ia, _Recognitions_ took shape in Rome. Both
probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good
deal in religious standpoint.[4] _Homilies_ was a sort of second
edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much
the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the
doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a
generation or two after the _Periodoi_ appeared. The _Recognitions_, in
both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the
original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others
in the West, was more Catholic in tone and aimed chiefly at commending
the Christian religion over against all non-Christian rivals or gnostic
perversions. That is, more than one effort of this sort had been made to
adapt the story of Clement's _Recognitions_ to general Christian use.
Later the _Homilies_ underwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling
even before the _Epitome_, in its two extant forms, was made by more
drastic methods of expurgation. One kind of adaptation at least is
proved to have existed before the end of the 4th century, namely a
selection of certain discourses from the _Homilies_ under special
headings, following on _Recognitions_, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS.
of A.D. 411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its
archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the _Recognitions_ may be dated c.
350-375[5] (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that
of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and the _Homilies_ prior even to 350.
But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating
precarious.

_Summary._--The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure
phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity, and proves
that it embraced more intermediate types, between Ebionism proper and
Catholicism, than has generally been realized. Incidentally, too, its
successive forms illustrate many matters of belief and usage among
Syrian Christians generally in the 3rd and 4th centuries, notably their
apologetic and catechetical needs and methods. Further, it discusses, as
Hort observes, certain indestructible problems which much early
Christian theology passes by or deals with rather perfunctorily; and it
does so with a freshness and reality which, as we compare the original
3rd-century basis with the conventional manner of the _Epitome_, we see
to be not unconnected with o