One of the remarkable peculiarities of 2 Clement is the degree to which
its reception has been determined by the reception of the books that
surround it. Its imagined aim, its purported theology, even its very name, are
the product of a series of associations and assumptions by early and
later influential Christian readers. The history of its interpretation
points to the effects of reading a text within a corpus—whether it be
the dual corpus of 1 and 2 Clement, the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers,
or the imagined corpus of burgeoning orthodoxy. Certainly there is
nothing inherently problematic with reading 2 Clement alongside 1
Clement, the Didache, Polycarp, etc., so long as we are
abundantly self-reflective of the assumptions we make by entertaining
this proximity. In this paper, I trace several shifts that occur in a
reading of 2 Clement when it is detached from the theological
expectations that are implicit in the sort of anti-Gnostic, orthodox
model of 2nd century Christianity that is often attributed to
the texts of the Apostolic Fathers. With such adjustments in historical
expectations come striking changes to the way that other key
theological components within 2 Clement are represented: repentance,
salvation, the nature of evil, etc. The result is a revised illustration
of early Christian history: unruly, unpredictable, unstable, and
grounded in the sort of entangled materiality that early generations of
scholars were anxious to transcend.
No comments:
Post a Comment