The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and The Antiochene Polemic Against

McMaster University
DigitalCommons@McMaster
Open Access Dissertations and Teses Open Dissertations and Teses
7-1-2007
Te Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and the
Antiochene Polemic Against Allegory
Karl Shuve
Follow this and additional works at: htp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations
Part of the Religion Commons
Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Dissertations and Teses at DigitalCommons@McMaster. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Open Access Dissertations and Teses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@McMaster. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
Recommended Citation
Shuve, Karl, "Te Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and the Antiochene Polemic Against Allegory" (2007). Open Access Dissertations and
Teses. Paper 5644.
PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES
THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES
AND
THE ANTIOCHENE POLEMIC AGAINST ALLEGORY
By
KARL SHUVE, B.A. (Hans.)
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Degree
Master of Arts
McMaster University
Copyright by Karl Shuve, July 2007
MASTER OF ART$ (2007)
(Religious Studies)
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
TITLE: The Pseudo+Clementine Homilies and the Antiochene Polemic Against Allegory
AUTHOR: Karl Shuve, B.A. (Hons.) (McMaster University)
SUPERVISOR: Dr. Annette Y. Reed
NUMBER OF PAGES: v, 102
ii
Abstract
Most working on the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, two
nO\rels in fourth-century Syria, have been concerned
WIth sowrce-cntlcal q[uestIOns. They have treated these texts as mere collectIOns of
sources, which are for our understanding of "Jewish Christianity" in the first and
second centuries. recent works of Kelley and Reed, however, have demonstrated
that these novels are! important works oflate antique literature in their own right, and that
they have much to us about Christianity and Judaism in the fourth century.
In this thesis iI follow their lead, seeking to understand the approach to Scripture
in the Homilies and its relationship to broader theological issues in fourth-century Syria.
I argue that the Homlilies engages in a tacit polemic against Christians who read Scripture
allegorically and reflects similar anti-Alexandrian concerns as are evident in the writings
of other fourth-cento/y theologians and exegetes from Antioch, particularly Eustathius of
Antioch, Diodore of:Tarsus, and Theodore ofMopsuestia. I suggest that this polemic
becomes evident we read the doctrine of the false pericopes in Hom. 1-3 together
with the critique of the Greek myths in Hom. 4-6, and when we note the rather frequent
attempts of the authqrs/redactors of the Homilies to cast Alexandria in a negative light.
111
Acknowledgments
The writing df a thesis may at times feel like a lonely endeavour, but it is not
something that jcne Undertakes alone. During my two years as a graduate student at
McMaster, I greatly enriched by my relationships with faculty and fellow
students, and it! is my hope that some of their wisdom and insight is evident within these
pages.
I first like to offer my thanks to my supervisor Dr. Annette Y. Reed.
Throughout my time! here, she has shlOwn me much kindness and generosity, and her
office door has! always been open to me. Her incredible depth and breadth of knowledge
on Late AntiqUjity cdntinually leads me to see points of connection and continuity
between early Judaism, and the wider Graeco-Roman world that I would
never have glimpsed! on my own. Arlld her constant (though always constructive)
feedback on my has pushed me tlO be a more careful, thcrough, and thoughtful
scholar.
I also oiwe a of gratitude to Dr. Peter Widdicombe, my first reader, who
taught me the \falue of the patristic and medieval Christian traditions for contemporary
theological reflectiOlh.. He has been a constant source of support throughout my time
here, always being Willing to offer insightful feedback on a paper or advice on studying
overseas" He Has always pushed me to make my arguments clear and concise, and I hope
this influence is evident in the thesis.
From Or. Schuller, my second reader, I have learned much about the
Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism, both in my time here as an undergraduate
and graduate But, perhaps more than this, I have learned from her example what
it means to be a ded]cated scholar.
I would also to express my sincere gratitude to my family, who has supported
me thrcughoutithe course of this degree. In particular, I thank my wife and partner,
Melissa. She !tas helped me through the past two years in so many different ways. She
encouraged me in times of discouragement, pushed me to think in new ways when I
became and has always been there for me. Her astonishing breadth of
knowledge cOllstandy challenges me, and her approach to education continually inspires
me. To her, I 0we more than words can say.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................................... . 1
Chapter One: "A. of Research on the Pseudo-Clementines: The Search for
h 0
f 'J ' . h Chr . . '"
t e rlglns b eWls lstlanlty ..................................................... . 12
Chatper Two: "Homt!ies 1-3: The Doctrine ofthe True Prophet and Simon Magus'
I '
Challenge from S!cripture" ................................................................. . 30
Chapter Three:' "A qritique of Greek Paideia" ............................................. . 52
I
Chapter Four: Homilies' Rejection of Allegory and Fourth-Century
An
h 'PI'"
tloe ene! 0 et111cs ...................................................................... . 74
Conclusion ........... :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 96
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 98
v
INTRODUCTION
M.A. Thesis - K. Shuve
McMaster - Religious Studies
In the centuries just before the tum of the Common Era a new kind of literature
began to appear in tqe Hellenistic world. Authors composed lengthy adventure stories in
prose, at the heart ofiwhich were "love, travel, and violence."! This new genre went
unnamed in Antiquity, probably because Greek literary theorists viewed it as a trivial and
popular mode of expression? Scholars writing in English refer to these stories as
novels or romances, since these labels can be used broadly to refer to "a very wide
spectrum of narrative I prose.,,3
Although mudh early Christian literature, such as the various Acts of the apostles,
could fit this broad definition of a novel, it is the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and
Recognitions which most closely resemble the extant Greek novels.
4
These two texts
were redacted in Syria in the opening decades of the fourth century C.E. They narrate the
journey of the Peter and Clement of Rome from Caesarea to Antioch, their
debates with the arch-heretic Simon Magus, and the providential reunion of Clement's
dispersed family. At the heart of the story is a defense of the oneness and goodness of
God against the devi04s heretic Simon, who argues for the inferiority of the Creator,
seemingly with Scriptulfe on his side. Epistemology, how one comes to knowledge of
God, is therefore a central concern of both the Homilies and Recognitions, which reject
philosophical inquiry in favour of prophetic revelation (cf. Hom. 2.6-7). The Homilies,
I Tomas Hagg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 3.
2 Hagg, in Artiquity, Edwin The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical
Account of their Orlgms (Berkeley: Umverslty ofCahfornla Press, 1967),4.
3 Niklas Holzberg, rrhe Ancient Novel: An Introduction, trans. Christine Jackson-Holzberg
(London: Routledge, 1995), :26.
4 See Holzberg, Anhient Novel, 23-26. Indeed, Holzberg suspects that the Pseudo-Clementine
novel is simply a Christianized version of a now lost "pagan" novel.
1
unlike the Recognitiqns, takes up the concomitant problem of how properly to interpret
Scripture in the light iof seeming inconsistencies and impious passages. The Homilies
rejects allegorical and other non-literal reading strategies entirely, arguing instead that
those passages which! depict God anthropomorphically must be rejected as false
interpolations (cf. 2.3\8; 3.47).
Both novels written originally in Greek, although the Recognitions survives
in full only in of Aquilea' s Latin translation. The similarities between the two
have led to much spe4ulation on the nature of the hypothetical sources employed by the
redactors of both the Homilies and the Recognitions. The general consensus is that both
are based upon an earlier novel about Peter, Clement, and Simon, which has been termed
the Grundschrift and to the third century C.E. Certain scholars, moreover, have
asserted that the GrunUschrift itself is but a composite of even earlier sources, such as the
Kerygmata Petrou, wliich is supposedly a second century "Jewish Christian" anti-
Marcionite source.
5
The recent wo*s of Nicole Kelley and Annette Y. Reed have heralded the
beginnings of a new of Pseudo-Clementine scholarship. Scholars have long treated
the Homilies and Reconitions as mere receptacles which preserve valuable traditions
about Christian In the preface to her monograph Knowledge and Religious
Authority in the PseudO,-Clementines, Kelley remarks that "people interested in the
Pseudo-Clementines were not particularly curious about the fourth century, and very few
"
5 This topic is in more detail in chapter one.
2
people interested in the fourth century were concerned with the Pseudo-Clementines.,,6
The source-critical agenda that has so dominated scholarship on the Homilies and
Recognitions for the IJast century and a half has led scholars to neglect the task of
situating these texts 'fithin the fourth-century Syrian milieu in which they were redacted.
7
As such, the connectibns between the extant Pseudo-Clementine novels and broader
fourth-century issues have gone largely unexplored.
8
Kelley has begun to fill
this lacuna with her re:cent monograph, in which she demonstrates how the
authors/redactors of"ili.e Recognitions drew upon and synthesized late antique astrological
and philosophical to fonnulate a discourse about "true knowledge.,,9 Reed,
moreover, has used emphasis upon halakhic observation (dietary and ritual purity
laws), the exaltation of Moses, and the view that the Jews remain the chosen people of
God in the Pseudo-Cle;mentine Homilies to show that the boundaries between Judaism
and Christianity "were: still being constructed, negotiated, contested, and blurred on the
ground - not only in tHe second century CE, but also, with growing intensity, in the third
and fourth It is within this new paradigm of scholarship that I situate the
thesis.
. 6 Nicole ReligiOUS Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines, WUNr 213
(Tiibmgen: Mohr Slebeck, 2006), Vlll.
7 Kelley, Knowledge, 1-6; F. Stanley Jones, "The Pseudo-Clementines: Part II," Second Century 2
(1982): 69.
8 For example, Jones, "Part II," 74-5, notes how scholars of Arianism frequently overlook the
Homilies, which has long thought to have been redacted by someone holding an Arian Christology.
This trend is, however, begilming to change; see esp. Kelley, Knowledge; Annette Yoshiko Reed, "Jewish
Christianity After the of the Ways," in Ways That Never Parted, ed. A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed
(Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2P04), 189-231.
9 Kelley, 27.
10 Reed, "Jewish Cliristianity," 202.
3
In modern research, there has yet to be a comprehensive study of the approach to
Scripture in either theiHomilies or the Recognitions. The work that has been done on
biblical interpretation lin these texts focuses almost exclusively on the doctrine of the
false pericopes - the b!eliefthat the written Law has acquired false interpolations, which
make the Creator appear imperfect and deficient (cf. 2.38; 3.47). Scholars have asserted
that this doctrine was part of the Kerygmata Petrou, a putative second-century "Jewish
Christian" source th0ll;ght to have been used by the authors/redactors of the third-century
Grundschrift, itself a hypothetical document that has been reconstructed on the basis of
the similarities between the fourth-century Homilies and Recognitions. The doctrine of
the false peri copes has thus been treated as an esoteric belief of primitive "Jewish
Christianity." This claim, as I shall demonstrate more fully in the following chapter, is
highly problematic, not least because there is no textual evidence for this doctrine prior to
the fourth century. Unlike other elements considered to be part of the Grundschrift, the
doctrine of the false appears only in the Homilies and is not present in the
Recognitions. This fact has not deterred scholars from positing an early date for it, since
the Recognitions is widely acknowledged to be the more "orthodox" of the two novels,
and it is believed that its authors/redactors did not include the more "heretical" elements
of the Grundschrift. Scholars such as Strecker have posited that passages such as Rec.
1.2111 preserve vestiges of the doctrine of the false pericopes. I am, however, in
agreement with F. Stanley Jones, who asserts that such passages are consistent with other
11 Rec. 1.21: "[T]hat I [Peter] may be able to expound to you the method of our faith without any
distraction, and the order cdntinously, according to the tradition of the True Prophet, who alone knows the
past as it was the present it is and the future as it shall be: which things were indeed plainly spoken by
Him, but are plainly written;' so much so that when they are read, they cannot be understood without an
expounder, on account ofthle sin which has grown up with men, as I said before" (my italics).
4
late antique Christian views on the role oftradition in interpreting Scripture and that they
do not necessarily betray any acquaintance with the false pericopes. 12
Not only does the early dating of the doctrine of the false pericopes rest on very
shaky ground, but it has led scholars virtually to ignore its role in the redacted, "final"
form of the Homilies. In my view, by reading the passages that deal with the false
pericopes in isolation from the broader narrative of the Homilies, we have missed an
important trajectory that runs throughout the work - a trajectory that is directly related to
the fourth-century Syrian milieu of its authors/redactors.
In this thesis, I argue that the Homilies engages in a tacit polemic against
Christians who read Scripture allegorically and reflects similar anti-Alexandrian concerns
as are evident in the writings of other fourth-century theologians and exegetes from
Antioch. This subtle polemic emerges when we consider the relationship between the
approach to Scripture put forth in Homilies 1-3 and the critique of the allegorization of
the Greek myths in Homilies 4-6, a textual unit thought to derive from a much earlier
HeIIeilistic JewIsh source.
Scripture is one of the central topics dealt with in Hom. 1-3. It is in this unit that
the doctrine of the false pericopes is first introduced, during the course of Peter's private
instruction of Clement. After making the claim that knowledge of God and the nature of
the soul can only be gained through prophetic revelation (22-11), Peter warns Clement
that in each age there is a false prophet who will attempt to deceive people with heretical
doctrines (2.15-18). Simon Magus, Peter claims, is the false prophet of their age, for he
12 F. Stanley Jones, "Marcionism in the Pseudo-Clementines," unpublished paper presented at the
annual meeting of the SBL, November 2005.
5
attempts to lead away from the worship of the one, true God so that they may
worship him as a god (2.22). Peter explains to Clement that Simon's chief weapon in
repudiating and his teaching about the one, good, Creator God is Scripture
itself(cf. 2.37, 39ff.). It is at this point in the narrative that Peter introduces the doctrine
of the false pericopes.
In 2.3 8, Peter teaches Clement that the
the Scriptures acquired [npocrEA,al3ov] many falsehoods against God for this reason [A,6yw
'tol)'tcp]. When the prophet Moses, by the will of God, handed down [napaoeow1(6'tcx;] the law
with the explanations to a certain chosen seventy in order that they might also instruct those of the
people who were I chosen, after not much time the written law b acquired
certain against the one God, who created the heaven and the
earth and all things in them, the evil one undertaking to work this for some righteous purpose.
And this took plabe in reason and judgment that those might be convicted who should dare to
listen to the things written against God (2.38).13
According to tlhis doctrine, Scripture was revealed to Moses by God for the
purpose of being handled down to certain chosen individuals in each generation. The
written record of the taw b however, became corrupted; passages not
revealed to Moses, wlUch contain falsehoods "against the one God," became mixed up
with the true revelatiOln. Although God is not directly responsible for the existence of the
false peri copes, he allbwed the corruption of his perfect revelation to occur in order to
test the character of tHose who claim to follow His laws.
Peter also speaks on the doctrine of the false pericopes in 3.47, during his public
debate with Simon (Hom. 3.30-58), and there he explains further the relationship between
13 English translations are lightly revised from "The Clementine Homilies," in The Ante-Nicene
Library: Volume 8, trans. 'if. Smith, P. Peterson, and J. Donaldson, ed. A. Roberts and 1. Donaldson, fourth
printing (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2004), 223-346. Greek text is from Bernhard Rehm
and Georg Strecker, eds., Die Pseudoklementinen I: Homilien, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
der ersten Jahrhunderte 421 (Berlin: Akademie, 1992).
6
revelation and writing. In response to Simon's charge that Scripture seems "to show that
God is subject to every infirmity" (3.47), Peter states:
The law of God was given [E868TJ] by Moses [Otd Mco'Uo-ecoc;], unwritten to
seventy wise men, to be handed down [napa8i8ocr8at], in order that the government might be
carried on by succession. But after that Moses was taken up, it was written by someone but not
by Moses (3.47).
In effect, Peter makes an attempt to distance Moses from the written Torah, associating
him instead with a line of oral transmission. Moses, foreknowing that the Torah would
be "destroyed ... and often lost" (3.47), did not write it down. Conversely, those who
wrote it "were not prophets" because they did not foresee its disappearance (3.47). The
written Torah cannot be connected to Moses and therefore it cannot be traced back to the
revelation given by God. Only the oral tradition has roots at Sinai. The manuscripts of
the Torah in circulation are thus to be treated with the utmost caution, since they contain
both true and false statements about the Creator. It is notable that both times Peter speaks
of the doctrine of the false pericopes in Hom. 1-3, he does so to refute criticisms of the
Creator God. This doctrine serves to explain why there are certain passages in the Bible
which suggest that there are numerous gods and also which call into question the
goodness of the Creator.
Nowhere does Peter ever provide a list of the corrupted passages. The key verses
at issue, however, seem to be those that ascribe human emotions and weaknesses, such as
jealousy and anger, to God (cf. 2.43-44). For example, Peter asserts that since "God
foreknows all things, there is every necessity that the scriptures are false which say that
He is ignorant" (2.50). Likewise, Peter asks rhetorically, "If He deliberates and changes
His purpose (cf. Gen 6:6), who is perfect in understanding and permanent in design? If
7
Re envies (cf. Ex 20:5), who is above rivalry? IfRe hardens hearts (cf. Ex 5:21), who
makes wise? IfRe blind and deaf, who has given sight and hearing?" (2.43) It is
striking that the authqrs/redactors of the Homilies do not employ allegorical and other
non-literal reading strategies to explain these problematic passages. The presumption
I
I
underlying the doctrirfe of the false pericopes is that Scripture must be true when read in
the most literal and sttaightforward way possible.
Hom. 4-6 is liRewise concerned with sacred texts. It is, however, the Greek myths
which are under in this section. While in Tyre to spy on Simon, Clement
encounters Appion, cui Alexandrian grammarian and old family friend. Appion chastises
Clement for abandoni1f1g his ancestral customs in favour ofa Jewish way of life (4.7).
Clement replies, however, that Greek customs are based upon impious and unseemly
myths, which promotellicentious behaviour. As such, they ought to be rejected. Appion
attempts to offer readings of the myths to defend their value, but Clement
argues that such a way of reading cannot redeem the Greek myths from charges of
impiety because their narratives taken literally are not worthy of imitation (4.25). A text
that speaks of the gods: in an unworthy manner cannot be rescued by claims that it
possesses a deeper, mdre righteous meaning which has been veiled by the author (cf.
6.17). In my view, it is the same logic that informs both the doctrine of the false
pericopes and the of the allegorization of the Greek myths.
It could, of be argued that the authors/redactors of the Homilies had no
knowledge of allegorical readings of Scripture and that this would explain why such a
practice is never explicitly mentioned and condemned in the text. Such ignorance seems
8
to be unlikely. To with, Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians explicitly refers to his
non-literal reading otlthe story of Hagar and Sarah as an (4.24). It is
difficult to believe that the fourth-century Greek-speaking authors/redactors of the
Homilies would be udfamiliar with this epistle. It is, in my view, also probable that they
would have been familiar with the more systematic allegorization of Scripture that was
being used in Alexandria by those such as Philo, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
Eustathius, who also ,i,yfites in the opening decades of the fourth century in Antioch, is
well-acquainted with the practice of allegorizing Scripture and we can deduce from his
De engastrimytho "Alexandrian" (specifically Origenian) methods of exegesis were a
source of concern for lit least a segment of the popUlation in Antioch. Indeed, it seems to
be no accident that is portrayed in the first Homily as a hotbed of godless
philosophical speculation
14
and that Clement's allegorizing opponent Appion in Homilies
4-6 is an Alexandrian Alexandria is depicted as the demonic
antithesis of Antioch, towards which Peter and his band of followers strive throughout the
novel. 15 In my view, passing over Christian allegorical exegesis in silence, the
14 A point which is strengthened by the fact that the scene set in Alexandria is an addition of the
authors/redactors of the Ho',nilies. In Hom. 1.8-14, Clement is travelling from Rome to Caesarea to
investigate the teachings True Prophet, when his ship is blown off-course and must make an
emergency stop in Alexandha. While in this famous Egyptian city, Clement is won over by the preaching
of Barnabas, but he is by the way in which the Alexandrian philosophers mock Baranabas for the
simplicity of his teaching. 'jI'he same incident occurs in Rec. 1.8-11, only there it is set in Rome before
Clement leaves for Caesarea. We must assume that the Homilies changed the setting from Rome to
Alexandria and not vice because in both novels the scene closes with Clement being unable to
accompany Barnabas to needing instead to stay behind for a few days to collect some money
owed to him. If Clement had only recently arrived in Alexandria as a shipwrecked refugee, it makes no
sense that he would have to Icollect some outstanding debt. This does, however, make sense if the setting is
Rome where Clement had resided.
15 See, e.g., 11.36: f'Having spoken thus, [Peter] sent the harbingers into Antioch of Syria, bidding
them expect him forthwith"; 12.1: "Therefore starting from Tripolis of Phoenicia to go to Antioch of
Syria ... "; 20.23: "Peter, hearing this, called the multitude together to deliberate, and appointed one of his
9
Homilies can portray! this method of interpretation as thoroughly pagan in origin and
hence completely illegitimate.
It is not my ilttention, however, to revert to an uncritical and ultimately untenable
dichotomy between the so-called schools of Alexandria and Antioch, the former
characterized by its aiIlegorical approach to Scripture and the latter by its literal approach.
Instead, I am drawing upon recent scholarship that demonstrates the way in which these
late antique theologialns themselves rhetorically created this divide.
16
Put another way,
although we cannot speak of a uniform Antiochene method of interpreting Scripture, we
can speak of a series of shared rhetorical moves, such as a privileging of the "literal" or
"historical" meaning of Scripture and a denigration of "allegorical" readings, which
appear with consistenpy in commentaries, homilies, and treatises penned by theologians
who were active in AIittioch. By reading the Homilies alongside the (surviving) works of
Eustathius of Antioch, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Western
Syrian Greek-speaking Christians, the concern regarding the encroaching influence of
Alexandria emerges as an important feature ofthe theological, hermeneutical, and
epistemological discourse of late antique Antioch. We may thus posit the existence of
shared discursive a i m ~ despite the existence of clear differences between the
authors/redactors of the Homilies and exegetes such as Diodore and Theodore, who
affirm the validity of the entire Scriptural corpus. The doctrine of the false pericopes, far
attendants bishop; and haviJrlg remained three days in Laodicea, baptizing and healing, he hastened to the
neighbouring city of Antiodh."
16 See especially N,[argaret M. Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put
1 Samuel 28 On Trial," Journal 0/ Religion 85 (2005): 414-45; Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the
Formation o/Christian Culture (Peabody, Hendrickson, 2002).
10
from being an imp0rd relic of primitive "Jewish Christianity," is imbricated in the
agonistic context of Antiochene biblical interpretation.
The aim of this thesis, therefore, is to demonstrate that the Homilies as a whole
has a coherent and consistent approach to the interpretation of Scripture, which has been
shaped by the fourth-fentury Antiochene milieu of its authors/redactors. To my
knowledge, no one h::/fs yet to read the Homilies alongside Antiochene biblical exegetes,
and in the first chapter I shall attempt to explain why this connection has been
overlooked, by setting forth the history of research on the Pseudo-Clementine novels The
focus of the following two chapters shall be a close textual analysis of the Greek text of
the Homilies. The Hd,milies' approach to Scripture with a particular focus on the doctrine
of the false pericopes,1 as elaborated in Homilies 1-3, will be discussed in the second
I
chapter; the treatise against the allegorization of the Greek myths, found in Homilies 4-6,
will be the subject oftJhe third chapter. In the final chapter, I shall draw upon the
previous work on indiyidual sections of the Homilies to elucidate the anti-allegorical
polemic running the work. I shall, moreover, examine other fourth-century
works of biblical interpretation composed in Antioch, specifically Eustathius' De
engastrimytho, to points of similarity and of difference.
11
CHAPTER ONE
"A History of Research on the Pseudo-Clementines: The Search for the Origins of
, Jewish Christianity'"
The Pseudo-Clementine corpus has challenged scholars and provoked heated
disagreements since the Homilies was first published (albeit in an incomplete form) by
lB. Cotelier in 1672.P The relationship between the Homilies and Recognitions has
been a burning issue since the time of Cotelier himself and it has spawned a number of
complicated and abstrfuse theories, the specific details of which do not concern us here.
Instead, I will attempt, to trace the very broad contours of the debate. InitiaHy, scholars
such as Dodwell, Schliemann, Hilgenfeld, and Uhlhorn - the former writing in the
seventeenth century the latter three in the early nineteenth - would argue over the
priority of the Homilies or Recognitions.
I8
They explained the similarities between the
two novels by arguing that one was familiar with and dependent upon the other; there
was, however, no consensus regarding which came first. Although they would speculate
about the use of earliet sources, such as the Kerygma (later referred to as the Kerygmata)
Petrou, this would not; become a central concern of Pseudo-Clementine scholarship until
late in the nineteenth
The Origins of the Enterprise
17 J.B. Cotelier, Ss.! patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt (Paris: Typis Petri Ie petit,
1672), vol I, 529-746.
18 See the in F. Stanley Jones, "The Pseudo-Clementines: Part I" Second Century 2
(1982): 8-9.
12
Jones argues it was the work ofR.A. Lipsius that inaugurated the source-
critical stage of investigation, which would predominate right until the present day.
According to Lipsius!, the similarities between the Homilies and the Recognitions could
best be explained by common use of an earlier basic writing or Grundschrift, which
itself was a composite of even earlier sOlll"ces.
19
This thesis would be accepted by most
scholars, but there wquld be almost no agreement over the character, location, or date of
the Grundschrift for many years. Hort, fOir example, characterized the Grundschrift as an
Elchasaite source the Transjordan composed in the early third-century; 20 Langen,
however, believed tha!t the Grundschrift was written in the wake of the destruction of
Jerusalem in 135 in otder to convince "eastern Jewish Christians" that Rome was the true
I
seat of authority for tHe Church?l Bigg asserted that the Grundschrift was an orthodox
writing corrupted by the authors/redactors the Homilies,22 whereas Headlam portrayed it
as a heretical writing that was purged by the authors/redactors of the Recognitions?3
Most scholars today would date the Grundschrift to the middle part of the third-century
and locate it in Syria. IMoreover, there is a general consensus that this text contained the
major elements of the romance of recognitions. 24
19 R.A. Lipsius, Quellen de romischen Petrus-Sage (Kiel: Schwers'sche Buchhandlung, 1872),
14ff., discussed in Jones, "part I," 10.
20 f.J.A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity. A Course of Lectures (Cambridge: MacMilIian and Co.,
1894),201, discussed in Johes, "Part I," 10.
21 Joseph Langen, IDie Klemensromane. lhre Entstehung und ihre Tendenzen auft neue untersucht
(Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1890), 18-89, discussed in Jones, "Part I," 10.
22 Charles Bigg, "The Clementine Homilies," in Studia biblical et ecc/esiastica, vol. 2 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1890), Isb-93, discussed in Jones, "Part I," 11.
23 A.C. Headlam, hhe Clementine Literature," JTS 3 (1902): 41-S8, discussed in Jones, "Part I,"
11.
24 Kelley, Knowled/ge, 11-12.
13
Lipsius was influential in his claim that the Grundschrift was itself dependent
upon an earlier source called the Kerygmata Petrou, which was mentioned by Clement in
Rec. 3.74-5. There of course, disagreement over whether these ten books of Peter's
preachings sent by Clement to James were a literary fiction. Hilgenfeld,
Lehmann, and Waitzwere ultimately influential in their claims, however, that "such a
refined literary fiction should not be presupposed for the age in which the PsCI were
composed.,,25 On thel basis of the "table of contents" in Rec. 3.75, Waitz proposed that
the Kerygmata Petrom consisted of the material in Rec. 1-3 and Hom. 2-3, 16-20, and that
it was written around 1135 by an ex-Elchasaite.
26
This reconstruction of the Kerygmata
Petrou as an early "Nwish Christian" source has most recently been cham.pioned by G.
Strecker and H.J. Schbeps. In fact, Schoeps uses the Kerygmata Petrou almost
exclusively for his stUdy of Ebionite doctrine and practice.
27
As is evident from even this brief and cursory look at scholarly debates over the
nature of the sources <i>fthe Homilies and Recognitions, one of the key problems with
I
which scholars engag<i:d was determining the precise redactionallayer(s) at which
"Jewish Christian" enter into the Pseudo-Clementine novel. The reason for this
concern is the notion the Pseudo-Clementines are valuable primarily because they
can reveal to us the nalture of "Jewish Christianity." Schoeps states, for instance, that "for
25 See the referen(ces in Jones, "Part I," 16.
26 Hans Waitz, Dik Pseudoklementinen: Homilien und Rekognitionen TV, N.F., vol. lOA (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1904), 2ff, discussed in Jones, "Part I," 16.
27 H. J. Schoeps, Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church, trans. Douglas Hare
(Philadelphia: Fortress PreSs, 1969),38-117. Gerd Ludemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Prek 1989), 169-70, has called into question, however, the certainity with which
we can make conclusions about a source derived from a source that "itself must be reconstructed from our
existing documents."
14
the reconstruction oJewish Christian doctrinal ideas and historical views, the Pseudo-
Clementine novel represents our most important source.,,28 In making this statement,
Schoeps reveals his debt to famed New Testament scholar F. C. Baur, who set the tone
for most modem research on the Pseudo-Clementines. Baur is well known for advancing
the thesis that there was a conflict in the nascent Christian movement between Petrine
(Jewish) and Pauline I (Gentile) elements, out of which orthodoxy would later emerge. He
asserted that the Pse4do-Clementines stood in historical continuity with the Petrine party
and that they were reliable witnesses to the "Jewish Christianity" of apostolic times?9
Baur incorrectly assigned the Homilies and Recognitions to the late second
century,30 but even when a later date for these two novels was established, his belief that
the Pseudo-Clementi*e literature was a valuable mine for traditions about early "Jewish
Christians" strongly persisted. Charles Bigg's 1890 article would prove to be a turning-
point in Pseudo-Clementine scholarship, most notably perhaps for his assertion that the
Homilies should be dated to the early fourth century.31 He remarked that the use of
homoousios in Homily 16 reveals a debt to the Arian controversy and, moreover, that
there is "no reason wbatever to regard [this] as a later addition.,,32 Waitz, Chapman,
Siouville, and Schwru:i1:z accepted the fourth-century dating.
33
Although several scholars
28 Schoeps, Jewislh Christianity, 15.
29 See esp. Annette Y. Reed, "Jewish Christianity," 197-201, who notes Baur's influence both in
the study of the Pseudo-Cl
e
mentines and "Jewish Christianity" more generally. See also Jones, "Part II,"
84-96.
30 Ferdinand Baur, "Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz
des petrinischen und paulmischen Christentums in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom," TZTh
(1831): 61-206, cited in Jobes, "Part II," 86.
31 Charles Bigg, ";rhe Clementine Homilies," in Studia biblica et ecc/esiastica, VI. 2 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1890), 1 -93.
32 Bigg, Homilies," 191.
33 See the referenqes in Jones, "Part II," 73-4.
15
MA Thesis - K. Shuve
would deny the relatilonship between the Homilies and Arianism, Jones remarks, "Since
,
this time PsCl has reached a consensus that the Christological passages in H
stand in some relatioJjlship to the Arian controversy.,,34
This establishling of a fourth-century date did not, however, cause scholars of the
Pseudo-Clementine literature to shift their focus to the fourth century. Instead, they
would devote nearly all of their attention to the source-critical enterprise, attempting to
get back to the and third century sources being used by the extant novels.
According to Reed, $s lack of interest in the redacted form of the Homilies and
Recognitions has to dp with the implicit assumption that Judaism and Christianity parted
ways sometime in second century and that "Jewish Christianity," which inhabited the
hazy borderline betwen the two religions, had essentially died out by the fourth
century.35 Since scholars were interested primarily in "Jewish
Christianity" (and thei"Jewish Christianity" of the apostolic era in particular), it only
made sense for them tp devote their time almost exclusively to uncovering earlier
redactional layers.
Bigg also proV1ed to be influential in his claim that the Homilies w:as redacted in
Syria.
36
Here, too, he Ibroke with Baur, who believed that the novel was of Roman
provenance.
37
His for this location was primarily linguistic, observing the
34 Jones, "Part II,'J 74.
35 Reed, "Jewish hristianity," 197-201.
36 Bigg, "Clementine Homilies," 190-1.
37 See Jones, "Panl II," 86.
16
presence of several Slyriac loan-words in the text of the Homilies.
38
Waitz would confirm
Bigg's hypothesis, in addition that Rome could not have been the location of the
Homilies' redaction, Greek was seldom used in the fourth-century West.
39
Kelley,
moreover, asserts thajt Antioch is a likely candidate for the redaction ofthe Pseudo-
Clementine novels of its association with traditions about Petrine authority.,,4o
In my view, compelling reason to locate the Homilies in Syria in general
and Antioch in particplar is the geographical setting of the novel itself. The novel opens
in Rome and Clement makes a brief and unexpected detour into Alexandria, but the
narrative unfolds as Pieter and Clement journey northwards along the Mediterranean coast
from Palestine to gaining followers and establishing ecclesiastical officers along
the way.41 Much action thus takes place in and around Syria, and Antioch is
clearly portrayed as tb.e final destination towards which Peter and Clement strive. This is
particularly significartt when we consider that in other accounts of the Peter-Simon
Magus conflict, the events take place in Rome. Eusebius, whose Ecclesiastical History
was written shortly before the Homilies, tells of Simon's overwhelming success in Rome.
This success is short lived, he says, because "[ c ]lose on his heels, in the same reign of
Claudius, the all-gracious and kindly providence of the universe brought to Rome to deal
38 Bigg, "Clementine Homilies," 191: "Upon the whole it seems more likely that the author lived
in some Greek-speaking Pft of Syria ... [I]fhe were not himself a Syrian it would be difficult to account for
the curious Syriac words occur, though but rarely, in his Greek."
39 Waitz, Die Pseudoklementinen, 369-70, discussed in Jones, "Part II," 74.
40 Kelley, lSI.
41 Their route is as follows: Rome Alexandria (1.S the episode in Alexandria takes place in
Rome in Rec. I.7-S) Stratonis (1.15) -7 Tyre of Phoenicia (4.1) Sidon (7.5) Beyrout
(7.9) Byblus (7.12) tripolis (S.l) Laodicea (13.1) Antioch (20.23).
17
with this terrible threlat to the world ... Peter himself' (2.14).42 Likewise, in the second-
century Actus Vercellenses
43
Simon begins to amass a great number of followers in
Rome, and Peter a vision instructing him to leave Jerusalem straightaway for
Italy in order to him.
The Doctrine of the RaIse Pericopes in Twentieth-Century Scholarship
As one of the Imore unusual and striking elements of the Pseudo-Clementine
literature, the of the false peri copes received a considerable amount of attention
from scholars in the half of the twentieth century, most notably in the writings of G.
Quispel, H.J. Schoep$, G. Strecker, and H.J.W. Drijvers.
44
Following the traditional
source-critical to the Pseudo-Clementines outlined above, these scholars
attempted to situate tllis doctrine in the context of first and second-century "Jewish
Christianity. "
According to $choeps, the doctrine of the false peri copes is central to early
"Jewish Christian" theology and cultic practice, for it reflects the Ebionite view of Jesus
"as a reformer of the Mosaic law ... [ who] condemned and rej ected the sacrificial cult. ,,45
For the Ebionites, Jesus, the True Prophet, came to reveal to humanity which portions of
the Torah were genuin.ely part of the Sinai revelation and should continue to be followed,
42 Eusebius, The Qistory of the Church from Christ to Constantine (trans G.A. Williamson; New
York: New York Universi1!y Press, 1966).
43 For the date, New Testament Apocrypha, Volume Two, ed. W. Schneemelcher (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976), Q7S.
44 Han J.W. Drijvers, "Adam in the True Prophet in the Pseudo-Clementines," in
I
Loyalitatskonflikte in der Religionsgeschichte. Fetschriftfur Carsten Colpe, ed. C. Elsas and H.G.
Kippenberg (Wurzburg: Kbningshausen and Neumann, 1990); Schoeps, Jewish Christianity; Georg
Strecker, Das in den Pseudoklementinen (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1981) ; Gilles
Quispel, Ptolimee Lettre a!Flora. Les Editions du Cerf29 (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 11-64.
45 Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, 74.
18
and which were additions of human hands that should be abandoned.
46
Schoeps
identifies passages inlthe Homilies where the doctrine of the false pericopes is placed in
the mouth of Jesus aSllogia from an ancient non-extant Ebionite gospe1.
47
He does not
provide any reason, h:bwever, why a saying attributed to Jesus must necessarily have its
origin in the first or early second century.
These logia, goes on to claim, were then used in the Ebionite Kerygmata
Petrou as part of a su$tained anti-Marcionite polemic. By asserting that the laws
pertaining to sacrifice: and the anthropomorphisms found throughout the Torah were later
additions, the could refute Marcion's call to throw out the Hebrew Bible as a
witness to a base and imperfect deity. Schoeps dates the Kerygmata Petrou to the middle
ofthe second century bn the basis of its supposedly anti-Marcionite character. 48
Surely Schoeps is right in focusing on the polemical, anti-heretical context in
which the doctrine of the false pericopes developed. The Homilies as a whole, as Reed
has recently argued, 49: can be read as a heresiological discourse, with Simon Magus
standing in as the devibus and deceptive father of all heresies. 50 And passages such as
46 Schoeps, Christianity, 76: "This ambivalent treatment ofthe law was based on the
assumption that some pass,ges in the Torah were not as original as others and were in fact later
falsifications. The True Prpphet had instructed his own concerning these passages."
47 Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, 77-82. These logia would include Hom. 3.52, which is a re-
working of Matthew Hom. 2.51, which is an apocryphal saying of Jesus attested elsewhere only
by Apelles, the one-time follower of Marcion.
48 Schoeps, Jewis Christianity,94-5.
49 Annette Yoshikb Reed, "Heresiology and the (Jewish-)Christian Novel," in Heresy and Identity
in Late Antiquity, ed. Edoukd Iricinschi and Holger Zellentin (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007),
forthcoming. .
50 This claim that $imon is the father of all heresies is consistent with those made by other late
antique heresiologists. Ferreiro, "Simon Magus: The Patristic-Medieval Traditions and
Historiography," Apocryph'a 7 (1996): 147-65, 158, notes that the "same anti-Gnostic writers who created
the fascinating portraits of $imon Magus and Helena likewise engendered the idea of a false apostolic
succession paralleling in opposition to the legitimate one established by Simon Peter. This concept
persisted very strongly in the fourth and fifth centuries ... "
19
Hom. 2.43-44 certainly do use the false pericopes as a way to respond to what seem to be
specifically attacks on the God ofthe Jewish Scriptures. 51 This does not
mean, however, that we must presume that the doctrine of the false pericopes is a product
of the second century. 52
There remained a very real presence of Marcionism in Syria well into the fourth
century and beyond. !The Syriac Odes of Solomon, composed in the third century C.E.,
contain, according to IDrijvers, a "hidden, but clearly discernible polemic against the
Marcionite creator G<l>d"; in the early decades of the fourth century, Adamantius
composed five against the Marcionites, Bardesanites, and Valentinians entitled
De Recta Fide in Deum; and Ephraem, in the closing decades of the fourth century, wrote
his Prose Refutations I against Marcion, Bardaisan, and Mani.
53
Therefore, if we come
across an anti-Marcionite element, such as the doctrine of the false pericopes, in the
Homilies we do not to presume that it must be a relic of some much earlier source
that was contemporary with Marcion himself. Morever, even if we can establish that this
51 For an overview of Marc ion's theology, Adolph von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien
God, trans. J. Steely and 1..;. Bierma (Durham: Labyrinth, 1990) remains the classic. For revisions of
Harnack's perspective, see David L. Balas, "Marcion Revisted: A 'Post-Harnackian' Perspective," in Texts
and Testaments, ed. E.W. Marsh (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980),95-108; John Barton,
"Marcion Revisted," in Canon Debate, ed. L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders (Peabody, Mass:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2b02), 341-54.
52 See my article, "The Doctrine of the False Pericopes and Other Late Antique
Approaches to the Problem of Scripture's Unity," in Proceedings of the AELAC Conference on the Pseudo-
Clementine Romance, in which I argue that the doctrine of the false pericopes has notable parallels in
I
proto-orthodox heresiological discourse, especially Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses, Origen's De Principiis
and Ephraem's Commentalry on Genesis and Hymns on Paradise.
53 H.J. W. Drijved, "Marcionism in Syria: Principles, Problems, and Polemic," Second Century 6
(1987-88): 153-72, esp. 1513-56. It is notable that for heresiologists such as Ephraem, unlike the
authors/redactors of the the issue of Scripture (particularly the status and interpretation of the
Hebrew Bible) was not a direct concern (cf. 167). According to Drijvers, the "main issues in that dispute
were the number of MarciJnite principles [either two or three], their function and place in creation and in
the process of salvation, and, consequently, their relationship to one another" (156).
20
I
element was earlier, we must still consider why the authors/redactors of the
Homilies it and to what end they used it in the redacted fonn of the text.
Schoeps does
l
, not provide compelling proof to justify an early dating of the false
pericopes, relying ahp.ost exclusively on its connection to Marcion. He does cite
Epiphanius who claiIns that the Ebionites do not "accept Moses' Pentateuch in its
entirety; certain sayings they reject" (Pan. 30.18.7). One must keep in mind, however,
that Epiphanius wrote the Panarion in the mid-370s
54
and is the only heresiologist to
make this point about the Ebionites. He is, therefore, not a reliable source in our
reconstruction of earl'y Ebionitism. Indeed, it is possible that Epiphanius derived this
view from reading Homilies itself, which he may have known and attributed to the
Ebionites.
55
Other than this, Schoeps seems content simply to presume that the doctrine
of the false pericopes;is part of the Kerygmata Petrou and he shows no interest in the
implications of this doctrine in the Homilies itself nor in its relevance for our
understanding offou11th century (Jewish) Christianity.
Quispel uses the Homilies, or rather the passages from the Homilies that he
believes to be part ofthe Kerygmata Petrou, to establish a connection between nascent
"Jewish Christianity" 'and so-called Gnosticism, as exemplified by Ptolemy's Letter to
Flora (apud. Pan. 33.3.1-7.10). The Letter is a Valentinian response both to
"proto-orthodox" Christians, who maintain that the Law in its entirety was revealed by
54 Frank The Panarion ofEpiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), xvii.
55 Pan. 15.1-3: "But they use certain other books as well- Clement's so-called Peregrinations of
Peter, if you please, thou4 they corrupt the contents while leaving a few genuine items ... They have made
everything in the Peregrinll-tions their own and lied about Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized
daily for purification as they are." It is unclear, however, whether this refers to one of the extant Pseudo-
Clementine novels which possess today.
21
God the Father, and Marcionites, who reject the entire Law as a product of the
Demiurge. Ptolemy puts forth a complex tri-partite division of the Law: one part of the
Law is to be ascribed to God, another to Moses, and a third to the elders of the Israelite
community (33.4.1).1 Moreover, he divides the portion attributed to God into three further
divisions. One divislon he terms "the pure legislation unmixed with evil" (33.5.1). The
second division contains laws that are "mixed with inferior matter and injustice, and the
Saviour [i.e., Jesus] this as incongruous with his nature" (33.5.1). In the third
division are laws - sllch as sacrifice, Sabbath observance, and fasting - which are to be
rejected in their manifestations but have spiritual significance (33.5.2, 8-9).
Quispel notices a similarity between the approach to the Law in the Letter to
Flora and the of the false pericopes, and he concludes that Ptolemy was familiar
with "les conceptionsl des cercles judeo-chretiens sur l' Ancien Testament.,,56
Like Schoeps,i he believes that the doctrine of the false pericopes was a part of the
second-century Kerygmata Petrou and that this non-extant text was representative of
early "Jewish Christian" doctrine and practice. 57 Indeed, he goes so far as to remark,
"[L]a conception des peri copes faussees, loin d'etre l'invention fantasque et ephemere de
quelque gnostique, remonte jusqu 'aux milieux juifs qui ont vu naftre Ie christianisme .,,58
The doctrine of the false peri copes, according to Quispel, can be traced back to the very
birth of Christianity iIi the first century C.E. Unlike Schoeps, however, Quispel does not
attempt to provide any evidence to support this claim. He treats the Kerygmata Petrou as
I
,
56 Quispel, Pto!eJzee, 26.
57 QUispel, 23-26.
58 Quispel, Pto!emee, 26, my italics.
22
if it were an extant squrce, never mentioning the hypothetical nature of reconstructing
this text or the problems with presuming that we know by whom and for whom it was
written.
Given my latG\r dating of the doctrine of the false pericopes, I find his claim that
Ptolemy was reliant upon "Jewish Christian" exegetical approaches to be improbable, if
we can even presuppose uniform interpretive practices, which I suggest we cannot. 59 It
is, perhaps, possible that the authors/redactors of the Homilies were influenced in some
way, either directly or indirectly, by the approach to Scripture in the Letter to Flora, but
outside of the claim that Scripture contains true and false elements, the parallels
between the two are than compelling. To begin with, the Homilies does not share
Ptolemy's tri-partite division of the Law, holding to a simpler dichotomy of true and false
passages. The Homilres, moreover, is careful to emphasize that the Law was originally
given by the one, gooid, creator God (cf. 2.38, 3.47), whereas Ptolemy attributes the
divine portion of the Law to the demiurge, who is "inferior to the perfect God and subject
to his justice" Perhaps the most compelling reason against positing a strong
connection between the two, however, relates to the Letter's view of the contents of the
Law given by the deII\liurge. Ptolemy gives the Decalogue a central place (33.5.3), but
this portion of the Totah receives almost no attention in the Homilies. Ptolemy also
includes the sacrificiaillaws, read allegorically, in the revealed Torah (33.5.8), which
59 The notion of 4 unified "Jewish Christianity" has long been abandoned. See, e.g., Charlotte E.
Fonrobert, "Jewish Christ,ans, Judaizers, and Christian Anti-Judaism," in A People's History of
Christianity: Late Ancienti Christianity, ed. Virginia Burrus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 234-54,
and J. Carleton Paget, "JeWish Christianity," The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman
Period, ed. William Horbury et al (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999),731-75.
23
would be inconceivable to the authors/redactors of the Homilies due to their anti-
sacrificial polemics (pf. 2.44).
The writings of Schoeps and Quispel, both published in the 1960s,
exemplify two predominant trends in Pseudo-Clementine scholarship. The first is an
almost exclusive focus on earlier sources. Indeed, Quispel is arguably so influenced by
this approach that he:does not even feel the need to provide any evidence to support his
reconstruction of the I Kerygmata Petrou. This, however, is part ofa broader scholarly
tendency: hypothetical sources are discussed so frequently in the secondary literature on
the Pseudo-Clementipes that one can easily forget how murky, tenuous, and conjectural
our knowledge of them truly is. The second trend is the tendency to treat the Pseudo-
Clementine literature as representative of "Jewish Christian" doctrine and practice. Both
Schoeps and Quispell make the rather unsophisticated and historically unverifiable move
of assuming a "Jewish Christian" interpretive community standing behind the
Kerygmata Petrou. The interplay between these two assumptions has led to the
conclusion that the of the false peri copes is a distinctive doctrine of primitive
"Jewish Christianity}' As such, subsequent scholars have discounted the possibility that
it could have been developed to respond to challenges faced by Syrian Christians in the
late third and early fourth century.
H.J.W. Drijvers in his article "Adam and the True Prophet in the Pseudo-
Clementines" a more nuanced justification for an early dating for the doctrine of
the false pericopes, but he nevertheless reveals his debt to scholars such as Schoeps and
Quispel. He argues t,hat the doctrine of the false pericopes is integrally connected to the
24
so-called law ofthe syzygy (Gk. According to the law of the syzygy, in each
age there is a false and true prophet, the former always temporally preceding the latter.
One who is acquainted with this law will, therefore, be able to discern which prophet
speaks true doctrine::; and which speaks false doctrines. Drijvers argues that the "doctrine
of the one righteous God, who gave the divine Spirit of foreknowledge to Adam and
Christ, the True Prophet, and created the world in opposite pairs, a mixture of good and
evil, true and false prophecy, true and faJlse sayings of Scripture, forms a coherent
whole.,,61 He concludes that it is very "likely, if not even certain, that the doctrinal
complex of the True I Prophet and the false scriptural passages is an original anti-heretical
construction ofthe author of G (i.e., the Grundschrijt).,,62
His insights e far more attuned to the broader issues at play in the Pseudo-
Clementines than were those of Schoeps or Quispel. In my view, he is right to propose
that there is a conneation between the law of the syzygy and the doctrine of the false
pericopes, but his conclusion goes beyond the evidence. Simply because the law of the
syzygy is part of the 'Grundschrijt, 63 does not require us to believe that the doctrine of the
false pericopes was a part of that text as well. The two are not intrinsically linked. The
law ofthe syzygy, by definition, posits the existence of opposing pairs (i.e., there is a
one-to-one correspondence between true and false prophets), whereas the false pericopes
are simply scattered throughout the divine revelation. The law of the syzygy, moreover,
was instituted by God directly at the time of creation, whereas the false pericopes
60 H.J.W. Drijvers, "Adam and the True Prophet," 316.
61 Drijvers, and the True Prophet," 316.
62 Drijvers, "Adam and the True Prophet," 318.
63 Since it is attested in both the Recognitions (cf. 3.59-61) and the Homilies (cf. 2.15-18).
25
polluted the divine after it had been given and were not inserted directly by
God, even though He righteously permitted them to arise. We may, therefore, presume
that the doctrine of the false pericopes was influenced by the law of the syzygy, with its
emphasis upon discerning true and false properties, but the evidence does not suggest that
the two are mutually, dependent.
Scholarly Views on the Origin of the Dispute with Appion
Hom. 4-6, dispute between Clement and Appion on the value of Greek
paideia, has received a considerable amount of attention from scholars, but once again
primarily for source critical reasons. Hilgenfeld, in 1848, was the first to propose that
this dialogue was appropriated from an entirely independent source. He assumed that this
source was the dialogue between Peter and Appion attested by Eusebius in the
Ecclesiastical Histor'Jl (3.8.5), albeit in a modified form.
64
This hypothesis was followed
up on nearly half a century later by Waitz, who drew attention to the focus on Graeco-
Roman writers, the lack of "Christian" material (i.e., no mention of Peter, the True
Prophet, or and the different style and vocabulary in Hom. 4_6.
65
Scholars
have generally followed Waitz's conclusions, except for his claim that we could not
know specifically w4at this earlier source was.
66
Only a decade later, Heintze proposed
I
64 Adolf Hilgen:/feld, Die clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien nach ihrem Ursprung und
Inhalt dargestellt (Jena: Schreiber, 1848),221-25, discussed in Jones, "Pseudo-Clemetines," 27.
65 Waitz, Die PSf]udoklementinen, 252-56, discussed in Jones, "Pseudo-Clementines," 28.
66 Most recently! his conclusions have been echoed by William Adler, "Apion's 'Encomium of
Adultery': a Jewish Satire of Greek Paidea in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies," Hebrew Union College
Annual 64 (1993): 15-49.: Adler has also added the insight that Appion's companions, who are introduced
respectively as of astral determinism and Epicureanism (4.6), play virtually no role in the
dialogue; he notes that "subjects in which they would be expected to excel never come up again" (29).
26
that the source was ~ Jewish apology, not originally about either Peter or Clement, which
included disputes between a young Jewish convert and Appion, Epicureans, and
astrologers.
67
Heintze's view about the nature of the source has generally been accepted
by scholars, although since then scholars have added to it the conclusion that the apology
originated in Egypt. 618
If such a soutce does indeed exist, as it very well may, this raises the further
problem of how it cajrne to be incorporated in the Pseudo-Clementine novel, and this is a
notoriously complex issue. To begin with, the dialogue between Clement and Appion
appears only in the Homilies. Appion, Annubion, and Athenodorus do appear in the
Recognitions (10.52), but only in the same minor role that they occupy in the Homilies
outside of Hom. 4-6 (20.11, 21). In both instances, the group appears at the very end of
the novel, and is inv(])lved in a sub-plot in which Clement's father, Faustus, is cursed by
Simon Magus. We !hay, therefore, be quite certain that this episode appears near the end
of the GrundschriJt, but it far from proves that the dispute between Clement and Appion
in Hom. 4-6 is part of the GrundschriJt.
There is, however, some connection between Hom. 4-6 and Rec. 10.17-41. In
this latter passage, there is a discourse on the foolishness of Greek, specifically Orphic,
cosmogony, which is based primarily upon a critique of Greek mythology and its
allegorization by philosophers. This critique, however, is considerably shorter than the
one found in Hom. 4!.6 and is in no way connected to the figure of Appion. It is,
He remarks further that the conclusion ofthe debate is "unexpectedly abrupt" (29, n.38) and that it is
"reasonable to assume that what now survives in the Homilies is only one segment of a longer treatise that
originally included ApiOlh colleagues more actively in the debate" (29).
67 Werner Heint,Ze, Der Klemensroman, 50, discussed in Jones, "Pseudo-Clementines," 28.
68 Jones, "Pseudb-Clementines," 29.
27
therefore, likely that the Grundschrift did contain a short polemic against the allegorical
interpretation of the Greek myths, which the authors/redactors of the Homilies worked
into an existing Hellenistic Jewish apology and inserted into the narrative following the
scene at Caesarea.
Even were we to concede that the dispute between Clement and Appion appeared
in the Grundschrift and was removed by the authors/redactors of the Recognitions, it
nevertheless remainsp as Adler has demonstrated, that Hom. 4-6 represents an intrusion
into the original narrative sequence. Adler notes that in Rec. 3.69, Peter sends "the
twelve" (OdJOEKcx.) ahad of him to Tripolis, while Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila
accompany him to that city by way of Tyre and Sidon. In Hom. 3.73, the narrative
unfolds somewhat differently. There is no mention of any "twelve," but instead Peter
sends Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila on to Tripolis in order to spy on Simon. It is during
their sojourn in Tyre Ithat Clement encounters Appion, Annubion, and Athenodorus and
engages in disputation with them. Significantly, however, when Peter arrives in Tripolis
in Homily 8, Clement recounts, "We were in all sixteen: Peter himself, and I Clement,
Nicetas, and Aquila, 'and the twelve who had preceded us" (8.3, my italics). This
sentence displays almost verbatim agreement with Rec. 4.3, but makes little sense in the
Homilies, where Peter had never sent any "twelve" ahead ofhim.
69
It thus the makes
most sense to presume that the authors/redactors of the Homilies altered the narrative
sequence of the Gruri,dschrift, here preserved by the Recognitions, in order to arrange the
disputation scene beryveen Clement and Appion.
69 Adler, "Satire,," 29, n. 37.
28
Conclusion
In this I have attempted to demonstrate that although the Homilies has
received a good deal of attention from scholars, nearly all of it has been source-critical.
The many points of similarity between the Homilies and Recognitions led scholars to the
conclusion that they are both based upon an earlier text, the Grundschriji:, which is no
longer extant. Scholars were eager to discern the contents of the Grundschriji: as well as
the earlier texts that it might preserve (i.e., the Kerygmata Petrou) in order to gain a
better understanding <i>fthe "Jewish Christianity" of the apostolic era. This concern for
the first and second century, however, led specialists to neglect the redacted forms of the
Homilies and the Rec(f)gnitions, and the way in which these texts are shaped by their
fourth-century Syrian
l
milieu. In the following two chapters, I shall leave these source-
critical questions aside and consider the logic and coherence of the narrative of the
redacted, fourth-century form of the Homilies.
29
CHAPTER TWO
"Homilies 1-3: The Doctrine of the True Prophet and Simon Magus' Challenge from
Scripture"
In this second chapter, I shall examine in some depth the approach to Scripture in
Hom. 1-3, with a particular focus on the enigmatic doctrine of the false pericopes. As I
noted in the previous I chapter, most scholars have been concerned to situate the doctrine
of the false peri copes! in the context of nascent" Jewish Christianity," a problematic
venture given our lack of evidence for this doctrine prior to the fourth century. Certainly
there is much ofvalu to be found in the writings of mid-twentieth-century scholars,
which will be of use in the present inquiry. For example, Schoeps is quite right to point
to the polemical context in which the doctrine of the false pericopes arose. Drijvers,
moreover, has correctly identified an important connection between the false pericopes
and the law of the syzygy. My interest in the doctrine of the false pericopes, however,
lies not in "getting behind" the text of the Homilies to uncover earlier sources and the
communities in which they might have been employed. Rather, I am here interested in
the doctrine of the fallse peri copes as one aspect of the approach to Scripture taken by the
authors/redactors of the Homilies - an approach that is situated within broader
theological, epistemological, and polemical issues evident in Hom. 1-3, the opening
sequence of the novel I will suggest that these broader issues can best be understood in
the context of the fouhh-century Antiochene polemics against allegorical exegesis and
Alexandrian Christiaruty.
The Problem of the Immortality of the Soul
30
It is in the first chapter of the first Homily that the central concern of the novel is
brought sharply into focus. The protagonist and narrator of the Homilies introduces
himself to the reader with the first two words: EYc6 He is an impressive young
man, a citizen of Rome who tells us that even from "GT]v npc6"Gl1v t,Al1dav he had been
"able to live (1.1). Immediately, however, Clement begins to
recount his distress and despair. He asks, "When I die, do I not exist [SavcOv OUK c'Wt],
and will no one ever remember me, while boundless time bears all the things of men into
forgetfulness? And will I be without being [tcroJ.lat 8E OUK cOv], or knowledge of the
those who live, neither knowing nor being known, neither having been nor being?" (1.1)
In other words, Clement longs to know whether or not the soul is immortal - a
philosophical questio:n which dates back at least to the days of Plato. 70 This question of
the immortality of the soul, as I will demonstrate below, is intimately connected to the
,
prophetic proclamation that there is one God alone, who is good and just, and who
created the world.
71
Already here in the opening lines the central problem that the
Homilies sets out to solve is put forth.
70 The treatise that recounts Socrates' fmal days, the Phaedo, is devoted to this very question.
Socrates asserts that the sbul is immortal, for true knowledge is obscured by the bodily senses and "is only
possible after death" (67a) when the soul has been freed from the body. For this reason, philosophers must
disengage from the bodily senses and desires (67e). Clement's chaste living would most likely have
happened in conjunction With philosophical training.
71 The most cleali and succinct statement of this doctrine occurs in 2.12-13, where Peter states,
"And this is His [i.e., the True Prophet's] doctrine and true proclamation, that there is one God
whose work the world is, who being altogether just 8tKatOC; d)v shall certainly at some
time render to everyone according to his deeds ... Since, therefore, without all contradiction, God who is
good is also just [b d)v Kat 8t 8cr"Gt v], He shall not otherwise be known to be just
[OUK BE ewat YVCOcrS"crE"Gat], unless the soul after its separation from the body be
immortal, so that wicked man, being in hell, as having here received his good things, may there be
punished for his sins."
31
The matter, as Clement relates, absolutely tormented him. He pondered these
questions "unceasingJy [cmo:uO''tcoC;],'' and being unable to put them out of his mind, he
began to waste away (1.2). Such grief and torment may seem odd, but the question was
far from simply academic for Clement. He tells the reader that he could only live a pious
and righteous life were he to be assured that the soul is immortal. For if the soul is
immortal, then this opens the possibility for reward and punishment after death, and it is
only the threat of divine retribution that he says can "subdue bodily pleasures ['tCOll 'tou
O'o)/lCl.'toc; KpCl.'telv noavcOv]" (1.4). In my view, we as readers are not meant to take this as
demonstrating a moral weakness peculiar to Clement; rather, it is a point more generally
about the human dispbsition towards sin. Without a guarantee of the immortality of the
soul, individuals can.not be expected to live righteous lives. Hence, not only is the central
problem of the HomiNes presented right at the beginning of the text, but so too is a
justification for the v ~ r y enterprise of finding and disseminating a clear and decisive
answer.
Clement's question is by no means easily answered. He relates that from
childhood he would frequent the schools of the philosophers "in order to learn something
certain ['tou /lCl.gelv 'Ct. f3Ef3Cl.tOV]" (1.3). However, his experiences there turned out to be
far from edifying. The philosophers were not interested in discovering the truth about
any matter, but instead they sought to show off their skills. He tells us,
But nought else did I see than th.e setting up and the knocking down of doctrines, and strifes, and
seeking for victOliY, and the arts of syllogisms, and the skill of assumptions; and sometimes one
opinion prevailed, as, for example, that the soul is immortal, and sometimes that it is mortal. If,
therefore, at any i m the doctrine prevailed that it is immortal, I was glad; and when the doctrine
prevailed that it is mortal, I was grieved. And again, I was the more disheartened because I could
not establish either doctrine to my satisfaction (1.3, my italics).
32
In this account, philosophical discourse is portrayed as epistemologically flawed. The
outcome of a debate does not at all reflect whether or not the proposition in question is
true or false; rather, it reveals which party has more skill in logic, syllogisms, and
grammatical arts. This polemic against philosophy and philosophers is taken up in more
detail later in the first Homily, where it is associated more specifically with Alexandria
(cf. 1.1Off).
Having failed in his attempt to discern whether the soul is immortal from the
philosophers, Clement devises a more radical plan. He resolves to go to Egypt and to
"seek and find a magician, and persuade him with large bribes to effect the calling up the
soul. .. for the purpose of learning whether the soul is immortal" (1.5). Ultimately,
Clement abandons thIS plan, heeding the counsel of a friend who warns him that the
impiety of such a deed would outweigh any possible good that could come of it.
This brief episode is important for our purposes for several reasons. First, magic
is here portrayed as an inadequate means of discerning truth, since one seeks the truth in
order to be pious and the act of practicing magic is itself inherently impious. Clement's
friend warns him that! if the magician should summon the soul of a deceased individual,
thereby proving the immortality of the soul, matters "of piety will not be promoted to
[him] on account of [his] making this attempt" (1.5). Secondly, it depicts Egypt as a place
of corruption where the magical arts flourish. This negative description lays the
foundation for a more specific and sustained anti-Alexandrian polemic that will be
developed later in the Homilies. Alexandria is depicted on several occasions as a place
where the practice of philosophy and magic converge. For example, Simon Magus, the
33
cunning interlocutor of the Apostle Peter, is said to have learned the magical arts in
Alexandria (2.22), and in Hom. 4-6 we are introduced to the virulently anti-Jewish
Alexandrian grammarian Appion, who, Clement later reveals, is a magician as well.
It is Clement's desire to learn whether the soul is immortal that sets the plot of the
Homilies in motion, but it is the acting of divine providence that soon takes over and
moves the action along. Clement is unable to find an answer to his question by his own
agency. It comes unexpectedly, however, when an unnamed person (ue;) arrives in Rome
announcing that the "IS on of God is come in Judea, proclaiming etemallife to all who
will, if they shall live according to the counsel of the Father, who has sent him" (1.7).
The messenger then goes to declare that there is "one God, whose world you
unrighteously dwell in before His righteous [8tKaiwv b8at..JlcOv] eyes," and who will
punish the "unbelieving" with everlasting torment and reward those who "live according
to His counsel" with H i s unspeakable good things" (1.7). Here a clear response to
Clement's dilemma is given - the soul is indeed immortal and will be either rewarded or
punished after death - and the proof of this is the proclamation that the one God who
created the world is righteous and just. The unnamed messenger supplies no reason why
one ought to believe that the creator God is righteous and just; Clement simply finds the
prophetic revelation tb be convincing. However, the defense of this doctrinal claim soon
becomes the focus of the narrative.
Clement, being persuaded by the speech of the anonymous messenger, resolves to
travel to Judea to investigate the matter for himself. His ship, however, is blown off
34
course and he arrives, in Alexandria instead, once again the work of providence (1.8).72
Almost immediately upon arrival he has an opportunity to hear Barnabas preach.
Clement tells us that he "perceived that [Barnabas] was speaking the truth not with
dialectic art, but was !setting forth simply and without preparation what he had heard and
seen the manifested Son of God do and say" (1.9). This account is striking because,
unlike his experience at the philosophical debates, Clement here straightaway perceives
'ta. eXATJ9il. Truth must be learned not from one possessing Ot<XAEK'tt1COe; 'tEXVTJ, but rather
from one who relates simply and without pretence the teachings of a prophet. This
contrast between i ~ o s o p y and prophecy is present throughout the novel, and it is
central to the epistemological claims of the Homilies. Truth, which is revealed only
through divine revelation and not by any human skill, is clear and simple, and the pious
listener (or reader) wHl know it straightaway when s/he hears it. As I shall argue in more
detail below, it is this epistemology that underlies the doctrine of the false pericopes and
the Homilies' approach to Scripture more broadly.
The opposition between prophecy and philosophy becomes even more
pronounced as we learn of the reaction of the philosophers to Barnabas' teaching.
Although the multitudes [o't bXAOt] found his teaching compelling, the "philosophers,
compelled by their worldly education [EK 1t:cx.toelcx.e; KOO'lltKile;], set upon laughing at him
and making sport of him ... using their great syllogistic arsenal [cbe; IlEY<XAOte; b1t:AOte;
KEXPTJIlEVOt 'tOte; O'UA!LoytO'Il0te;]" (1.10). It is the simplicity of prophetic speech that
disturbs the philosopm.ers, because it renders useless the arsenal of rhetorical skills which
72 As I noted in tt1e first chapter, the detour into Alexandria is not paralleled in the Recognitions.
The entire sequence that involves Barnabas and the mocking philosophers is there set entirely in Rome.
35
presumably each one had spent many years developing and perfecting. Barnabas
responds to their taunts by differentiating his own approach from theirs: "We have a
commission only to tell you the words and wondrous doings of Him who sent us; and
instead of logical demonstration, we present to you many witnesses" (1.10). He
proclaims nothing that he devised himself. Instead, he simply passes along the teachings
that he has received. Prophetic revelatioIllleaves no room for pride, requiring neither
intellectual skill nor training on the part of the speaker or the hearer (1.11).
The Inadequacy of Human Effort and the Need for a True Prophet
In Hom. 1.1-14, it is through Clement's experiences that the authors/redactors of
the Homilies subtly put forth their epistemological and theological claims. Clement, for
example, is unable to :put the question of the immortality of the soul out of his mind. His
disillusionment with philosophical discourse, moreover, prompts him to consider the
limits of human understanding. Finally, he finds the simple and straightforward
prophetic proclamation that there is one God, who created the world and righteously
judges each person tOI be strangely compelling. Beginning in 1.15, however, each of
these issues is explicitly taken up by the Apostle Peter in a series of private discourses
with Clement.
Peter, upon fitst meeting Clement, begins by discussing the flaws in philosophical
epistemology, using the image of a house to demonstrate why a philosopher who trusts in
his own abilities to discern the truth will inevitably be led into error and confusion. He
says that it is as ifhumanity inhabits a house that is completely filled with smoke so thick
36
that visibility is entirely eliminated. No one can see no matter how good his or her vision
is until someone is able to open the door, dispelling the smoke and allowing sunlight to
come in (1.18). In this way, human understanding is blinded by "evil instruction, wicked
association, terrible society, unseemly discourses, [and] wrongful prejudice" (1.18). It is
only the one Peter calls the "true Prophet [b Cx.A:rI91l1tpo<j>1l't1l]" who can restore sight and
"enlighten the souls of all people" (1.19). God reveals truth to humanity directly through
the one whom He sends as a prophet, and the burden then rests upon the followers of the
prophet to carry on the message: "For if anyone else knows anything, he has received it
from Him [i.e., the true Prophet] or from His disciples" (2.12).
Human understanding is so limited, Peter claims, that no matter how much study
is undertaken, it cannot adequately grasp the truth of important matters. He asks
rhetorically,
For how can he fmd the truth who seeks it from his own ignorance? And even ifhe find it, he
does not know and passes it by as if it were not. Nor yet shall he be able to obtain possession of
the truth from another, who, in like manner promises him knowledge from ignorance (2.6).
The main problem with the "philosophers of the Greeks, and the more intelligent
of the barbarians" is they "trust [ ed] in themselves [eamo'ir;] to be able to find it"
(2.7). Then, because Ithey are too full of pride to admit that they have failed in their
quest, as will inevitably be the case, they "rej ect some of the suppositions that are
presented to them, an(l they lay hold of others, as if knowing, but in fact not knowing
[W(J1tcp Et06'tcr;, J.L1l Eu8o'tEr;], what things are true and what are false" (2.7). Philosophical
training is, at its core, an exercise in self-deception. The speech of the philosophers is not
complex and because the truth itself is complex, but because they employ
37
syllogisms and the like to fool the uneducated masses into thinking that they are in
possession of the truth, although they are in fact not. Prophetic speech, however, since it
is true, has no need to be obscure or complicated, but can be set forth clearly and
simply.73 The contrast between the two ultimately lies in their origins; the former is of
man, the latter is of God.
It is of central, importance to note here that, according to the Homilies, the truth of
prophetic discourse is readily apparent to and easily grasped by those who hear it. We
need only to recall how quickly Clement and the multitudes were won over by the simple
and unadorned speech of Barnabas (cf. 1.7). Clement, who had so long struggled to gain
answers from the philosophers, in a moment acknowledged the truth in the speech of an
uneducated Judean. This is emphasized in 2.9, where Peter remarks, "For God, as caring
for all, has made the cl.iscovery concerning Himself easier to all, in order that neither the
barbarians might be powerless, nor the Greeks unable to find Him. Therefore, the
discovery concerning: him is easy." The truth is neither veiled nor hidden, and it certainly
requires no particular skill to be understood.
My point, of oourse, requires qualification. The Alexandrian philosophers are not
won over by Barnabas at all. Peter and Clement, moreover, encounter opponents, such as
Simon Magus and Appion, who directly oppose their teachings. The truth is immediately
apparent only to those who possess the proper disposition. Clement, we learned in the
opening chapter, lived a chaste life since boyhood and placed no faith in his own abilities;
73 Cf. Kelley, Knowledge, 46-57.
38
he strove to discover ilie truth concerning the immortality of the soul, not simply to adopt
a position and concoct a convincing defense as did the philosophers.
In keeping with this notion of simplicity, Peter presents the doctrine of the True
Prophet as follows:
And this is His [i.e., the True Prophet's] doctrine and true proclamation, that there is one God [EtC;
ge6c;], whose work the world is, who being altogether just [OC; 81. Kcx.tOC; d)v rcaV'twc;], shall
certainly at some: time render to everyone according to his deeds ... Since, therefore, without all
contradiction, God who is good is also just [b ge6c; aycx.90c; d)v Kcx.t 81.Kcx.toC; i::O"'tlv], He shall
not otherwise be known to be just [OUK aA.A.WC; 8E 81. Kcx.toC; Et Vat yvw0"91l0"e'tcx.t], unless the
soul after its separation from the body be immortal, so that wicked man, being in hell, as having
here received his ,good things, may there be punished for his sins (2.12-13).
This doctrine accords 'exactly with the prophetic proclamation of the unnamed messenger
in Rome (1.5), and as in that passage it is here used to demonstrate the immortality of the
soul. The opening chapters of the Homilies have been moving towards this fundamental
doctrinal statement - that there is one God, good and just, who created the world - placed
in the mouth of the Apostle Peter himself, which definitively answers Clement's question
and provides him with the assurance he needs to live a righteous and pious life.
Shifting the Focus: The Law of the Syzygy and the Deception of Simon Magus
It is at this point in the novel that the focus of the plot shifts. The Homilies began
as a story about Clement's quest to discover whether the soul is immortal. But this story
of the doubting Clement, being quickly resolved, turns out only to be a prologue. It
allows the authors/redactors of the Homilies to foreground the central theological and
epistemological claims of the novel and to introduce the heroes - the recently converted
Clement and the wise Apostle Peter. The Homilies is, in fact, a defense ofthe doctrine of
the one, good, just God against the attacks of "heretics"; and, since the notion of a just
39
God requires reward and punishment post mortem, the Homilies seeks also to defend the
immortality of the soul In a sense, the ending comes at the beginning - we as readers are
told straightaway what we are to think about God and we are given a justification for why
we ought to think this. Armed with a knowledge of the truth, the reader is then exposed
to arguments against this doctrine of God, which would most likely have sounded very
familiar to fourth-century Christian ears.
Immediately :ffollowing the exposition of the doctrine of the True Prophet, Peter
begins a brief discoUlise on the law of the syzygy. The world has been created according
to this law, which states that "God ... being Himself one, has distinguished all principles
and pairs into opposites" (2.15). The "leaders of prophecy" are ordered by this law as
well, which means that in each generation there are two prophets, "the first worse and the
second superior" (2.1:5-16). The true prophet will always be preceded by a false prophet,
who will attempt to deceive the multitudes and lead them astray. Heresy is an inevitable
occurrence, something that has been woven into the very fabric of the world. While this
might seem to be an (j)dd notion, it accords rather well with the broader theological aims
of the novel. The law of the syzygy reveals that even heresy has been foreordained and
governed by the providence of the one God, who created and orders the world. Even the
most vile heretic does not work outside of or against the governance of the creator God.
There is no room for the notion that good and evil are forces that are equal in strength;
the latter is subordinated to the former. This law, moreover, does not impinge upon the
goodness of God, for He has revealed it to humanity so that no one might be deceived.
Peter remarks, "And if pious men had understood this mystery, they would never have
40
gone astray, but even now they should have known that Simon, who now enthrals all
men, is a fellow-worker of error and deceit" (2.15).
The discourse! on the law of the syzygy serves also to introduce the character of
Simon Magus, the nOlVel' s villain who seeks to corrupt further the world with his false
doctrines (cf. 2.1Sff). Although many scholars have attempted to associate Simon with
one particular figure, such as Paul or Marcion, the emerging consensus is that he
represents a mosaic of heretical viewpoints.
74
This latter view makes the most sense,
given that in the third and fourth centuries Simon came to be portrayed as the father of all
heresies.
75
According to the Homilies, Simon is a Samaritan, who followed John the
Baptist and schemed his way into a position of power (2.22-24). Making use of his
training in the magical arts, he deceives people into worshipping him as a god (2.26). He
does not, however, aatually believe himself to be divine; rather, he makes such a claim
for his own selfish plJrposes, believing that the soul is not immortal and that he will not,
therefore, be punishetl after death for his impious deeds.
76
Simon serves as the perfect
foil for Peter in denying the immortality of the soul, he undermines the
foundation of the true Prophet's doctrine of God. If the soul is not immortal, then God is
74 Dominique C&te, "La fonction litteraire de Simon Ie Magicien dans les Pseudo-Clementines"
Laval theologique et philbsophique 57/3 (2001) : 513-23, esp. 514-19; Mark 1. Edwards, "The Clementina:
A Christian Response to the Pagan Novel" Classical Quarterly 42/2 (1992): 459-74, esp. 462-3.
75 See note 48 above. Also see Reed, "Heresiology and Narrativized Polemics."
76 Upon being warned by Nicetas and Aquila, two of his former followers who have now taken up
with Peter, that to contimfe claiming to be a god will result in his post-mortem punishment, he replies, "I
laugh at your foolish because you believe that the soul of man is immortal" (2.29).
41
not just; if God is unjust, then God cannot be righteous (cf. 2.13); finally, if God is
neither righteous nor just, then humanity cannot hope either to be righteous or just. 77
Peter claims t4at Simon, who is to be located in the succession of false prophets
(cf. 2.17), has been sent to ensure that the Gentiles ['tcX. Bevil] do not turn from "the
worship of idols [ano' 'tile; K<X.'tcX. 'tcX. d8c.oA.<X. epllO"Kci<X.e;]" to the true doctrine of God (cf.
2.33).78 One of the ways in which Simon does this is to impress the crowds with his
marvels ['tEp<X.'t<X.], which include flying in the air and making statues walk, so that they
will herald him as a divine man and thus listen to his teachings (cf. 2.33-4). His primary
means of opposing Peter, however, is not through displays of power but by disputation,
and Scripture becomes the prime site of contestation.
79
Simon, Peter learns, will refute
the oneness, goodness, and justice of God by using the divine law as his key witness (cf.
2.39).
Peter, notably, in his discourse to Clement on epistemology, never claims that
Scripture is a reliable :means by which to learn the true doctrine of God. One must go to
I
the True Prophet or his followers in order to learn this (cf. 2.11). Indeed, Scripture is
only ever mentioned in the context of the dispute with Simon, and there it is treated rather
ambivalently. When Peter first speaks of Scripture and its divine origin, he also
introduces the doctrin;e of the false pericopes (cf. 2.38).
77 This point is made rather forcefully in 2.43, where Peter asks rhetorically, "If He is unjust, who
isjust? . .IfHe does evil, \yho shall do good?"
78 It is noteworthy that Peter's mission is here portrayed as being to the Gentiles, a role typically
assigned to Paul in the Neiw Testament and other early Christian literature. We may view this as a tacit
polemic against Paul, w h ~ r e y Peter usurps his role as Apostle to the Gentiles.
79 This represents a rather significant modification ofthe Peter-Simon Magus legend, which in
both the Acts of Peter andl Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is resolved by Peter demonstrating the
superiority of his supemarural abilities.
42
It is, t h r f o r ~ tempting to focus one's attention solely on the doctrine of the false
pericopes, ignoring the Homilies' broader approach to Scripture, and to consider these
passages in isolation from the broader context of Hom. 1-3, especially 1.1-2.36, in which
Scripture plays no rol!e and is never mentioned. Such an approach is, as I have argued
earlier, evident in the writings of Schoeps and Quispel, although the former is more
careful than the latter'in considering the polemical context in which the doctrine of the
false peri copes is set forth. 80
In my view, this narrow focus causes us to overlook the continuity evident in
Hom. 1-3 and therefore to be unable to understand fully both how and why Scripture is
presented in such a Wlay. Hom. 1.1-2.36 is vitally important for our understanding of
Scripture and the falsp pericopes because, as I demonstrated above, the authors/redactors
ofthe Homilies tend o give the solution prior to raising the problem. Before the problem
of heresy is ever everl presented, the narrative articulates clearly both the true doctrine of
God and the proper way of arriving at the knowledge of this doctrine. Given that
Scripture plays such a central role in Simon's attack on Peter's doctrine of God, we
would not, I believe, be incorrect in positing that the theological and epistemological
claims presented in the early part of the novel playa key role in understanding the
Homilies' approach to Scripture.
In my view, the decisively important theological claims are that God is one, good,
and just (2.11-12) an<!l that He foreknows and foreordains all things (l.ll). Significant
epistemological claims include the notion that human understanding is utterly unable to
80 See Schoeps, !fewish Christianity, 74-82.
43
discern truth on its own (1.3; 2.7); that knowledge can only be gained directly from the
True Prophet or his followers (1.18; 2.5-6); that philosophical discourse is a ruse, since
truth is simple and straightforward (1.10; 2.7; 2.9); and, finally, that the humble and
morally upright will be able immediately to discern the truth, once it has been presented
to them (1. 7).
The Doctrine of the False Pericopes
As I related in the introduction, it is in 2.38 that the doctrine of the false pericopes
is first introduced:
For the acquired [npocrEAcx.l3ov] many falsehoods against God for this reason [A6ycp
'to\ytcp]. When prophet Moses, by the will of God, handed down [ncx.pcx.ococ01c6'to;] the law
with the to a certain chosen seventy in order that they might also instruct those of the
people who were chosen, after not much time the written law [ypcx.<pct; b v6/lo;] acquired
certain against the one God, who created [OT]/lto'UPyT]crcx.v'to;] the heaven and the
earth and all things in them, the evil one IUndertaking to work this for some righteous purpose
(2.38). .
It is worth noting at tfue outset that the Homilies does accept the divine origin of the Law.
Moses, we learn, at the behest of God, handed down the Law to the seventy, who were
themselves entrusted With the task of faithfully disseminating this divine revelation. The
fact that the Law thereafter [/lc't' OU noll, 'U]) became corrupt serves only to enhance
the claim that the Law, as it was originally received by Moses, was perfect and divine,
containing nothing false. The perfection of the original revelation to Moses is also
emphasized in Hom. 3.47, Peter's explanation of the doctrine of the false pericopes to
Simon Magus. In 3.4!7, there is a slightly different account of the origin of the false
passages: "The law of God was given by Moses, without writing, to seventy wise men, to
44
be handed down, thatthe government might be carried on by succession. But after
Moses was taken up, it was written by someone, but not by Moses ... but those who wrote
it, being convicted of1ignorance through their not foreseeing its disappearance, were not
prophets." In this account of the doctrine of the false pericopes, the Law was only to be
handed down orally aind became corrupt the moment it was written out. Although this
slightly contradicts the claim in 2.38 that the Law acquired false interpolations slightly
after it was written d(])wn, both accounts privilege the oral transmission of the Law and
dismiss written versions as corrupt.
According to the doctrine of the false peri copes, God permitted the corruption of
His perfect revelatioq so that "those might be convicted who should dare to listen to the
things written against God [Ka:td. 'tou geo'u 'Ypa<j>EV'ta], and those who, through love
towards Him, should inot only disbelieve the things spoken against Him, but should not
even endure to hear them at all" (2.38). Peter asserts, moreover, that the false chapters
have been added to Scripture "for the sake of temptation [netpacrllou Xaptv],,(2.39) and
that "nothing happen$ unjustly, since even the falsehoods of Scripture are with good
reason presented for a test" (3.4). By claiming that Scripture has been falsified in order
to test the character and disposition of those who read or hear it, the Homilies is able to
uphold the providence as well as the goodness of God.
This justification for the existence of the false pericopes also accords well with
the epistemological and heresiological claim that one can only learn true doctrines from
the True Prophet: "For if anyone else knows anything, he has received it from [the True
Prophet] or from His :disciples" (2.12). Indeed, Peter asserts that it is only by "believing
45
His [i.e., the True Prqphet's] teaching, [that] one will know what of the Scriptures are
true and what are false" (3.49). The doctrine of the True Prophet is the hermeneutical
key, as it were, whicn unlocks the coherent message and witness of Scripture. The one
who wishes to read Scripture aright and to learn the truths that it reveals must be both
morally upright and an heir to the teachings of the True Prophet. The reader, however,
who meets neither of'these criteria and therefore derives heretical doctrines from
Scripture condemns ~ t God but himself.
Indeed, the Homilies celebrates the fact that the written Scripture consistently
contradicts itself, since this highlights the need for the reader to submit humbly to the
proper interpretive rule. Peter explains that Simon is able to produce his impious
doctrine from the TOliah because "the Scriptures say all manner of things [nciv'ta ya.p at
ypa<j>at AeYO'UOLV], in order that no one of those who inquire ungratefully might find the
truth, but what he wishes to find ... Whence it must before all things be known, that
nowhere can truth be found unless from a prophet of truth" (3.10-11). The doctrine of the
false peri copes is introduced, therefore, as a means of defining the proper boundaries
within which legitimate Scriptural interpretation must take place.
We have yet, however, to consider where exactly the problem with Scripture lies.
As I noted above, Peter first introduces the doctrine of the false peri copes without
specifying which portiions of the Torah have been corrupted. He is more concerned to
demonstrate the problem of discerning doctrine solely from Scripture and how his
solution (i.e., the doctirine of the false pericopes) does not undermine the foreknowledge,
goodness, and omnipq>tence of God. After re-stating the argument that those who are
46
righteous will not be a fooled for a moment by the false pericopes (cf. 2.42), Peter sets
forth a series of antitheses, framed as questions, which reveal what exactly is at issue in
the corrupted Scriptutal passages. He begins by asking, "For if He [i.e., God] lies, then
who speaks truth? Ot that He makes experiments as in ignorance; for then who
foreknows? And if lie deliberates and changes His purpose, who is perfect in
understanding and pehnanent in design?" (2.43). Peter continues at some length with
these questions, toucliing also upon God's wisdom, justice, omnipotence, and goodness
(cf.2.43-4). The passage is structured so that the reader presumes that all of these
anthropomorphisms (i.e., blindness, malice, injustice, war-mongering) are somewhere in
Scripture attributed to the Creator God, although no specific references are here provided.
We may presume, however, that many readers would be acutely aware of these charges
against the God of Jewish Scriptures from disputations with and polemics against
Marcionites.
81
Peter to this depiction of the creator God in the Hebrew Bible by setting
forth the definitive rule which must shape the believer's conception of God. He says
Wherefore, Clement, my son, beware of thinking otherwise of God, than that he is the only God
[p.6voc; ecru v and Lord, and Father, good and righteous [ex.ya8oc; Kat 8t Kcx.toC;] , the
Creator long-suffering, merciful, the sustainer, the benefactor, ordaining love of
81 The objection to the creator God takes on a clearly Marcionite tone when it is placed in the
mouth of Simon Magus in 3.38: "And now I wish ... to discuss with you from these books on the necessity
of thinking that there are gods; fIrst showing respecting him whom you call God, that he is not the supreme
and omnipotent being, as he is without foreknowledge, imperfect, needy, not good, and
underlying many and innumerable grievous passions ... it follows that there is another, not written of,
foreknowing, perfect, witqout want, good, removed from all grievous passions." Simon then goes on to
give specifIc references tOj passages from Genesis that demonstrate his claims. These include God's
repentance at making humanity (6.6), his seeming ignorance of the state of affairs at Sodom and Gomorrah
(18.21), and his of Abraham (i.e., the aqedah, 22.1f1). For Marcionite doctrine in general, see,
Tertullian, Adversus MarCionem; Adolf Von Harnack, Maricon. For the prevelance of Marcionism in late
antique Syria, see H.J.W. Drijvers, "Marcionism in Syria."
47
men,. counselling purity ... This is our Judge, to whom it behoves us to look, and to regulate our
own souls
This rule reaffirms what I have claimed above is the central proclamation of the novel -
that there is one God, good and just, who created and orders the world (cf. 2.12-313).
This doctrinal formulation is the key that unlocks the "mystery [lluO"'tnptOv]" of Scripture
(cf. 3.4), thereby demonstrating its coherence.
The Doctrine of the RaIse Pericopes and its Late Antique Context
In my view, notion that the unified message of Scripture is only intelligible
when it is read the proper interpretive framework is influenced by the Christian
"Rule of Truth" and the Rabbinic conception of Oral Torah. Perhaps the clearest
exposition of the of Truth
82
is found in Irenaeus of Lyons' heresiological work
I
Adversus Haereses. Those, he claims, who are baptized into the Church and keep the
"Rule of Truth" in their hearts will understand the "hypothesis" of Scripture, which will
allow them to interpret it properly and not be deceived by the malicious distortions of
heretics (1.9.4). This approach to Scripture was not unknown in late antique Syria, where
the Homilies was redacted. Ephraem, for example, in his Hymns on Paradise, asserts that
Scripture can lead one astray if it is not read in accordance with "the keys of doctrine"
(Hymns on Paradise 6.1).83 These theologians presumed that Scripture would not yield a
82 See Young, Biplical Exegesis, 17-28.
83 In his Comme"ltary on Genesis, in Selected Prose Works, trans. E.G. Matthews and J.P. Amar,
ed. K. McVey (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1994), there are a number of passages,
such as Gen 6.6 and 18.2], where Ephraem is forced to provide a non-straightforward reading of the text
because of his doctrinal For example, Ephraem asserts that Gen 18.21, where God says that
He wishes to go down to $odom and Gomorrah to investigate matters for Himself, does not disclose to the
reader something about God (i.e., that God is ignorant), but rather is meant to serve as an example for how
48
cogent and coherent Jines sage if the readerlhearer did not approach it with the proper
doctrinal formula already in mind, the truth of which they secured by their claims that its
origin could be traced back to the apostles themselves. This is also the approach that the
authors/redactors of the Homilies take, legitimating their hermeneutical key by placing it
in the mouth of Peter.
The Rabbinic: doctrine of "Oral Torah" (e.g., m. Avot 1-5; Sifre Deut. 351; y. Peah
2:6; Pesikta Rabbati l4b) established a line of oral transmission that connected the
teachings of the Rabbis directly to Moses and the revelation at Mt. Sinai.
84
These oral
teachings, handed doWn from sage to disciple, provided the proper context for the
interpretation of the Written Scripture; Jaffee remarks that, for the Rabbis, while "the text
of Scripture is certainly there for all to read, it is understood only in context of the
teaching ofthe Sage repeated teachings bring Written text to life.,,85 The influence
of the idea of Oral Tojrah is perhaps most evident in the Epistle of Peter to James, a
document which is to the Homilies, where Peter explicitly invokes the Jewish
transmission of Mosaic teaching as a model for the dissemination of his own preaching:
"I beg and beseech you not to communicate to anyone of the Gentiles the books of my
preachings which I seht to you, nor anyone of our tribe before trial; but if anyone has
human judges should act when investigating a case (Comm. Gen. 16.1). For the role of doctrine/tradition in
the exegesis ofEphraem, Sebastian P. Brock, The Luminous Eye (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1985),43-51.
84 For the development of the concept of Oral Torah among the Tannaim and Amoraim, see
Martin Jaffee, Torah in tM Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE
(Oxford: Oxford Press, 2001),84-92, 140-52.
85 Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 70.
49
been proved and worthy, then commit them to him, after the manner in which
Moses delivered his to the seventy who succeeded his chair" (1.1).86
Despite these points of influence, overlap, and continuity, however, the Homilies
still differs radically trom other Jewish and Christian texts in its approach to Scripture.
Neither the Rabbis nor the Church Fathers ever claimed that the tricky portions of
Scripture were false $d ought to be discarded. Oral Torah and the Rule of Truth were
used, in various to guide interpretation, not to mark certain passages for excision
from the canon.
In claiming th/it those Scriptural passages which speak of God
anthropomorphically "false" (cf. 2.40), the Homilies tacitly rejects the non-literal
reading practices had become standard fare in Christian circles East and West. If
Gen 6:6 claims that God repented at having made man, it cannot be understood as a
figure of speech used Ito demonstrate to the reader just how grave the sinfulness of
humanity truly was, as Ephraem took it to be.
87
This verse must be rejected as impiously
I
assigning lack of foreknowledge and changeability to God (3.39). More specifically, I
believe that this approach to Scripture is informed by an anti-allegorical agenda. Charles
Bigg in 1890 also espoused this view, but to my knowledge no scholar in the
intervening century has followed up on his insight. 88
86 Albert I. Baunigarten, "Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee," in The Galilee
in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee t Levine (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1992),39-50, esp. 41-7. :
87 In his Commen,tary on Genesis he asserts that "God was sorry does not mean that God did not
know that they would come to this, but rather that He wished to make their great wickedness manifest
before the generations to qome, that they had committed such wantonness that they even brought remorse
to God, who does not feellremorse" (6.7).
88 Bigg, "Clementine Homilies," 181.
50
Conclusion
The Homilies an ambivalent approach to Scripture. On the one hand,
Scripture is viewed as the record of God's perfect revelation that He is one, good, and
just - a doctrine whicfh is essential for the possibility of human piety and righteousness
(cf.1.4); on the other,ithe Homilies acknowledges that Scripture provides heretics and
other outsiders with .e ammunition they need to argue against this very doctrine of God,
positing instead multiple deities and denying reward and punishment post mortem. The
Homilies' solution, that was common in late antique Jewish and Christian circles, is
to deny the authority of Scripture, asserting that it is only intelligible if read
according to the rule preserved by tradition. The necessity of this approach is guaranteed
by the Homilies' epistemology, which denies the legitimacy of independent human
inquiry, as in the Greek philosophical project, and sets up prophetic revelation
as the only sure way to know the truth of things. One cannot understand Scripture if one
approaches it without knowledge of the doctrines revealed by the True Prophet. The
Homilies, in my view, also tacitly critiques "proto-orthodox" Christian approaches to
Scripture with its doctrine of the false pericopes, a doctrine which seems to deny the
legitimacy of allegoriCal and other figural reading practices.
In the following chapter, I shall consider the explicit polemic against allegory,
associated particularly with Alexandria, in Hom. 4-6. In so doing, I hope to make
stronger my case that!the Homilies, much like other fourth-century Antiochene literature,
is motivated by a conpern to oppose the Christian exegetical practices that originated in
Alexandria and were moving northward to Caesarea and beyond.
51
CHAPTER THREE
"Homilies 4-6: A Critique of Greek Paideia"
In the present! chapter, we will turn to consider Hom. 4-6, a self-contained textual
unit that relates the eJ;1counter of Clement and his old family friend Appion, an
Alexandrian grammarian. The reader learns at the beginning of the fourth Homily that
Simon, having been soundly defeated in debate with Peter, fled to Tyre, and that Peter
sent Clement, Niceta$, and Aquila ahead of him to spy on the heresiarch (4.1-3). No
sooner than they arrive, however, does Simon set sail from Tyre for Sidon, a
development which sets the stage for a debate between Clement and Appion, who is
accompanied by Annubion the astrologer and Athenodorus the Epicurean (4.6). The
debate centres on the 'value of Greek paideia, which Clement calls radically into question,
proposing in its placei adherence to the Jewish way of life.
As I mentiont1d in the first chapter, there have been a number of complex theses
put forth regarding the "original" form and function of Hom. 4-6. This puzzle is not
easily solved, and to endeavour to do so here would lead us far astray from the task at
hand. What I have hqped to demonstrate in detailing some of the source critical issues,
however, is that the authors/redactors of the Homilies consciously chose to include the
disputation scene between Clement and Appion, whatever its origin, and to insert it in the
narrative directly the dispute at Caesarea. Even were we to concede that the
material in Hom. 4-6 flPpeared in a more or less identical fonn somewhere in the
Grundschrift, a contention I find improbable, we would still have to take seriously into
consideration that the I authors/redactors of the Recognitions found this sub-plot
52
superfluous and chose to eliminate it entirely. We would have to ask why the
authors/redactors of the Homilies found it significant enough to include.
In this chaptet, I shall attempt to highlight points of continuity between Hom. 4-6
and the rest of the novel, rather than points of difference, as source critics such as Adler
have done. In my Hom. 4-6, with its scathing and prolonged critique of Greek
paideia, complements and enhances the theological and epistemological claims set forth
in Hom. 1-3, which I ;outlined in the second chapter.
89
Greek learning here, as in 1.1-3, is
shown to be utterly inadequate for the task of inculcating virtue and shaping character;
indeed, it is exposed as a corrosive and corrupting force. One must, rather, turn to the
Jewish way oflife, e.bodied in a doctrinal statement strongly reminiscent of the words
of the True Prophet a$ taught by Peter in 2.12-13: there is "One as the Father and Creator
[EVcx. ncx.'tepcx. Kcx.t 5111l1o'Upy6v] of all this world, by nature good and just ['t11 aycx.8ov
Kcx.t 51 Kcx.tOV ]; good, indeed, as pardoning sins to those who repent; but just, as visiting to
everyone after according to the worthiness of his doings" (4.13). Once again,
the solution to the prdblem of philosophical epistemology is a recourse to the True
Prophet and his doctrine.
There is, in my view, a more specific reason why the dispute between Clement
and Appion has been directly following the textual unit at Caesarea, and this has
to do with the of the false pericopes and the problem of Scripture. 90 The sub-
89 See pp. 43-4 above.
90 Annette Reed, "From Judaism and Hellenism to Christianity and Paganism: Cultural
Identities and Religious Pplemics in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies," in Proceedings of the AELAC
Coriference on the Romance (forthcoming), suggests a somewhat different reason for
the insertion ofthe Appion at this point in the narrative, although it is not, in my view,
I
exclusive of my claim. Slie argues that one of the primary aims of Hom. 1-3 is to contrast the religion of the
53
plot in Hom. 4-6 can be read as a commentary on hermeneutics and the role of sacred
texts in education. Ini Hom. 4-6, texts are not viewed as storehouses of esoteric
knowledge, which m1.l1st be carefully decoded through laborious study and exegesis.
Rather, their provide examples, after which readerslhearers pattern their lives.
Education is, fundamentally, imitation. Texts, and the systems upon which they are
based, are judged on the basis of their ability to instil virtue and piety.
I
Clement critiqizes Greek paideia because, he claims, it is founded entirely upon
unseemly myths, which feature all-too-human gods and goddesses (cf. 4.8). It is made
quite clear that attempts to redeem these myths through allegorical exegesis are futile,
because this does not Ileave open the possibility for imitation, and it is only by imitation
that virtue can be (cf. 4.25). It is in the light of this hermeneutic that the doctrine
of the false pericopesiis, I believe, most coherently understood. Non-literal readings of
seemingly impious pcissages of Scripture are ineffective, because believers ultimately will
imitate Scripture at it$ most literal level. These verses must, therefore, be rejected as
illegitimate and unwdrthy of God.
The First Encounter with Appion and Clement's Critique of Greek Paideia
The third Homily concluded with Peter decisively defeating Simon in debate,
forcing the magician to withdraw from the city in disgrace (3.58). When Clement,
True Prophet (i.e., "truth"} with competing epistemological and theological claims (i.e., "error"), which is
accomplished by the and explication of the Law of the Syzygy, and that Hom. 4-6 explores this
contrast with reference to opposition of Hellenism and Judaism. If she is right that the aim of Hom. 4-6
is to explicate further the li:ontrast between Judaism/Christianity and Hellenism/Heresy, as I believe she is,
then it is reasonable to suppose that a contrast between the Bible and the Greek myths, as well as the proper
way of reading these is also fundamentally at play.
54
Nicetas, and Aquila, raving been sent north from Caesarea by Peter, arrive at Tyre, they
learn that Simon has jJ.ot thrown in the towel. Bernice, the daughter of a Jewish convert,
,
with whom they are lodging, tells them that Simon has been impressing the crowds by
making ghosts appear and causing statues to walk, and that he has "infected them with
various diseases, and! subjected them to demons [8a.tflocrtv un:e13a.A.Ev]" (4.4). With the
threat of Simon here being re-established, the narrative takes a detour, and Appion
Pleistoneces, "a man pf Alexandria," is introduced into the story, along with his
companions Annubi< the astrologer and Athenodorus the Epicurean (4.6). They are,
apparently, companiqns of Simon, whom he left behind in Tyre as he set sai.l for Sidon
(4.6).
It has been that this Appion ought to be identified with the notorious
Apion the grammariap., hater of the Jews, against whom Josephus composed the Contra
Apionem.
91
In Hom. 4-6, Appion is credited with a number of anti-Jewish remarks (cf.
4.7,5.27), and Clement describes him as having an "unreasonable hatred of the Jews"
(5.28). Such an identification seems, therefore, to be probable. The association of Simon
Magus and Appion is! attested in no other early Christian literature, however, and Adler
has suggested that their supposed friendship is merely used to introduce Appion into the
narrative.
92
In my view, however, there is somewhat more to the connection. In linking
Simon the magician alnd arch-heretic to Appion the grammarian, Annubion the
astrologer, and Athenbdorus the Epicurean, the authors/redactors of the Homilies blur the
line between "heresy/, "magic," and "philosophy," grouping them together as co-sharers
91 See, e.g., Adler, "Satire," 31. Cf. Edwards, "Clementina," 462-3.
92 Adler, 31, n. 44.
55
in impiety against thei doctrines of the True Prophet.
93
Indeed, as we shall see in Homily
5, Appion quite expliitly demonstrates the compatibility between magic and Greek
philosophy, by telling Clement that he could court a woman on his behalf either by use of
magic potions or speech!
Clement andl Appion are also linked together, as we learn that the Alexandrian
grammarian is a longltime friend of Clement's father. When Appion first arrives on
scene, he greets Clement with a show of fatherly affection, boasting about him as the one
"of whose noble birtH and liberal education I have often told you ... being related to the
family of Tiberi us Cajesar and equipped with all Grecian learning" (4.7). This is the most
full sketch we have received thus far of Clement's upbringing and training, although it
certainly is with the image we received in 1.1 of a young man who is wasting
away because he is unable to solve a philosophical problem. Appion continues to relate,
however, that Clement "has been seduced by a certain barbarian called Peter to speak and
act after the manner df the J ews ['to. lou8ol1c.ov nOtct v Kat Ac'ct v i1neX.'tTJ'ta.t]" (4.7). In
Appion's eyes, Clement acts "most impiously," since he forsakes his own customs for
those of certain barbarians (4.7). It is, however, Appion's reproach of Clement that
occasions a scathing tritique of Greek customs.
Clement begi1ils to respond to Appion's charge by differentiating between those
customs which are "pious" and those which are not (4.8). If one judges them to be evil,
then they ought to be:rejected and others ought to be adopted in their place, even if they
are of barbarian origip. When Appion demands to know why Clement has abandoned his
93 See Hom. 5.2,:in which we learn that Appion and Simon forged their alliance so that they could
swap secrets concerning How best to oppose the Jews.
56
father's way of life, responds by saying, "Because he believed the false and wicked
myths of the Greeks [bu 'tOte; 'tcOV EAA:fJVcov \lfEuotm KaKOte; f..lu80te;]" (4.8).
This response is striking, because Clement here depicts the influence of impious myths as
the fundamental problem with Greek culture and education. All the ancient customs are
flawed because they e based on improper notions of the gods. 94
Clement follows up this bold condemnation by attributing the myths, the
foundation upon Greek culture has been built, to the workings of "a wicked demon
[KaKOU oawovoe;]" (4:.12).95 Under this demonic influence, he claims, the Greeks "have
introduced many gods of their own, and these wicked" (4.12), so that those who wished
to act impiously would be justified in doing so. For, Clement reasons, if a god is allowed
to act in a certain wax, then anyone can follow the example without guilt or shame (4.12).
There can be, therefore, no hope of virtue in a world polluted by the examples of base
and lascivious deities,
As a remedy tb the toxic tales of ancient Greece, Clement proposes "the doctrine
of the barbarous Jews," according to which there is one God, good and just, who created
94 On this point, see Edwards, "Clementina,"469.
95 The claim thatl Greek mythology and culture is of demonic origin dates back to the second-
century apologies, the two penned by Justin Martyr: "And being carried away by fear, and not
knowing that these were qemons, they called them gods" (1 Apol. 5); "Since we see that these [idols] are
soulless and dead, and haVe not the form of God ... but have the names and forms of those wicked demons
which have appeared" (1 J:1pol. 9); "Those who believe these [myths] we pity, and those who invented them
we know to be devils" (1 j4pol. 25); "Whence alsOi the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the
[fallen] angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things ... ascribed them to
god himself, and to those :\vho were accounted to be his very offspring [i.e., Neptune and Pluto]" (2 Apol.
5). See also Annette Reed, "The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the
Divine: Aetiology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr," Journal of Early
Christian Studies 12/2 (2004): 141-71, esp. 159-63. Justin, however, presumes that the Greeks read their
myths literally, never claiming that they employed allegorical reading strategies; cf. Peter
Widdicombe, "Justin Martyr, Allegorical Interpretation, and the Greek Myths," in Studia Patristica 31
(Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 234-239.
57
the world and each one according to hislher deeds after death (4.13-4). This
barbarian teaching will instil piety in those who follow it, for "in expectation of being
judged by the all-seeilng God, [one] receives the greater impulse towards virtue" (4.14).
As in 1.4, it is only the existence of reward and punishment post mortem that allows for
the possibility of a pious life. Without such consequences, desire would surely
overtake each one. according to Clement, not only do the Greek myths not
demonstrate the of immoral actions, but they in fact give license to their
readerslhearers to indulge their reckless and impious desires. He cites as examples the
I
sexual escapades of the gods, who commit adultery, and have incestuous relations with
both sisters and daughters (4.16).
Clement then !places the most blame on those, like Appion, who profess "to be
grammarians and (4.17). For, although they ought to strive to live virtuous and
continent lives, they embrace "this mythical pretext, and as imitators of the
gods they practice things with freedom" (4.17). Indeed, they promote the
myths so that they will have a justification for their wicked actions. According to
Clement, it is those grow up in the country, far away from the cities where these
harmful teachings are disseminated in grammatical and rhetorical schools, who are
privileged.
96
Those elxposed to these stories from their youth are in the worst state of all,
because "the rooted ilinpurities cannot be easily cut down" (4.18).
Clement concludes his response to Appion's charge against him regarding custom
with a resounding condemnation of Greek paideia:
96 Reed, Polemics," suggests that this claim stems from the Homilies' view that
impurity is contagious. Se, e.g., the series of sermons in Tripolis in Hom. 8-11.
58
Wherefore it the young not to be satisfied with those corrupting lessons, and those who
are in their primJ should carefully avoid listening to the mythologies ofthe Greeks. For lessons
about their gods frre much worse than ignorance (4.19).
If piety is truly at iss-qe, then Clement has established that he should be praised by
Appion for abandonir:'.g Greek customs, which serve only to pollute and corrupt. The
prized learning ofthel Greeks is a sham, shown up by the barbarous doctrine of the Jews,
which teaches that "the soul must at some time receive according to the desert of its
deeds" (4.22).
Appion does dispute with Clement that adultery and the like are wicked
actions which ought to be condemned, but he denies the culpability of Greek
culture in the spread vices. He first attempts to elide Clement's critique of the
myths by focusing on the place of law in Greek society. He asks, "Do not the laws of the
Greeks also forbid and punish adulterers? .. Let us have in our eye not the
gods, but the judges, looking to them, we shall be afraid to sin" (4.23). This response
undermines claim that the myths are the foundation of Greek culture, and
Appion asserts that i humanity will only act piously under threat, then the judges ensure
the existence of proper behaviour.
Clement is nqt, however, satisfied with this response, and he insists that by
lacking human judges will be ineffective in establishing piety: "This is
not fitting, 0 Appion, for he who has his eye upon men will dare to sin, in hope of
escaping detection" (4.23). Human models are insufficient for instilling virtue; it is only
fear of and imitation bf God that can accomplish this. He notes that the one "who sets
before his soul the God [8E.6v 1tC<.V'tE.1to't'llv], knowing that it is not possible to
59
escape His notice a:l.nov Acx.getv 1111 Duvcx.cr9a.t], will cease to sin [ncx.pa.t 't'flcre'ta.t
allcx.p'tet v] in secret" 3 ).
This refutation leads Appion to exonerate the character of the gods, claiming that
they are "neither adu]terers, nor murderers, nor corrupters of children, nor guilty of incest
with sisters or (4.24). The myths appear to accuse the gods of such crimes, he
explains, because ancients who composed them wish to keep their knowledge
hidden. The therefore, wishing that "only lovers of learning should know the
mysteries, veiled [npqeKcX.Al.)\jfcx.V] them with those fables [llu90tC;] of which you have
spoken" (4.24). Such an explanation will not suffice for Clement, who argues that it is
illogical and impious ifor good deeds to be veiled with "evil fables" (4.25). By doing so,
the ancients have eliminated the possibility that anyone might "imitate" the good deeds of
the good gods (4.25). i Clement here discounts the possibility that any written record of an
unseemly or immoral I action can in some way be exonerated or justified. If the plain,
straightforward sense. of a narrative is not worthy of imitation, then it has no place in a
system designed to instil virtue and piety in its students.
Clement's Account o:fi"His Earlier Acquaintance with Appion
In the fourth Comily, the authors/redactors of the Homilies use the speeches of
Clement to demonstrate, both epistemologically and theologically, why Greek paideia is
unredeemably flawed: In the fifth Homily, the primary vehicle they use to demonstrate
this point is a story about Clement's boyhood encounter with the Alexandrian
grammarian. In 4.23-g4, Appion delivers an indignant reply to Clement's critique, where
60
he claims that adultery and other crimes are most hateful to the Greeks, and that the
myths in no way giveilicense to their readerslhearers to commit such misdeeds.
Clement's story in ~ fifth Homily, however, not only has Appion praising adultery as a
noble pursuit, but haslhimjustifying this claim by the Greek myths!
On the day foillowing the initial encounter at Tyre, Clement receives word that
Appion has taken ill aI11.d will be unable to discourse on the allegorical interpretation of
the Greek myths that day. Conveniently, this gives Clement an opportunity to tell a story
to Annubion, Athenodorus, and the other unnamed companions of Appion about a much
earlier meeting the twb once had, which he had only remembered the night before (4.1-
2). William Adler has argued,97 convincingly in my view, that this story is a satire of the
Antiochus romance, fbr which Plutarch, Lucian, and Appian are some of our earliest and
best-known sources.
981
In this romance, the prince Antiochus is consumed by a lustful
desire for his stepmotlner, Stratonice, and quite literally begins to waste away. The royal
court is alarmed by the dire situation of the prince, who is near death but refuses to
disclose the root of his disease. The clever physician Erasistratus, however, immediately
recognizes the symptoms of love-sickness and uses a "clever lie" to allow for the prince
to obtain Stratonice, thereby curing him.
99
Clement's story opens as he lies wasting away in bed, although for reasons
somewhat different from Antiochus. He tells us, in a description reminiscent of Hom.
1.1, that from "boyhodd I Clement was a lover of truth, and a seeker of the things that are
97 Adler, "Satire."
98 Adler, "Satire,"! 17. See Plutarch Life of Demtrius 38; Lucian De Dea Syria 17-18; Appian The
Syrian Wars 59-61.
99 For this summary, I rely primarily upon Adler, "Satire," 17-18.
61
profitable for the souIb and spending my time in raising and refuting theories; but being
unable to find anythiJ1g perfect, through distress of mind I fell sick" (5.2). It is despair of
obtaining truth, not arl. adulterous affair, that plagues Clement. He proceeds to recount
that Appion came to -Visit his father and began to tend to Clement, since he was "not
unacquainted with (5.2). Adler notes that this is an unusual description of
Appion, who is nowhere else portrayed as a physician, and he claims that the Alexandrian
grammarian is here being identified with the devious physician Erasistratus.
100
Clement
does not disclose the fause of his malady to Appion, on account of the Alexandrian's
rabid anti-Jewish Clement describes him as one who "exceedingly hated the
Jews ... [and who] written many books against them, and [who] had formed a
friendship with this not through desire of learning but because he knew that he
was a Samaritan and a. hater of the Jews" (5.2). Several things, I believe, are going on
here. First, Clement ils tacitly setting up the Jews as those who possess knowledge of the
truth; one who OPPoSS and hates them would have no interest in discovering the truth.
Secondly, the authorsYredactors of the Homilies are here able to link tightly together
Appion and Simon, philosopher and heretic, by their hatred for the Jews. Hellenism is
lumped together withiheresy and contrasted with Judaism.
Clement, therefore, feigns the signs of love-sickness in order to trick the
grammarian/physician Appion.
10l
The Alexandrian takes the bait, being thoroughly
persuaded that Clemeht "was in love with a woman" (5.3). This appears to be a clever
100 Adler, "Satirej" 34.
101 "And when I i;lgain groaned feignedly, as being ashamed to speak of love, by means of silence
and down-looking I conveyed the impression of what I wished to intimate" (5.3).
62
reversal of the scene -$.rhere Erasistratus correctly discerns that Antiochus is in love,
although the latter wi$hes to keep this fact hidden. Appion tells Clement that in his youth
he, too, had been in IQve with a woman whom he thought he would never be able even to
address. But he chanced to fall in with an Egyptian magician, who "hesitated not to teach
me an incantation by 'pleans of which I obtained her; and as soon as I had obtained her,
by means of his secret instruction, being persuaded by the liberality afmy teacher, I was
cured oflove" (5.3). ~ p p o n then promises Clement that he can use this same incantation
,
to secure for him the woman he desires (5.4). This training in Egyptian magic is another
way in which the autIiors/redactors of the Homilies link Appion to Simon (cf. 2.22). The
former's immersion iJil Greek culture has not led him to reject such deceptive practices.
Clement conti!rlUes to play the part of an innocent, love-struck boy, although he
carefully orchestrateslthe conversation so as to compel Appion to admit the existence of
punishment post moriem in Hades. I suspect that this is a modification of the scene in the
Antiochus romance where the physician Erasistratus tricks Antiochus' father, the king,
into admitting that ani adulterous affair is permissible if it saves the life of a love-sick
young man. The diffrence in the Homilies, however, is that the learned Greek is the one
who is duped, thereby revealing the inadequacy of his education.
Clement begins by feigning enthusiasm at the prospect of gaining the love of the
woman he longs for aPd then proceeding to ask how Appion can be so sure that the
8aiIlOVEC; will obey him (5.4). The grammarian/magician responds by giving an analogy
from war, that "it is impossible for a soldier to contradict his general, and impossible for
the general themselveis to disobey the king - for if anyone oppose those set over him, he
63
is altogether deserving of punishment ... they yield trembling, well knowing that if they
I
disobey they shall be I fully punished" (5.5). The well-trained magician, as a "king," can
therefore compel the 6a.tI-lOVEC;; to do whatever he wishes them to do. He concludes his
explanation with a stl;l.tement we would expect rather to have come from the mouth of
Clement: "For unlessi all things that are living and rational foresaw vengeance from the
ruler, confusion woulld ensue, all revolting against one another" (5.5).
Clement Appion to push this assertion beyond the human realm into the
divine one, and asks, ."Are those things correct, then, which are spoken of by poets and
philosophers, that in tJades the souls of the wicked are judged and punished for their
attempts? ... And how,: ifthese things are not so, is it possible that magic can subsist?"
(5.6) Appion, unwittfngly, answers in the affirmative. Wicked deeds will be judged after
death. With this admlission, Clement has laid the trap: "Why are we not ourselves afraid
of magic, being persl1;aded of the punishment in Hades for adultery? For I do not admit
that it is a righteous thing to compel to adultery a woman who is unwilling" (5.6).
Appion begrudginglyl concedes the point, tacitly condemning his own youthful actions,
but rather than his offer he chastises Clement for making "more account of
your fear than your (5.8). Clement has here managed to depict Appion as one
who is more with satisfying his lust than with pursuing piety.
But Clement cloes not stop there. He does not wish to depict Appion as one who
is conquered by desire in spite o/his philosophical training, but rather because ofthis
very training. therefore, begins the second stage of his deception by tricking
Appion into believing that he believes his actions are much less wicked if the woman
64
willingly consents: "And I am of the opinion that he who has persuaded a woman will not
suffer so great a as he who has forced her. Therefore, if you can persuade
her, I shall be thankfi:11 to you when I have obtained her; but otherwise, I had rather die
than force her her will" (5.7). Appion is puzzled by Clement's view, noting that
Clement is culpable way, but he nonetheless agrees to employ his rhetorical rather
than magical skills.
Clement ensures the success of his scheme by telling Appion that the object of his
desire is not easy to persuade "by flattery, for the woman is very much of a philosopher"
(5.8). In this way, he: compels Appion to deliver a philosophical justification for adultery,
and the Alexandrian grammarian plays right into his hand. Appion writes a letter on the
"encomiums of adulthy," which he begins by claiming that although "some have
supposed that the action which is called adultery is evil ... it is in every respect good"
(5.10). He makes this assertion on his authority as a philosopher, who alone knows
"what kinds of are good or evil by nature ['tcOv ep,cOv nota IlEV ecru v <!>ucret KaKcl ft
KaA.ci], and what, notlbeing so, are accounted so by the imposition oflaws" (5.10). It is
the one who has thoroughly immersed in and transformed by Greek paideia who is
an authority on law and morality. And philosophers alone are able to see through the
foolish prohibitions of "fanatical men" against acts such as adultery (5.11). In support of
his claim, he cites the examples of the gods, beginning with "Zeus himself," who often
participated in extra-marital affairs (5.11). Appion, as Clement did in Homily 4, stresses
that education is exhorting those who are philosophers, "for the sake of a good
life, to imitate those Who are acknowledged to be the nobler, who have had sexual
65
intercourse ten times [lCaA.OU I3tou XaptV ..lI;:tcrea.t 'toue;
lCPEt't'tovae;, wv cit l(Eyovacrtv]" (5.11). Here philosophical training is
described explicitly as imitation of the gods as they are depicted in the Greek myths.
Appion re-iterates this point after a lengthy discourse on the many sexual dalliances of
Zeus (cf. 5 .12-15), that the fanatics who condemn adultery "spend their lives
sadly, because through their zeal they proclaim those things to be evil which the gods
esteem as excellent. therefore, for the future you will be blessed, imitating the gods
eEOUe;], and not men" (5.16). In Appion's account, proper living consists in
looking to the gods of the Greek myths for guidance.
For good however, he also directs his female reader to the example of
the philosophers, who are the noblest "among men" (cf. 5.10). He asks, "Do not the
celebrated philosophers extol pleasure, and have they not had intercourse with what
women they would?'" (5.18) Appion focuses on three prominent philosophical schools -
the Socratics, Epicurtjans, and Stoics - noting how their founders and certain adherents
promoted adultery anti. promiscuity. 102 He begins with Socrates, who argued that women
should be common and his disciples Antisthenes and Diogenes,103 who argued
for the necessity of adultery. Appion discusses Epicurus next, whom he claims extolled
pleasure. Drawing upon the Stoic doctrine of pantheism, he accuses Zeno of intimating
that "with whomsoever a man has intercourse, it is as with himself," thereby exonerating
102 Adler, "Satireb" 40, notes that these "crude and self-interested caricatures of the philosophers as
sexual miscreants have their origin in parodies of their ethics circulated by their adversaries."
103 The authors/r$dactors of the Homilies are not quite correct in identifying Diogenes as a
Socratic. Although he did draw upon some of Socrates' doctrines, his own philosophical system was
ecletic, and he was not indebted to one school in particular. See The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S.
Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 3
rd
rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),473-4.
66
adultery (5.18). He ci:mcludes with the example ofChrysippus, Zeno's most influential
disciple, who in his etotic epistle depicts a statue in Argos "representing Hera and Zeus in
an obscene position" (5.18). Adultery is acceptable because it is practiced both by the
gods and the philos0I'!hers, the wisest of men, who earn their distinction by imitating
them.
The letter thus concludes, with Appion having undermined absolutely everything
that he said in praise 9f the myths and their interpretation - indeed, of Greek culture in
general- to Clement !at the close of Homily 4. As Adler notes,
In representing lUmselfnow as a literal interpreter of the myths ... Apion thus personifies what
Clement had earlier denounced as the most debased feature of Greek culture. Those who are
raised in it learn delight in argumentation, in pursuit of no discernible moral or spiritual end.
Well-schooled irl the arts of sophistry and deception, Apion 'Pleistonices' emobdies everything
that Clement, Jewish convert, now loathes in the EO" of Greek paideia.
104
Allegorical interpretation is an impotent solution to the problem of impious myth because
the literal meaning of the narrative can always be exploited, even by the most learned of
men, for immoral ends.
Clement pens: a brief response to Appion's epistle in the guise of his fictitious
love interest, in which he condemns both the Greek "gods" and Appion's exhortation to
imitate their actions (5.20). To begin with, Clement offers a euhemeristic explanation for
the origins of Greek 4eities, arguing that they "were not gods, then, but representations of
tyrants" (5.23). Theit tombs, he argues, can still be visited in the Caucasian mountains.
To imitate the action$ of Zeus, Poseidon, or Apollo would be to pattern one's life after
those who were "wicked men and magicians" (5.23). Clement proceeds to argue that if
one were to follow Appion's advice and to imitate the gods in all their dealings, one
104 Adler, 41.
67
M.A. Thesis. - K. Shuve
would have to do than commit adultery. One would, for instance, have to devour
his or her own children in imitation of Kronos and Zeus (5.24). Imitation, to be sure, is
the cornerstone of a proper education, but the Greek myths, which depict the horrific
crimes of wicked men., are wholly inadequate for this purpose and ought to be completely
rejected, as should whole system of Greek learning which is built upon this faulty
foundation.
In its place, qement, in his pseudonymous epistle, exhorts parents to prepare
their children for chastity "with instruction by means of chaste books [8ta. 'tcOV
/3t /3Ucov nponat8euet v ], and to accustom them beforehand by excellent
discourses ... and in addition to this, frequently to remind them of the punishments
appointed by the laws [eK 'tcOV v6Ilcov], that, using fear as a bridle, they may not run on in
wicked pleasures" (5.125). This remark is, in my view, an oblique reference to the
"books" of the Jews (Le., the Torah) with their pious narratives and laws for proper
living, enforced by appropriate punishments. This is not improbable, given that Clement
goes on to conclude the letter by saying, "I, having learned from a certain Jew both to
understand and to do 'the things that are pleasing to God, am not to be entrapped into
adultery by your lying fables" (5.26). There is a definite contrast between the Jews'
knowledge of the that are pleasing to God, preserved in their I3t/3Ata and VOIlOt, and
the deceptions of the Greek fables.
The conclusion of Clement's epistle elicits an anti-Jewish tirade from Appion:
Is it without reason that I hate the Jews? Here now some Jew has fallen in with her, and has
I
converted her to his religion, and persuaded her to chastity, and it is henceforth impossible that she
I
ever have intercourse with another man; for these fellows, setting God before them as the
universal inspector of actions, are extremely persistent in chastity, as being unable to be concealed
from Him (5.27).'
68
Appion's response indirectly demonstrates that Jewish custom is able to instil virtue and
piety in those who it and that his own tradition has made him a manipulator and a
slave of desire.
Clement's Dismissal bfthe Allegorization of the Greek Myths
On his third day in Tyre, Clement once again meets with Appion. Far from being
angry at Clement for having shared such an embarrassing story, the Alexandrian
grammarian him with fatherly affection and assures him, saying, "1 was not in
earnest when 1 wrote !such things about the gods, but was concealing the truth, from my
love to you" (6.1). He goes on to claim that the myths ought not be taken literaHy, since
"the wisest of ... kept the path of knowledge hid from those who were unworthy
and had no taste for lessons in divine things" (6.2). Rather, "such stories have a peculiar
and philosophical meaning, which can be allegorically set forth" (6.2).
Appion proceeds to give an account of the origins of the universe, at the heart of
which, it appears, lies an Orphic cosmogony. IDS The gods and goddesses are the elements
that make up the world, and the myths, when read properly, provide a scientific account
of how they came to be. For example, Appion maintains that Chronos did not devour his
children in a cannabaHstic feast. Rather, Chronos is a personification of time. When the
primordial egg, the "first substance," spoken of by Orpheus was broken, the matter inside
it separated out. The1lowest and heaviest part, named Pluto, "sank downwards of its own
105 See J. Van AJlnersfoot, "Traces of an Alexandrian Orphic Theogony in the Pseudo-
Clementines," in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van den Broek and MJ
Vermaseran (Leiden: 1981), 13-30.
69
weight" (6.6-7). sinking downwards is, according to Appion, the meaning of the
myth that Pluto (heaviy matter) 106 was devoured by his father, Chronos (time), and
explains why he is called "the king of Hades and the dead" (6.6). Likewise, Chronos'
eating of his second-ijorn son, Poseidon, signifies the water that "flowed together after
this first sediment, and floated on the surface of the first substance" (6.7). The third
element, translucent was named Zeus "from its glowing [1;eo'Ucra. ]," and since fire
ascends it was "not swallowed and made to descend by time or Chronos" (6.7). Appion
also gives similar interpretations of myths concerning Pallas, Hera, and }\rtemis (cf. 6.8-
10).
Appion suspetts that his explanations of the myths are far too complex for
Clement to noticing that his young interlocutor "seemed not to be following
what he was saying" (6.l1). Quite the opposite proves to be true, however. Clement was
thinking about other matters because he had heard expositions of the allegorical method
many times before "understand[s] it thoroughly" (6.11). Indeed, he is so well-versed
in the tradition that is able to produce a more full and orderly treatment of the subject
than Appion had done (cf. 6.12-16). Clement assumes the role of the philosopher
expounding the hidden meanings of the myths, and it is in this capacity that he rejects
them along with the allegorical method of interpretation. He speaks not as one who is
ignorant of their true meanings, but rather as one who knows all too well the power the
myths have to pervert: those who study them.
\06 The authors/reidactors of the Homilies seem to believe that IIAo1Y1:coV is derived from 1tOAU:
"This they called Pluto [nAOU'tCOVa.] from its gravity, and weight, and great quantity [1tOAU] of underlying
matter" (5.6). The name muto is, however, derived from 1tAOU'tOC;, because "com, the wealth of early
times, was sent from beneath the earth as his gift" (LSJ, 566).
70
Clement here elaborates upon his initial criticism of the allegorical interpretation
of the Greek myths that he put forward in 4.25. Since these cosmological speculations
could have been "clea!rly, profitably, and without prejudice to piety, set forth in an open
and straightforward manner," he asserts that it is most impious and foolish for one to
conceal them "under riddles, and overla[y] them with filthy stories" (6.17).
Clement assigns little ;value to esoteric wisdom, a view that coheres well with the
epistemology outlined in Hom. 1-3, in which simple and unadorned speech is said to be
the vehicle of truth. 0 make matters worse, these hidden truths are masked by immoral
tales, which have almost all men" (6.17). Appion's account of allegorical
interpretation is, for Clement, wholly inadequate because it does not allow for the
possibility of imitation, which both he andl Clement agree is the cornerstone of education.
One learns how to act'in the world by following the examples of others, and who better to
imitate than the gods?' The masses, being ignorant of the deeper meanings of the myths,
will take upon the greatest impieties by emulating the actions of the gods. As
such, Clement affirmsl that it must not have been "wise men, but rather evil spirits, who
could cover over honourable actions with wicked stories" (6.18). Even the philosophers
trained in these mysteries are profoundly shaped by the literal meanings of the myths on
which they were rearep, which they wouldl have internalized far before learning the
deeper meanings. The example of Appion demonstrates that these learned men are,
therefore, not above the literal meanings of the myths ifit suits their needs.
Conclusion
71
Much of Hom. 1-3 is driven by a critique and rejection of Greekpaideia for its
inability to answer the most urgent and significant philosophical and theological
questions, such as whiether or not the soul is immortal. In Hom. 4-6, the authors/redactors
of the Homilies continue this assault through an encounter between Clement and an
Alexandrian grammarian. The heart of the problem with Greek learning and culture, as
Clement perceives it, lis the corpus of Greek myths. Children are exposed to these stories
from their youth and eontinue to study them throughout the course of their education (cf.
5.18). They would learn them thoroughly, as Young points out, in order "to accumulate
experiences of styles to emulate when they came later to do rhetorical compositions.,,107
The myths, moreover, were "expected to be morally edificatory." The poems of Homer
and Hesiod taught Greek children how to speak and to live well.
Rather than edify those who study them, Clement notes, the myths corrupt,
relating stories ofmUItder, adultery, and cannibalism. They have poisoned an entire
culture, which must be rejected entirely. Appion, the spokesman for the Greeks,
ultimately affirms all of Clement's misgivings. His defense of Greek culture is primarily
a defense of the myths, which he undertakes by recourse to allegorical interpretation.
The literal meanings, which he admits are impious, must be ignored, and the deeper,
righteous meanings m ~ s t be earnestly sought. But, as we learn in Homily 5, Appion does
not mean what he s a y ~ He offers a thoroughly literal reading of the myths to Clement's
fabricated love-interest to convince her that adultery is no crime. Allegorical
interpretation allows fbr the possibility of multiple meanings in a text, but it does not
107 Young, Biblical Interpretation, 78.
72
nUllify the literal sense. Neither the learned nor the uneducated can escape the ominous
spectre of the literal. As such, impious stories will corrupt. This corruption is evident in
Appion, who is an adulterer, magician, and hater of piety. Allegory is, therefore,
decisively rejected as: a legitimate way of reading sacred texts.
In the followiJ;1g chapter, we shall consider in some detail the relationship between
the doctrine of the false pericopes and the rejection of the allegorization of the Greek
myths, in order to draw out the tacit polemic against the Christian adoption of allegorical
reading strategies.
73
CHAPTER FOUR
"The Homilies' Riejection of Allegory and Fourth-Century Antiochene Polemics"
In the previous two chapters we have looked at Hom. 1-3 and 4-6 mostly
independently of one another, and it is the task of the present chapter to draw out the
points of connection oetween them, thereby establishing more clearly the polemic against
the Christian adoption of allegory. It also falls to this chapter to consider the relationship
between the Homilies and other fourth-century texts composed in Antioch.
The Privileging of the Literal Meaning in the Homilies
In my view, there is an intrinsic relation between Hom. 1-3 and 4-6. Both units
deal extensively with Isacred texts - i.e., the Torah and the Greek myths - and the
problems posed to the communities as a result of their acceptance of these texts as
authoritative. The Torah and Homer both depict the divine anthropomorphically in
certain places, and h ~ s passages cause no little amount of embarrassment. Peter, for
instance, must explain how the Creator can be omnipotent if a story in Genesis describes
Him as unaware of the events in a certain city (Gen 18:21), or how He can be unchanging
if He is said to have rgretted creating humanity (Gen 6:6). Appion, likewise, must
respond to charges t h ~ t adultery is an acceptable practice to the Greeks, since their gods
are constantly depictekl as pursuing illicit, sexual affairs. It is for their ability to
illuminate one another that the authors/redactors of the Homilies, in my view, chose to
74
place these two textual units together, even sacrificing some narrative continuity to do
SO.108
To begin with, in both Hom. 1-3 and 4-6, it is the literal meaning Df sacred texts
that is privileged. In the former, this is mDst evident in the doctrine of the false
pericopes, according to which "everything that is spoken or written against God is false"
(2.40). The biblical passages that suggest God experiences jealousy, rage, forgetfulness
and other all-too-human failings (cf. 2.43-44) must be excised from the canon as false
interpolations. There'is no hint whatsoever that these texts could be read allegorically or
in some other non-literal way which would render them compatible with the Homilies'
understanding of God. Rather, they are taken in the most literal and straightforward way
possible.
Likewise, in Pfom. 4-6 there is a concern solely for the literal meaning of texts; in
I
this case, however, the Greek myths are at issue. Allegorical interpretation is here
explicitly rejected as inadequate, because it does not cover over the impious, literal
narratives, but serves merely to justify their continued use in Greek society. The immoral
actions of Chronos and Zeus remain indelibly etched in Greek consciousness, in spite of
the more philosophical meanings "discovered" in these myths. Those who study them
from youth, Clement asserts, will "engraft the impious deeds of those who are caned gods
into their own (4.18).
Indeed, the primary pedagogical function of texts, according to Clement, is to
provide exemplum fOIj their readers/hearers to imitate (cf. 4.25). As we saw in the
108 See chapter p 53.
75
previous chapter, this I point is secretly admitted even by Appion, who encourages
Clement's imaginary :love-interest to follow the examples of the gods, who are the
noblest "among all" 0). As such, it would be illogical to say, as do those who
promote allegorical in.terpretation, that noble truths have wisely been concealed by
impious or wicked st(])ries (cf. 6.17). Such an assertion would eliminate the possibility
for imitation and prevent the uneducated masses from having access to that which is most
true and pious, exposi.ng them only to immoral tales.
This emphasis, moreover, upon the literal meaning of texts coheres well with the
epistemology put fortlh in Hom. 1-3. It is there asserted that truth can only be learned
from the True and not by any human system of inquiry (cf. 2.12). The
philosophers err in trusting in their own abilities to discern truth, and ultimately they only
learn how to win in debates (cf. 1.3; 2.7). Complex philosophical discourse, rather than
being the necessary way of conveying true doctrines, is a ruse that is meant to fool the
unlearned masses (cf. 1.10); ultimately, philosophers have no more claim to truth than the
uneducated do. It is, tn fact, the simple and unadorned speech of prophetic proclamation,
readily understood by all, that is the vehicle for truth (cf. 1.10,3.12). Given this
epistemology, allego:ry cannot be used as a legitimate way to justify the existence of
seemingly impious pCi-ssages in Scripture, because it presumes that truth has been
concealed and that onlly the learned few may gain access to it. The very meaning of
<lA.A:rl'yopeuew - "to sli!y one thing and mean another" - undermines this epistemological
76
assumption. By its very nature allegory is a literary device that conceals and disguises,
yielding its meaning <imly with the greatest interpretive skill. 109
The Homilies and "Pagan" Hermeneutics
As a mode of reading deeply embedded in the Greek philosophical and
hermeneutical tradition, allegory can have no place in the religion of the True Prophet. I
noted in the previous 'chapter that the authors/redactors of the Homilies emphasize this
indebtedness, depicti1)lg allegorical interpretation as a purely pagan innovation, which has
been concocted to defend impious stories that ought not be defended. It would be an
entirely inappropriate way to read Scripture for the authors/redactors of the Homilies.
Indeed, the practice of reading texts allegorically was pioneered and developed by Greek
philosophers, probably as a way of rescuing Homer and Hesiod from charges of
impiety.lIo The criticism of traditional Greek mythology as morally offensive
can be found in Xenophanes, a sixth century Ionian philosopher; roughly around this
time, according to Porphyry, Theagenes of Rhegium wrote that Homer's poems ought to
be read as allegories and that the deities should be understood either as elements or
psychological disposiltions.
111
These developments spawned a long tradition of
allegorical interpretation of the ancient poems, which would much later be adopted by
109 In Hom.6.18, Clement notes that allegories "can only be understood by much labour."
110 See, e.g., Doqald A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (London: Duckworth, 1981), 18-19.
III David Konstar, "Introduction," in Heraclitus: Homeric Problems, trans. D.A Russell and
David Konstan (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), xiii-xiv.
77
Jewish and Christian xegetes, primarily in Alexandria, as a way of defending their own
sacred books against charges of impietyY2
This is not to say, however, that the authors/redactors of the Homilies were
uninfluenced by Hellenistic scholarship. Despite the Homilies' rhetoric against pagan
scholarly practices, in:particular those which are associated with Alexandria, it seems to
be influenced rather hleavily by the activities of Alexandrian philologists, who were
themselves opposed to the allegorical reading of sacred poetry.
1
13 Work on Homeric
texts first began in Alexandria in the third century B.C.E. at its great library, which
flourished under the patronage of the Egyptian kings. 114 Underlying Alexandrian
editorial practice was the concept that the best Greek authors wrote with absolute and
unswerving consistenay. Editors, therefore, expected morphological regularity and
treated syntactical as the result of careless scribes.
II5
As Dawson notes,
however, the expectatIon of consistency extended beyond grammatical matters into
"thematic Homer, Dawson continues, was "likely to have said certain
things and unlikely to b.ave said others.,,116 A line of Homer could, therefore, be omitted
if the editors judged tliat it was unfitting for him to say. Zenodotus, the first librarian at
Alexandria, eliminate4 most of Illiad 3.423-26 because he thought it unfitting that
Aphrodite should fetcn a chair for Helen (apud Aristonicus). Moreover, Odysseus,
112 See especially pavid Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient
Alexandria (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992).
113 It is important to note that not all Alexandrian intellectuals and scholars were allegorizers, a
point that can be easily given the enormous influence of Philo, Clement, and Origen upon the
Western hermeneutical tradition. See esp. Dawson, Allegorical Readers, 66-70.
114 G.M.A. Grube,! The Greek and Roman Critics (London: Methuen and Co., 1965), 123-4.
115 Dawson, AllegiYrical Readers, 66-7.
116 Dawson, Allegbrical Readers, 67.
78
Zenodotus asserted, cpuld not have told Achilles to open and close the door of the Trojan
horse (Od. 11.525) because Achilles would not have been assigned the task of a
"doorman." 117
We find very similar "editing" practices in the Homilies. Each passage of
Scripture is judged against an extra-textual notion of what is "fitting," determined by the
doctrine of the True Prophet. Those portions that are found to be "unfitting" are
discarded as accretions to the original revelation. If I am right in positing a connection,
then we have yet another reason to suppose that the doctrine of the false pericopes is anti-
allegorical, since the Alexandrian text critics were themselves opposed to the use of
allegory.
It is also possIble that the authors/redactors of the Homilies gleaned this approach
indirectly from the writings of Marcion, whom Robert Grant believes "knew current
theories about interpdlated religious documents, as well as the editorial procedures of the
great Hellenistic text4al critics.,,118 Whether the authors/redactors of the Homilies knew
that such an approach! to authoritative texts originated in Alexandria or whether they
learned it from Marcion or some other intermediary, it is decisively important to note that
in the Homilies itself,'text criticism of this sort is thoroughly assimilated into a
Jewish/Christian franiework, and it is denied any pagan or heretical origin. In other
words, text criticism, according to the Homilies, was invented by the successors of Moses
(cf. EpPJ 1.1-2) and passed into Gentile Christian circles via Jesus, the True Prophet.
117 Dawson, Allegorical Readers, 68.
118 Robert M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search/or Authenticity in Early Christian
Literature (Louisville, K: John Knox Press, 1993),34.
79
Such a way of approaching Scripture, unlike allegory, is nowhere attributed to pagan
philosophers or heredcs.
Although I am positing that the authors/redactors of the Homilies are at least
partially influenced biY the Alexandrian text criticism, it nevertheless remains that there is
a clear anti-Alexandrian polemic running throughout the work, which is lacking in the
Recognitions. As I suggested in the first chapter, this polemic may be a result of the
Homilies' Antiochene provenance. From the earliest decades of the fourth century, as I
shall demonstrate below, Antiochene literature reflected a profound unease with
Alexandrian Christial1i.ty, particularly its insistence upon reading Scripture allegorically
in order to discern its '''spiritual'' meaning. The Homilies portrays Alexandria as a hotbed
of rampant philosophical speculation and magical activity. Alexandria is the gathering
place of the belligerent philosophers who ruthlessly mock Barnabas (1.9-12), the training
ground of the heretical magician Simon Magus (2.22), and the home of the grammarian
Appion, who so deceptively and disingenuously promotes allegorical interpretations of
the Greek myths (4.4). We can, I propose, read this description as a claim that
Alexandrian Christiartity's affinity for allegorical interpretation has resulted from its ill-
advised collusion willi a perverted pagan culture.
I have hoped with this summary to demonstrate from that the Homilies is
concerned to establish a uniquely Jewish and Christian way of interpreting Scripture in
opposition to pagan strategies and to critique, tacitly, those who would attempt to
read Scripture according to pagan hermeneutical principles. We shall conclude by
considering the of similarity between the Homilies' approach to Scripture and that
80
taken by fourth-century Antiochene interpreters, with the intention of demonstrating
further the polemic against the adoption of allegory by (Alexandrian) Christians.
Re-Thinking the Antiiochene "School": Developments in Scholarship on Fourth-Century
Syria
Before turning to consider the points of similarity, however, it is necessary to say
a few words on what is meant by Antiochene biblical interpretation. Until quite recently,
scholars have posited'the existence of opposing "schools" of theology in Antioch and
Alexandria. The or so the narrative goes, were allegorizers under the
influence of Origen, who were preoccupied with finding the higher or "spiritual"
meaning of Scripture .and who showed little interest in the historical dimension of the
biblical narrative. By contrast, the Antiochenes were depicted as literalists who kept their
interpretations firmly. grounded in the historical reality of the. text. 119 Modem patristic
scholars have tended to show preference for the Antiochenes, viewing them as
forerunners to the modem historical-critical method of interpretation, over against the
Alexandrians, with supposed lack of interest in historical reality.120 Some scholars
119 Rowan Greer's Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (Westminster: The Faith
Press, 1961), esp. a parade example of this narrative. "Alexandrian" exegesis is synonymous
with "Origenian" exegesis in his account, which he dismisses for not taking history into account at all. He
claims that since Origen "Was unable to take seriolllsly the narrative, historical character of Scripture, his
method fails to interpret the Bible" (92). By contrast, the "Antiochene" tradition, represented by none other
than Theodore, is marked by a particular concern for the historical reality of the Biblical text. Moreover,
Greer notes that despite tHe controversy and turmoil which existed in fourth-century Antioch, "there seems
to have been a more or lesls constant theological and exegetical tradition" (93). For Greer, the "schools" of
Antioch and Alexandria ate distinct entities which possesses their own coherent and unified theological and
exegetical methods. he goes so far as to note that the "Antiochene tradition ... was largely
uninfluenced by Origenism save by way ofreactioIi" (1lO).
120 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 166, asserts that the "problems with the now traditional account [of
fourth-century schools of biblical interpretation] lie, I suggest, in the assumption that Antiochene literalism
meant something like modem historicism. It assumes that their problems with allegory were just like ours,
81
of early Christianity, suoh as Robert Grant, however, were hesitant to overstate the
distinction between the "schools." They demonstrated the places of overlap between
the two, such as the similarities between Antiochene gecopia and Alexandrian
Cx.A.A:rlYOpta.121 They recognized that exegetes from both Egypt and Syria were seeking to
discern meanings in the text beyond what can be called the "literal" level. 122 This
generation of scholarship nevertheless continued to affirm the existence of two distinct
schools, which employed their own particular methods of biblical exegesis. 123
The last decade or so has witnessed a surge of interest in the biblical interpretation
of the fourth century, and scholars have begun to problematize the Antiochene-
Alexandrian divide. 124 The small area of overlap has been shown to be much larger than
Grant or Froelich supposed, and Margaret Mitchell has recently questioned whether the
idea of two schools is even an appropriate way to represent the landscape of the fourth
and their preference for tyjpology rested on the same criteria as those advanced by such as Lampe and
W oolcombe, namely that 'typology works with historical events with a family likeness. It assumes that the
Antiochenes regarded allegorical approach as out of tune with the Bible because he had no
historical sense, thus anticipating the view ofR.P.C. Hanson [in Allegory and Event]."
121 Robert M. Grant, The Letter and The Spirit (London: SPCK Press, 1957); see also Karlfried
Froelich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 15-29, and
I
Wallace Hadrill, Christian Antioch (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 27-51.
122 Greer, Theotipre, 93-4, wishes to associate Antiochene gecopta with ''typology,'' which he
regards as "the normative method of specifically Christian exgesis."
123 Hadrill, Chri$tian Antioch, 30, asserts that there "were real differences between the two
schools, even ifthey overlapped at certain points."
124 Robert C. Hili, Reading the Old Testament at Antioch (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Andrew Louth,
"John Chrysostom and tqe Antiochene School to Theodoret ofCyrrhus," in The Cambridge History of
Early Christian Literatul"e, ed. F. Young, L. Ayres, and A. Louth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 342-52; Margaret
i
M. Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1 Samuel
28 On Trial," Journal of,Religion 85 (2005): 414-45; John 1. O'Keefe, '''A Letter That Killeth': Toward a
Reassessment of AntiocJilene Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms," Journal 0/
Early Christian Studies (2000): 83-104; Joseph Trigg, "Eustathius of Antioch's Attack on Origen: What
is at Issue in an AncientlControversy," Journal o/Religion 75/2 (1995): 219-38; Frances M. Young,
Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2002), esp. 161-
212; eadem, "The Fourth Century Reaction Against Allegory," in Studia Patristica 30, ed. E.A.
Livingstone (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 120-24.
82
and fifth centuries. 125. Frances Young and Robert Hill, two influential scholars in this
discussion, have continued to speak of the schools of Antioch and Alexarldria, but in a
more nuanced way than their predecessors. Hill asserts that we "may perhaps speak also
ofa 'school' of Antioch in the sense ofa fellowship of like-minded scholars joined by
birth, geography, and 'scholarly principles, with some members exercising a magisterial
role in regard to In her monograph Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of
Christian Culture, Young argues that the Antiochenes were influenced primarily by the
rhetorical schools in their approach to Scripture, whereas the Alexandrians betray the
influence of philosoplUical education. But she acknowledges that it is problematic to
make too much of this distinction. She writes,
There was far more overlap than most accounts of the controversy allow. They shared a common
culture, and a lot iof common assumptions. There was no hard and fast distinction between
rhetorical and philosophical exegesis. Their common ground and common practices were very
considerable and!they are certainly not to be distinguished by the simple opposition 'literal' and
'allegorical.,127
She follows up on this claim by mapping out the broad array of reading and interpretive
strategies employed by theologians from both locales. 128 In the wake of these revisionary
125 E.g., Mitchell,l"Patristic Rhetoric," 414-15.
126 Robert C. Theodore ofMopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets (Washington:
The Catholic University ot America Press, 2004), 1, n.2.
127 Young, Biblic(ll Exegesis, 183.
128 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 186-212, identifies five kinds of "literal" interpretation ("attending
to the wording; taking words in their normal sense; attending to the 'plain sense' of words in
combination; discerning overall logic of an argument or narrative; accepting the implied factual
reference"), eight kinds ofiallegory (rhetorical; parabolic; prophetic; moral; natural; philosophical;
theological; figurai), four 'ftypes" (exemplary; prophetic; spatial; recapitulative), and six different reading
strategies (paraenetic; oradular; lexical; explanatory; deductive; mimetic). Elizabeth Clark's very important
monograph Reading Renut1ciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press!, 1999), also attempts to delineate a number of interpretive strategies used by
Christians, but the focus of this work is more specifically on "ascetic" reading practices and she broadens
her scope to include Latin writers as well. Notably, she makes no attempt to distinguish Antiochene from
Alexandrian exegesis, nor Eastern from Western.
83
accounts, it is becoming increasingly difficult to speak of distinctly Antiochene or
Alexandrian methods of interpretation.
Antiochenes and Alexandrians: Constructing the Divide
As many beghl to challenge the firmness of the boundaries between Antiochene
and Alexandrian, however, it is instructive to keep in mind where this notion of two
opposing schools originated. Far from being a modem scholarly construct, the opposition
of Antiochene to"'topla to Alexandrian a:A.A l1,opla can be traced back to the fourth-century
itself. Mitchell suggests that the traditional scholarly narrative arose from
a reinstantiation of the antithetical cast in which such interpretations were
themselves presented by patristic authors, even as these same authors' exegetical
practice in ~ t h y ways contradicts or violates the methodological exclusivity
which they vehemently defend in any single case. 129
Antiochene theologians, such as Diodore of Tarsus (d. c. 390 CE) and Theodore
of Mopsuestia (c. 3501-428), consistently polemicized against allegorical exegesis and
those who made use dfthis method. Diodore, often credited as the "founder" of the
Antiochene school, ill! the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms establishes an
antithesis between "discernment" and "allegory." Those who use discernment, he argues,
use the historical sense as the foundation for their search for the "elevated sense,"
whereas those who employ allegory arrive at meaning "in defiance of the context [of the
text]" (16).130 He goes on to depict his allegorizing opponents as "self-opinionated
innovators ... who undermine and do violence to the historical sense ... for their own
129 Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory," 415.
130 English translation by Robert Hill, Diodore o/Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms I-51 (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literatilre, 2005), cited according to page number.
84
vainglory" (16). 131 Theodore ofMopsuestia, moreover, in his In Epistolam ad
Galatianos accuses anegorizers of turning "everything backwards, since they wish to
make no distinction iIil divine Scripture between what the text says and dreams in the
night.,,132 As in Diodbre's polemic, those who read the Scriptures allegorically are
shown to be innovators who have no textual foundation on which to base their claims.
Diodore and Theodore also composed treatises specifically against the use of allegory;
both are now lost, but one fragment of Theodore's On Allegory and History, which we
know to have been W1iitten against Origen, has survived. 133
Sadly, because most of the Antiochenes, with the exception of John Chrysostom,
were branded (anachronistically) as Nestorian heretics in the seventh century, very little
of their corpus survives. 134 Diodore, for instance, is said to have composed commentaries
on every book of the Hebrew Bible, yet only his Commentary on the Psalms survives in
tact. It is difficult to come to a satisfactory understanding of what precisely were the
things that they found' so distasteful in Alexandrian allegory; the destruction of the anti-
allegorical treatises iSla profound loss to our knowledge of the history and thought of the
period. We must satisfy ourselves with the tantalizing traces of the polemic preserved in
places such as the preface to Diodore's Psalm Commentary.
131 Allegoria derives from allos ("other") and agoreuein ("to speak publicly") and means, "to say
something other than what one seems to say." See David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural
Revision in Ancient Alexandria, 3.
132 Quoted in G r e ~ r Theodore, lOS.
l33 Maurice Wiles, "Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School," in The
Cambridge History of the fJible, Volume One, ed. P. Aclaoyd and C. Evans (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1970),489-509, esp. 507.
134 Indeed, even ill the fifth century Diodore was labelled the "father ofNestorianism" by Cyril of
Alexandria (Contra Diodolf'um et Theodorum 17).
85
It will, therefore, be problematic to draw out precisely the connections between
biblical interpretation. in the Homilies and in the Antiochene exegetes. We will have to
speak in broader terms than may at times be desirable. At the same time, however, this
lack of Antiochene material makes the Homilies that much more valuable. With its
extended polemic against allegory, situated in the context of the opposition between
Judaism/Christianity and Hellenism/Heresy, it can help us to sketch a more full picture of
ways of reading Scripture in fourth century Antioch, particularly in the self-conscious
way that Antiochenes opposed themselves to Alexandrians.
The second difficulty with which we are confronted in attempting a comparison is
the difference in genre between the Homilies and the Antiochene commentaries. The
Homilies is a story, not a formal treatise on hermeneutics, and although it concerns itself
with this topic, much 'Of the typical Antiochene vocabulary is absent. Indeed, the
Homilies provides a far less nuanced approach to the reading of Scripture than do the
later Antiochene interpreters. As such, we do not find such contrasts as that between
gec.opta. and a:A:).., TJyopta. ("allegory"); nor do we find such other
commonly used terms such as'tO"'topta. ("history, fact, narrative,,)135 or O"Kon6c;
("intent,,).136 The lack of this specialized Antiochene vocabulary may also be attributed
to the relatively early date of the redaction of the Homilies, a time in which these specific
terms were not yet ce1lltral.
135 to"'topta. is a 1fIlultivalent term that comes to signify the literal level of Scripture in Antiochene
discourse. See the entry in G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968).
136 For a helpful discussion of these terms and their use in Antiochene biblical interpretation, see
Hill, Old Testament, 136-9.
86
Diodore's Commentary on the Psalms
Yet it is, I believe, nevertheless possible to draw out meaningful connections
between the Homilies and the Antiochene commentaries. One of our most important
extant anti-allegorical texts is the preface to Diodore's Commentary on the Psalms, which
he composed early in his career. The polemic itself is quite brief, covering roughly a
page in the English translation, but it crystallizes the Antiochene attitude towards the
interpretation of Scripture. One must begin the task of interpretation by 1reating the text
"historically and literally," although one should "not stand in the way of a spiritual and
more elevated insight" (4). The exegete must establish the proper histori,cal context in
which the events narrated took place and then read the narrative in the most
straightforward way possible.
For example, Diodore regards Psalm 5 as a composition of the Babylonian
captivity, arguing that it "behoves the historical commentator ... to give nothing priority
over facts" (16).137 He claims further that the psalmist here "speaks from the viewpoint
of the people in captivity, deriving benefit from the misfortunes" (16). Diodore,
therefore, understands the thrice-repeated supplication at the beginning of the Psalm to
indicate that the people are "already showing benefit and promising further
improvement" (17). The Psalm unfolds in this rather straightforward matter, as the song
of suppliants seeking relief from their oppression. He is careful to note that nothing in
this Psalm must be taken symbolically as referring to Christ or the Church, as he claims
137 Interestingly, ~ h r is nothing in the text of Psalm 5 itself that mentions anything about the
Babylonian captivity. In his desire to read the Psalm literally and according to the facts, Diodore actually
imposes a false historical context upon the text, thereby making his reading anything but literal and
historical.
87
several other interpreters have done (cf. 16). This desire to take the biblical text as
straightforwardly as possible and to read as little as possible into the narrative itself
reflects a similar attitude as that which underlies the doctrine of the false pericopes,
which demonstrates the refusal of the authors/redactors of the Homilies to read seemingly
impious passages in a non-literal manner.
It is true that Diodore does advocate for exercising "discernment" (gecopta) in
order to arrive at the more elevated sense of the text in question, something that seems to
be opposed by the hyper-literalism of the Homilies. We ought not, however, exaggerate
this difference. This ,elevated insight, he claims, must be firmly rooted in the "historical
sense" (4). The literal meaning of the Scriptural text occupies a privileged place in
Diodore's rhetoric, very much as it does in the rhetoric of the Homilies. And this
elevated sense, in practice, often turns out to be a moral application of the text in question
(cf. 2) and is very Christo logical or ecclesiological. 138
There emerge, more points of continuity between Diodore and the
authors/redactors of the Homilies, however, when we tum to his critique of allegory.
Allegory, for can have no positive connotations. He defines allegory as a type
of interpretation in which the elevated sense does not line up with the literal sense: "One
thing alone is to be guarded against, however, never to let the discernment process be
seen as an overthrow of the underlying sense, since this would no longer be discernment
but allegory" (4). is innovation with no basis in the text, which allows
\38 Only in three (Ps 2,8, 40) of the first fifty-one psalms does Diodore find Christological
references. When he doesl, such as in Psalm 2, it is often because a Christo logical reading is already to be
found in the New Testament (cf. Acts 4:25-6).
88
interpreters to assign n y meaning they wish to a particular passage of Scripture.
Likewise, the allegorization of the Greek myths is rejected in the Homilies because there
is no real correspondence between the literal narratives of the myths and the secret
cosmological truths which lie behind them. The deeper meanings appear to be almost an
afterthought with no intrinsic relation to the myth, which were added so that philosophers
could go on behaving wickedly and justifying themselves by appeal to the myths.
According to both Diodore and the Homilies, allegory turns texts into a code that must be
cracked and renders meaningless the literal narrative. Indeed, the whole point of
Appion's apology fov allegory is that one ought not pay any attention to the literal
meaning of the myths.
Finally, Diod<Dre emphasizes the Greek philosophical roots of allegory, noting that
rejecting it "rids us of pagan habits of saying one thing and meaning another and
introducing absurdities" (5). The Homilies, too, goes to great lengths to emphasize the
pagan origins of allegorical reading strategies, trading on this as a reason why it ought not
be used by Christians,
Although little remains of Diodore's corpus and we are lacking an important anti-
allegorical treatise of his, we nonetheless can sketch some broad points of continuity
between his views on the proper interpretation of scripture and those of the
authors/redactors oftJile Homilies. In the case of both, allegorical biblical interpretation is
viewed as innovative and deceptive, a method of reading that turns the literal meaning of
Scripture into mere code.
89
Eustathius' De engastrimytho
Diodore was not, however, the first to polemicize against the Christian adoption
of allegory. Indeed, anti -allegorical sentiments can be traced right to the beginning of the
fourth-century in Antioch to Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, whom scholars depict as
something of an ancestor to the later Antiochene exegetes. 139 One lone work of his
survives fully - the De engastrimytho - in which he takes Origen to task for his
interpretation of the story of the Witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28.
140
This treatise is
roughly contemporary with the Homilies, being written sometime in the opening decades
of the fourth century. 141 From the scathing criticisms that he directs towards Origen, we
can be certain that he was familiar with quite a few of the Alexandrian's writings.
142
The
De engastrimytho is particularly important for situating the Homilies in its fourth century
Antiochene milieu, since it demonstrates quite clearly that at the turn. of the century
Alexandrian allegorioal exegesis was both known and viewed as a threat by at least some
segment of the Christian population in Antioch.
139 Louth, "Antiochene School," 343.
140 Eustathius' treatise has yet to be translated fully into English. The standard critical edition is
Jose Declerck, De engasthmytho, contra Origenem CCSG 51 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002). Origen,
Homilies Sur Samuel, trans. Pierre et Marie-Therese Nautin, Sources Chretiennes 328 (paris: Les Editions
du Cerf, 1986), 172-209. 'English translations are taken from Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric."
141 Young, "Reaqtion Against Allegory," 121, describes it as the "earliest text which attacks the
use of allegory." IfI am correct in my argument, then the Homilies may in fact be deserving of that
distinction.
142 Eustathius laments that "after undertaking the task of allegorizing all the scriptures, without
blushing Origen tries onl)! with this passage to understand it on the literal level" (21.1). Taken at face
value, this comment could lead one to believe that Eustathius had read all ofOrigen's writings. While this
might be possible, the statement does certainly read like hyperbole. Nevertheless, it does show that
Eustathius knew that Origen used allegory consistently and also that he may have know that Origen wrote
commentaries or homilies; on every book of Scripture. Moreover, in the De engastrimytho Eustathius
makes reference to Origeri's now-lost commentary on Job (21.7) as well as his interpretation of Genesis 3
(21.3-4), although his claim that Origen referred to the story of the Garden of Eden as a l ' U e o ~ is not born
out by any of our extant sources. We can, I propose, conclude that Eustathius had a fairly good grasp of the
Origenian corpus, even ifhe had not read all or even the majority ofOrigen's works.
90
Eutropius, of whom we know nothing apart from this treatise, commissioned
Eustathius to write this commentary, being "dissatisfied with the things Origen published
on this topic" (l.8). this is perhaps putting it a little too mildly. Eustathius evidences
not dissatisfaction with Origen, but rather disgust and utter contempt. Indeed, he taunts
the Alexandrian and claims that his faulty hermeneutics lead him to commend the
practice ofnecromaniCy (3.4). That Eustathius casts his interpretation of 1 Samuel 28 in
direct opposition to Origen's becomes even more notable when we consider that Origen's
sermon had been e l i ~ e r e some seventy-five years earlier. 143 The vehemence of
Eustathius' rhetoric indicates that Origen's influence had become a real presence in
Antioch. The De eng,astrimytho is clearly an attempt on the part of Eustathius to rid
Antioch of this Alexaindrian intrusion. Fortunately for us, Eustathius writes particularly
what it is about Origen's exegetical method that has him so hot under the collar.
What is especially notable about this treatise, however, is that Eustathius has not
been commissioned to rebut one ofOrigen's more fanciful flights of allegorical exegesis.
In fact, he criticizes Origen for his literal reading of the passage: the Alexandrian
maintains that Samuel truly was summoned from Hades and Eustathius rejects this claim!
This has led some scholars, most notably Trigg, to conclude that allegorical biblical
interpretation really is not the main problem for Eustathius.
144
Such a conclusion is, in my
view, erroneous.
Origen's sermon on the witch of Endor may very well have been selected for
rebuttal precisely because it claims to read the story Ka:ta 'tOV A6yov (2.15). Although
143 Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory," 422, sets the date between 238-242.
144 See Trigg, "Ancient Controversy."
91
Origen concedes that certain portions of Scripture have no literal value to them and ought
not be taken as historically true, the story of the witch of Endor is not one ofthem (2.2).
In fact, Origen himself argues against the competing interpretation that the witch lies
about calling up Samuel- that she plays a trick on poor Saul by summoning a demon in
the likeness of the prophet (3.1-5). He asserts that if the Holy Spirit is the author of
Scripture - a view that he assumes his opponent will share with him - then everything
written therein must, by consequence, be true (4.9-16). To say that Samuel was not
raised up from Hades is, for Origen, to call the Holy Spirit a liar.
What is often overlooked in Origen's sermon, however, is his move from reading
the story K:cx:tcX. 'tov '"A6yov to K:cx.'tcX. cx.vcx.yWYTJv.
145
The fact that Samuel was in Hades, a
claim that Origen's opponents found to be unacceptable, demonstrates to the Alexandrian
the impossibility of eschatological hope apart from Christ. Access to paradise was not
granted to even the h0liest of God's chosen people, who were held captive in the depths
of Hades until Christ mercifully descended to preach his gospel.
Eustathius, however, does not overlook this move. Origen's sermon on the Witch
of Endor may have seemed particularly threatening, because in claiming to begin with the
"literal" and "historical" sense and only then to ascend to the more elevated meaning, it
would have resembled too closely the way in which Antiochenes talked about their own
method of biblical interpretation. It is Eustathius' goal to show that however much
Origen may claim to lbe offering a literal interpretation, he is in fact doing anything but.
145 Origen often uses the term a.vcx.ywYTJ to refer to the allegorical or "spiritual" meaning of
Scripture. See Mitchell, "Patristic Rhetoric," 427-8, and Grant, Letter and Spirit, 98-104, 124.
92
As Eustathius sees it, Alexandrians and Antiochenes employ fundamentally
different methods of reading and interpreting Scripture. Origen has been so polluted by
allegory that even though he attempts a literal reading, he in fact "says the very opposite
of what has been written" (4.6-7). Origen's main failing, Eustathius claims, is that he
attributes every word of Scripture to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. While Eustathius
does not deny that the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, he mocks Origen for not
understanding that "these are not the statements of the writer, but of the woman who was
acting under demonic influence" (4.6-7). In other words, the careful reader should not
understand the speech of the witch to be divinely inspired. Rather, the Spirit has set it
down "in a manner appropriate to her" (4.6). It is, therefore, erroneous to suppose that
there could be hidden truths concealed in the words of a godless medium.
Origen, despite seeming to be a literal reader of Scripture in this instance, is even
here committing what Antiochenes consider to be the cardinal sin of Alexandrian
interpretation - name1y, "concentrating not on the facts [1tpa.YJ..lO:tCl] ... but on the words
[UV6J..lCl'tCl].,,146 That ]s, in the opinion of Eustathius, Origen is concerned with discerning
the allegorical meanimg that lies behind the words of Scripture, rather than with focusing
on the literal, historical reality embodied in the narrative. His insistence on finding an
146 Cited in Hill, Old Testament in Antioch, 136. According to Young, Biblical Exegesis, 186-212,
the fundamental problem that Antiochenes had with Alexandrian exegetes is that they ignored the
coherence and logic of the narrative ("ikonic" exegesis), choosing instead to treat the words as symbols
which are in need of de-coding ("symbolic" exegesis). In other words, in "ikonic" exegesis, there is a
"real" connection between: text and interpretation, whereas in "symbolic" exegesis the words "are 'tokens'
or 'signs' whose analogoQs relationship with what is symbolised is less clear" (210). I disagree with her
that such a distinction is consistently evident "on the ground," as it were, but I think she nicely sums up the
difference as the Antiochenes themselves perceived it. Certainly, this seems to be the way that Eustathius
conceives of the difference between his exegesis and that ofOrigen.
93
deeper meaning in every word in Scripture leads him to disregard the broader coherence
and logic of the narrative.
For Eustathius, Origen ultimately fails in reading Scripture properly because he
privileges the allegorical over the literal meaning of the text. Indeed, he mangles the
narrative so as to be able to read into it whatever doctrines he so chooses. This is quite
similar to the objection to allegory voiced in the Homilies. Appion's need to find a
philosophical interpretation of the Greek myths leads him to provide an inadequate
account of the shape .and coherence of their narratives. What is fundamental to the
arguments of both Eustathius and the authors/redactors of the Homilies is that allegorical
reading strategies do not allow for a substantive connection between text and
interpretation; the philosophical/anagogical meaning is arbitrarily forced upon the text,
without any real concern for properly understanding the literal narrative. Texts are
treated as storehouses of mysteries, rather than as stories from which moral and spiritual
lessons can be drawn. Young notes that for Origen "scripture was a veil, a shadow,
which might obscure as much as reveaL .. The Antiochenes found this arbitrary and
insisted on attending to what we might call the internal clues to the way the text or
narrative 'mirrored' the truth.,,147 This objection to the notion that truth has been veiled
or otherwise concealed was equally unsettling to the authors/redactors of the Homilies
(cf.4.25).
Conclusion
147 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 212.
94
According to Eustathius, Diodore, and Theodore, one who wishes to interpret
Scripture properly must always begin with the "literal" or "historical" meaning of the
text. Although they concede that deeper meanings can be sought using "'discernment,"
the starting place of exegesis must always be the literal. They criticize Origen and the
Alexandrians for what they perceive to be a lack of interest in the concrete historical
reality of the biblical texts. Diodore asserts that those who allegorize Scripture
effectively disregard the "underlying sense," reading into whatever doctrine they so
choose.
This privileging of the literal meaning of texts and the claim that allegorists
essentially make up whatever interpretation suits their purposes can be found in the
Homilies as well. The doctrine of the false pericopes underscores that it is the literal
meaning of the text which is of importance; any passage that seems to speak against God
must be decisively rejected. Moreover, the critique of Greek paideia rests on the claim
that the literal meanir,tg of sacred texts ought to be worthy of imitation. The myths, which
relate the immoral conduct of the gods, cannot be redeemed by recourse to allegory,
which is unable dispel the corrupting potential of their literal narratives.
CONCLUSION
It is the claim of this thesis that the Homilies ought to be read as an early voice in
the burgeoning fourth-century exegetical war between Antioch and Alexandria. When
the novel is looked at as a whole, rather than as a mere repository of sourlCes, there
95
emerges a coherent approach to the interpretation of Scripture, which shares with other
late antique Antiochtme texts a rejection of the practice of reading Scripture allegorically.
This tacit claim becomes apparent when we read the doctrine of the false pericopes
(Hom. 1-3) together ,vvith the critique of the allegorization of the Greek myths (Hom. 4-6).
Studies of both the Pseudo-Clementine literature and fourth-century biblical
interpretation are undergoing paradigm shifts, which have made possible the present
study. The work of Reed and Kelley on the Homilies and Recognitions represents a move
away from the focus on source-criticism that has prevented scholars from reading these
texts as coherent units and from situating them within their fourth-century Syrian milieu.
Rather than being treated as collections of sources which reveal to us the nature of
"Jewish Christianity" in the first and second centuries, these two novels are beginning to
be looked upon as valluable sources of information in their own right for our knowledge
of Judaism and Christianity in the fourth century.
Moreover, the efforts of scholars such as Young, Mitchell, and O'Keefe have
demonstrated that modern conceptions of Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis have
been largely influencd by the rhetorical constructions of the patristic authors themselves.
Theologians such as Eustathius, Diodore, and Theodore self-consciously portrayed their
world in dichotomous terms: they were upholders of the "literal" and "historical"
meaning of the biblical text against the allegorizing Alexandrians, whose interpretations
had no basis in Scripture itself. This new focus on rhetoric and polemic allows us to see
important points of continuity between the Homilies and Antiochene theologians. The
Homilies' concern for the literal meaning of texts and its repeated criticisms of the city of
96
Alexandria take on new significance when viewed in the light of the fourth-century
exegetical debate.
My aim in drawing out these points of continuity, however, is not to suggest that
the authors/redactors of the Homilies were dependent upon Eustathius or vice versa.
Indeed, there are considerable differences between the Homilies and the Antiochene
Fathers, not least of which is the former's rejection of substantial portions of Scripture.
Rather, I have hoped to demonstrate that all parties defined the terms according to which
biblical interpretation ought to take place in quite similar ways, and that they shared
particular misgivings' about competing approaches, notably that perceived as
"Alexandrian. "
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Declerck, Jose, ed. De engastrimytho, contra Origenem. CCSG 51. Turnhout: Brepols,
2002.
Diodore of Tarsus. Commentary on Psalms 1-51. Translated and edited by Robert C.
Hill. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Ephraem the Syrian. Commentary on Genesis. In Selected Prose Works. Translated by
E.G. Matthews and J.P. Amar. Edited by K. McVey. Washington: Catholic
University of America, 1994.
Epiphanius. The Panarion o/Epiphanius o/Salamis: Book 1. Translated by Frank
Williams. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Eusebius. The History o/the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G.A.
Williamson. New York: New York University Press, 1966.
Heraclitus. Heraclitvls: Homeric Problems. Translated by D.A. Russell and D. Konstan.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Origen. Homelies Sur Samuel. Edited and translated by Pierre et Marie-Therese Nautin.
Number 328. Paris: Cerf, 1986.
Ptotemee Lettre a Flora. Edited and translated by Gilles Quispel. Number 24. Paris:
Cerf, 1966.
Rehm, Bernhard and Georg Strecker, eds. Die Pseudoklementinen I: Homilien. Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 42. Berlin:
Akademie, 19:92.
Roberts, A and J. Dom.aldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 volumes. Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2004.
Schneemelcher, W. ed. The New Testament Apocrypha. Volume 2. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Translated and edited by
Robert C. HilL Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004.
Secondary Sources
98
Adler, William. "Apion's 'Encomium of Adultery': a Jewish Satire of Greek Paidea in
the Pseudo-dlementine Homilies." Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1993): 15-
49.
Balas, David L. "Marcion Revisted: A 'lPost-Hamackian' Perspective." In Texts and
Testaments. Edited by E.W. Marsh, 95-108. San Antonio: Trinity University
Press, 1980.
Barton, John. "MarCion Revisted." In The Canon Debate. Edited by L.M. McDonald
and J.A. Sanders, 341-54. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
Baumgarten, Albert 1. "Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee." In The
Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee 1. Levine, 39-50. New York and
Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian. "Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der
Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der altesten Kirche,
der Apostel P,etrus in Rom." TZTh (1831): 61-206.
Bigg, Charles. "The Clementine Homilies," in Studia biblica et ecc/esiastica. Volume 2,
157-93. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890.
Brock, Sebastian P. The Luminous Eye. Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1985.
Carleton Paget, J. "Jewish Christianity." In The Cambridge History of ']'udaism, vol. 3:
The Early ROinan Period. Edited by William Horbury et aI, 731-75. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Clark, Elizabeth. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Cote, Dominique. "La fonction litteraire de Simon Ie Magicien dans les Pseudo-
CIementines." Laval theologique et philosophique 57/3 (2001) : 513-23.
Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Los
Angeles: University of Cali fomi a Press, 1992.
Drijvers, Han J.W. "Adam in the True Prophet in the Pseudo-Clementines." In
Loyalitatskon)7ikte in der Religionsgeschichte. Fetschrift fur Carsten Colpe.
Edited by C. Elsas and H.G. Kippenberg. Wurzburg: Koningshausen and
Neumann, 1990.
"Marcionism in Syria: Principles, Problems, and Polemic." Second Century 6
(1987-88): 153-72.
99
Edwards, Mark J. "The Clementina: A Christian Response to the Pagan Novel."
Classical Quarterly 42/2 (1992): 459-74.
Ferreiro, Alberto. "Simon Magus: The Patristic-Medieval Traditions and
Historiograpfuy." Apocrypha 7 (1996): 147-65.
Fonrobert, Charlotte E. "Jewish Christians, Judaizers, and Christian Anti-Judaism." In A
People's History o/Christianity: Late Ancient Christianity. Edited by Virginia
Burrus, 234-54. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Froelich, Karlfried. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984.
Grant, Robert M. Heresy and Criticism: The Search/or Authenticity in Early Christian
Literature. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993.
The Letter and The Spirit. London: SPCK Press, 1957.
Greer, Rowan. Theodore o/Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian. Westminster: The
Faith Press, 1961.
Grube, G.M.A. The Greek and Roman Critics. London: Methuen and Co., 1965.
Hadrill, Wallace. Christian Antioch. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Hagg, Tomas. The Novel in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Headlam, A.C. "The Clementine Literature." Journal o/Theological Studies 3 (1902):
41-58.
Hill, Robert C. Reading the Old Testament at Antioch. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Holzberg, Niklas. The Ancient Novel: An Introduction. Translated by Christine Jackson-
Holzberg. London: Routledge, 1995.
Hornblower, S. and A. Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Third Revised
Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Hort, F.J.A. Judaistic Christianity. A Course o/Lectures. Cambridge: MacMillian and
Co., 1894.
Jaffee, Martin. Torah,in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism
200 BCE - 400 CEo Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
100
Jones, F. Stanley. "The Pseudo-Clementines: Part I," and "The Pseudo-Clementines: Part
II" Second Century 2 (1982): 1-33,63-96.
Kelley, Nicole. Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines. WUNT2
213. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Lampe, G.W.H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
Langen, Joseph. Die Klemensromane. Ihre Entstehung und ihre Tendenzen aufs neue
untersucht. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1890.
Lipsius, R.A. Die Quellen de romischen Petrus-Sage. Kiel: Schwers'sche:
Buchhandlung, 1872.
Louth, Andrew. "Jolm Chrysostom and the Antiochene School to Theodloret ofCyrrhus."
In The Cambtidge History of Early Christian Literature. Edited by F. Young, L.
Ayres, and A .. Louth, 342-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Ludemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989.
Mitchell, Margaret M. "Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1
Samuel 28 On Trial." Journal of Religion 85 (2005): 414-45.
O'Keefe, John J. "'A Letter That Killeth': Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene
Exegesis, or I)iodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms." Journal of Early
Christian Studies 8/1 (2000): 83-104.
Perry, Ben Edwin. The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of their
Origins. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Reed, Annette Y oshiko. "From Judaism and Hellenism to Christianity and Paganism:
Cultural Identities and Religious Polemics in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies."
In Proceedings of the AELAC Conference on the Pseudo-Clementine Romance
(forthcoming).
"Heresiology and the (Jewish-)Christian Novel." In Heresy and Identity in Late
Antiquity. Edited by Edouard Iricinschi and Holger Zellentin. Tlilbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007.
"Jewish Christianity After the Parting of the Ways." In Ways That Never Parted.
Edited by A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed, 189-231. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
101
"The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine:
Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr." Journal
of Early Christian Studies 12/2 (2004): 141-71.
Russell, Donald A. Criticism in Antiquity. London: Duckworth, 1981.
Schoeps, H. J. Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church. Translated
by Douglas Hare. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Shuve, Karl. "The Doctrine of the False Pericopes and Other Late Antique Approaches
to the Problem of Scripture's Unity," in Proceedings of the AELAC Conference
on the Pseudo-Clementine Romance (forthcoming).
Strecker, Georg. Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen. Berlin: Academie-
Verlag, 1981.
Trigg, Joseph. "Eustathius of Antioch's Attack on Origen: What is at Issue in an Ancient
Controversy." Journal o/Religion 75/2 (1995): 219-38.
Van Amersfoot, J. "Traces of an Alexandrian Orphic Theogony in the Pseudo-
Clementines." In Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. Edited by R.
van den Broek and M.J Vermaseran, 13-30. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
von Harnack, Adolph. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Translated by J. Steely
and L. Bierma. Durham: Labyrinth, 1990.
Young, Frances. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody,
Hendrickson, 2002.
"The Fourth Century Reaction Against Allegory." In Studia Patristica 30. Edited
by E.A. Livingstone, 120-24. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Waitz, Hans. Die Pseudoklementinen: Homilien und Rekognitionen. TU, N.F., vol. 10.4.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904.
Widdicombe, Peter J. "Justin Martyr, Allegorical Interpretation, and the Greek Myths."
In Studia Patr'istica 31. Edited by E.A. Livinstone, 234-39. Leuven: Peeters,
1997.
Wiles, Maurice "Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School."
In The Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume One. Edited by P. Ackroyd and
C. Evans, 489 .. 509. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
102

The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and The Antiochene Polemic Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and The Antiochene Polemic Against

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and The Antiochene Polemic Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McMaster University

You might also like