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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The measured thesis in this essay is well-argued and supported, and the implications of the argument have wider import. The author opens outward in the closing paragraph, noting that the argument not only offers insight into the Homilies; it also suggests the profitability of applying the "Paul with Judaism" perspective to other non-Pauline texts in early Christianity. As the author notes, this shouldn't be surprising, but it nevertheless needs to be said—and saying it opens new possibilities for understanding other early Christian writings. 

I have only minor suggestions for improvement. 

First, the claim in line 111 would benefit from references to the primary literature. Where in Hellenistic Jewish literature do we see theosebeia being used in this way? The footnote cited secondary literature, but the claim isn't supported with references to primary sources. 

Second, it's odd that Romans 2 is not brought into conversation with the block quote in lines 193–201. This section from the Homilies sounds very similar to Paul's line of argument in Romans 2, and it would strengthen the thesis to make that connection. 

Third, the comparison made in lines 217–222 implies that Paul and the Homilies might share a similar theology of adoption. Given the prominence of that category in Paul, it would strengthen the thesis to highlight the theme in the Homilies if it appears there as well. Lines 217–222 suggest the similarity, but it isn't strongly articulated. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I noticed only occasional grammatical oddities. 

The sentence in lines 31–34 is clunky because of the direct quote. I would recommend revising this into two sentences. 

Strike the "or" before "to the Homilies" in line 42.

"Acts do" in Line 152 is odd. Should it be "Acts does" or "these verses in Acts do"?

Add a space in the citation of 2 Peter in line 285. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This piece explores the ways in which the psuedo-Clementina receive Pauline concepts and texts. It works to undermine popular ideas about the antagonistic relationship between Paul and these homilies, suggesting a new, more nuanced orientation of their ideas. The article presents a new orientation, emphasising the shared ideologies of these works as opposed to their (unavoidable) difference. The article presents a polished reading of the texts and is convincing, insofar as it points to the consistencies and nuances between these points of thought, making the case that these traditions are not as diametrically opposed as they might seem. 

My main critique is in the way that the Paul within Judaism discourse is underdeveloped. While the analysis of Pauline texts stands within this discourse, the piece is quite short and would benefit from a more explicit articulation of how this research contributes to this emerging perspective on Paul. In fact, the pseudo-Clementines are a key interlocutor for this discourse which remain underexplored in that context. With that in mind, I recommend minor revisions with an expansion that makes this connection more clear and distinct. 

 

Minor issues:

"himself" (2.53) referring to the anonymous redactor - gender neutral language is more appropriate here (and elsewhere where the redactor is identified with male pronouns)

"severed" (3.63): what insight do the homilies give into this severing? Is this the right word here? Do they tell us anything about an alternative reality that might have been? Can you unpack this point further? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx