aware that there are two editions in Greek of this work of Clement,--the 'Anagnoseis , that is, Recognitions; and that there are two collections of books, differing in some points, but in many containing the same narrative. In short, the last part of this work, in which is the relation concerning the transformation of Simon, is contained in one of the collections, but is not at all in the other. [530]There are also in both collections some dissertations concerning the Unbegotten God and the Begotten, and on some other subjects, which, to say nothing more, are beyond our comprehension. [531]These, therefore, as being beyond our powers, I have chosen to reserve for others, rather than to produce in an imperfect state. But in the rest, we have given our endeavour, so far as we could, not to vary either from the sentiments or even from the language and modes of expression; and this, although it renders the style of the narrative less ornate, yet it makes it more faithful. The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it. [532]But I do not think it out of place to explain here what in that letter will perhaps seem to some to be inconsistent. For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter? [533]Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Cæsarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter. But now let us see how Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, begins his narrative.

Footnotes

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at: BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html