2 Clement. Introduction, Text, and Commentary by Christopher Tuckett (review)

This most important book on the so-called “Second Letter of Clement” was written by one of the most important New Testament scholars. In his Preface, Tuckett describes his fresh interest in this text from the Apostolic Fathers, mentioning also that “commentaries on 2 Clementare not that numerous!” (v). Tuckett’s volume is, to my knowledge, the first monograph on 2 Clemsince the famous edition and commentary by J. B. Lightfoot ( ²1890, reprint 1973) that includes a full introduction (1–82), a new critical text with English translation (83–123), and a broad commentary (125–303). The book also provides an extensive bibliography (304–10) and two indices (Ancient Sources, 311–25, and Modern Authors, 326–28). The commentary with the footnotes shows that all this literature is discussed thoroughly and carefully.

In the Introduction, Tuckett gives an overview or the three manuscripts of 2 Clem, and then presents the attestation of 2 Clemin early Christian literature from Irenaeus up to Photius (9th century). The question of authorship cannot be answered; the author who “was not a Jew before becoming a Christian … must remain anonymous, a reflection perhaps of his somewhat self-effacing modesty” (17). Regarding the “genre” of 2 Clem, Tuckett argues that it is neither a homily on a specific scriptural text nor “missionary preaching,” but a sermon addressed to “a group of Christians gathered for some kind of liturgical worship” (23, cf. 25; although he does not explain how the spoken sermon became a written and then also read text). For Tuckett 2 Clemis paraenesis, and “in rhetorical terms it may be classified as ‘deliberative’” (26). The question of literary unity is not easily answered. Because in 19.1–20.4 the author addresses “brothers and sisters,” not only “brothers” as previously in the text, it might be possible that chapters 19–20 are not part of the “original” text. However, other differences between chapters 1–18 and 19–20 are “less compelling” (33).

Both in the Introduction (34–46) and in the commentary itself (see below), Tuckett very carefully studies the great number of citations in 2 Clem. Whether the author knew and used NT gospels and letters as written sources one cannot say exactly, but OT texts are often cited. Tuckett calls them “Jewish scripture” (38), but for the author of 2 Clemthe biblical texts probably were not “Jewish” but part of his own tradition (cf. also 74–75). Who are the “opponents” (47–57)? The “false teachers” are not Gnostics, and it may “be more appropriate to see the relationship between 2 Clementand (incipient) Gnosticism as rather more fluid and less clear-cut than has sometimes been the case in the past” (54). The question on the place and the date of 2 Clemis “ultimately unanswerable, at least with any certainty (or even a degree of high probability)” (58). The theory that 2 Clem“was originally written in Rome at some stage in the early–middle 2nd century might fit the evidence we have reasonably well. But one cannot say more” (64). Tuckett, in all his arguments, remains cautious and clear, instead of making too direct assertions on historical matters.

The chapter on the theology of 2 Clem(65–82) gives a good overview of the theological themes regarding the references to God, Christ (and soteriology), Spirit, church, eschatology, and ethics. In the chapter on “Jews and Judaism” (74–75), Tuckett argues that the author “is living in a context where non-Christian Jewish neighbours are virtually non-existent,” and thus he “can assume, apparently without any challenge, that Jewish traditions are to be used for (predominently Gentile) Christians.” Again, one might ask whether in the view of the author of 2 Clem, the biblical scriptures were “Jewish traditions.”

In Part Two, Tuckett presents the text of 2 Clemon the left pages, including a critical apparatus showing the three (after 12.5a only two) manuscripts and...