The Greek text of our homily was first known only in a defective form. The fifth century N. T. Codex Alexandrinus includes it after Clement's genuine Letter, but the manuscript breaks off at ch.12:5a. The sermon has no heading, but in a table of contents prefixed by the scribe, it is called "Clement's Second Letter." Patrick Young (Junius) edited the first edition from this Codex in 1633.

While seventeenth century scholars, such as Henry Dodwell and J. E. Grabe, had already guessed that our work was a sermon and not a letter, it was not until 1875 that this was made plain beyond dispute. In that year Philotheos Byrennios published the eleventh century Jerusalem Codex. This contained the whole text of the sermon whose concluding chapters (chs.18; 19) make its nature abundantly clear. A few months later the Syriac version came to light in a twelfth century manuscript of the New Testament. These are our only authorities for the text. They are described at length in Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, Part I, Vol. I, pp.116 ff.

The Greek text will be found in the standard editions of the Apostolic Fathers. The one used for this translation is by K. Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Väter, Part I, Tübingen, 1924. Others are by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I, "S. Clement of Rome," Vol. II, pp.211-268, revised edition, London, 1890; and by K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classics), Vol. I, London, 1912. The text by H. Hemmer in Hemmer and Lejay's Les Pères apostoliques, Part 2, Paris, 1909, is based on F. X. Funk, Patres apostolici of 1901.

Modern English translations will be found in the editions by Lightfoot (with introduction and copious notes) and by Lake. There is also T. W. Crafer's Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, S.P.C.K., London, 1921. The latest renderings are by F. X. Glimm in The Apostolic Fathers, New York, 1947, in the series The Fathers of the Church and by E. J. Goodspeed in his The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation, New York, 1950.

There is a translation into French (with introduction and notes) in the edition by Hemmer already mentioned. In German there are renderings by R. Knopf, Die apostolischen Väter, Tübingen, 1920, in Handbuch zum N. T. (with full notes, many philological), and by H. von Schubert in E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 2d ed., Tübingen, 1924.

Basic introductory material will be found in the standard Patrologies by Harnack, Bardenhewer, Altaner, and Quasten. Of special importance are the following studies: Harnack's chapter in his Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Vol. I, pp.438-450 (Roman thesis), Leipzig, 1897, and his further article in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 6, pp.67-71, 1905, "Zum Ursprung des sog. zweiten Klemensbriefes"; Vernon Bartlet, "The Origin and Date of 2 Clement," in the same journal, 7, pp.123-135 (Alexandrine thesis), 1906; and B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church, pp.244-253 (Alexandrine thesis), New York, 1929.

There are a number of studies on the religious views of II Clement: H. Windisch, "Das Christentum des zweiten Klemensbriefes" in Harnack-Ehrung, Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, pp.119-134 (he finds in it a shallow Christianity reflecting late Judaism), Leipzig, 1921; G. Kr ger, "Bemerkungen zum zweiten Klemensbrief," in Studies in Early Christianity, ed. S. J. Case, pp.419-439, New York, 1928; W. Praetorius, "Die Bedeutung der beiden Klemensbriefe für die älteste Geschichte der kirchlichen Praxis," in Zeitschrift für die Kirchengeschichte, 33, pp.347-363, 501-528, 1912. See also D. Völter, Die apostolischen Väter neu untersucht, II. I, "Die älteste Predigt aus Rom," Leiden, 1908, where with more ingenuity than success he tries to recover an original document behind II Clement. Another attempt to dispute the literary unity of our homily will be found in W. Schüssler's "Ist der zweite Klemensbrief ein einheitliches Ganzes?" in Zeitschrift für die Kirchengeschichte, 28, pp.1-13, 1907. Some interesting material has been gathered by C. Taylor in his article "The Homily of Pseudo-Clement," in The Journal of Philology, 28, pp.195-208, 1901. Reference to the doctrine of penance in II Clement will be found in J. Hoh, Die kirchliche Busse im 2 Jahrhundert, pp.33-40, Müller & Seiffert, Breslau, 1932, and in B. Poschmann, Paenitentia Secunda, pp.124-133, Hanstein, Bonn, 1940. On the doctrine of the Church see C. Chavasse, The Bride of Christ, pp.115-116, Faber, London, 1940.

Some other articles in the Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft may be noted: R. Knopf, "Die Anagnose zum zweiten Klemensbriefe," 3, pp.266-279, 1902 (the lection is Isa., chs.54 to 66!); A. Di Pauli, "Zum sog.2 Korintherbrief des Klemens Romanus," 4, pp.321-329 (a refinement of Harnack's thesis, disputing the authenticity of chs.19; 20), 1903; Rendel Harris, "The Authorship of the So-called Second Epistle of Clement," 23, pp.193-200 (claims Julius Cassianus for its author), 1924; H. Windisch, "Julius Cassianus und die Klemenshomilie," 25, pp.258-262 (decisively answers Rendel Harris), 1926; G. Kr ger, "Zu II Klem.14.2," 31, pp.204, 205 (argues ekklesia is the subject of ephanerOthe), 1932.