“From Judaism and Hellenism to Christianity and Paganism: Cultural Identities and Religious Polemics in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies” [pre-print] more

From Judaism and Hellenism to Christianity and Paganism: Cultural Identities and Religious Polemics in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies Annette Yoshiko Reed (McMaster University) For the scholar interested in the construction, negotiation, and hybridization of religious identities, the Pseudo-Clementines provide a rich mine. The Homilies and Recognitions have long served as a locus for discussions of “Jewish Christianity.”1 In light of their parallels with Patristic statements about lost Petrine and Jacobite writings, scholars have culled the Pseudo-Clementines for the early “Jewish-Christian” sources that they might preserve.2 Such parallels have also prompted research on their possible connections with sects, such as the Ebionites, that claimed continuity with James, Peter, and the Jerusalem Church.3 Likewise, their positive views of Jews, prescriptions for Gentile Torah-observance, and hints of familiarity with Rabbinic traditions have inspired investigation of possible contacts with Judaism.4 To explain their depiction of Simon Magus, some have pointed to anti-Pauline and antiMarcionite polemics.5 To elucidate their distinctive doctrines—such as the Esp. H.-J. SCHOEPS, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tübingen, 1949; G. STRECKER, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen, Berlin, 19812; A. Y. REED, «Jewish Christianity after the Parting of the Ways: Approaches to historiography and selfdefinition in the Pseudo-Clementine literature», in A. H. BECKER – A. Y. REED (eds.), The ways that never parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, Tübingen, 2003, p. 188-231. 2 E.g. Heracleon apud Origen, On John, 3.17; Clement, Strom. 1.29.182; 6.5.39, 15.128; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.38.5; Epiphanius, Pan. 30.15-16. For the history of research on these sources, see F. S. JONES, «The Pseudo-Clementines: A history of research», Second Century 2 (1982), p. 8-33. 3 Esp. Epiphanius, Pan. 30; H.-J. SCHOEPS, op. cit. 4 E.g., Hom. 2.19, 38; 3.18-19; 7.4-8; 11.28-30; J. BERGMAN, «Les éléments juifs dans les Pseudo-Clémentines», RÉJ 46 (1903), p. 89–98; A. MARMORSTEIN, «Judaism and Christianity in the middle of the third century», HUCA 10 (1935), p. 223–63; A. BAUMGARTEN, «Literary evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee», in L. LEVINE (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York, 1992, p. 39-50. More recently: A. Y. REED, «Fourth-century Rabbinic Judaism and the redaction of the Homilies», paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 2005; F. S. JONES, «Jewish Tradition on the Sadducees in the Pseudo-Clementines», paper presented at Christian Apocrypha for the New Millennium: Achievements, Prospects and Challenges, University of Ottawa, September 2006. 5 G. LUEDEMANN, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, Minneapolis 1989, p. 185-90; Strecker, op. cit., p. 187; T.V. SMITH, Petrine controversies in early Christianity: Attitudes towards Peter in Christian writings of the first two centuries (WUNT2 15), Tübingen 1985, p. 11, 59–61. A. SALLES, «Simon le magicien ou Marcion?», VC 12 (1958), p. 197–224. Cf. D. 1 1 Law of the Syzygy and the doctrine of false pericopes—others have cited connections with “gnostic” texts and traditions.6 In addition, the final forms of these novels have been characterized with reference to the Christological debates of the Nicene age, including intersections with Arianism, in the case of the Homilies,7 and possible Eunomian influence on the Recognitions.8 For the most part, such theories about self-definition and polemics in the Pseudo-Clementines have been raised in the context of the source-critical enterprise that has occupied research on these texts for over a century. Questions about religious affiliations and identities have been oriented towards distinguishing different layers in the Pseudo-Clementine tradition. Answers have been aimed at isolating and identifying the earliest. Recent years, however, have seen a shift away from a solely sourcecritical focus. The literary structure and aims of the Grundschrift have garnered fresh interest,9 and attention has returned to the fourth-century forms of the Homilies and Recognitions.10 With this shift in orientation has come a new appreciation of the Pseudo-Clementine literature as evidence for Christian attempts to grapple with the perils and prestige of “pagan” culture. Studies by Edwards, Jones, Vielberg, and others have explored the appropriation and subversion of the Greco-Roman novel by the Grundschrift, Homilies, and Recognitions.11 Recent monographs by Côté and Kelley have stressed their engagement—both positive and polemical—with “pagan” philosophical and astrological traditions.12 CÔTÉ, «La fonction littéraire de Simon le Magicien dans les Pseudo-Clémentines», Laval Théologique et Philosophique 37 (2001), p. 514-17. 6 E.g., G. QUISPEL, «La lettre de Ptolémée à Flora», VC 2 (1948), p. 39-40. 7 Hom. 16.15; 20.5, 7; C. BIGG, «The Clementine Homilies», in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica, vol. 2, Oxford, 1890, p. 167, 191-92; STRECKER, op. cit. (note 1), p. 268. Cf. C. STEAD, Divine substance, Oxford, 1977, p. 219-20. 8 Rec. 3.2-11; J. CHAPMAN, «On the date of the Clementines», ZNW 9 (1908), 21-27. 9 Esp. F. S. JONES, «Eros and astrology in the Periodoi Petrou: The sense of the PseudoClementine novel», Apocrypha 12 (2001), p. 53-87. 10 Esp. N. KELLEY, Knowledge and religious authority in the Pseudo-Clementines: Situating the Recognitions in fourth century Syria (WUNT2 213), Tübingen, 2006. 11 M. J. EDWARDS, «The Clementina: A Christian response to the pagan novel», Classical Quarterly 42 (1992), p. 459-74; F. S. JONES, art. cit. (note 9); M. VIELBERG, Klemens in den pseudoklementinischen Rekognitionen. Studien zur literarischen Form des spätantiken Romans, Berlin, 2000; W. ROBINS, «Romance and Renunciation at the Turn of the Fifth Century», JECS 8 (2000), p. 531-57; K. COOPER, «Matthidia’s Wish: Division, Reunion, and the Early Christian Family in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions», in G. J. BROOKE – J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in biblical and related texts/La narativité dans la Bible et les textes apparentés, Leuven, 2000, p. 243-64. 12 D. CÔTÉ, Le thème de l’opposition entre Pierre et Simon dans les Pseudo-Clémentines, Paris, 2001; N. KELLEY, op. cit. (note 10). 2 Where earlier research sought the lost heterodoxies behind the PseudoClementines and chased elusive “Jewish-Christian” documents, these recent studies follow the preoccupation with “pagan” knowledge and culture in the texts themselves. Rather than atomize our extant texts, they are attentive to their literary and rhetorical features. Setting aside the question of sources, they seek to locate the Pseudo-Clementines in the context of a range of other late antique attempts to negotiate Christian identity in Greco-Roman cultural contexts. In the process, however, the older interest in Judaism and “Jewish Christianity” has generally been downplayed. In my view, the source-critical focus of past research is rightly critiqued for its myopia.13 Yet we also lose much when attempting to deal with the Grundschrift, Homilies, and Recognitions apart from an understanding of the rich redactional histories that shaped them, each in their own ways. Moreover, new attention to the appropriation and representation of “pagan” culture should not lead us to dismiss the enduring place of Judaism in the Pseudo-Clementine tradition. This essay is a small attempt to bridge these different approaches and to bring them into dialogue over the specific issue of identity and polemics in the Pseudo-Clementines. I will take the Homilies as my test-case and focus on the Debate with Appion in Hom. 4-6. The material in these chapters is generally agreed to derive from an independent source, most often characterized as a Hellenistic Jewish apology.14 Rather than investigating its origins, however, I will consider how these chapters function within the current form of the Homilies, asking what the inclusion of these chapters may tell us about its fourth-century authors/redactors.15 A. Y. REED, art. cit (note 1), p. 197-201; N. KELLEY, op. cit. (note 10), p. 25-27. Cf. Rec. 10.17-51; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.38.5. See e.g., W. HEINTZE, Der Klemensroman und seine griechischen Quellen, Leipzig, 1914, esp. p. 48-50, 108-9, 112; C. SCHMIDT, Studien zu den Pseudo-Clementinen, Leipzig, 1929, p. 160-239. The arguments for this source are succinctly summarized in W. ADLER, «Apion’s enconomium of adultery: A Jewish satire of Greek paideia in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies», HUCA 64 (1993), p. 28-30. 15 An alternative hypothesis—namely, that this material originated with the Homilies—was suggested by STRECKER, op. cit. (note 1), p. 79-87, and has been recently recovered by D. CÔTÉ (e.g. «Orphic theogony and the context of the Clementines», paper presented at Christian Apocrypha for the New Millennium: Achievements, Prospects and Challenges, University of Ottawa, September 2006). Côté here argues on the basis of the Orphic traditions attributed to Appion in Hom. 6.3-12 (cf. Rec. 10.30-24); in his view, this material is best understood as a fourth-century polemic against Neoplatonism (cf. J. VAN AMERSFOORT, «Traces of an Alexandrian Orphic Theogony in the Pseudo-Clementines», in R. VAN DEN BROEK – M. J. VERMASEREN (eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenitic religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden, 1981, p. 13-30). His comments on the connections are intriguing and speak, at the very least, to the function of Hom. 6 in its present 14 13 3 1. Judaism and Hellenism in Homilies 4-6 For an exploration of the place of Judaism and “paganism” in the PseudoClementines, the Debate with Appion is an ideal focus. The Homilies here mount an extended polemic against Greek education, mythology, philosophy, and ethics, approached from the perspective of an apostolic tradition in radical continuity with Judaism.16 Whereas most of the Homilies recount the rivalry between Peter and Simon Magus,17 Hom. 4-6 depict the conflict between Clement and the infamous Alexandrian anti-Semite Ap(p)ion. Whereas the novel is primarily concerned to distinguish the apostolic truth from the musings of “heretical” pretenders,18 these chapters centre on the contrast between Judaism and Hellenism. No reference is made to Jesus or Christianity.19 The religion of Peter and Clement is described wholly in terms of Judaism.20 form. Personally, I am less convinced by his suggestion that Hom. 4-6, on the whole, stands closer to early Christian apology than to Hellenistic Judaism. The many parallels with Philo are striking, as are the absence of references to Christ and the lack of appeal to distinctly Christian apologetic tropes (see further W. ADLER, art. cit. (note 14), p. 29, 43-48, and discussion below). More plausible, in my view, is the possibility that some material in these chapters were reworked to fit the distinctive fourth-century concerns of the authors/redactors of the Homilies. A fuller understanding of the redaction-history of this material, however, awaits further research on the origins of this section and its precise connection to the parallels in the tenth book of the Recognitions. 16 The apostle Peter, e.g., is here described by Appion as a Jewish teacher of Clement; no mention is made of his affiliation with Jesus. Clement, moreover, accepts Appion’s assessment of his attraction to monotheism as a decision to abandon ancestral Greek customs in order to “speak and act after the manner of the Jews” (4.7.2). In fact, he defends this choice, asserting, e.g., that “the doctrine of the ‘barbarian Jews,’ as you call them, is most pious, introducing One as the Father and Creator of all this world, by nature good and just” (4.13.3), and encouraging ethical action through promises of reward and punishment (4.14.1-2). It is perhaps notable that this depiction of Judaism—as “barbarian wisdom” laudable for its embrace of monotheism, commitment to law and justice, and interest in inculcating ethics—resonates with Hellenistic Jewish traditions as well as with positive “pagan” statements about Jews and Judaism; see further J. J. COLLINS, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, Grand Rapids, Mich., 20002, p. 6-15, 155-85; G. STROUMSA, Barbarian Wisdom: The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity, Tübingen, 1999, p. 60-72 17 D. CÔTÉ, op. cit. (note 12). 18 A. Y. REED, «Heresiology and the (Jewish-)Christian Novel: Narrativized Polemics in the Pseudo-Clementines», in E. IRICINSCHI – H. ZELLETIN (eds.), Heresy and Self-Definition in Late Antiquity, Tübingen, forthcoming. 19 The parallel material in Rec. 10.17-51, by contrast, contains explicit references to Christ as the Son of God (10.47) and True Prophet (10.51) as well as to the Gospel (10.45). 20 See esp. Hom. 4.7-8, 22, 24; 5.28. The account of Clement’s initial attraction to monotheism is here described in terms that appear to contradict the first Homily. In Hom. 5.28, Clement 4 The debates in these chapters are occasioned by Appion’s shock that Clement—a Roman of good birth who is “equipped with all Greek learning”— was “seduced by a certain barbarian called Peter to speak and act after the manner of the Jews” (4.7.2): why did Clement choose to abandon his ancestral customs, and how could he possibly see this choice as an act of piety? Appion’s accusation is familiar, echoing a long line of “pagan” polemics against Jewish proselytes and Gentile Christians alike.21 What is surprising, however, is Clement’s answer: he affirms the description of his conversion as apostasy from Hellenism and affiliation with Judaism. Moreover, in response to Appion’s question of whether he acts “most impiously in forsaking the customs of his country and falling away to those of the barbarians” (4.7.3), Clement defends his choice with appeal to the wickedness of the ways that he chose to abandon (4.8.1, 3, 6; cf. 4.11.1-2). Greco-Roman ancestral customs, he argues, are inherently impious and deserve to be forsaken.22 When expounding upon the nature of their impiety, Clement takes specific aim at Greek paideia, asserting that “the whole learning of the Greeks is a most dreadful fabrication of a wicked demon” (4.12.1). The Jews may be barbarians in Greek eyes, but Jewish doctrine is actually the “most pious” (4.13.3). To support this view, Clement contrasts the good deeds that result from Jewish monotheism with the wicked deeds that result from the Greek belief in many gods who commit multifarious acts of impiety and impurity (4.14.1-15.4, 17.12).23 recalls how “although I examined many doctrines of philosophers, I inclined to none of them (cf. Hom. 1.3.1-4.7), except only [the doctrine] of the Jews: a certain merchant of theirs sojourned here in Rome, selling linen clothes, and a fortunate meeting set simply before me the doctrine of the unity of God”; contrast Hom. 1.6.2-7.8, where rumours about Jesus and the preachings of an anonymous man are the catalyst. Such divergences may hint at the origins of this material in another source; nevertheless, the implication in the redacted form of the Homilies may be that Clement had a boyhood encounter with a Jewish merchant that prepared him for his later receptivity to the message of Jesus as preached by Barnabus and Peter. 21 For “pagan” perceptions of proselytes to Judaism as abandoning their ancestral customs, see Juvenal, Sat. 14.96-106; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2; and discussion in P. SCHÄFER, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the ancient world, Cambridge, Mass., 1997, p. 180–95. That the same accusation was leveled at Gentile Christians is clear, e.g., from Origen, c. Cels. 5.25-41; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1.2.1-4. 22 Similar arguments are made in Philo, Special Laws 1.52-53; Life of Moses 2.18-20, 44; Justin, 1 Apology 21; Clement, Protrepticus 10.89.2. On the parallels with Philo, see W. A. ADLER, art. cit. (n. 16), p. 47-48. 23 The stress on Jewish monotheism and ethics in contrast with the empty sophistry, licentiousness, and lasciviousness of Greek philosophers also has precedents in the writings of Philo, on which see M. NIEHOFF, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, Tübingen, 2001, p. 137-50. In contrast to Hom. 4-6, however, Philo distinguishes between the errors of the Egyptians, whom he treats as paradigmatic of polytheism, and the errors of the Greeks, whom 5 The argument that follows echoes Hellenistic, early Jewish, and early Christian polemics against Greek mythology as offering a denigrated view of divinity that encourages human sinfulness.24 Yet, whereas earlier Christians such as Justin Martyr distinguished between the demonic inspiration of Greek religion and the glints of divine truth in Greek philosophy,25 the Homilies here conflate the two, by means of the focus on paideia. Clement argues that elite Greeks are the least pious of all precisely because of their education (4.17.120.3).26 They were weaned on Greek myths (4.19.1). Thanks to the rationalizations of philosophy, they live smug in the belief that they can sin without consequence (4.20.1-2). Appion may be impressed by Clement’s pedigree, but Clement knows that it puts him in special danger of demonic defilement.27 This, Clement explains, is why he felt it necessary, in the first place, to take “refuge with the holy God and the Law of the Jews” (4.22.2). The Debate with Appion describes the effects of Greek paideia in terms that evoke the concern for ritual purity elsewhere in the Homilies (e.g. 7.4.2-5, 8.1-2; 11.28.1-30.3). Paideia implants impieties that impede righteousness. And, much like ritual defilements, these impieties are communicable. According to Clement, this is why people who live in cities are more sinful he treats as philosophers. Niehoff notes, for instance, how “the Egyptians are denied Greek identity and culture”—a tendency which, in her view, may explain his otherwise surprising lack of engagement with Greek-educated Egyptians like Apion (p. 158). 24 R. P. C. HANSON, Studies in Christian Antiquity, Edinburgh, 1985, p. 157-63. 25 On Justin, see O. SKARSAUNE, «Judaism and Hellenism in Justin Martyr, elucidated from his portrait of Socrates», in H. CANCIK – H. LICHTENBERGER – P. SCHÄFER (eds.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 3: Frühes Christentum, Tübingen, 1996, p. 585-611. Contrast also Clement of Alexandria’s notion that philosophy was revealed to humankind by fallen angel(s) and, hence, contains sparks of divine wisdom (esp. Strom. 1.16-17; 5.1.10.2). 26 Cf. Letter of Aristeas 137-38, where those responsible for the myths and errors of polytheism are precisely those who consider themselves “the wisest of the Greeks.” Precedents for the denunciation of educated Greeks and philosophers can also be found in Tatian, Address 2-3; 25-26. 27 The negative view of Greek learning is striking. Note, e.g., Hom. 4.19.2-20.2: “Lessons about their gods are much worse than ignorance—as we have shown from the case of those dwelling in the country, who sin less through their not having been instructed by Greeks. Truly, such fables of theirs and spectacles and books ought to be shunned—if it were possible, even their cities… And what is worst, whoever is most instructed among them, is so much the more turned away from the judgment according to nature!” The fifth Homily is, in effect, a narrative demonstration of this point, with Appion as exemplar of the elite “pagan” drained of his morals by Greek paideia and corrupted by the models of the Greek myths that he claims merely to allegorize. 6 than their rural counterparts (4.18.1): “those who are full of evil learning infect—even with their breath—those who associate with them” (4.18.3).28 In Hom. 5-6, Clement further illustrates the link between paideia, impiety, and impurity. In the fifth Homily, he recalls a trick that he had played on Appion in his youth. By feigning love for a married women, Clement convinced Appion to write a letter justifying the practice of adultery with appeal to Greek mythology and philosophy.29 As a result, he exposed Appion’s immorality as well as his irrational hate of the Jews (5.2.4, 27.1-29.1). Likewise, the sixth Homily describes a second debate between Clement and Appion, wherein Clement exposes the irrationality and impiety underlying “pagan” philosophical attempts to allegorize Greek myths (esp. 6.17.1-23.4).30 3. Paideia as impurity, Hellenism as “heresy” Some of the material from these debates is paralleled in the tenth book of the Recognitions, albeit in a selective fashion with striking differences from the version in the Homilies.31 As noted above, the parallels raise the possibility that the Debate material may have been included, in some form, in the Grundschrift. Here, however, my aim is not to revisit the much discussed question of the relationship between Hom. 4-6, Rec. 10.17-51, the Grundschrift, and the possible sources behind it. Rather, I am interested in the act of redaction. Can we learn anything about the Homilies’ redactors by considering their choices with respect to this material? Is the Debate with Appion only integrated superficially, as a digression in the larger narrative? Or might it play a more significant role in the Homilies’ unique take on the Pseudo-Clementine novel? To answer such questions, comparison with the Recognitions proves useful. Even if we cannot know for certain how much of the material in Hom. Compare, e.g., Hom. 8.17.1, in which similar terms are used to describe the results of the antediluvian activities of the carnivorous and cannibalistic Giants, whose spirits later became the very demons who masquerade as “pagan” deities – “By the shedding of much blood, the pure air was defiled with impure vapor and sickened those who breathed it, rending them liable to diseases.” 29 See W. ADLER, art. cit. (note 14), on the appropriation and subversion of rhetorical models from Greek paideia in Hom. 5. 30 Cf. Tatian, Address 21; Athenagoras, Embassy 22. 31 See Hom. 4.11.1-2 (cf. Rec. 10.39.4); 4.12 (cf. Rec. 10.50); 4.16 (cf. Rec. 10.20); 4.17 (cf. Rec. 10.35); 4.22.1 (cf. Rec. 10.41.11); 4.24.4 (cf. Rec. 10.33.2); 4.25.1-2 (cf. Rec. 10.35); 5.6 (cf. Rec. 10.23.1-3); 5.12.3-4 (cf. Rec. 10.20.4-5); 5.13.2-14.2 (= Rec. 10.22.2-8); 5.16.3-17.5 (≈ Rec. 10.26.2-4); 5.22.1 (cf. Rec. 10.28.3); 5.22.3 (cf. Rec. 10.27.1); 5.22.4 (cf. Rec. 10.23.13); 5.23.1-4 (≈ Rec. 10.24); 6.2.2-7 (≈ Rec. 10.17-20); 6.3.1-10.3 (cf. Rec. 10.30-34); 6.14.115.4 (cf. Rec. 10.41.1-9); 6.17.1-18. (cf. Rec. 10. 35-38); 6.22.1-2 (≈ Rec. 10.25.1-2); 6.23.2-3 (≈ Rec. 10.36.3-5). 28 7 4-6 and Rec. 10.17-51 was taken directly from an early source, it is clear that the authors/redactors of the Homilies and Recognitions actively reworked this material and did so in different directions. Interestingly, for instance, the connection between paideia and impurity does not feature in Rec. 10.17-51, and the demonological connections are downplayed.32 These connections resonate, however, in the broader literary and theological context of the Homilies. Elsewhere in the Homilies, the contrast between piety and impiety is mapped onto the contrast between ritual purity and physical defilement.33 Their respective results are health and sickness, corresponding to their respective origins in the divine and the demonic. This is particularly evident in the material directly following the Debate with Appion. In the speeches of the seventh Homily and in the Tripolis cycle of sermons in Homilies 8-11, Peter argues that polytheism and idolatry defile both soul and body (e.g. 7.3.1-4; 9.9.1-4). Illness first came into the world with the shedding of defiling blood into the air by the ancient Giants (8.17.1-2). When their bodies were destroyed by the purifying waters of the Flood, their spirits lived on to become the demons who strive, even to this day, to enslave humankind (8.18.1–20.4). People who consume sacrificial meat are thus inviting demons to corrupt their souls and defile their bodies (e.g. 7.3.4; 8.19.1-20.4; 9.9.2). In the Debate with Appion, much the same is said of Greek paidiea: it has demonic origins, it conveys impurity, and it encourages impiety. Just as the antediluvian shedding of blood once defiled the air with illnesses that only baptism can heal, so the air is similarly defiled by the very breath of educated Greeks (4.18.3). In the Rec. 10.17-51, the language of defilement is used only in a sexual sense (e.g. in descriptions of Jupiter defiling goddesses and human women; 10.21-23). Passing references to demons occur at 10.27, 48; here, however, demons are identified with “pagan” deities, and no effort is made to draw any direct connection between demons and philosophy. 33 E.g. Hom. 7.2.3–4.5; 9.9.1-11.4, 22.1-23.2; A. Y. REED, «Fire, Blood, and Water: Demonology and Halakha in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies», paper presented at the American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, November 2003. 32 8 Another striking difference is the place of Judaism.34 In the tenth book of the Recognitions, we find the polemic against Hellenism, but Judaism is nowhere in sight. In Hom. 4-6, however, Clement’s critique of Greek philosophy, mythology, and education is framed as a defense of Jews and Judaism.35 For this, the Homilies may be ultimately indebted to a Hellenistic Jewish source. Nevertheless, it remains significant that the concern for Judaism is also present and important in the fourth-century redacted form of the Homilies. Perhaps most notable, in this regard, is the Homilies’ presentation of the tale of Clement’s boyhood trickery of Appion. Although the content of the tale focuses on the impieties inspired by Greek mythology, it is presented as Clement’s attempt to expose Appion’s anti-Judaism (5.2-3). Moreover, the association of Hellenism with anti-Judaism occasions the revelation of a connection to the broader plot: Appion’s anti-Judaism is presented as the true reason for this Alexandrian’s unholy alliance with Simon Magus.36 This concern is also consistent with the rest of the Homilies, which display more interest for Jews and Judaism than the Recognitions, as well as more traces of contacts with the Jews of their time.37 Baumgarten has convincingly One might also cite differences in their approaches to philosophy. In the Debate with Appion, the errors of Greek mythology are conflated with the errors of Greek philosophy. Not only do Greek myths foster impious deeds, but the most educated are the most wicked, and it is precisely the philosophers who belittle anyone who calls for piety. In the tenth book of the Recognitions, we find many of the same arguments about Greek mythology inspiring impious deeds. There, however, they are couched in a broader context wherein philosophy can also contribute to the cause of truth: Greek philosophy may be condemned for its empty sophistry and moral relativism, but at the same time aspects of philosophical authority are co-opted to enhance the intellectual and social prestige of Peter and his followers (see N. KELLEY, op. cit. [note 10], p. 36-81). The denunciation of Greek learning in the Debate with Appion is consistent with the more suspicious attitude towards philosophy in the Homilies as a whole. 35 I.e., note only does Clement defend the piety and rationality of Judaism against those Greeks who dismiss it as merely “barbarian” (4.7-8), but he defends the Jews against those who hate them, by suggesting that the true roots of anti-Judaism lie, not in any rational argument against Jewish doctrines, but rather in ethnic loyalties (e.g. Simon’s Samaritan origins; 5.2.4) and the fervor of unrestrained lust (e.g. Appion’s anger at the chastity of Jewish women and female proselytes to Judaism; 5.27). 36 Hom. 5.2.4: “But I was aware that the man exceedingly hated the Jews, and also that he had written many books against them, and that he had formed a friendship with this Simon—not through desire of learning but because he knew that he was a Samaritan and a hater of the Jews—and that he had come forth in opposition to the Jews; therefore he had formed an alliance with him so that he might learn something from him against the Jews.” Notable is the implication that Simon hates the Jews simply because he himself is a Samaritan; in effect, the dichotomy between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” is here framed in Jewish terms. 37 E.g. A. Y. REED, art. cit. (note 1), p. 218-24. 34 9 argued that some of the Pseudo-Clementine authors/redactors were aware of the Rabbinic doctrine of the Oral Torah and accepted the Sages’ claim to possess an oral tradition that went back to Moses.38 In a recent article, I further propose that the Homilies’ authors/redactors present apostolic succession as parallel to the transmission of truth from Moses to the Jews.39 Rather than focusing on differences between Jews and Christians, the Homilies depict them as united in the same goals: they seek to promote piety and to uproot the truth of monotheism in a world filled with demons, impurity, “heretical” lies, and polytheistic error.40 If this characterization of the Homilies’ concerns is correct, then the assertion of Appion’s alliance with Simon may serves to concretize its broader connection between Hellenism and “heresy,” on the one hand, and Judaism and Christianity, on the other.41 3. Homilies 4-6 and the redactors of the Homilies To understand the methods and aims of the Homilies’ redactional integration of the Debate material, it is also important to consider the location of the Debate with Appion within the Homilies’ distinctive arrangement of the PseudoClementine novel. Most scholars seem to hold that the Recognitions preserve the original location of this material, near the novel’s denouement.42 If so, then the redactional choice to move this material, in the Homilies, may shed light on the intentions of its authors/redactors. In its present location, Hom. 4-6 serves an important function, related to the relationship between Judaism and the religion of the True Prophet Jesus as Esp. Hom. 2.38; 3.18; A. BAUMGARTEN, art. cit. (note 4). A. Y. REED, art. cit. (note 18); also «The True Prophet in the Pseudo-Clementines: Prophethood, Apostolic Succession, and the Transmission of Truth», paper presented at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., June 2004. 40 E.g. Hom. 3.3, 18-19, 47, 51; 8.5–7; 11.7–16; 16.14; also Epistle of Peter to James 1.2-5. 41 The parallels with Hom. 4-6 are especially clear in Peter’s comments in Hom. 3.3.2-4.2: “To those from amongst the Gentiles who were about being persuaded with respect to the earthly images that they are no gods, he [i.e. Simon] has contrived to bring in opinions of many other gods in order that, even if they cease from their mania for polytheism, they may be deceived to speak otherwise and even worse than they now do, against the sole government of God… With us [i.e. the Jews], indeed, who have had handed down from our forefathers the worship of the God who made all things and also the mystery of the books that are able to deceive, he will not prevail. But with those from amongst the Gentiles – who have the polytheistic proclivity bred in them and who know not the falsehoods of the Scriptures – he will prevail much. Not only he – but if any other shall recount to those from among the Gentiles any vain, dreamlike, richly set out story against God, he will be believed, because from their childhood their minds are accustomed to take in things spoken against God.” 42 W. HEINTZE, op. cit. (note 14), p. 19; W. ADLER, art. cit. (note 14), p. 29; F. S. JONES, art. cit. (note 9), p. 61. 39 38 10 preached by Peter. The first three Homilies introduce the contrast between apostolic truth and its many pretenders and enemies. It is here that the Law of Syzygy is first revealed, whereby all of human experience is explained in starkly dichotomous terms, as a battle between true and false prophets (e.g. 2.15–18; 3.23–27). It is telling, in my view, that the Debate with Appion occurs directly after this discussion. In effect, the Homilies explore the contrast between truth and falsehood with reference to the contrast between Judaism and Hellenism. Likewise, on the other side, this material is framed by the seventh Homily, which expands upon the dichotomy of truth and falsehood with special reference to purity and ritual practice. The Tripolis sermons in Homilies 8-11 explore both sides of this dichotomy in terms of salvation history. The continuity between Judaism and Christianity—embodied by Clement’s defense of Judaism no less than Peter’s Jewish ethnicity—is here explained in terms of the equality and identity of Moses and Jesus (esp. 8.5-7; cf. Rec. 4.5).43 Moreover, the continuity between Hellenism and “heresy”—suggested by the reference to Appion’s alliance with Simon in the fifth Homily—is expanded with appeal to a genealogy of error that spans the whole of “pagan” religion and culture (e.g. 8.11-20; 9.2-18; 10.7-25; 11.12-15). In effect, the contrast between Hellenism and Judaism is thus brought to bear on the Homilies’ interpretation of human experience through the Law of Syzygy. The battle between the two is part of the perennial battle between the true prophecy, which proclaims the one God, and the false prophecy, which masquerades as its mirror image.44 Côté has shown how the rivalry between Simon and Peter is depicted as an instantiation of this broader dichotomy, explored along the lines of “orthodoxy” and “heresy.”45 Likewise, the debate between Clement and Appion becomes an exemplar of the same dichotomy in a different key, namely the conflict between Judaism and Hellenism. A path is laid for the affirmation of the continuity and common ground between Judaism and the true apostolic religion. See further A. Y. REED, art. cit. (note 1), p. 213-23. Clement’s role in this battle may be foreshadowed in the first Homily. In the Homilies’ version of the novel’s beginning, Clement abandons his philosophical education and his Roman home to chase after news of “a certain man in Judea… preaching to the Jews the kingdom of the invisible God” (1.4). His voyage to Judaea is here interrupted by an unplanned detour in Alexandria (1.8), which is unparalleled in the Recognitions. In the Homilies, this detour occasions Clement’s intervention in a public debate between philosophers and the Jewish Jesus-follower Barnabus (1.9-12)—thereby introducing the contrast between Alexandria and Judaea as geographical foci for competing claims to truth and presaging Clement’s own debate with the Alexandrian Appion. 45 D. CÔTÉ, op. cit. (note 12). 44 43 11 Explicit justification of these connections may be reflected in Homilies 11.16.2-4. This intriguing passage, which is unparalleled in the Recognitions, seeks to redefine “Jew” and “Greek” in a manner unconnected to ethnicity. The title “Jew,” we are told, is rightly used of anyone who is pious and follows the Law given to them. “Greek,” by contrast, can refer to anyone who is impious. In effect, the followers of Peter can be deemed “Jews” even if they are Gentiles, whereas the followers of Simon—and all “heretics” after them—are, in the final estimation, merely “Greeks.” By this reasoning, the battle between Judaism and Hellenism is a perennial one, which speaks to the struggle of the pious against the impious in all times and places. Conclusion Of course, the Homilies is hardly alone in connecting Hellenism and “heresy.” This connection was a commonplace in Christian heresiology.46 The Homilies, however, also embrace a complementary connection between Judaism and true Christianity. If Hom. 4-6 does indeed go back to a Hellenistic Jewish source, this connection could be explained with reference to a broader trend, namely, the redeployment of Hellenistic Jewish apologetics to address the challenges facing late antique Christians in a “pagan” culture. As part of the reconceptualization of Christian identity in the wake of the Edict of Milan, Christian authors such as Eusebius were actively integrating and recontextualizing the writings of Hellenistic Jews such as Artapanus, Eupolemus, Philo, and Josephus.47 In effect, Judaism is called as a witness in the debate against “paganism.” E.g. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 2.14.1-6; Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 7; Hippolytus, Ref. I, prooem. 8-9; Epiphanius, Pan. 5–8; A. LE BOULLEUC, La notion d’hérésie dans la literature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècle, Paris, 1985, vol. 2, p. 312-13; G. VALLEÉ, A study in anti-gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius (Studies in Christianity and Judaism I), Waterloo, Ontario, 1981, p. 48-51, 80-82. In stark contrast with the Homilies, Epiphanius posits Judaism as a “mother-heresy” as well; see further A. CAMERON, «Jews and heretics – a category error?», in A. H. BECKER – A. Y. REED (eds.), The ways that never parted, p. 356-59. 47 As exemplified, e.g., by Eusebius’ Preparatio evangelium. On his use of materials from Josephus’ writings, in particular, see G. HATA, «Eusebius and Josephus: The way Eusebius misused and abused Josephus», Patristica: Proceedings of the Colloquia of the Japanese Society for Patristic Studies, supp. 1 (2001), p. 49-66. The Pseudo-Clementines also stand in a long tradition of the “Jewish-Christian” collection and re-contextualization of earlier Jewish sources, as exemplified by the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs. One might also note the enduring place of the practices of redaction and collection in Jewish literary production, on which see e.g. D. STERN (ed.), The Anthology in Jewish Literature, Oxford, 2004. 46 12 Similarly, the Debate with Appion is pivotal to the Homilies’ efforts to present Christians and Jews as a united front in the fight against the demons and doctrinal error that are emblematized by “pagan” culture. To do so, however, the Homilies evoke an idealized image of an apostolic past in continuity with Judaism, in stark contrast to the triumphalism and supersessionism of late antique Christians such as Eusebius. Just as Jesus and Moses are said to express the same message, so non-Christian Jews like the Pharisees, Jewish apostles like Peter, and Gentile Christians like Clement are all united—against philosophers, astrologers, and “heretics”—in their belief in the One God. By virtue of the inclusion of the Debate with Appion, the Homilies depict Judaism’s perennial conflict with Hellenism as continued by all authentic Christians—including even Gentile Christians like the Greek-educated Roman Clement. From a modern perspective, this position may pleasantly irenic. In its late antique context, however, it would have been sharply polemic. The Homilies associate Greek paideia with demons, impiety, impurity, antiJudaism, and “heresy.” In the process, they dismiss a great many of their fellow Christians as merely “Greeks.” 13