A Reception of Pauline Ideas Shaped by a Jewish Milieu: The Case of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies

Abstract

This essay focuses on the reception of Pauline ideas in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, commonly dated to the early fourth century. At first, the claim that the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies contain Pauline ideas may seem surprising, since the Homilies are commonly considered “Jewish Christian” and thus anti-Pauline. However, new readings of Paul generated by the “Paul within Judaism” perspective, along with new insights on the Homilies, reveal that the latter work seems to contain Pauline ideas not preserved in other receptions of Paul. The Homilies share with Paul the following traits and ideas: (1) like Paul, the Homilies distinguish between Jews and non-Jews (the term “Christian” never appears) and, like Paul, the Homilies’ teachings about law address gentiles and prescribe a kind of Judaism for them; (2) gentiles must adapt to a Jewish lifestyle and keep the commandments that the Torah prescribes for non-Israelites; (3) Jews and Jesus-oriented gentiles together make up the people of God (called theosebeis in the Homilies), but the distinction between them remains. They have equal status in the eyes of God but differences in their observance of the law remain. An important point where the Homilies deviate from Paul is their insistence that Jews do not necessarily need Jesus. For the Homilies, Jesus is primarily the teacher of gentiles, and they envision two parallel paths to salvation: Moses for Jews and Jesus for gentiles. This essay suggests that the Homilies’ understanding of ideas that we recognize as Pauline developed in a milieu marked by the presence of non-Jesus-oriented (rabbinic) Jews.

At first, the suggestion that the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies can be understood as a reception of Pauline ideas may seem surprising, since the Homilies are commonly considered to belong to a “Jewish Christian” tradition and thus are assumed to be anti-Pauline. However, the notion that the Homilies are anti-Pauline rests on a few vague allusions, which disparage experiencing Jesus in visions or dreams as opposed to learning directly from a teacher (Hom. 17.13–19),1 and on a reading in light of the Epistula Petri, a brief text of unknown date that prefaces the Homilies and claims to be written by Peter to James.2 In the Epistula, Peter complains that “some among the gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching, of the man who is my enemy”.3 He also claims that his message is being distorted and that gentiles aretaught in his name that they need not keep the law (Ep. Pet. 2). The reference to “the one who is my enemy” is commonly understood as an allusion to Paul and seems to reflect the fact that he was associated with the idea of a “law-free gospel” already early on. This is clear from Acts, whose author is anxious to repudiate rumors, according to which, Paul was teaching Jews in the diaspora not to observe the law and circumcise their sons (Acts 21:20–24). It is possible that the Epistula reflects a similar (mis)understanding of Paul among Jesus-oriented Jews, which the author of Acts is concerned to correct.4 It is unclear if the Epistula Petri was composed as an introduction to the Grundschrift (the Homilies’ main early-third century source), to the Homilies, or to something else entirely,5 but either way, it likely had an impact on the way the Homilies have been read.

The text of the Homilies itself never mentions Paul by name or engages with his writings, and its account of the early Jesus movement presents Peter—not Paul—as the apostle to the gentiles (cf. the first part of Acts). Interestingly, Peter’s teachings to the gentiles in the Homilies correspond closely to Paul’s as they emerge in the latter’s undisputed letters. Thus, if we consider the possibility that the idea that Paul preached a “law-free gospel” is a misunderstanding of Paul—albeit one that goes back to his own time—and refrain from letting the term “Jewish Christian” define the Homilies, distinct similarities between the Homilies and Paul begin to emerge, at least as Paul is understood from the scholarly approach known as the “Paul within Judaism” perspective.6 The key insight here is that Paul is primarily concerned with the question of how gentiles can be saved and that he addresses non-Jews, not humankind in general, as was assumed in much of earlier scholarship. In his view, Jews and baptized gentiles within the Jesus movement continue to be distinguished from one another through differences in their observance of the Torah, even as they are united in their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. The Homilies likewise focus on gentiles, and on the narrative level the text’s teachings about the law are always addressed to non-Jews. However, the Homilies do not associate these teachings for gentiles with Paul but with Peter.

To be sure, the Homilies deviate from Paul in several respects, most notably in their insistence that Jews can be saved apart from Jesus,7 but contrary to their assumed anti-Pauline stance, this essay suggests that the Homilies preserve a blueprint for the salvation of gentiles and their inclusion in a Jewish sphere that is quite similar to Paul and Acts. The way this model is developed in the Homilies, accommodating non-Jesus-oriented Jews and strongly emphasizing that gentile followers of Jesus belong together with Jewish followers of Moses, would seem to indicate a social context where Jesus-oriented gentiles entertained a close and friendly relationship not only with Jesus-oriented Jews but also with Jews who did not embrace Jesus as the Messiah. In short, the Homilies may give us an idea of how a Pauline theology might have evolved had it not been largely disconnected from Jews and Judaism already early on.

1. Jewish Teachings for Non-Jews in the Homilies

Based on a no longer extant third-century source, the Homilies were redacted in the early fourth century, probably in Antioch or Edessa.8 Its lost source, known among scholars as the Grundschrift, was composed in the form of a Hellenistic novel that tells the story of the life of Clement (later to succeed Peter as bishop of Rome), a member of a Roman noble family who comes to reject the philosophical schools in favor of belief in the one God, and his subsequent travels with the apostle Peter.9 Because of the emphasis on the importance of the law and Moses, the concern with purity and ritual ablutions before meals and prayer, the prohibition from eating with unbaptized pagans, and the affirmation that Pharisaic tradition derives from Moses, this author is often assumed to have been a “Jewish Christian” (see Jones 2012). Within the framework of the novel about Clement’s life, the Homilies give an account of the early Jesus movement’s mission to the gentiles, headed by Peter. Together, Clement and Peter travel from Caesarea to Antioch and along the way, Peter addresses the pagan inhabitants of the coastal cities in public homilies (hence the title of the Homilies), urging them to abandon worship of many gods:

I [Peter] am going forth to the nations [ethnē] which say that there are many gods, to teach and to preach that God is one, who made heaven and earth, and all things that are in them, in order that they may love Him and be saved.

(Hom. 3.59.2)

The Homilies are profoundly shaped by Greco-Roman culture and philosophical traditions, and Peter speaks and acts like a true philosopher (Jedan 2010; Barnes 2008). At the same time, the redactor(s) vehemently polemicizes against Greek myths and paideia, all of which were seen as encouraging impiety (Côté 2015; Reed 2008a). In place of philosophy, the Homilies advocate belief in one God and prophecy as the only reliable source of knowledge. In addition to his/her profound familiarity with Graeco-Roman philosophical ideas, the redactor(s) also had in-depth knowledge of Christian tradition as well as some specifically rabbinic ideas, which would seem to suggest a milieu that included pagans and “Christians” as well as rabbinic Jews (Jones 2012, p. 495; Reed 2007, esp. 229).

The Homilies portray Peter as an authoritative eyewitness interpreter of the words and deeds of Jesus, and, as such, his interpretation is presented as both more ancient and more authoritative than the gospels. As shown by Patricia Duncan, the strategy of portraying the early Jesus movement through the eyes of Peter gives the redactor(s) the opportunity to revise parts of the gospel accounts and anchor his/her own ideas about the relationship between gentile followers of Jesus and Jewish followers of Moses in the early apostolic period (Duncan 2017, pp. 24–26, 66, 92, 119–21). The message conveyed is that there is a strong continuity between the teachings of Jesus and those of Moses, and that gentile followers of Jesus belong together with Jewish followers of Moses. With Jesus, the most recent incarnation of the Prophet of truth,10 pagans are given the chance to escape from the evil powers under which they are enslaved and acquire the ability to live according to God’s law, privileges which had previously been reserved for Jews only.

The redactor(s) of the Homilies does not identify as either Jewish or Christian. Instead, he/she adopts the term theosebeis (God-fearers) and defines it as all those who worship one God and observe his law (13.4.2; cf. 7.8.1–2).11 By this definition, all Jews are theosebeis whether they embrace Jesus as the Messiah or not. For the Homilies, theosebeis constitute a superordinate entity that includes Ioudaioi/Hebraioi (Jews/Hebrews) and baptized ex-pagans as distinct subgroups united in their adherence to the one God against the ethnē/Hellenes (nations/Greeks), who worship many gods. As the Homilies use ethnē exclusively to denote non-Jesus-oriented outsiders who worship many gods, it is best translated into English as “pagans”.12 In addition to signaling a focus on worship of the one God rather than adherence to Jesus, the Homilies’ choice of theosebeis as the self-designation seems to have signaled a connection with Judaism. Synagogue inscriptions from Sardis, Philadelphia, Tralles, Lydia, and Aphrodisias suggest that in Jewish contexts, the term theosebēs was preferred over eusebēs, perhaps because it pointed more directly to worship of the one God and the rejection of idolatry (Robert 1964, pp. 39–45; Lieu 1995, pp. 483–501, esp. 493–97; Jones 2012, pp. 150–51). Interestingly, the word christianoi never appears in the Homilies, quite possibly signaling disagreement with groups who called themselves Christian (Duncan 2017, p. 18).

Members of the ethnē who turn to the one God, elsewhere defined as “the God of the Jews” (Hom. 16.7.1,3,5, 16.14.4) are baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” (Hom. 8.22.6; cf. 7.8.1; 17.7.1), an initiation rite in which they are purified from the pollutions of idolatry and the sinful nature intrinsic to all who worship many gods (Hom. 7.8.1, 9.23.2, 13.4.3). The Homilies share with Paul a very negative assessment of the situation of the ethnē, seen as “impure in body and soul” (8.22.2), subject to the power of demons in this world, and destined for destruction in the next (cf. the list of gentile sins in Rom 1:18–32).13 The worship of many gods is understood to spur evil behavior, resulting in corruption and pollution that go so deep as to affect the very nature of pagans. Immersion in water (baptism) is perceived as a rebirth through which they are transformed from ethnē to theosebeis and acquire a new origin and lineage (genesis), enabling them to observe God’s law (11.26.1). Purified and transformed in nature, baptized ex-pagan theosebeis acquire a status equal to that of Jews and become “heirs of eternal blessings” (Hom. 9.23.3), “sons of God”, and “heirs of the eternal kingdom” (Hom. 10.25.4). For these ex-pagans, ethnē is an identity left behind, but they remain non-Jews, and the Homilies uphold a distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish theosebeis. That ex-pagans do not become Jews is indicated by the fact that there is no mention of circumcision of males and that they are obligated to observe only those laws that the Jewish scriptures consider binding also upon non-Israelites, as outlined in Lev 17–20. Observance of the Torah for Jews is assumed but never discussed in detail, probably because the Homilies’ intended audience were pagans and/or ex-pagan theosebeis, but presumably also because the redactor(s) did not envision any changes for Jews in this regard. Whereas ex-pagan theosebeis abandon their gods and ancestral customs and are reborn into the family of the god of the Jews, Jews remain committed to the worship of their ancestral God and the observance of his law. Although not explicitly stated, it can be deduced from the fact that Jews are presented as a model for proper piety and worship (Hom. 4.13.4, 7.4.3, 9.16.1, 16.4.4–5), and is further supported by the fact that Peter is presented as both a theosebēs and a Jew and is described as following Jewish customs.14

Baptized ex-pagans, by contrast, are obligated only by those commandments that the early Jesus movement considered binding upon non-Jewish members, based on what the Jewish scriptures prescribe for non-Israelites. In the Homilies’ version, they must abstain from “the table of demons, that is, from food offered to idols” (eidōlothutōn),15 from carrion (nekrōn), suffocated animals (pniktōn), animals torn by wild beasts (thērialōtōn), and from blood (haimatos). In addition, they must cease to “live impurely” and wash after intercourse, and women must “keep the law of purification” (Hom. 7.8.1–3). These commandments appear to be an extended version of the laws of the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15:19–20, 29 but echo the laws in Lev 17–18 and 15 more closely than Acts.16 The close correspondence with Leviticus, and the concern with sexual and menstrual purity in particular, have been understood to reflect a “Jewish Christian” perspective, but given that several church fathers explicated the commandments of the Apostolic Decree in light of Leviticus in much the same way as the Homilies,17 and that washing after sexual relations and menstrual separation were embraced by many gentile Christians,18 the assumption that such practices indicate the existence of a specific form of “Jewish Christianity” separate from gentile forms of Christianity seems to obscure rather than clarify things. We do not know if the redactor(s) of the Homilies was a Jew or a gentile, but either way his/her teachings can be described as Jewish insofar as they prescribe for non-Jews worship of the god of the Jews and are based on the Jewish scriptures.

2. Inclusion of Non-Jews in the Homilies and Paul

Here, we may pause for a moment to note the similarities with Paul. Both Paul and the Homilies focus on the mission to non-Jews and prescribe for baptized ex-pagans a “jewish” way of life based on the Jewish scriptures, but without making them Jews.19 Although Paul does not explicitly address all the issues of the Apostolic Decree, his prohibition against “food sacrificed to idols” in 1 Cor 8–10 (albeit with some concessions, taking into account the difficult situation of ex-pagan gentiles living in a pagan milieu) and condemnation of porneia (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1, 6:9–10), a term that for him seems to have included the sexual relations prohibited in Lev 18–20, suggests that he shared with Acts (and the Homilies) the view that gentile members of the Jesus movement should observe the commandments that Lev 17–20 list as binding also on non-Israelites.20 Both draw gentiles closer to Jews even as they remain non-Jews. Paul includes them in a Judaism that is Christ-centered, while the Homilies incorporate them in theosebeia/thrēskeia, the worship of the one God, where they constitute a subgroup alongside Jews. For both, the unity, “in Christ-ness” for Paul and theosebeia/thrēskeia for the Homilies, overrides the ethnic distinction between Jews and non-Jews, but in neither case do these superordinate categories obviate Jewish and non-Jewish identity.21 Beyond the fact that being Jewish and non-Jewish, respectively, still determines the extent of the Torah laws a person is obligated to follow, ethnic origin no longer matters. As Paul says in 1 Cor 7:17–20: “Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision … Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called”.

However, neither circumcision nor baptism is sufficient to attain salvation; both Jews and ex-pagans must also observe the commandments that God requires of each group of people. As Paul famously claims in 1 Cor 7:19: “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything” (cf. Gal 5:6, 6:15; Rom 2:13–16). This does not mean that Jews and gentiles are now the same, or that circumcision is a trivial ritual that can be ignored, but only that people’s origin does not matter; the important thing is that both groups keep the laws given to them (Eisenbaum 2009, pp. 62–63; Thiessen 2016, pp. 8–10). The Homilies make a very similar claim:

For he is a God-fearer [theosebēs], of whom I speak, who is truly God-fearing [theosebēs], not one who is such only in name, but who really practices the Law that has been given him. If anyone acts impiously [asebēs], he is not pious [eusebēs]; in like manners, if he who is of another tribe observes the Law, he is a Jew [Ioudaios]; but he who does not observe it is a Greek [Hellēn]. For the Jew trusts God and observes the Law. … But he who does not observe the Law is manifestly a deserter through not trusting God; and thus as no Jew, but a sinner, he is on account of his sin brought into subjection to those sufferings which are ordained for the punishments of sinners.

(Hom. 11.16.2–5; cf. 8.5, 8.22)

Although this passage has been invoked as evidence that the Homilies dissolve the ethnic distinction between Jews and gentiles and redefine Jewishness to include law-observant gentile worshippers of the one God (see Reed 2007, pp. 219–220; Duncan 2017, pp. 11–15), the point here does not seem to be a legal redefinition of who is a Jew but rather to show that law-observant baptized gentiles have the same status as (law-observant) Jews in the eyes of God. Given the concern with law observance in the immediate context, the point of the statement, “if he who is of another tribe observes the Law, he is a Jew” seems to be that a gentile who observes God’s law for non-Jews is like a Jew in God’s estimation.22 Similarly, a Jew who does not observe the commandments is a “sinner” and has lost everything that is worthwhile about being a Jew and is like a Greek.23

No longer worshippers of many gods, Jesus-oriented gentiles are freed from the evil powers under which they were preciously enslaved (Gal 5:16–21; Hom 8–11), and the new nature and genealogy with which they were endowed in baptism enable them to follow God’s commandments, making it possible for them to inherit the kingdom of God. For the Homilies, the transformation happens in baptism, and for Paul, it seems to occur through Christ’s pneuma in baptism (Gal 4:1–7; Rom 8:14–17). In Paul’s thinking, gentiles become genealogically connected to Abraham through Christ’s pneuma and thus heirs to God’s promises given to his descendants (Gal 3:29). They become “sons of God” (Gal 3:26) and “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) (Thiessen 2016, pp. 129–60; Johnson Hodge 2007, pp. 67–77, 93–107), language that resonates in the Homilies’ characterization of baptized gentiles as “heirs of eternal blessings” (Hom. 9.23.3), “sons of God”, and “heirs of the eternal kingdom” (Hom. 10.25.4).

3. A Development of Pauline Ideas Shaped by a Jewish Milieu

The point where the Homilies most significantly deviate from Pauline ideas is the assertion that Jews can be saved apart from Jesus, a position that Paul’s Christ-centeredness appears to preclude. The Homilies, however, famously claim that that there are two legitimate standards of behavior and paths to salvation, one for Jews based on the teachings of Moses and one for gentiles through Jesus:

For on this account Jesus is concealed from the Hebrews, who have taken Moses as their teacher, and Moses is hidden from those who trust in Jesus. For, there being one teaching by both, God accepts him who has believed either of these. But believing a teacher is for the sake of doing the things spoken by God … Thus, God Himself has concealed a teacher from some, as foreknowing what they ought to do, and has revealed him to others, who are ignorant what they ought to do. Neither, therefore, are the Hebrews condemned on account of their ignorance of Jesus, by reason of Him who has concealed Him, if, doing the things commanded by Moses, they do not hate Him whom they do not know. Neither are those from among the Gentiles condemned, who know not Moses on account of Him who has concealed him, provided that these also, doing the things spoken by Jesus, do not hate Him whom they do not know.

(Hom. 8.6.1–7.1–2)

The fact that many Jews do not embrace Jesus is explained as the result of a divine act of concealment, but there is no punitive aspect to it (cf. Rom 9–11). Rather, Jesus is concealed from the Jews because they already know God’s law through Moses. The gentiles, by contrast, are ignorant of God’s law and need Jesus to teach them. Neither Jews nor gentiles are condemned for not recognizing the teacher of the other, provided they do the things they taught and do not hate the teacher of the other. The redactor(s) clearly opposed the separation of Jesus-followers from Judaism, arguing instead for continuity between Jesus and Moses and promoting a close relationship between their followers.

In addition to this passage where Moses and Jesus are explicitly said to represent two parallel paths to salvation, the Homilies assert that the teachings of Moses and Jesus constitute two equally valid hermeneutical keys to Scripture (Hom. 3.49.2; 3.4.1; 16.14.4–5) (Carlson 2013, pp. 77–109, 111–13; K. H. Zetterholm 2020, pp. 187–202), and that the transmission of prophetic teachings follow two parallel lines—one through the Pharisees in “the seat of Moses” and one through Peter’s bishops on the throne of Christ (Hom. 3.70.2; cf. 3.60.1) (Reed 2008b, esp. 190–194; Duncan 2017, pp. 72–73, 82–83). The Homilies attribute no soteriological significance to Jesus’s death and resurrection (see Reed and Boustan 2008, esp. 344), instead emphasizing the significance of his teachings as a hermeneutical key to the scriptures. The novelty that Jesus brings does not lie in the content of his teachings but in the fact that he expands the audience who can receive the teachings of truth to include ex-pagan theosebeis.

Beyond the idea of divine concealment, these ideas deviate from Paul, who understood Jesus to be essential not only for gentiles but also for Jews. While Paul leaves the details of the salvation of non-Jesus-oriented Jews to God and the eschatological future (Rom 9–11), the Homilies are confident that Jews do not necessarily need Jesus, even if, ideally, they should embrace both Moses and Jesus.24 Such a view and the willingness even to acknowledge rabbinic claims to authority seems to reflect a milieu where Jesus-oriented gentiles had a close and friendly relationship with non-Jesus-oriented Jews. Elsewhere, I have explored the possibility that the Homilies were shaped in a milieu where Jesus-oriented gentiles shared an institutional space with non-Jesus-oriented Jews and the possibility that they represent precisely the kind of alliance between gentile Jesus-adherents and Jews and Judaism that Chrysostom railed against and numerous church councils aimed at uprooting (K. H. Zetterholm 2022, pp. 329–49).

The Homilies envision a form of “Christianity” that can accommodate non-Jesus-oriented Jews and could be described as a Jewish vision of what it means for non-Jews to worship the god of the Jews, or simply as Jewish teachings for non-Jews 25. Such a characterization would be accurate even if the redactor(s) was a gentile and even though he/she saw ex-pagan theosebeis as being included in the broader category of theosebeia rather than in Judaism. The Homilies show that the development whereby belief in Jesus was construed in opposition to Judaism was not inevitable, and the Homilies’ teachings for non-Jews provide a glimpse of how Pauline ideas evolved in a context not dominated by gentile Christian identity formation processes. As we have seen, the “within Judaism” perspective has the potential to bring changes not only to the way we understand Paul’s writings but also to open our eyes to Pauline ideas in some later texts, previously seen by a unanimous reception history from antiquity to our own time as non-Pauline, or even anti-Pauline. This is perhaps not surprising after all, considering that the New Testament texts themselves testify to the fact that Paul was misunderstood early on (Acts 21:21–25) and the assertion that his letters are “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16).