484

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi 0.63/570070-343

vigiliae christianae 69 (05) 484-499

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Belittling or Undervaluing in 2 Clem. 1:1-2?Clare K. Rothschild

Lewis University5031 South Dorchester Ave.Chicago, IL 60615 U.S.A.

[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Second Clement suffers from a lack of clarity about its historical and literary contexts. The anonymous texts date and provenance have defied precise determination and, although it is referred to a few times in the history of tradition, it seems not to be cited at all. Moreover, its first two verses maintain a history of translation into modern lan-guages employing expressions long out of date. The word, occurs four times in the first two verses, twice as part of the expression, . This article identifies the outmoded nature of current translations of these words and proposes an updated translation that better reflects important new interpretations of the texts purpose, val-ues, and assumptions.

Keywords

2 Clement ancient patronage prologue translation

I Introduction

The Second Letter of Clements introductory exhortation employs the simple but ambiguous Greek adjective, alone and with the verb, four times in its first two verses. In the modern period, this passage suffers a history of translation disconnected from the exhortation which comprises most of the rest of the tractate. Few if any quotations of this text remain from antiquity, ruling out the possibility of consulting early readers for guidance.1

1 See Christopher Tuckett, 2 Clement: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (New York 2011) 10.

485Belittling or Undervaluing in 2 Clem. 1:1-2?


Furthermore, recent translations of these verses rely on those of the past and, thus, employ expressionsin, for example, English and Germanlong out of use. Convincing new research by James A. Kelhoffer suggests that 2 Clement borrows the Roman patron-client model to exhort its listeners.2 This essay pro-poses to update the translation of 2 Clem. 1:1-2 in keeping with recent discover-ies concerning the texts original purpose, values, and assumptions.

II Greek Text

The Greek text cited below is that of K. Bihlmeyer and W. Schneemelcher.3 Italics suggest a citation or possible citation. Where the text differs from Ehrman and Tuckett, discussion is provided in the notes.4 2 Clem. 1:1-2 reads:

1, , , 5 . 2 6 7 8 , , , .

Diagram 1 offers a structural outline of the text highlighting the four occur-rences of in 2 Clem. 1:1-2 as well as other noteworthy patterns in the passage.

2 Reciprocity as Salvation: Christ as Salvific Patron and the Corresponding Payback Expected of Christs Earthly Clients according to the Second Letter of Clement, New Testament Studies 59/3 (2013) 433-56.

3 Die apostolischen Vter (Tbingen 31970) 71-81.4 For this essay, I have consulted the commentaries of Lindemann, Pratscher, and others. Notes

5-8 refer to textual variants.5 A S; H.6 A; H.7 H S; A.8 S , . A H omit this three-word phrase. See discussion below, esp. n. 61.

486 Rothschild


A range of translations is possible for the four occurrences of . In the course of only two verses, it occurs twice with the verb, , once with the verb, , and once as the object of a preposition, . Generally speaking, the meaning of this adjective is very broad, possessing literal (small, short, temporary, and brief) or figurative (trivial and inconsequential) conno-tations, with a host of options in between. As the object of a verb, may also be qualitatively absorbed into the verbs translation. To think little, for example, becomes to belittle; to hope little becomes not to expect eagerly or not to expect enough.

DIAGRAM 1

1,

Principle positive injunction:I. ,

,

Principle negative injunction:II. .

A.2

B. ,

(1) , (a) (b) (c) , (d) .



III History of Interpretation

A variety of modern English and German translations of 2 Clement are avail-able today. The most widely used in English are the translations in the Loeb Classical Library (hereafter: LCL) series (Harvard University Press). The pres-ent discussion thus begins with Kirsopp Lakes LCL ET.9 Lake translates 2 Clem. 1:1-2 as follows:

Brethren, we must think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the Judge of the living and the dead and we must not think10 little of our salvation, for if we think little of him we also hope to obtain but little. And those who lis-ten as though it were a little matter are sinning, and we also are sinning, if we do not know whence and by whom, and to what place we were called, and how great sufferings Jesus Christ endured for our sake.11

Lakes translation has the advantage of consistency: and related forms are translated little whether adverbial, adjectival, or substantival.12 The downside of this approach is that, even in Lakes day, the expression to think little (i.e., not to esteem) was seldom used. Googles word-search database charts the highest occurrence rate of the expression think little between the years 1500 and 2014 in 1820.13 Usage significantly dropped off in both British

9 Prior to Lake, J.B. Lightfoot published a different ET: The Apostolic Fathers (London 1891) 44. See n. 22 for the text as it appears in the second edition of Lightfoot revised by Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI 21989) 68. Cf. Holmes own ET, discussed below.

10 Note that in the phrase, , the auxiliary verb of necessity (i.e., ), not the main verb (i.e., ), is negateda point that does not always come through in the English translations.

11 Kirsopp Lake, Apostolic Fathers 1 (Cambridge, MA/London 1985, 11912) 129. Lake notes the parallel to (2 Clem. 1:1) in Acts 10:42, but not 1 Pet 4:5.

12 In v. 2, Lake translates as singular: a little matter. This is not quite as strong as of little consequence, but that seems to be the gist. Rendering the plural as singular is perhaps insignificant from the standpoint of translation. Richardson and Graham trans-late it as singular whereas Holmes translates it as plural (small matters); see below.

13 In mid-December 2010, Google Labs released the Ngram Viewer, a word-search database created by Erez Aiden and Jean-Baptiste Michel and released. On use of the Ngram Viewer in Humanities fields, see E. Aiden and J.-B. Michel, Uncharted: Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture (New York 2013); http://books.google.com/ngrams/ ;http://books.google.com/ ngrams/info (05/16/13). For a recent response to the debate, see: http://www.newrepublic .com/article/117711/digital-humanities-have-immense-promise-response-adam-kirsh. This word-search database employs a phrase-usage tool that graphs the count of selected

488 Rothschild


and American English by 1912 when Lake translated 2 Clement. It has steadily declined since then to the point that it has all but dropped out on both sides of the Atlantic today.

More than forty years later in 1953, C.C. Richardson published the following English translation of the same text:

Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of Godas the judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle our salvation. For when we belittle him, we hope to get but little; and they that listen as to a trifling matter, do wrong. And we too do wrong when we fail to realize whence and by whom and into what circumstances we were called, and how much suffering Jesus Christ endured for us.14

Richardson translates with the verb, to belittle. Usage of this verb in British and American English likewise peaked around 1945.15 Furthermore, to belittle usually connotes active condescension. Synonyms include to dis-parage, to demean, and to put down. Such connotations are not present in 2 Clem. 1. On the contrary, this verse presumes that listeners value Jesus Christ and his salvation. It only states that should a believer (i.e., , 1:1) assess the value of either Jesus or his salvation too low, that person errs (), failing to fully appreciate ( ) the central tenets of the Christian faith

n-grams (i.e., letter combinations, words, and phrases) in over 5.2 million Google-digitized books published between 1500 and 2008. The database accesses 500 billion words in American English, British English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. (Italian words are counted by their use in other languages.) The Ngram tool offers the option to select among the source languages for word search operations. If an ngram is found in forty or more books, the Ngram Viewer plots its occurrence rate on a graph. Although, to my knowledge, this tool has not yet been applied to the analysis of biblical literature, it is ideal for translators seeking a check on the usage of individual words and idioms. To be sure, the effectiveness of a given translation is based on more than just occurrence rates within a single decade or generation. Translations of the texts of the Apostolic Fathers cater to a small, educated subset of the reading public able to make sense of even the most outdated translation. This should not, however, suggest that new translations routinely ignore questions of contemporaneity, accuracy, and effectiveness.

14 Early Christian Fathers (London 1953) 193.15 English: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=belittle&year_start=1700&year_

end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=(03/01/13); British English: http://books.google .com/ngrams/graph?content=belittle&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share= (03/01/13).



(i.e., from where, by whom, to where we are called and the extent of Jesus suffering).

In 1965, Holt H. Graham published the following English translation of this text:

Brethren, we ought to think of Jesus Christ just as we do of God, as the Judge of the living and the dead; nor ought we to belittle our salvation. For when we think little of him, we also hope to receive but little. As those who listen as if to a trifling matter sin, so do we when we do not recognize from what and by whom and into what we were called, and how much suffering Jesus Christ endured for us.16

Unlike Lake, Graham does not strive for consistency. Nevertheless, he alter-nates between the outdated expressions belittle ( ) in v. 1 and think little ( ) in v. 2, and translates as little in v. 2a, but trifling in v. 2b.

More recently (1992), Andreas Lindemann published a German translation of this text in his commentary in the HNT series on Clements letters. Similar to Lakes English translation above, it achieves consistency by utilizing gering (low, humble, small, little, slight, insubstantial, poor, scant, etc.) in every case, whether as adverb, adjective, or adjectival noun:

Brder, wir mssen von Jesus Christus so denken wie von Gott, wie vom Richter der Lebenden und Toten; und wir drfen nicht gering denken von unserer Rettung. Wenn wir nmlich gering von ihm denken, hoffen wir auch nur Geringes zu empfangen. Und die, die zuhren, als ginge es um etwas Geringes, sndigen. Auch wir sndigen, weil wir nicht wissen, von woher wir berufen worden sind und von wem und zu welchem Ort, und wieviel Jesus Christus um unseretwillen zu leiden auf sich genom-men hat.17

16 Robert M. Grant and Holt H. Graham, The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary 2 (New York 1965) 112.

17 Andreas Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe (Tbingen 1992) 199. The translation of Klaus Wengst (Schriften des Urchristentums 2 [Darmstadt 2004] 239) is similar, utilizing gering... denken and Geringes. Rudolf Knopfs GT adopts these same expressions (Die Lehre der Zwlf Apostel, die Zwei Clemensbriefe [Tbingen 1920] 154).

490 Rothschild


Like the English translations examined above, usage of the phrase gering den-ken has dropped off measurably since the nineteenth century.18

Commissioned to update the two LCL volumes of the Apostolic Fathers (2003),19 Bart Ehrmans translation of the passage is among the most widely cited today:

Brothers, we must think about Jesus Christ as we think about God, as about the judge of the living and the dead. And we must not give little thought to our salvation. For when we think little about him, we also hope to receive but little. And we who listen as if these were little things sin,20 not realizing where we have been called from, by whom, and to what place, nor how many sufferings Jesus Christ endured for us.

Ehrman achieves consistency across vv. 1 and 2 by translating as little whether it functions as an adverb (twice), adjective, or adjectival noun. Furthermore, Ehrman offers an example in English of interpreting the first (adverbial) occurrence of quantitatively rather than qualitatively: We ought to think often enough as opposed to estimate highly enough Jesus and salvation.21

In 1989, Michael W. Holmes updated the translation of the Apostolic Fathers by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer. This translation was paired with a Greek text in 1992, updated in 1999, appeared in a third edition in 2006 (without Greek text), and again in 2007 (with Greek text). Over the course of these editions, only minor translational changes were made to 2 Clem. 1:1-2.22 Holmes trans-lates belittle in v. 1b and 2a (first half), and little in v. 2a (second half). In v. 2b, however, he translates as small matters reminiscent of Lightfoots ET:23

18 http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gering+denken&year_start= 1700&year_end= 2008&corpus=20&smoothing=3&share= (02/25/12).

19 Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers 1 (Cambridge, MA, London 2003), 165.20 Ehrman follows mss A H here.21 On litotes (i.e., understatement) in this passage, see E. Baasland, Der 2. Klemensbrief und

frhchristliche Rhetorik: Die erste christliche Predigt, im Lichte der neueren Forschung, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt 2.27.1 (1993) 78-157.

22 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers (see n. 9). ET subsequently reprinted as: J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (ed. and trans.), The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI 1956). Diglot reprinted as: The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Greek Texts with Introductions and English Translations (Grand Rapids, MI 1984).

23 Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead. And we ought not to think mean things of our Salvation: for when we think mean



Brothers and sisters, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God, as judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle the one who is our salvation, for when we belittle him, we also hope to receive but little. And those who listen as though these are small matters do wrong, and we also do wrong, when we fail to acknowledge from where and by whom and to what place we were called, and how much suffering Jesus Christ endured for our sake.24

In his commentary for the Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vtern series, Wilhelm Pratscher provides a German translation of the text that is not identi-cal to Lindemanns translation (above), but is equally outdated with respect to the translation of . It employs the German expressions, gering denken and Geringes.

Brder, wir mssen ber Jesus Christus so denken wie ber Gott, wie ber den Richter der Lebenden und Toten. Wir drfen auch nicht gering denken ber unsere Rettung. Wenn wir nmlich ber ihn gering denken, hoffen wir auch nur Geringes zu erhalten. Selbst wenn wir nur zuhren, als ginge es um Geringes, sndigen wir, wenn wir nicht wissen, woher wir berufen worden sind, von wem, und zu welchem Ort, und wie viel Leiden Jesus Christus wegen uns auf sich genommen hat.25

Finally, Christopher Tuckett26 recently published a text and translation in the Oxford Apostolic Fathers series (2012).27 Tucketts translation resembles Lakes insofar as little translates every occurrence of (i.e., with or with-out the verb).

Brothers, we must think of Jesus Christ as we think of God, as the judge of the living and the dead; and we must not think little of our salvation. For if we think little about him, we also hope to receive little. And we who listen as though it were something little are sinning if we do not know

things of Him, we expect also to receive mean things. And they that listen as concerning mean things do wrong; and we ourselves do wrong, no knowing whence and by whom and unto what place we were called, and how many things Jesus Christ endured to suffer for our sakes. What recompense then shall we give unto Him?

24 Apostolic Fathers, 139.25 Der zweite Clemensbrief (Gttingen 2007) 65, 66-69.26 Tuckett accepts A H reading.27 Tuckett, 2 Clement, 85, 127-32.

492 Rothschild


where we were called from, and by whom, and to what place, and how much Jesus Christ endured sufferings for us.

Summarizing the investigation thus far, we are able to see that more recent translations of the first two verses of 2 Clement rely on past translations, employing expressions that are no longer idiomatic in either English or German. Newly available word-search databases allow us to categorically demonstrate this claim, demanding revision of translations striving to remain effective for contemporary audiences.

IV 2 Clement: Recent Investigations

In order to accurately update current translations of 2 Clem. 1:1-2, recent inves-tigations of the texts original purpose, values, and assumptions must be con-sulted. In an article published in 2013, James A. Kelhoffer argues that the Roman patron-client relationship is the model for the relationship between Christ and believers in 2 Clement.28 Three central observations inform his thesis: (1) presentation of Christ (also God) as salvific benefactor and patron (1:4);29 (2) believers obligation to give repayment (, 2 Clem. 1:3, 5; 9:7; 15:2) to Christ;30 and, (3) orthopraxis as the acceptable response to divine benefi-cence. Each point is addressed in turn.

28 Kelhoffer argues first (following Saller, Neyrey, Osiek and MacDonald) that patronage continued to have a central importance under the Principate. Thus, it is plausible that an early Christian author could allude to the patronage system and expect that his audience would comprehend the allusion. Second, Sallers three vital elements of a patronage rela-tionshipreciprocal exchange, a personal and enduring relationship, and an asymmet-rical relationship between parties of unequal status are readily ascertained in 2 Clement (Reciprocity as Salvation, 434-38, citing Richard P. Saller from Personal Patronage under the Early Empire [Cambridge 1982]). Cf. David Briones, Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3-11, New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 536-56. For other background of Kelhoffers argument, see Jerome H. Neyrey, God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2005) 465-92; Carolyn Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the Ways, Biblical Theology Bulletin 39 (2009) 143-52; eadem, Diakonos and Prostatis: Womens Patronage in Early Christianity, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61 (2005) 347-70.

29 Reciprocity as Salvation, 433.30 N.B. this idea is reiterated twice in the prologue at 2 Clem. 1:3 and 5.



As Kelhoffer acknowledges, 2 Clement is distinctive for presenting Christ (and God) as in the first line of the tractate (2 Clem. 1:1).31 Complementing this characterization, v. 4 offers a simile, like a father, he greets us as sons ( , 1:4b) followed by a soteriological formula: Christ saved us while we were perishing ( , 1:4c).32 Kelhoffer argues persuasively that both the simile and the soteriological affir-mation refer to Christ.33 Immediately after the simile and soteriological affir-mation in 1:5, (occurring for the second time in the first five verses of the tractate) expresses how believers must repay Christ who as patron () saved them. occurs five times in 2 Clement.34 Four of the occur-rences (1:3, 5; 9:7; and 15:2) designate a believers obligation to Christ (or God).35 The final occurrence (11:6) designates repayments (perhaps better: rewards) God grants to individuals for their good works ().36

By imparting to Christ the role of patron, 2 Clement blurs the modal bound-aries of God and Christ. God does not suffer except as Christ; except as God Christ is not judge and does not repay individuals for good works. These dif-ferent roles or capacities of a single deity explain why 2 Clements audience

31 An understanding of God as is attested in Hebrews, James, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Acts of the Apostles, James, Second Timothy, and Polycarps Letter to the Philippians offer the only other references to Christ as in early Christian literature (Reciprocity as Salvation, 438). Kelhoffer notes that James presents both God (Jas 4:12) and Christ (5:9b) as (438).

32 Cf. juxtaposition of same two verbs in 2 Cor 2:15.33 Kelhoffer, Reciprocity as Salvation, 439.34 What is unusual in 2 Clem. 1:5and, in fact, unattested in the NT or elsewhere in the

Apostolic Fathersis a concept of payment () that believers owe to Christ. The use of in the genitive case with ( , 1.5) underscores this dis-tinctive, if not unique, use of , as compared with other early Christian literature. Believers have a recurring obligation to give Christ payment () in return for what he has given them (Kelhoffer, Reciprocity as Salvation, 440-41). One should note, how-ever, that, generally speaking, has a strong dimension of obligation: humans owe the gods honor, worship, sacrifices and service because of the benefits they receive from the divinities, and the failure to fulfill this obligation is . Cf. Rom 12:1. See Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA 1985) 272-75.

35 2 Clem. 1:3, 5; 9:7 (the healing god); 15:2 (the god who created us).36 (For

the one who has promised to reward each according to his deeds is faithful (ET: Ehrman); cf. Heb 10:23, Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful.

494 Rothschild


can owe repayment for salvation37 to a judge and patron, rather than a savior.38 God-Christ has rescued the client and repayment is due. If the payment is not made, God-Christ as patron may abdicate the patron-client agreement and, as judge, condemn the client in arrears.

Kelhoffers third argument is that most of the rest of 2 Clement outlines ethi-cal behaviors pertaining to this patron-client relationship. These behaviors constitute the terms of the agreement.39 He explains the texts exhortation in terms of patronagewhat is owed by the addressees for the tremendous acts of grace offered by God and Christ. One of the most important overall contri-butions of Kelhoffers article is how the proposed patron-client model con-nects the body of the tractate to its opening lines, in particular vv. 3 and 5. The aim of this article is to extend Kelhoffers argument to the interpretation and translation of in vv. 1 and 2.

V The Prologue of 2 Clement in Context

In order to update current translations, all aspects of its literary context must also be examined. Diagram 1 (above) offers a chart of 2 Clements first two verses highlighting correspondences. 2 Clem. 1:1-2 is an introductory exhorta-tion. The tractate begins by placing an obligation on the audience (), using the auxiliary verb, . The injunction concerns Jesus identity: We must think about Jesus as God, specifically, as judge of the living and the dead.40

37 With Kelhoffer, the verb in 2 Clement, similar to certain deutero-Pauline letters, seems to imply that salvation is already granted or completed (Reciprocity as Salvation, 439-40). If so, it is understandable that believers owe repayment.

38 Although God-Christ is judge, he is savior also, and it is to this latter entity/identity that believers owe repayment. 2 Clement, thus, depicts a complex reciprocal relationship between patron and clients insofar as the dominant entity exists in more than one onto-logical mode. The paradigm stems from the Hebrew Bible in which God plays multiple roles for the Israelites, with the result that legality and morality are mixed. In addition to legal proscriptions, God mandates moral behavior (e.g., love of God [Deut 6:5] and neigh-bor [Lev 19:18]) only examinable in a divine court by a heavenly judge.

39 Kelhoffer, Reciprocity as Salvation, 447-54. Perhaps 2 Clement is mapping the patron/client relationship onto the Jewish concept of covenant.

40 The exhortation to regard Jesus as God seems to have been popular among some Monophysite Syriac writers. See Tuckett, 2 Clement, 10.



Since 2 Clement prioritizes scriptural proof-texts,41 the epithet, also applied to Jesus in Acts 10:4242 (cf. 1 Pet 4:5)43may consti-tute a proof-text for the authors high Christological position.44

The second sentence in v. 1 balances the first with a negative injunction ( ). The crucial expression in this sentence is .45 The verb, can mean to have an opinion with regard to something, think, form/hold an opinion, judge.46 With a neuter adjective it means to have...thoughts for or toward any one47 or (adverbially) to be minded so and so, think or pur-pose, either such and such things or in such and such a way.

also has a variety of possible meanings. It may be adjectival or adverbial referring to (1) time (e.g., infrequently, slightly, brief);48 (2) size, stature, or age (e.g., small, short, young);49 (3) amount (e.g., little, small);50 or

41 According to Photius (Bib. 126), even in antiquity skepticism existed concerning certain sayings introduced in 2 Clement as scriptural but not found in the OT or NT. See Tuckett, 2 Clement, 11-12.

42 .

43 . Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Minneapolis, MN 1996) 286. 1 Peter threatens its audience with judgment by the one standing ready. See Eduard Lohse, Christus als Weltenrichter, in G. Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: FS Hans Conzelmann (Tbingen 1975) 475-86. Scriptural citations in 2 Clement are a complicated issue; for an up-to-date treatment, see Tuckett, 2 Clement, 34-46.

44 Also, cf. Acts 17:31, in which Jesus is appointed (as in Acts 10:42) to judge the world. For the formula, living and dead, cf. Matt 22:32.

45 Since no obvious analogous construction exists in Hebrew, it does not appear to be a Semitism. The expression may in certain cases, however, approximate the Greek verb . See e.g., Isocrates, Orat. 9 (58.6).

46 BDAG 1065 s.v. , 1.47 LSJ s.v. , II.2.a.48 Cf. 2 Clem. 5:5, , ,

, , ; 6:6, , , , , (brief).

49 Size, stature: e.g., Luke 19:3, , ; age: e.g., Matt 18:6, , ; cf. Matt 18:10, 14; 1 Cor 13:11, .

50 Amount: e.g., Luke 12:32, , , .

496 Rothschild


(4) importance (e.g., trivially, unimportantly, pettily, frivolously, cheaply).51 2 Clement uses words derived from the - stem in three ways. First, is paired with (, 6:6) in 2 Clem. 5:5 and 6:6, implying something temporally brief. Second, citing Luke 16:10-12, connotes ethi-cal behaviors of importance to salvation in 2 Clem. 8:5. Finally, expresses litotes in 2 Clem. 15:1b and 16:1-2.52 2 Clem. 15:1b claims not to have offered insig-nificant advice and anticipates not an insignificant reward for doing so:

There is no small reward for the one who converts a person who is going astray toward destruction that he may be saved.53 (2 Clem. 15:1; ET: Ehrman)

Similarly, 2 Clem. 16:1-2 declares that a Christians opportunity to repent is not trivial:

So then, brothers, since we have received no trivial opportunity to repent, we should turn back to the God who called us, while there is still timewhile, that is, we still have one who accepts us.54 (2 Clem. 16:1-2; ET: Ehrman)

Returning to the prologue, the parallelism of 2 Clem. 1:1 suggests the interpre-tation: we ought to regard Jesus in this way, that is, as God and judge of all humankind; we ought not to regard our salvation (possibly Jesus personified as our Salvation) in that way, that is, as . Although the nature of the con-trast between God-judge and is not immediately apparent, it potentially points to Jesus in the role of God.55

Ambiguities multiply in v. 2a, which echoes , perhaps as a catch phrase. Unless an elided (i.e., ) is implied (in which case, is understood in relationship to the main verb), then the object of

51 Importance: 2 Clem. 15:1a, , , , ; cf. also e.g., Matt 10:42, , , .

52 If 2 Clem. 1:1-2 should be understood as litotes, Sophocles, Ajax 1120 offers a parallel: (The bowman seems to feel no little grandeur; ET: Jebb, 1907). LSJ s.v. , A.I.4, feel by experience, know full well.

53 .54 , , ,

, .55 See Tuckett, 2 Clement, 68-72.



shifts from to Jesus (i.e., ): And we must not give little thought to our salvation. For when we think little about him... (ET: Ehrman).56 The negative consequence of in v. 2a is hoping to receive ( ), although it is not clear why such a con-sequence is necessarily negative. V. 2b describes a parallel to the problem: one must neither , nor (i.e., ). Those who listen , err ()57 by failing to appreciate ( , not knowing or acknowledging the value of): (1) from where, by whom, and to where they have been called; and, (2) the quantity of sufferings Jesus endured to make such a calling possible.

Summarizing this sections four observations: (a) and in v. 1a and v. 1b are contrasting expressions, positive, , negative; (b) has essentially the same meaning in v. 1b and v. 2a; (c) refers to an error related to ; and (d) subsequent references to in v. 2b also allude to a related and mistaken approach.

VI Proposed English Translation

With these delimiting factors in mind, an English translation can now be pro-posed. Accepting an epistolary situation of ancient patronage for 2 Clement,58 translation of the opening verses of the tractate may now be updated. Rather than warning believers against thinking little of or belittling Jesus and salvation, v. 1a exhorts addressees to estimate, reckon, or value Jesus as God and judge and, thus, not to underestimate, undervalue, or devalue sal-vation. Low value assessments of either Jesus or salvationestimating, for example, that salvation cost Jesus little or affords believers insignificant rescue or rewardis based on wrong information about items affecting value and misrepresents a believers assets and liabilities. By undervaluing assets (e.g., ), believers underestimate corresponding liabilities (e.g., ).

56 The parallel relationship depicted between Jesus and in this passage recollects that of Jesus and the in the Johannine prologue. It is possible that Our Salvation is an epithet for Jesus.

57 Cf. the textual variant . Greek mss A and C read but the Syriac ms (S) reads: , . See discussion in Tuckett (2 Clement, 130), to whom A and C seem more original.

58 The patronage is not necessarily Roman. With Kelhoffer, only basic patronageencom-passing both the Greek and Roman contextsis presupposed. See Osiek, Politics of Patronage, 143-52.

498 Rothschild


Careful review of the datafrom where, by whom, to what place they have been called, and how much Jesus endured for their sakeshows that every believers debt is significant. Expressing utter incredulity over the steepness of this debt, 2 Clem. 1:5 exclaims: ; (What praise, then, or what reward can we pay him in exchange for what we have received?) Although this debt model apparently conflicts with Pauls insistence on the sufficiency of grace (e.g., 2 Cor 12:9),59 it is the imperative behind all orthopraxis in 2 Clement.

In light of these arguments, the following English translation is proposed:

Brothers and sisters, we must regard Jesus Christ as God, namely as judge of the living and the dead. Correspondingly, we must not undervalue our salvation.60 For when we undervalue him, we likewise61 underestimate ( )62 what we will receive from him (i.e., salvation).63 Those who listen [to vital things] as if [they are] trivial sinand we sin if we fail to appreciate64 from where, and by whom, and to what place we were called, and just how much suffering Jesus Christ endured for our sake.65

Thus, utilizing the two words and separately and together, the prologue of 2 Clement sets out the patron-client relationship as a model for Christian belief and practice. Although the obligations of each party are mutual according to this model, the relationship is hierarchical. Believers

59 This conflict with Pauls ideal may in part explain relative unpopularity of 2 Clement.60 Or perhaps: Our Salvation (i.e., as epithet); cf. 1:7a; 17:5.61 To express simultaneity: LSJ s.v. , A.III.3.62 Deem, suppose that with regard to statements of future events, LSJ s.v. , I.A.3:

; Lys. 31.27; ... D.4.7. With the aorist infinitive the verb may be translated: expect. This phrase may intentionally echo Luke 6:34.

63 (underestimate) is parallel to (undervalue). Prepositional phrase is bivalent, performing a role in prior and subsequent phrase.

64 The above text reflects the Syriac manuscript (S). Whereas the Syriac inserts , after and before , Alexandrinus (A) and Hierosolymitanus (H) possess only (so: ). The relative strength of the two readings is similar. Although the manuscript evidence for the short reading is stron-ger (and perhaps the 1st person plural verb, following subject, is the lectio difficilior), the additional three-word string of text appears to have been acci-dentally omitted by homoioarcheton; that is, the copyists eye skipped from to inadvertently omitting the intervening text.

65 I wish to express thanks to the anonymous reader at VC for critical feedback on this translation.



assessing (i.e., ) Jesus too lowthat is, as less than Goddevalue their salvation, the reward awaited, the cost assumed to make such a transac-tion possible, and the obedience owed (i.e., ).66 As a part of the intro-duction, the first two verses pique curiosity with a warning: do not devalue Christ; rather, acknowledge him as a judge who will see to it that breaches of his commandments (i.e., orthopraxis of this tractate, 17:6) are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

VII Conclusion

Newly available word-search databases categorically demonstrate that even the most recent translations of the first two verses of 2 Clement in both English and German employ expressions long out of use today. A recent investigation establishing the Roman patron-client relationship as a model for the relation-ship between Christ and believers in this work recommends that updated translations take this conclusion into account. When outdated expressions are replaced with current ones more accurately reflecting the texts original pur-pose, values, and assumptions, the first two verses very effectively set the stage for the upcoming tractate.

66 This equation is clearly defined in synonymously parallel questions a and c of v. 1:3: (a) What then shall we give to him in exchange? (c) And how many holy deeds do we owe him?

Documents

484