Do you think the recognitions of Clement is an authentic work from Clement of Rome? I personally always have, and read it regularly. I know some scholars say it is spurious, but then again, they're the same people who believe the gospels were written after 70 AD. Okay, for our listeners who aren't familiar with the recognitions of Clement, it's an early Christian work that's contained in volume 8 of the ante-Nicene Fathers.
It purports to be a letter written by Clement of Rome and addressed to James, the brother of Jesus. It relates events that, if true, took place in the early years of Acts. Most of the work concerns the debate between Peter and Simon Magus. So do I believe it was written by Clement of Rome? Actually, I don't. The reason is this. If this work were actually written by Clement, then we should all regard it as Scripture. I mean, if it's an authentic work, it's a priceless addition to the Book of Acts.
But if everything in it were true, then we would find that the recognitions of Clement was being treated as scripture by the early Christians. At a minimum, it would have been listed among the disputed books when they were considering which books of the New Testament should go into the canon. But the recognition of Clement never even enters into any of the debates. It's not on the list of disputed books. It's not there anywhere. So in the end, all we have is one brief quotation from the recognitions by Origen.
And that's it from the ante-Nicene writers. And Origen quotes from a wide range of works in his writings other than Scripture, so the fact he quotes it doesn't prove anything. Now, like you, I pay little attention to what the liberal German scholars say. Rather, what convinces me about it is the fact that this work is not widely quoted by the early Christians. In fact, like I say, we have just one quote.
If it had truly been written by Clement of Rome, it would have been widely circulated because he was really well respected in the early church. Now, having said that, this work is obviously an authentic writing of the early church, probably from the second century. This is established not only because Origen quoted from it, but also from the theology in it. For example, in it, we see a discussion of the Father and the Son. And what it says is the standard pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.
Now, Rufinus, who lived at the end of the fourth century, he translated this work into Latin, and he purposefully distances himself from what it says about the Trinity, because it doesn't fit the post-nicene teachings of Rufinus' day. So it's definitely a pre-nicene work. We can tell from that. And since Origen quotes from it, we know it was written before the year 250 AD.
Now, what we don't know, of course, is who wrote it, and whether the unknown author was trying to represent it or pass it off as an authentic work of Clement, or whether he was writing it as historical fiction and intended that his audience would receive it just as a work of historical fiction. And I'm going to be charitable and assume it's the latter.
So what we have in this work is a discussion of many of the early Christian doctrines, particularly refutations of Gnostic teachings, that are fictitiously placed in the setting of the first year or two of Acts, with Clement being there along with Barnabas and Peter and others. Now, the only teaching I caught in this writing that's not typical early Christian doctrine is the representation in it that Peter and the other early Christians wouldn't eat a meal with an unbaptized person.
Now, that's definitely not a New Testament teaching, nor is it a teaching we find in the pre-Nicene writings. But other than that, unless I miss something, everything else seems to square up with early Christian doctrine. So, yeah, it's an interesting work to read.
No materials available for this lesson.