The text of 2 Clement has only survived in three manuscripts. The oldest one, the Codex Alexandrinus (A), ends at 12.5, the complete Greek text can be found in the Codex Hierosolymitanus (H), which dates back to 1056 ce. The third version can be found in a Syrian translation from 1170 ce. In all three documents, 2 Clem has come down to us in connection with 1 Clem, although it is not a letter but a sermon, more precisely: it is a hortatory address. The whole text deals with parenesis. Chapters 1–3 are dominated by Christological argumentation, in chapters 4–18 the eschatological argumentation has priority. Chapters 19f are a secondary supplement, which probably served as an introduction to chapters 1–18, the original sermon. This can be concluded from linguistic and factual aspects. The author is unknown. He is definitely not the author of 1 Clem, which can be concluded from numerous linguistic differences as well as from different theological views. The assumed opponents are most probably to be found in the context of the emergent Gnosticism, but the author does not focus on a direct confrontation with these opponents. Possible places of origin are Rome, Corinth, Antioch, and Alexandria. In the recent research, Alexandria seems to gain more and more acceptance, based especially on the fact that the author is familiar with Egyptian traditions of his time. It is highly probable that the text was written around 150 ce, and 2 Clem shows that the author is acquainted with the traditions of the Old and New Testaments. Concerning Christian traditions, it can be assumed that he was familiar with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but there is no definite proof of this. In addition to texts, which can later be found in canonical documents, 2 Clem also makes use of apocryphal traditions or texts. The formation of the canon was not yet finished at this time. The basic aim of 2 Clem is parenesis. The focus is on the goal to organize life in Christian faith appropriately. Theological topics are oriented toward this goal. God is a creator and a saviour. In his Christology, the author holds the opinion that Jesus is preexistent. It may strike us as remarkable that the author, who is obviously anti-Gnostic, does not estimate pneumatology as important to his audience. The connection between Christ and the church is expressed with the help of syzygies; and interestingly, in this connection the author pleads for the preexistence of the church. In his eschatology, the future version is predominant. Realized eschatological statements can only be found implicitly.
The Future of Taboos in Indigenous Ghanaian Morality