Article contents
The Theology of Second Clement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
There has never been a form-critical study of 2 Clement. Because of this, conclusions concerning its Gattung have varied considerably. Harnack and Goodspeed, for example, have argued that 2 Clement is in the form of a letter, and beyond that, that it was sent by Bishop Soter of Rome (c. 166–74) to Corinth. Contrary to this position, Lightfoot, Knopf, and Windisch, among others, have argued that it is either a sermon or a homily. Although in recent years this latter position has been readily accepted, it always appears as an assertion without support, form-critical or otherwise.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1973
References
1 Harnack, Adolf von, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Ensebius, II, 1 (Leipzig, 1897), 438–50Google Scholar; idem, Zum Ursprung des sogenannten zweiten Klemensbriefes, ZNW 6 (1905), 67–71Google Scholar; Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Apostolic Fathers (New York, 1950), 83.Google Scholar
2 Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1890), Part I, vol. II, 194ff.Google Scholar; Knopf, R., Die zwei Clemensbriefe (Tübingen, 1920), 151Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Das Christentum des zweiten Klemensbriefes, in Harnack-Ehrung (Leipzig, 1921), 119–34.Google Scholar
3 Grant, Robert M., The Apostolic Fathers, I (New York, 1964), 44Google Scholar; Koester, Helmut, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (Berlin, 1957), 62.Google Scholar
4 For further amplification and documentation of suggestions made in this paper (delivered in its present form at the 1971 Oxford Patristic Conference), see Donfried, K. P., The Setting of 2 Clement in Early Christianity (Leiden, 1974).Google Scholar
5 This and all other English translations of 2 Clement are from Richardson, Cyil C., Early Christian Fathers (Philadelphia, 1953).Google Scholar
6 English translation by Schoedel, William R. in Grant, Robert M. and Freedman, David Noel, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (London, 1963), 136.Google Scholar
7 Aufsätze zur Gnosis, Dörries, Hermann, editor (Göttingen, 1967), 25ft.Google Scholar
8 Les livres secrets des Gnostiques d'Égypte (Paris, 1958), 155–56.Google Scholar
9 Grant, op. cit., 140–41.
10 The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1961), 256.Google Scholar
11 Richardson, op. cit., 198.
12 The older designation of this document was the Treatise of Three Natures. Puech, H. C. and Quispel, G., Le quatrième écrit gnostique du Codex Jung, VC 9 (1955) 94–102.Google Scholar attributed it to Heracleon; however, this suggestion should be regarded with extreme caution.
13 This English translation is taken from Daniélou, Jean, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London, 1964), 304Google Scholar, who is himself dependent upon the information supplied by Puech and Quispel in the article just cited. It was impossible to doublecheck the accuracy of the translation, since the Coptic text is at present still unavailable.
14 Puech and Quispel, op. cit., 97, as translated in Daniélou (note 13).
15 Eusebius, H. E. 4.23.9–11.
16 J. B. Lightfoot, op. cit., 197.
17 Against Koester, op. cit., 62ff.
18 Bornkamm, G., The History of the Origin of the So-Called Second Letter to the Corinthians, The Authorship and Integrity of the New Testament (SPCK Theological Collections 4: London, 1965), 73–81.Google Scholar
19 Deissmann, G. Adolph, Bible Studies (Edinburgh, 1923), 10Google Scholar; Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids, 1965), 229fGoogle Scholar
20 Grässer, Erich, Der Hebräerbrief, ThR 30 (1964), 160.Google Scholar
21 Bultmann, Rudolf, Die drei Johannesbriefe (Göttingen, 1967), 47.Google Scholar
22 Dibelius, M., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, II (Berlin, 1926), 60.Google Scholar
23 Marxsen, W., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Gütersloh, 1963), 205.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by