THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
forbitlden; marriage, though considered a defilement, is allowed, and even praised; frequent ablutions are recommended or commanded. The episcopate appears as a living institution; the bishop sums up in himself, as the representative of Christ, the local church, and James, the bishop of Jerusalem, the whole Church.
The Recognitions are extant only in the translation of Rufinus. The name is taken from the technical language of the drama, and refers to the reuniting of Clement's family. The Latin version exists in numerous manuscripts, without as yet an adequate modern edition. The arrangement of the material corresponds on the whole to that of the main body of the Homilies. Barnabas, however, comes to Rome instead of Clement to 3. The Rec- Alexandria. A report is given of all
ognitions. three days of the first disputation with Simon, varying considerably from that in the HomUies. Instead of the second disputation with Simon, there is a three days' discussion on fate between Peter, Clement, and his father and brothers. The end is much the same, but it goes further to narrate the foundation of a church in Antioch and the baptism of Clement's father. In doctrine it shows fewer peculiarities than do the Homilies and it gives the impression of a revision to suit a certain class of readers.
The Epitome, first published by Turnebus (Paris, 155o), then by Cotelerius in his P aires Apostolici, is an extract from the Homilies, with the addition of a portion of Clement's letter to James, another from the account of his martyrdom by Simeon Metaphrastes, and a conclusion from the narrative of a miracle performed by him which is attributed to Ephraim, bishop of Cherson. Dressel published an edition based on a new collation of 4. The manuscripts (Leipsic, 1859), with a
Epitome, variant copy which dilfers from the first only by taking in more of the Homilies. These extracts have no important bearing on the main questions at issue. Great hopes were based on the appearance of Lagarde's edition of a Syriac version (1861), but this throws no new light on the origin and history of the group. The narrative matter continued to interest long after the original significance of the books was forgotten. It was taken into the body of medieval legend, and has been thought to have influenced the development of the Faust-story.
The scientific discussion of the whole question really began with Neander, who in the appendix to his Genetische E ntwicklung der gnostischen Systeme (1818) gave an exposition of the doctrinal content, and Baur, who drew a good deal of evidence for his conception of the primitive Church from the Homilies. He considered the book, 5. Discus- originating in the Roman Church, to sion of the be an evidence of the prevalence of Clementine Judaism there, and the ecclesiastical
Problem, constitution shown in it to be the l)asis of the Catholic system. In opposition ti) him a|)pcar('(l the thorough work of Schlieiuanii, He was the first to argue the priority of the Ihiinilii's and the dcpenclcncc of the Recognitions. Schwegler accept(Kl this view, and con-
sidered the Homilies to show the turning-pomt from Ebionitism to fusion, while the Recognitions marked the conclusion of this process, the stage of neutrality and peace.
Up to this point the literary question of the relation of the two books and their origin from older writings had been neglected. Hilgenfeld's epochmaking work took this up. He saw the original in the Recognitions and a recasting in the HomUips. On the basis of minute investigation, he evolved the theory of an earlier " Preaching of Peter," written at Rome not long before the 6. Relation destruction of Jerusalem, in the interof the Rec- est of Jewish Christianity. On the ognitions indications of polemical attitude, he to the traced a series of recastings; he Homilies, thought it likely that the opponent of Peter in the original work was not Simon Magus but Paul, then becoming successively the representative of Basilidian, Valentinian, and Marcionite Gnosticism, the last in the HomUies. which he believed to have been recast from the Recognitions at Rome under Anicetus (151-161). Against Hilgenfeld, Uhlhorn undertook to defend the priority of the Homilies once more, contending that a fragment of the nucleus was to be found not, as Hilgenfeld had thought, in Recogn. i. 27-72, but in Hom. xvi.-xxix., and that the birthplace of the whole group was neither Rome nor Asia Minor, but eastern Syria. This he considered to be proven by the composite nature of the doctrinal system, most closely related to that of the Elkesaites, though influenced by Hellenic culture and showing distinct Stoic elements. His theory was that the original work was composed there about 150, and the Homilies adapted from it about 170, with a view to a propaganda in the pagan world, especially at Rome. For this purpose Clement was introduced and Roman local color added. The Recognitions would then be a further adaptation made in Rome not long after 170, more acceptable because of its nearer approach to orthodox Christianity.
The next important contribution to the discussion was Lehmann's, who took a middle course between Hilgenfeld's and Uhlhorn's, separating the Recognitions into two parts of different authorship (i.-iii. and iv.-x.), of which the first is earlier and the second later than the Homilies. This treatment was carried further by Lipsius, who found the nucleus in a hypothetical Acta Pdri of strongly anti- Pauline tendency written some time before 150; traces of this work are found in the extant Actn Petri et Pauli (in Tischendorf, Acta apostoliirum apocrypha, Leipsic, 1851), but revised in an orthodox sense. A fragment of this was worked up in an anti-Gnostic sense about 140-145, the result again expanded by the addition of the Clement romance, and further adapted into an early form of the Recognitions, of which two later forms exist, one strongly anti-Marcionite in the Homilies, the other in the present Recognitions, in which the dogmatic interest is subordinated to the ethical, and the spt eifically Ebionite matter is eliminated. Langen took c|uite a different view, presupposing a " Preaching of Peter " composed in Rome after l'i5, with the purpose of claiming for Rome the primacy of