In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Overview of Previous Scholarship 1.1. INTRODUCTION Most of our knowledge about “Jewish Christianity” in antiquity is dependent on patristic heresiological sources. But in addition to these, the PseudoClementine Homilies and the Recognitions (hereafter Hom. and Rec.) occupy a special place. For they are widely recognized as a few of the most important primary sources for gaining something of a firsthand knowledge of Jewish Christianity. The vast majority of scholarly attention given to the PseudoClementines , however, has focused on its source criticism, but to date little attention has been given to pentateuchal exegesis within this literature, as the following survey will illustrate. We are very fortunate to have available a thorough history of research on the Pseudo-Clementines, provided by F. Stanley Jones.1 Here I will highlight only those works of scholarship that have immediate bearing on the present study. My overview will begin with some of the scholarship dedicated to source-critical issues. Second, I will move from there to survey scholarly work on biblical exegesis in the Pseudo-Clementines in general. Third, I will discuss the status quaestionis in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies regarding the more specific area of pentateuchal exegesis—the special focus of this study. Now, when it comes to source criticism, a great deal of scholarly effort has been directed toward the (now lost) “base text” on which Hom. and Rec. are believed to depend. Scholarship designates this base text as the Grundschrift. To this we now turn. 1. F. Stanley Jones, “The Pseudo-Clementines: A History of Research,” Second Century 2 (1982): 1–33; 63–96. Also helpful is Frédéric Manns, “Les Pseudo-Clémentines (Homélies et Reconnaissances): Etat de la Question,” LASBF 53 (2003): 157–84. For an overview of some more recent developments, see Frédéric Amsler, “État de la Recherche récente sur le Roman pseudo-clémentin,” in Nouvelles intrigues pseudo-clémentines, ed. Frédéric Amsler et al. (Lausanne: Editions du Zebre, 2008), 25–45; Pierre Geoltrain, “Le Roman pseudo-clémentin depuis les recherches d’Oscar Cullmann,” in Le Judéochristianisme dans tous ses états, ed. Simon C. Mimouni and F. Stanley Jones (Paris: Cerf, 2001), 31–38. 1 1.2. THE GRUNDSCHRIFT GRUNDSCHRIFT Insofar as Hom. and Rec. are similar in structure and share many parallels, it was the study of the complex literary relationship between them that eventually led scholars to postulate a Grundschrift. Scholarly efforts have necessarily had a speculative character and have led to uneven results. Adolf Hilgenfeld reconstructed a Jewish-Christian source document from Rec. 1.27–72 and the “table of contents” preserved in Rec. 3.75.2 Also, attached to Hom. are two prefatory documents, the Epistle of Peter to James and the Contestatio. These were thought to be the introductory writings of the Grundschrift—which Hilgenfeld designated as the Κηρύγματα Πέτρου (“Preachings of Peter”). The Κηρύγματα were so called because of the various passages in Rec. which state that Peter had sent to James books recording his “preachings.”3 Hilgenfeld also believed the Jewish Christianity of the Κηρύγματα source was originally associated with the Essenes, and later adapted by Ebionites. Then, once the Κηρύγματα source was in the hands of the Homilist, it was given an “anti-Marcionite” shape. Hilgenfeld believed that the Κηρύγματα source was subsequently combined with another source, called the Περίοδοι Πέτρου (“Circuits of Peter”). This source is attested to in Epiphanius, Pan. 30.15, where he reports that the Περίοδοι Πέτρου were written by Clement and used (or rather abused) by the Ebionites.4 According to Hilgenfeld, Hom. are secondary to and represent a reworking of Rec., both of which drew on the Grundschrift (which itself was to be identified with the Κηρύγματα Πέτρου).5 Karl Reinhold Köstlin differed from Hilgenfeld regarding the growth of the Pseudo-Clementines. He believed the material in Rec. 1–7 assumed only the Περίοδοι Πέτρου and that Hom. were also based on this source.6 He was the first to point out the similarity between parts of Rec. 1 and the Ἀναβαθμοὶ 2. See also Rec. 1.21.7–9, 74.3–5; Rec. 3.32.4–7, 52.5, 74.4–75.11. 3. This term is also taken from its occurrence in ep. Petr., 1.2 and Cont. 1.1. 4. See Pan. 30.15.1-2: Χρῶνται δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις τισὶ Βίβλοις, δῆθεν ταῖς Περιόδοις καλουμέναις Πέτρου ταῖς διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφείσαις, νοθεύσαντες μὲν τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς, ὀλίγα δὲ ἀληθινὰ ἐάσαντες, κτλ. 5. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Rekognitionen und Homilien (Leipzig: Chr. E. Kollmann, 1848), cited in Jones, “Pseudo-Clementines,” 9n41. Hilgenfeld developed a view similar to Dodwell’s before him; see H. Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum (Oxford, 1689), 439...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.