Second Clement. William Varner
rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_9623e5b6-b734-5068-b2b8-a21a54d4eaee">23. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers; Lindemann, “Apostolic Fathers and the Synoptic Problem”; Still and Wilhite, eds., Apostolic Fathers and Paul.
24. Lookadoo, “Polycarp, Paul, and the Letters to Timothy”; Hartog, “Opponents in Polycarp, Philippians, and 1 John.”
25. Trigg, “The Apostolic Fathers and Apologists.” A valuable linguistic tool is Wallace et al., eds., Reader’s Lexicon of the Apostolic Fathers.
26. Lawson, Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers.
27. Stark, Christology in the Apostolic Fathers; McGuckin, “Christ: The Apostolic Fathers to the Third Century.”
28. Marshall, “Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Fathers”; Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers”; Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers.”
29. Bounds, “Understanding of Grace in Selected Apostolic Fathers”; Whitenton, “After ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ”; Bounds, “Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Apostolic Fathers.” See also the influential but now dated work by Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers.
30. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways; Lanfranchi, “Attitudes to the Sabbath.”
Foreword
The anonymous writing which came to be called the Second Letter of Clement may be that work of the Apostolic Fathers which you read decades ago in seminary or graduate school but subsequently forgot. The writing’s relative neglect in both earlier and recent scholarship is regrettable for several reasons. For one thing, 2 Clement may be the earliest work that cites and interprets sayings of Jesus that stem, either directly or indirectly, from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Additionally, its sometimes surprising interpretations and extensions of those sayings illustrate the creativity that often underlay early Christian biblical interpretation. Second Clement also contains several unusual sayings of Jesus, such as the quasi-androgynous prediction that, prior to the kingdom’s arrival, the “two” must become “one” and there will be “neither male nor female” (2 Clem. 12.2).
In addition to the import of the work’s sources, its message is significant since it represents a distinctive—and, in several respects, a unique—voice among the second-century Jesus movements which were competing for influence. One example of that distinctive message is the explanation of the first “person” (ἄνθρωπος) in Gen 1:27: the male is identified as Christ, rather than Adam, and the female is not Eve but the preexistent “church” (ἐκκλησία, 2 Clem. 14.2). Another noteworthy contention is that believers, by virtue of having received God’s grace, are obligated to render “repayment” (ἀντιμισθία, 2 Clem. 1.3, 5; 9.7; 15.2) to God in order to receive a “repayment” from God (11.6) and, ultimately, to withstand the final judgment and be saved. If we interpret a need for “repayment” in the light of the reciprocal giving and receiving which characterized ancient patron-client relationships, the obligation signaled by ἀντιμισθία would be an integral means of both fostering and preserving believers’ relationship with God (or Christ), their divine patron.
As historians and theologians, we make the most of the oftentimes anecdotal sources which happened to survive, pondering the light they could shed on the early church and its development. Given that 2 Clement cites several enigmatic sources, and that the work advocates for some possibly controversial theological positions, it is somewhat surprising that it is preserved in not one but three manuscripts. One reason for its preservation could be that it appears directly after 1 Clement in an early manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus (ca. 450–500 CE): although the two Clementine writings clearly stem from different authors (and, as many argue, address different communities), the notion that 2 Clement was somehow connected to a subapostolic leader (i.e., Clement of Rome) may have enhanced the work’s stature and secured its preservation. Additionally, the placement of 1 and 2 Clement in Codex Alexandrinus directly after the twenty-seven New Testament writings could have attributed to the Clementine writings a canonical status, leading some Christ-believers to transmit them and, quite possibly, to use them in liturgical and catechetical contexts.
Those who have devoted themselves to the study of 2 Clement belong to a modest, albeit by no means an exclusive, club and tend to engage in detail with one another’s views. This volume by William Varner is only the second English-language commentary on 2 Clement to appear since the 1960s, and invites us to take a closer look at a writing that all too often has been ignored or misunderstood. The strengths of Varner’s study include the lucid discussion of isagogical questions (e.g., the work’s genre, sources, and theological tendencies), which makes up around one-third of the volume; a fresh new translation; the attention to semantics; and the discussions of the work’s structure. The commentary will inform, intrigue, and even challenge not only its primary audience of evangelical Protestants but also those who stem from other religious and hermeneutical traditions. The volume will also spur others, myself included, to continue work on this fascinating text.
James A. Kelhoffer
Pentecost 2020
Uppsala, Sweden
Preface
I developed an academic interest in the Apostolic Fathers by exposure to the Greek texts of the Didache and Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians during courses that I taught on translating various Koine Greek texts. This interest eventually developed into a commentary on the Didache that was published in 2007.31 Because of my special interest in texts that are often overlooked, my initial interest in 2 Clement was based on the fact that far more attention has been given to its larger “sister,” 1 Clement, in the scholarly literature. A significant amount of secondary literature has developed on many of the other individual works that are styled “Apostolic Fathers,” especially the Didache and 1 Clement. This is not the situation with 2 Clement. This commentary addresses this lack of attention and hopefully provides an introduction to 2 Clement that will help rescue it from its shadows of neglect. I have sought to interact with everything to my knowledge that has been written in English on 2 Clement, and I have consulted a representative selection of secondary literature written in German.
I would like to thank those classes that worked through the Greek text of 2 Clement with me in the last few years. My thanks are also to The Master’s University for a sabbatical in the spring of 2019, when most of the writing of this commentary took place. Further gratitude is offered to the staff of the library for offering a quiet place to research and write and for providing the resources to finish such a project. Students Jeremiah Seidman and Brent Niedergall also provided valuable proofreading of the manuscript. I have cited the magisterial commentary on 2 Clement by Christopher Tuckett more than any other work, and he has been a fruitful dialogue-partner on every chapter, even when we disagreed! Finally, Professor James A. Kelhoffer took time from his own research on 2 Clement to share with me his articles on the book. He has greatly influenced my approach while writing this commentary.
I come from an ecclesial tradition that has not always shown a deep interest in early Christian literature beyond those works that came to be included in the New Testament. I offer my thanks to the editors of this series of commentaries for seeing the importance of such literature and for their patience and diligence in walking me through the editing process. I extend my special thanks to Professor Daniel Wallace also, whose interest in preserving the written texts of the New Testament and Christian literature has always provided me with encouragement likewise to study and to preserve this great literary heritage of early Christianity.