« Prev Manuscripts and Books Next »


Despite the fact that Clement's Letter was widely read in Christian antiquity, and at one time formed part of the New 40 Testament canon in Egypt and Syria, its text was unknown in the West through the Middle Ages. Not until 1628, when the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus reached England, was it recovered. This Codex of the Bible was the gift of Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. At the end of the New Testament two epistles of Clement are appended. The first is our document; the second is not an epistle at all but a second century homily, wrongly attributed to Clement. Patrick Young (Junius) edited the first edition of Clement's Letter from this Codex in 1633. This text, unfortunately defective in one page (chs. 57:7 to 63:4 being wanting), was the only one known until the discovery of the eleventh century Jerusalem Codex by Philotheos Byrennios, which he published in 1875. An autotype of the latter manuscript is given by J. B. Lightfoot in his Apostolic Fathers, Part I, Vol. I, pp. 425–474.

There are four other witnesses to the text. There is a Syriac version, extant in one twelfth century manuscript, now in Cambridge. It was published by R. H. Kennett (from Professor Bensley's work) in 1899. There is a Latin version, edited by Dom G. Morin in Anecdota Maredsolana, Vol. II, 1894. The manuscript belongs to the eleventh century, but the translation is very ancient, going back to the second or third century. There are finally two Coptic versions independent of each other and in the Akhmimic dialect. The better preserved of the two is a Berlin papyrus of the fourth century, edited by C. Schmidt in Texte und Untersuchungen, XXXII. 1, 1908. Chapters 34:6 to 42:2 are lacking. The other and more fragmentary one is from a Strassburg manuscript of the fifth century, edited by F. Rösch in 1910, Bruchstücke des I Klemensbriefes. It breaks off at ch. 26:2.

The best modern edition of the Greek text, and the one used for this translation, is that by Karl Bihlmeyer in his revision of F. X. Funk's Die apostolischen Väter, Part I, Tübingen, 1924. The editions of J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I, "S. Clement of Rome," revised edition, London, 1890, and of Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classics), London, 1912, should also be consulted. The text by H. Hemmer in Hemmer and Lejay, Les Pères apostoliques, Part 2, Paris, 1909, is based on Funk, Patres apostolici of 1901.

There are a number of important modern translations. As well as the renderings by Lightfoot and Lake in the works just mentioned, there are two excellent idiomatic ones: by J. A. Kleist, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of 41 Antioch, Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1946, in the series Ancient Christian Writers; and by F. X. Glimm, The Apostolic Fathers, Cima Publishing Company, New York, 1947, in the series The Fathers of the Church. In the style of the Revised Version of the Bible is W. K. Lowther Clarke, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, S.P.C.K., London, 1937. The most recent translation is by Edgar Goodspeed in his The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1950.

In German there are renderings by Adolf Harnack, Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians, J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1929; by Rudolf Knopf, Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel: Die zwei Klemensbriefe, Tübingen, 1920, in Handbuch zum N. T.; by F. Zeller, Die apostolischen Väter, Munich, 1918, in the 2d series of the Bibliothek der Kirchenväter; and by Knopf and Krüger in E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 2d ed., Tübingen, 1924.

In French there is the translation by H. Hemmer in the edition already mentioned.

In Italian there is a rendering by G. Bosio, I Padri apostolici, Part I, Società editrice internazionale, Turin, 1940, Vol. VII of the series Corona Patrum Salesiana.

All these editions have introductions and notes. The most illuminating are those by Lightfoot, Kleist, Lowther Clarke, Harnack, and Hemmer. Knopf is especially good on the lexicographical side and on parallel literature. For clarity, incisiveness, and penetration, Harnack's work, despite its brevity, is unsurpassed. Written some half a century after he first published an edition of Clement, it represents the fruit of a lifetime of patristic scholarship. Many of his points are reproduced in English dress by Lowther Clarke.

Studies in Clement are numerous. The most significant are these: W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbrief (a basic early work), Göttingen, 1891; W. Scherer, Der erste Klemensbrief an die Korinther nach seiner Bedeutung für die Glaubenslehre der katholischen Kirche untersucht, Regensburg, 1902; Th. Schermann, Griechische Zauberpapyri und das Gemeinde- und Dankgebet im ersten Kemensbrief, in Texte und Untersuchungen, XXXIV. 2b (useful material, but not incisively treated), Leipzig, 1909; F. Gerke, Die Stellung des ersten Klemensbriefes innerhalb der Entwicklung der altchristlichen Gemeindeverfassung und des Kirchenrechts, in Texte und Untersuchungen, XLVII. I, J. C. Hinrichs (an elaborate attack on Sohm's theory about Church law), 42Leipzig, 1931; L. Sanders, L’Hellénisme de Saint Clément de Rome et le Paulinisme (especially good on the parallels with Stoic thought and literary forms, but underestimates Clement's break with Pauline theology), Louvain, 1943.

There are also a number of important articles: F. S. Marsh, "Clement of Rome" in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (the best summary of significant issues), 2d ed., 1926; L. Lemme, "Das Judenchristentum der Urkirche und der Brief des Klemens Romanus," in Neues Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, I, pp. 325–480, 1892; V. Schweizer, "Glaube und Werke bei Klemens Romanus," in Theologische Quartalschrift, 85, pp. 417–437; 547–575, 1903; W. Praetorius, "Die Bedeutung der beiden Klemensbriefe für die älteste Geschichte der kirchlichen Praxis," in Zeitschrift für die Kirchengeschichte, 33, pp. 347–363, 1912; 501–528; E. Dubowy, "Klemens von Rom über der Reise Pauli nach Spanien," in Biblische Studien, XIX. 3, Freiburg, 1914; A. Plummer, "Danaïds and Dirces," in The Expository Times, 26, pp. 560–562, 1915; T. Merill, "On Clement of Rome," in American Journal of Theology, 22, pp. 426–442, 1918; G. Bardy, "Expressions stoïciennes dans le Ie Clementis," in Recherches de science religieuse, 12, pp. 78–85, 1922; R. van Cauwelaert, "L’Intervention de l’Église de Rome à Corinth vers l’an 96," in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 31, pp. 267–306, 1935; J. Zeiller, " propos de l’intervention de l’Église de Rome à Corinth," ibid., pp. 762–764; R. van Cauwelaert, "Réponse aux remarques de M. J. Zeiller," ibid., pp. 765–766; O. Cullmann, "Les Causes de la mort de Pierre et de Paul d’après le témoignage de Clément Romain," in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 10, pp. 294–300, 1930; S. Lösch, "Der Brief des Klemens Romanus. Die Probleme und ihrer Beurteilung in der Gegenwart," in Studi dedicati alla memoria de Paolo Ubaldi, pp. 177–188, Milan, 1937; P. Meinhold, "Geschehen und Deutung im ersten Klemensbrief," in Zeitschrift für die Kirchengeschichte, 58, pp. 82–129, 1939; R. L. P. Milburn, "The Persecution of Domitian," in Church Quarterly Review, 139, pp. 154–164 (disputes the traditional view), 1945; J. Klevinghaus, Die theologische Stellung der apostolischen Väter zur alttestamentlichen Offenbarung, pp. 45–77, C. Bertelsmann, Gültersloh, 1948; W. C. Van Unnik, "Is I Clement 20 Purely Stoic?" in Vigiliae Christianae, 4, pp. 181–189, 1950.

« Prev Manuscripts and Books Next »
VIEWNAME is workSection