STUDY ARCHIVE
Main Page
EARLY CHURCH
Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St.
Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus
HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus
David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce
Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards
E.B.
Elliott
Heinrich Ewald Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull Johann Lange
Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther
James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink
Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius
Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John
Smith
C.H. Spurgeon Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield
Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright
John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig
MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas
Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert
Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P.
Warren Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st
C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any
Particular Eschatology)
Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm.
Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd E.B. Elliott
G.S.
Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice
Benjamin Jowett John N.D. Kelly
Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce Eduard Reuss
J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith
Norman Snaith
"Televangelists" Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord
Quakers :
George Fox |
Margaret Fell (Fox) |
Isaac Penington
PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM |
MODERN PRETERISM |
PRETERIST IDEALISM
|
|
Pseudo-Clementines
Scholars have noted the "synoptic-type" Jewish piety of the sermon,
perhaps surprising around A.D. 140-160 (the epistle's approximate date).
Google Books |
The Letters of Clement and Pseudo Clement
|
Catholic
Encyclopedia: Pope St. Clement I |
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
(On the
Pella Flight Tradition)
"Subsequently also an evident proof of this great mystery is
supplied in the fact, that every one who, believing in this Prophet
who had been foretold by Moses, is baptized in His name, shall be
kept unhurt from the destruction of war which impends over the
unbelieving nation, and the place itself; but that those who do not
believe shall be made exiles from their place and kingdom, that even
against their will they may understand and obey the will of God."
(Recognitions 1:39:3)
(On Fulfillment of Isaiah 54:1-5) CHAP. II.--THE CHURCH, FORMERLY BARREN, IS NOW FRUITFUL. "Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that
travailest not; for she that is desolate hath many more children than
she that hath an husband." In that He said, "Rejoice, thou barren that
bearest not," He referred to us, for our church was barren before that
children were given to her. But when He said, "Cry out, thou that
travailest not," He means this, that we should sincerely offer up our
prayers to God, and should not, like women in travail, show signs of
weakness. And in that He said, "For she that is desolate hath many more
children than she that hath an husband," [He means] that our people
seemed to be outcast from God, but now, through believing, have become
more numerous than those who are reckoned to possess God. And another
Scripture saith, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." This
means that those who are perishing must be saved. For it is indeed a
great and admirable thing to establish not the things which are
standing, but those that are falling. Thus also did Christ desire to
save the things which were perishing, and has saved many by coming and
calling us when hastening to destruction. " (Chap. II.-- The Second
Epistle to the Corinthians)
(On the Last Days) "the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us. (Chap. XIV.-- The Second Epistle to the Corinthians)
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
Eusebius
"It must not be overlooked that there is a second epistle said to be from Clement's pen, but I have no reason to suppose that it was well known like the first one, since I am not aware that the early fathers made any use of it. A year or two ago other long and wordy treatises were put forward as Clement's work. They contain alleged dialogues with Peter and Apion, but there is no mention whatever of them by early writers, nor do they preserve in its purity the stamp of apostolic orthodoxy."
Although known as 2 Clement, this document is in actuality an
anonymous homily of the mid-second century. The author quotes from some
document for the sayings of Jesus. Because the author betrays the
redactional characteristics of both Matthew and Luke, it has been
supposed that this author had access to a harmony." (III.38)
Udo Schnelle
"In 2 Clement a larger number of logia of
Synoptic types are found (cf. 2 Clem 2.4; 3.2; 4.2; 6.1, 2; 8.5; 9.11;
13.4), which are in part introduced with quotation formulae. Alsongside
these are found quotations of unknown origin; cf. 2 Clem. 4.5; 5.2-4;
12.2; 13.2. These data and the introductory formula in 2 Clem. 8.5 ([for
the Lord says in the Gospel]) suggest that the author of 2 Clement used,
in addition to the Old Testament, an apocryphal gospel that has not come
down to us. There is a clearly recognizable tendency in 2 Clement to
trace the authority of the Lord back to written documents." (The History and Theology of the New Testament
Writings, p. 355)
Robert M. Grant
An early Christian epistle transmitted along with 1 Clement in the
biblical Codex Alexandrinus (late 4th century) and the later Jerusalem
Codex (1056) which includes the Didache, as well as in the Syriac
version. It was not written by the author(s) of 1 Clement and, indeed,
it is not a letter but a sermon on self-control, repentance, and
judgment. The sermon begins abruptly: "Brothers, we must think about
Jesus Christ as about God, as about the judge of living and dead; and we
must not think little of our salvation." The preacher tells his
"brothers and sisters" that he is reading them a "petition" or "plea"
(Gk enteuxis) to "pay attention to what is written," i.e. to the
scriptures which he frequently cites (along with quotations from "the
prophetic word," otherwise unknown, and something like the apocryphal
Gospel of the Egyptians). He himself refers to "the books (i.e., the OT)
and the apostles" as authorities (14.2)." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
v. 1, p. 1061)
Scholars have noted the "synoptic-type" Jewish piety of the sermon,
perhaps surprising around A.D. 140-160 (the epistle's approximate date).
The work appears to rely upon the Gospel of John as well, however,
notably in 9:5-6: "If Christ the Lord who saved us was spirit at first
but became flesh [John 1:14] and so called us, so shall we receive the
reward in the flesh. Let us then love one another [John 13:34] so that
we may all come to the kingdom of God." The kingdom will come when truth
and good works are accompanied by ascetic practise (chap. 12). Until
then, Christians must preserve the "seal of baptism" (7:6, 8:6) and
belong to "the first, spiritual Church, created [like Israel, according
to some rabbis] before sun and moon," for Gen 1:27 refers to the male
Christ and the female Church, both spiritual; Christ is also the Spirit
(chap. 14). The theology is not altogether clear, and the author soon
turns to the state that he has "given no trivial counsel about
self-control," leading into his practical appeal for repentance and
going so far as to say that "fasting is better than prayer, but
almsgiving is better than both" (16:4). (The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
v. 1, p. 1061)
Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D. "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."
These writings are three in number: (1) the Recognitions, of which only the
Latin translation of Rufinus has been preserved;
(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."
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."
They are therefore with propriety placed after the Recognitions, which do
not seem to have been based upon them, but upon some earlier document.
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.
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,
and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.
(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 T�bingen 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."9
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
T�bingen school. Schliemann
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,
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
at first attempted to prove that the Recognitions were a revision of the
Homilies. Further contributions were made by Lehmann
and Lipsius.
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,
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.
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;
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:" (INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LITERATURE)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
Date: 30 May 2010
Time: 14:19:20
Your Comments:
It seems like there are too many opinions about these writings without any
sure grounding in the facts. Everyone since the time of Calvin has declared
these writing pseudepigraphical. Calvin's case was that the devil wrote
them, so therefore Clement could not. Wow! It hasn't gotten much better
since then. Why was an Aramaic version of the Clementines been found a
century and half ago in the earliest dated manuscript in any language, and
yet no one has bothered to translate it? I've seen it and, believe me, there
are many demonstrations which prove that the Aramaic is the original. The
alleged anti-Pauline Tubingen conspiracies only exemplify the radical
tendency of people to theorize about these writings without knowing anything
about them.
Date: 18 Oct 2011
Time: 18:24:44
Your Comments:
i think the "powers that be" did their best to discredit any writings that
didn't fit their Pauline ideas/including trying to sweep Jesus' brother(s)
under the rug...
|