THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
don, IS(V.i), and Xon Gebhardt and Harnack (Leip- 610, 1S75), besides facsimile reproductions in 1856 and 1879. In 1875, however, api)eared the first complete edition, based upon a new manuscript discovered in Constantinople. Von Gebhardt still considered the Alexandrine manuscript the more authoritative, and there are reasons for holding this view, e\-en since further light has been thrown on the question by the discovery of a Syriac and a Latin version, the latter only of the first epistle.
This first epistle is an official communication from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, which was then tlivided by controversies apparently relating to the position and authority of the presbyters. In order to put an end to the strife, the Roman Church intervenes, apparently unsolicited, and sends a deputation to Corinth, " to be witnesses between you and us." The official character of the letter comes out more clearly now that it exists complete, and new light is thrown on the relation of the Roman Church to the others. 3. The First It is true there is no question of a con- Epistle, stitutionally established primacy, but the Roman Church, as the most mature and firmly settled, keeps a watchful eye on the concerns of the others. The Clementine authorship is attested by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (cf. Eusebius, Hist, eccl., iv. 23), Irenseus (Hcer., III. iii. 3), Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. In the East the letter was read in public worship as Scripture. Attempts made by Calovius (1673) and others to deny its authenticity were revived with Semler, Ammon, and later with Baur and Schwegler; but the arguments of such critics have not been found decisive. The majority of scholars now hold that it was written in the first century, though many of them leave the question of authorship unanswered. Doubts have been expressed in recent years about the prayer in chap. 59, but Lightfoot and others have rendered improbable the theory of a later addition; the question is still unsettled whether this prayer is an official formula of the Roman Church or the composition of Clement.
The attempt to determine the date of the epistle depends, first, on the question whether the persecution at Rome mentioned at the outset was that under Nero or that under Domitian. The earlier critics preferred the former, which gives 64-68 as the date. Scarcely any modern scholars, except Hefele and Wieseler, adhere to this view. On the other hand, sufiicient reasons forbid placing the date as late as the second century. According to xliv. 3 there are stUl some presbyters in office who were instituted by the apostles, and similarly v. 3 seems to assert that members of the Church contemporary with Peter and Paul are living; there is no trace of Gnostic heresies; the 4. Ques- constitution of the Church, in both tions Un- Rome and Corinth, is not the episcosettled. pal, but the presbyterial. Most authorities, accordingly date the epistle between 93 and 97; Lightfoot would come down as far as the reign of Nerva, and Llarnack's latest opinion is in favor of the end of Domitian's (93-95), which is supported by Hegesippus (in l^uscMus,
Ili.sl. ('Cel., iii. 16). Diverse views, again, have been held as to the doctrinal standpoint of the epistle. Schwegler, followed by Reusch, considered it a compromise between Jewish Christianity and Paulinism. Lemme's view that the author was a fanatical Jewish Christian is disproved by the way in which he speaks of Paul and uses the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. However, Paul's propositions appear here as little more than mere formulas. His great doctrine of justification through faith is indeed strongly expressed (xxxii. 4); but the obligation of doing good works is derived only from the will and example of God, without the mention of any relation between justifying faith and moral power.
The second epistle, completely known only since 1875, is regarded by most scholars as a homily, rather than a letter. The question remains in what church and by whom it was delivered. Harnack's theory that it is of Roman origin, perhaps written by another Clement, the one mentioned by Hermas in his Shepherd, is scarcely tenable. Lightfoot thinks it originated in Corinth, which is likely. Its date is shown to be in the second century by its attitude toward the New Testament
canon and toward Gnosticism. Be- 5. Second tween 130 and 140 is the most probable Epistle time. Its teaching contains some and Other peculiar points, which can not be Writings, pressed to show that the author
belonged to a separate sect, but mean only that he lived in a time of little exact dogmatic formulation. Of the numerous other writings which have borne the name of Clement, it may safely be said that the HomUies and Recognitions, in the various forms comprised under the name Clementina (q.v.), are not by him; nor are the Apostolic Constitutions (q.v.). The two " Letters to the Virgins " are worth notice. They exist only in a Syriac version in a codex belonging to the Remonstrant seminary at Amsterdam, and were first printed by Wetstein in 1752, then more carefully by Beelen (Loewen, 1856, with a Latin rendering, which Funk improved and appended to his Opera patrumapostolicorum, vol. i., Tiibingcn, 1887). The theories of their origin range between two impossible extremes — one medieval, that of Cotterill; the other Clementine, that of \^illecourt (who edited the epistles for MPG) and Beelen (ut sup.). The form they presuppose for ecclesiastical customs and ascetic practise belongs to a later time, possibly that of Cyprian — but not too much later, since they were probably known by Epiphanius {Hair., xxx. 12), and certainly by Jerome {Ad Jovin., i. 12). They must have been originally one book, and were perhaps ilivided into two (as Harnack suggests) to take the place of the two epistles of Clement, which were contained in the older Syria manuscripts of the New Testament. This would account for their ascription to Clement, as nothing else does.
(G. UHLHORNf.) Bibliography: The best text and discussion is in J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part i., .s\ Clement of Rome, a Revised Text with Introductions, 2 vols., London, 1890; text alone in idem, The Apostolic Fathers . . , ed. J. R. Harmer, ib. 1891. Translation is in A.\ F, ix. 229-