Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In his History of Dogma, Adolph Harnack wrote that the ‘Pseudo-Clementines contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the origin of the Catholic Church and doctrine.’ Hans Lietzmann, Harnack's successor in Berlin, concluded similarly in his assessment of these writings. He wrote that the Clementines are ‘fictions without historical basis, and valueless for the study of the early Christian and Judaistic period’.
1 Harnack, Adolph, History of Dogma (New York: Russell and Russell, 1894)Google Scholar1.315.
2 Lietzmann, Hans, The Beginnings of the Christian Church (New York: MeridianGoogle Scholar, revised edition reprint 1949) 188.
3 For a history of research see Strecker, Georg, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudo-klementinen (TU 79; Berlin: Akademie, 1958) 1–34Google Scholar.
4 Baur, F. C., ‘Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 5.4 (1831) 61–206Google Scholar; Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine (2 volumes; 2nd ed.; London: William and Norgate, 1876)Google Scholar.
5 Waitz, Hans, Die Pseudoklementinem, Homilien und Rekognitionen, eine quellenkritische Untersuchung (= TU 25.4: Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904)Google Scholar; ‘Die Pseudoklementinen und ihre Quellenschriften’, ZNW 28 (1929) 241–72Google Scholar; ‘Neues zur Text und Literarkritik der Pseudoklementinen’, ZKG 52 (1933) 305–18Google Scholar.
6 Schmidt, Carl, Studien zur den Pseudoklementinem (= TU 46.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929)Google Scholar.
7 Cullmann, Oscar, Le problème littéraire et historique du roman pseudo-clémentin: Étude sur le rapport entre le Gnosticisme et le Judéo-Christianisme (Paris: F. Alcan, 1930)Google Scholar.
8 Rehm, Bernhard, ‘Zur Entstehung der pseudoclementinischen Schriften’, ZNW 37 (1938) 77–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Schoeps, Hans Joachim, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949)Google Scholar.
10 For further bibliography see Quasten, Johannes, Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp: Spectrum, 1966) 62–3Google Scholar.
11 A third, minor work consists of the Epitomes.
12 For a discussion of the sources making up the Grundschrift see Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and Their Literature’, TS 16 (1955) 335–72Google Scholar (also published in Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1974] 435–80Google Scholar, esp. 450). Strecker, Georg, ‘The Kerygmata Petrou’, in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; Philadelphia: Westminster, ET 1965)Google Scholar 2.102–27; ‘On the Problem of Jewish Christianity’, in Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, ET 1971) 241–85Google Scholar.
13 A discussion of the use of the Preaching of Peter in ancient times may be found in Reagan, Joseph N., The Preaching of Peter: The Beginnings of Christian Apologetic (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1923)Google Scholar.
14 Howard, George, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987)Google Scholar.
15 Howard, George, ‘The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew’, JBL 108 (1989) 239–57Google Scholar; ‘A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew’, HTR 81 (1988) 117–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘A Primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Tol'doth Yeshu’, NTS 34 (1988) 60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘A Note on Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew’, Nouum Testamentum 34 (1992) 46–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John’, JSNT 47 (1992) 117–26Google Scholar.
16 All English translations of the Recognitions and Homilies are taken from Smith, Thomas in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, r.p. 1951) vol. 8Google Scholar. The Greek and the Latin are taken from Rehm, Bernhard, Die Pseudoklementinem. 1: Homilien, 2: Rekognitionen (2 vols.; Berlin: Akademie, 1969,1965)Google Scholar.
17 For a discussion of Shem-Tob's comment and allusion to this verse in the form of Hom. 17.18.2 see Howard, G., Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Macon: Mercer University)Google Scholar, forthcoming.
18 A great deal has been written on John the Baptist in modern times. An excellent treatment is Wink, Walter, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968)Google Scholar. For some assessment and perspective on modern scholarship see Reumann, John, ‘The Quest for the Historical Baptist’, Understanding the Sacred Text. Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings (ed. Reumann, John; Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1972) 181–99Google Scholar. Other important, recent treatments are Scobie, Charles H. H., John the Baptist (London: SCM, 1964)Google Scholar; Schütz, Roland, Johannes der Täufer (ATANT 50; Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1967)Google Scholar; Becker, Jürgen, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972)Google Scholar; Ernst, Josef, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation-Geschichte-Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Webb, Robert L., John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991)Google Scholar; Backhaus, Knut, Die ‘Jüngerkreise’ des Täufers Johannes: Eine Studie zu den religionsgeschichtlichen Urspriingen des Christentums (Paderborner Theologische Studien 19; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1991)Google Scholar.
19 Et ecce unus ex discipulis Iohannis adfirmabat, Christum Iohannem fuisse, et non Iesum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Iesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis maiorem esse pronuntiaverit Iohannem. si ergo, inquit, maior est omnibus, sine dubio et Moyseo et ipso Iesu maior habendus est. quod si omnium maior est, ipse est Christus.
20 Webb, who ha s written one of the latest full treatments of John the Baptist, does not discuss John's role in the Pseudo-Clementines (John the Baptizer and Prophet). Hollenbach recognizes Josephus as our only extrabiblical source for John: Hollenbach, Paul W., ‘John the Baptist’, Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. Freedman, David Noel; New York: Doubleday, 1992)Google Scholar 3.887. See also his treatment in ‘Social Aspects of John the Baptizer's Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism’, ANRW 11.19. l, 852. Bammel recognizes the significance of John's negative position in the Pseudo-Clementines and gives the subject an interesting airing: Bammel, Ernst, ‘The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition’, NTS 18 (1971–1972) 116–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For surveys of John in later writings see Kraeling, Carl H., John the Baptist (New York/London: Scribner's, 1951) 181–7Google Scholar; Ernst, , Johannes der Täufer, 217–63Google Scholar; 363–84.
21 E.g. Baldensperger, Wilhelm, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, sein polemischapologetischer Zweck (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898)Google Scholar. Bultmann, Rudolf, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, ET 1971) 17–18Google Scholar. Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Gospel according to St John (New York: Seabury, ET 1980)Google Scholar 1.167–9. Webb writes: ‘However, a more plausible alternative may be to perceive the issue of John the Baptist being but one of the many points of contention in the debate between the Johannine church and the Jewish synagogue. Each group perhaps claiming John the Baptist in support of its own point of view: the synagogue arguing tha t John's ministry was prior to that of Jesus and that Jesus was John's disciple, to which the church countered by arguing that Jesus was prior because he was the Word and that John witnessed to Jesus' superiority’ (John the Baptizer, 77). Kazmierski argues that it is within the context of ‘stigma management’ rather than a ‘Christian-Baptist controversy’ tha t the New Testament Baptist traditions developed: Kazmierski, Carl R., ‘The Stones of Abraham: John the Baptist and the End of Torah (Matt 3,7–10 par. Luke 3,7–9)’, Biblica 68 (1987) 37Google Scholar.
22 Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John (AB 29: New York: Doubleday, 1966)Google Scholar l.lxviii.
23 Robinson, John A. T., The Priority of John (London: SCM, 1985) 172Google Scholar.
24 Robinson, John A. T., ‘Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection’, NTS 3–4 (1956–1958) 279Google Scholar n. 2.
25 The Greek reflects the Hebrew,ℸν a strikingly similar form to Shem-Tob's ℸν.
26 See my discussion in ‘A Note on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel of John’.
