# Prohibition of Meat and Animal Sacrifice in the Chinese Book of the Messiah and in the Pseudo-Clementines: Anti-Sacrificial Discourse as Boundary-Marking Strategy in Polytheistic Contexts

Alexis Balmont

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Alexis Balmont. Prohibition of Meat and Animal Sacrifice in the Chinese Book of the Messiah and in the Pseudo-Clementines: Anti-Sacrificial Discourse as Boundary-Marking Strategy in Polytheistic Contexts. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 2025, 10.1093/jaarel/lfaf094. hal-05414359

HAL Id: hal-05414359

https://hal.science/hal-05414359v1

Submitted on 13 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Prohibition of Meat and Animal Sacrifice in the Chinese *Book of the Messiah* and in the Pseudo-Clementines: Anti-Sacrificial Discourse as Boundary-Marking Strategy in Polytheistic Contexts

Alexis Balmont* ID

## ABSTRACT

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the Chinese Christian *Book of the Messiah's* doctrinal framework, demonstrating how its author portrays the prohibition against meat consumption and animal sacrifice as an eternal divine commandment. It subsequently establishes parallels with the Pseudo-Clementine *Homilies* and *Recognitions*. The article argues that both works exemplify the strategic adaptation of early anti-sacrificial motifs as rhetorical tools for religious boundary-marking, contributing to our understanding of how Jesus-oriented groups deployed theological resources to distinguish themselves from surrounding polytheistic practices across diverse cultural settings.

Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎) discovered the *Book of the Messiah* (*Xuting Mishisuo Jing* 序聽迷詩所經)<fnref n="1" /> in 1924, and Haneda Tōru (羽田亨) brought it to scholars' attention in 1926 (Haneda 1958, 242–48). Included in the “Takakusu Manuscript” now held in Osaka (Kyōu shooku Library 杏雨書屋蔵, manuscript no. 460) and dated before the ninth century CE,<fnref n="2" /> it comprises a Christian catechetical text composed of 2845 Chinese characters. According to Haneda, it was bought in the region of Dunhuang, China. Following the research of P. Saeki, the text was long considered to have been written by the first Christian embassy of 635 in Chang'an (Saeki 1951, 116), a narrative that continues to be told in recent scholarship (Kotyk 2024, 125–28; Jun and Cavayero 2025, 15–17) despite recent critics

<footnote>* Balmont, Faculty of Arts, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), alexisbalmont@cuhk.edu.hk. Alexis Balmont is also an associate researcher at the Centre pour la Recherche sur les Civilisations d'Asie Orientale (CRCAO, Paris), Histoire et Sources des Mondes Antiques (HiSoMA, Lyon), and the Institute of Sino-Christian Studies (ISCS, Hong Kong).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Also referred to as the *Sūtra of the Messiah* (Saeki 1932, 1951), the *Book of Jesus, the Messiah* (Tang 2004), *Thus Have I Heard on the Listening of Mishihe (the Messiah)* (Aguilar Sanchez 2021), and the *Book of the Lord Messiah* (Nicolini-Zani 2022). The title of the book includes scribal mistakes (Deeg 2020, 113).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Dating of the manuscript is debated (Sun 2018, 138–42; Kyōu 2020, 1–18; Balmont 2025a, 122–31).</footnote>
(Sun 2018; Nicolini-Zani 2022, 169; Balmont 2025a, 131–35). Even though its authenticity was challenged from the year 2000 onward (Lin 2000; Rong 2014), there is no reasonable argument to regard it as a forgery (Wang 2015; Wang 2016, 301–6; Kyōu 2020, 1–18; Tam 2024; Thompson 2024, 95–96; Balmont 2025a, 304–5; Balmont 2025b).

The *Book of the Messiah* presents a distinctive Christian doctrine concerning meat consumption and animal sacrifice. Through a comparative analysis with the Pseudo-Clementine *Homilies* and *Recognitions*, this article demonstrates that both works share a remarkably similar theological position: the absolute rejection of animal sacrifice as inherently opposed to God's eternal law, with Jesus's mission specifically aimed at abolishing such practices. This article argues that both texts exemplify the strategic adaptation of early anti-sacrificial traditions as rhetorical tools for religious boundary-marking against polytheistic contexts.

AN OUTLINE OF THE BOOK OF THE MESSIAH

Translations of the *Book of the Messiah* are available in English, Italian, German, and French.<fnref n="3" />
The book likely resulted from the amalgamation of various traditions that circulated prior to its final editing (Balmont 2025a, 105). Nevertheless, the text as we have it possesses its own internal logic and rhetorical coherence (Tang 2004, 107; Aguilar Sanchez 2021, 120–25; Balmont 2025a, 105–10; Balmont 2025d, 88–89). It functions as didactic material concerning God, human existence, moral law, and the Messiah’s birth, trial and death; and it is directed toward individuals either unfamiliar with Christianity or recent converts, probably from western China (Balmont 2025a, 134–35). Although the manuscript contains no internal chapter divisions, rhetorical analysis reveals a tripartite structure: the first section addresses God and humankind (I, Balmont 2025d, 98–103); the second presents God’s law (II, Balmont 2025d, 104–09); and the third narrates the Messiah’s birth, life, trial, and death (III, Balmont 2025d, 110–15).

The first section (I) examines the relationship between God and humanity, beginning with a brief instructional discourse delivered by the Messiah. This discourse utilizes rhetorical questions directed at the audience to encourage active engagement, particularly regarding scrip-tural interpretation and divine perception. The text characterizes humanity as possessing the spiritual capacity to transcend corporeal constraints through divinely granted faculties. God is designated as the “Honored One of Heaven” or the “Buddha” and depicted as the only, omnipotent, and invisible Creator. The author then emphasizes human mortality and how one’s actions determine afterlife destination. The section concludes by juxtaposing idol worshippers, whom the author criticizes, and God’s celebrated power. The middle section (II) focuses on moral teachings. It outlines divine commandments intended for “observers” (adherents), contrasted with “rebels” who either transgress or imperfectly adhere to the law. The author first presents three foundational principles: reverence for God, allegiance to the ruler, and filial piety. These commandments are substantiated through contemplations on God’s essence, the emperor’s condition, and the obligation to one’s life-giving parents. Seven supplementary “vows” ensue, accompanied by additional injunctions. The third section (III) chronicles the Messiah’s life and death. Born to Mary through the Holy Spirit, Jesus de-voted his existence to teaching adherence to God’s commandments, notably censuring

<footnote n="3">³ The main ones being Moule (1930, 59–64); Saeki (1932, 31–45); Rosenkranz (1937, 193–226, in German); Saeki (1951, 125–46); Tang (2004, 145–56); Nicolini-Zani (2006, 265–84, in Italian); Nicolini-Zani (2022, 265–81); Aguilar-Sanchez (2021, 405–620); Zhang (2021, 47–59), and Balmont (2025a, 459–79, 2025c, 154–86, in French; 2025d, 97–116).</footnote>
idolatry. At twelve years of age, he affiliated with an ascetic brotherhood and underwent baptism by John. His miraculous deeds elicited hostility from idol worshippers who, declining conversion, conspired to bring about his execution. Notwithstanding Pilate's preliminary reluctance, the Messiah endured an illegitimate trial and was put to death.

The text demonstrates theological and rhetorical sophistication in leading recipients through a sequential understanding of the Messiah's identity, predicated on reflections concerning God's singularity and human essence. God's existence is posited as axiomatic rather than demonstrated, with the author characterizing the Creator as transcendent and imperceptible to earthly beings. The text further postulates righteous conduct as the route to divine contemplation and salvation, while cautioning that eternal perdition awaits the unrighteous— notably idolaters. The delineation of moral law establishes a central opposition between “observers” who conform to divine precepts and “rebels” who spurn them. Although these mandates are substantiated through reason, their legitimacy derives fundamentally from their celestial provenance, necessitating “fear” and “obedience.” The Messiah’s incarnation springs from divine beneficence toward wayward humanity. Mary, who “obeys” God, accepts the Holy Spirit. The Messiah manifests unwavering dedication, orienting adherents toward divine commandments and “purification.” His adversaries, depicted as idol worshippers who partake of meat and alcohol, resist this purification and ultimately sentence him—not for asserting divine equivalence but for disputing their beliefs and practices. The text’s principal theme encompasses obedience to God, maintaining that acknowledgment of divine sovereignty proves indispensable for executing and disseminating God’s law.

## MEAT CONSUMPTION AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN THE BOOK OF THE MESSIAH

The first implicit reference to prohibition of meat and animal sacrifice appears in the central section of the book, which catalogs ten “vows.” The “fifth vow” (*di wu yuanzhe* 第五願者) prescribes abstention from “killing life” (*sha sheng* 殺生) or “encouraging” (*jian* 諫) others to commit such acts (II:10, *Balmont 2025d*, 106–07). The expression *sha sheng* occurs regularly within Buddhist context to denote any form of killing, encompassing the slaughter of animals. Accordingly, the author states that “the life of living beings is not different from that of human beings” (*zhengsheng ming gong ren bushu* 眾生命共人命不殊), where “living beings/sentient beings” (*zhongsheng* 眾生) constitutes a comprehensive term encompassing all forms of life. Given the text’s consistent differentiation between “observers” and other individuals, this initial occurrence remains ambiguous as to whether the author advocates for a universal prohibition against all killing or solely mandates this requirement for “observers” exclusively.

Nonetheless, particular attention is subsequently devoted to this precept at the conclusion of the central section, employing terminology that conveys vehement opposition to any manifestation of sacrificial ritual:

> The most important thing is the order of the Honored One of Heaven. Let everyone obey the Honored One of Heaven! Let them obey (in particular) to: "prevent (others) from killing living beings in order to offer them as sacrifices, and do not allow anyone to kill." Those who do not obey this, they teach to kill life, to sacrifice, to eat meat, to savor its delicacies, to offer it to deceitful gods (who are only of) mud, to <sacrifice> sheep (which they have) killed (for them), etc. Those who do not obey this (commandment), they teach that these acts are good and command them to others. The living beings who do (this) evil have rebelled against the Honored One of Heaven.
此為第一：天尊處分。眾生依天尊！依：「莫使眾生殺祭祀，亦不遣殺命」。
眾生不依此教自殺生、祭祀、吃肉、噉美、將濁詐神，即殺羊等。眾生不依此
教作好處分人等。眾生背面作惡遂背天尊。(Chinese text and English translation:
Balmont 2025d, 108-09)

This passage holds particular significance in the logical structure of the text, serving as the con-
clusion of the central section devoted to divine law and the introduction to the narrative of the
Messiah’s life. Following the enumeration of a diverse array of precepts, the author emphasizes
the prohibition against killing and characterizes those who disregard this teaching as having
“rebelled” (bei 背) against God himself. The concept of “rebellion” was previously introduced
at the beginning of the central section (II:4, Balmont 2025d, 104-05) though rendered with a
distinct Chinese term: pānni 叛逆, thereby creating an inclusio that frames the entire expos-
ition of divine commandments. Consequently, those who violate this divine ordinance are
portrayed as particularly iniquitous and implicitly juxtaposed against the righteous “observ-
ers.” Within this passage, “killing” is intimately linked to the practice of animal sacrifice for
religious purpose. This precept can thus be construed as an elaboration of the “fifth vow.”
According to the author’s perspective, taking life becomes especially transgressive when driven
by the “offering of sacrifice” (jisi 祭祀), with extensive details provided regarding the practices
subsumed under this category. Additionally, animal sacrifice is closely related to idolatrous
practices, as the flesh is presented to “deceitful mud gods” (zhu zha shen 瀉詐神), a term di-
rected against idolatrous cults, especially Central Asian Zoroastrian customs (Balmont 2025a,
236-40). The condemnation of idolatry and “mud gods” was previously established earlier in
the text through a vitriolic critique of idolatrous customs (I:13-14, Balmont 2025d, 100-03).
In this earlier passage, which concluded the first section, idolaters were characterized as devoid
of wisdom and rationality. Within this framework, sacrificing animals as offerings to deities
constitutes a violation not merely of God’s revealed law but also of human intellect. All man-
ifestations of this conduct are condemned, irrespective of whether one identifies as an
“observer.”

This thematic element surprisingly persists throughout the author's account of the
Messiah's life and death, without any further explicit mention of Central Asian Zoroastrian
customs. First, the Messiah's birth is attributed to divine compassion: "When the Honored
One of Heaven saw living beings like this, He felt great pity" (天尊見眾生如此憐憫不少,
III:1, Balmont 2025d, 110-11). Given that this declaration directly succeeds the mention
of animal sacrifices just quoted above, with "living beings" designating slaughtered animals,
one might propose that the Messiah's advent is tacitly motivated by divine compassion for
animal suffering. Within this interpretation, the Messiah emerges to abolish sacrifice practices,
as they were not divinely ordained. Indeed, the Messiah's teachings advocate for adherence to
God's law (III:8:10, Balmont 2025d, 110-13), corresponding to what the author designated
in the second section of the book, with particular attention to the prohibition against killing.
Second, the author records that the Messiah adopted the life of an ascetic community, among
"saints" (sheng 聖) whose diet is strictly vegetarian: "All their lives, they ate neither meat nor
alcohol, (for) they ate only plants and honey, honey that they (found) on the ground" (生生
己來,不吃酒肉,唯食生菜及蜜,蜜於地上,III:6, Balmont 2025d, 110-11).
M. Nicolini-Zani observed that these descriptions bear resemblance to the accounts of
John the Baptist's manner of life found in the New Testament (Nicolini-Zani 2006, 280;
2022, 277), yet he refrained from commenting on the vegetarian diet despite its frequent oc-
currence in Christian ascetic interpretations of John the Baptist's way of life (Kelhoffer 2005,
100-94). Third, the Messiah's adversaries face censure for their consumption of alcohol and
meat and engagement in idolatrous ritual sacrifices:
All the men who did evil, however, refused to listen to the one who practiced the right path; they did not believe in the teachings of the Honored One of Heaven, nor did they purify themselves. To this day, these greedy people do not abandon the consumption of alcohol and meat, nor the service of mud gods. The literate who lived there began to slander and reject Him, then they wanted to kill Him (to) get rid (of Him).

所有作惡人不過向善道者，不信天尊教者及不潔淨。貪利之人，今世，並不放
却嗜酒，受肉及事漏神。文人留在著遂誣，或趨覩遂欲殺却。(Chinese text and
English translation: Balmont 2025d, III:10, 112–13)

Translators have not commented on that passage despite its highly atypical nature within
Christian literature. In the *Book of the Messiah*, the conspiracy against Jesus did not arise
from his proclamation of divine sonship or from the envy of his adversaries due to his accom-
plishments but rather from their refusal to embrace conversion, specifically their unwillingness
to “abandon the consumption of alcohol and meat, and the service of mud gods” (放却嗜酒
受肉及事漏神). In other words, the chief priests and doctors of the law are characterized as
idolaters in direct contrast with the Messiah, who represents the exemplary “observer.”
Fourth, the author declares that the Messiah came to “purify” humanity by restoring them
to God’s law, especially by making them depart from idolatry (III:8.11, Balmont 2025d,
110–13), and furthermore calls him “the pure man” (*qingjing ren 清淨人*, III:11, Balmont
2025d, 112–13). The Messiah’s mission is thus portrayed as an endeavor to direct humans
back to God’s commandments. Fifth, even Pilate, who receives a comparatively favorable por-
trayal, declines to execute Jesus and articulates his rationale through an ambiguous statement:
“I cannot kill: it is an evil” (我不能殺此惡緣, III: 12, Balmont 2025d, 112–13). *Evil (e'yuan
惡緣)* might naturally denote the insufficiency of the charges leveled against Jesus to warrant
capital punishment, yet this term also appears in the text’s first section to describe conduct that
generates negative karma (I:12, Balmont 2025d, 99–100), conforming to its conventional us-
age within Buddhist contexts. One might contend that the author depicts Pilate as endeavor-
ing to observe God’s law by declining to take a life, in opposition to the chief priests and
doctors of the law. Sixth, the Messiah’s death is unexpectedly connected to an instruction re-
garding impermanence:

The Messiah gave Himself to evil for the sake of all living beings. He made known to the men
of this world that (every) human life is like a flickering flame. He gave the gift of His life for
all the living of this world, (for) He received death in their place. The Messiah gave Himself,
even to the point of death.

彌師訶將身施與惡為一切眾生。遣世間人等知其人命如轉燭。為今世眾生佈施
代命受死。彌師訶將自身與，遂即受死。(Chinese text and English translation:
Balmont 2025d, III:13, 112–13)

The expression “flickering flame” (*zhuan zhu 轉燭*) signifies impermanence (Balmont 2025a,
187), representing one of the “three characteristics of existence” (*sān xiàng 三相*), whose
comprehension facilitates awakening and liberation. The Messiah’s “gift/charity” (*bushi 佈
施*) is not explicitly characterized as sacrificial in any sense comparable with Judean practices;
rather, salvation emerges through recognition of impermanence and adherence to divine law.

In summary, the theological perspectives of the *Book of the Messiah* demonstrate unusual
features compared with other Christian writings. The author champions an absolute
rejection of animal sacrifice, founded on principles described as God’s immutable law.
Divinity never enjoyed humanity to present animal sacrifices but intended for them to safeguard and honor all forms of existence. Consequently, animal sacrifice is perceived as a grievous violation closely aligned with idol worship. “Observers” constitute those who heed and adhere to God’s fundamental commandments, thus abstaining from meat consumption. They represent the “pure,” exemplified by Jesus, in stark opposition to the chief priests and doctors of the law, portrayed as idolaters and transgressors and censured for their way of life. References to the chief priests and doctors of the law preclude limiting the meat prohibition to ritually unclean flesh from “pagan” sacrifices only, that is, those of non-Judeans; instead, it seems to encompass all varieties of flesh, as demonstrated by the vegetarian practices of John the Baptist and his disciples and the absolute prohibition of killing.

MEAT CONSUMPTION AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND RECOGNITIONS

The absolute rejection of animal sacrifice constitutes a singularly rare position within Christian religious thought (Regev 2020, 119). Although censures of sacrificial customs are thoroughly documented in biblical texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls, recent scholarly investigation has established that these criticisms did not promote the complete abolition of animal immolation, as they originated from a deep devotion to temple principles (Klawans 2006). Within early Christian literature, however, the picture is more complex than a uniform acceptance of sacrificial validity. Although many texts addressed particular elements of sacrificial procedure while acknowledging its legitimacy (Ferguson 1980, 1151–89; Petropolou 2008, 285–95; Daly 2009, 75–98; Stroumsa 2009, 63–64 and 72–83; Ullucci 2012; Cohn 2012, 3; Reed 2014, 137–39 and 142–45; Reed 2018, 412–20), several early Christian authors articulated more fundamental critiques. The *Epistle of Barnabas* interpreted Hebrew Bible sacrificial laws as allegories, maintaining that real sacrifice was never God’s intention (Kraft 1972, 30–33). Justin Martyr argued that sacrifice represented merely a temporary stop-gap measure before Christ’s arrival, becoming illegitimate thereafter. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian developed similar models that delegitimized sacrificial practices in the Christian era (Regev 2020, 120–21).

Explicit and comprehensive rejection of animal sacrifice especially appears in the Pseudo-Clementine corpus (Reed 2014, 417), notably in the *Homilies* (*Hom.*) and *Recognitions* (*Rec.*), dated to the fourth century CE. Both works articulate this shared theme within distinct cultural and religious contexts, with the *Homilies* displaying enhanced Jewish features whereas the *Recognitions* reflects a primarily Christian cultural framework (Zetterholm 2022, 332). Despite operating in different religious contexts, both works presumably originated from a shared source (*Grundschrift*) dated to mid-third-century Syria (Reed 2003; Kelley 2006; De Vos and Praet 2022; Kelley 2022, 391–92; De Vos 2024, 188–89), which incorporated older traditions (Jones 2015, 163; Bourgel 2015; Reed 2014, 427; Kelley 2022, 391). The *Homilies* and *Recognitions* can be understood as two distinct “editions” (*editiones*) of the *Grundschrift* that circulated in the eastern empire (Jones 2014, 14), with each version adapting the shared anti-sacrificial theology to address the particular needs and contexts of their respective audiences.

First composed in Greek, these works rapidly underwent translation into Syriac, as substantiated by the British Library manuscript Add. 12,150 (411 CE). Although Greek manuscripts of the *Homilies* have endured, the *Recognitions* persist chiefly via Rufinus’s Latin translation and through Syriac versions, with the latter being widely regarded as maintaining greater fidelity to the missing Greek original. The Syriac version of British Library manuscript Add. 12,150 has been edited in 1937 (Frankenberg 1937), with English translations recently
published (Gebhart 2014; Jones 2014). Subsequent Syriac epitomes made use of this content, evidencing its impact within Eastern Christianity. The later manuscript B.L. Add. 14,609, ascribed to the sixth century CE, further testifies to the extensive and enduring circulation of this literature.

Within the *Homilies*, a profound critique of Judean sacrificial customs is prominently articulat- ed via the singular doctrine of the “false pericopes,” initially presented in *Hom.* 2:38. Peter explains to Clement that God’s written law, namely the Torah, “joined many falsehoods against God” (Πολλὰ γὰρ ψευδῆ κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ προσέλαβον αἰ γραφαὶ λόγῳ τούτω; Reed 2018, 421–22), whereas its authentic significance was maintained within the oral trad- ition. In the third *Homily*, Peter maintains that God never actually mandated animal sacrifice:

> That He did not desire sacrifices is evident from the fact that those who craved meat were slain immediately upon tasting it, and after being buried, their grave was designated: “the hill of cravings.” He who from the beginning was displeased with the very nature of animals and did not wish them to be sacrificed, did not command sacrifices as though desiring them and did not demand first-fruits offerings.

Τὸ δὲ θυσιῶν αὐτὸν μὴ ὁρεῖθῆναι φαίνεται ἐκ τοῦ τοὺς ἐπιθυμήσαντας κρεῶν ἄμα τῷ γεύσασθαι ἀναρεθῆναι καὶ χωσθέντας ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ ἑνουὸν ἐπιθυμῶν' προσαγορευθῆναι. Ο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ φύσει ζῷων χαλεπαίων, θύεσθαι αὐτὰ μὴ θέλων, θυσίας ὡς ἐπιθυμῶν οὐ προσέτασσεν καὶ ἀπαρχὰς οὐκ ἀπήτει. (Hom. 3:45, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 73–74, English translation mine)

In this passage, Peter refers to Numbers 11:4–34. In the desert, the Hebrews succumb to crav- ing and demand meat to eat (Numbers 11:4). God sends quails around their camp, which the people gather and consume, provoking God’s wrath against their lust. He consequently inflicts a severe plague that kills many Hebrews (Numbers 11:33). This episode is interwoven with the gathering of seventy elders around Moses (Numbers 11:16–30), whom Peter further in- terprets as the inheritors of Moses’s oral teachings. In Peter’s interpretation, both events seem interconnected, and the written Torah obscured their original significance: God punishes the people for consuming meat not only because of their lust but also because he never intended for them to sacrifice animals and eat their flesh. Despite the intricate connection that Peter establishes between this biblical passage and the institution of animal sacrifice, he discloses to Clement that animal sacrifice was never ordained by God.

This view is further elaborated in *Hom.* 8:13–16, which discloses the authentic genesis of flesh consumption. Peter, after narrating the fall of angels on earth and their union with human women, tells of the birth of the Giants, who first began to eat animal flesh, and even human meat:

> Those of hybrid nature, (the Giants), finding no satisfaction in the purity of the food, craved only the taste of blood. They thus became the first to consume flesh. The humans who dwelled among them subsequently emulated this practice. This demonstrates that we are neither born good nor evil, but rather become so, and once habituated, we adhere to these dispositions with tenacity. When irrational animals began to diminish in number, these hy- brid beings partook even of human flesh; for it was no great step for them to corrupt their own flesh, having previously tasted it in other forms.

Οἱ δ' ὑπὸ νόθου φύσεως τῷ καθαρῷ τῆς τροφῆς οὐκ ἀρεσκόμενοι, μόνης τῆς τῶν αἰμάτων γεύσεως ἐγλίχοντο. Διὸ καὶ πρῶτοι σαρκῶν ἐγεύσαντο. Οἱ δὲ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἄνθρωποι τὸ
ἶμοιον τότε πρῶτον ποιεῖν ἐξήλωσαν. Οὖτως εἴτε ἀγαθοὶ εἴτε κακοὶ οὐ γεννώμεθα, ἀλλὰ γινόμεθα καὶ ἐθισθέντες δυσαποσπάστως ἔχομεν. Τῶν δὲ ἀλόγων ζώων τότε ἐπιλιπόντων, οἱ νόθοι ἀνθρωποι καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν ἐγεύσαντο. οὐκέτι γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἦν μακρὰν τὴν ἰδίαν διαφθεῖραι σάρκα, πρότερον ἐν ἑτέραις μορφαῖς αὐτῆς γευσαμένοις. (Hom. 8:15,4–16,2, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 128, English translation mine)

In this passage, meat consumption is closely related to cannibalism and imitation of evil beings, namely the Giants. This wrong behavior prompts God to send the Flood, but the souls of the dead Giants, having become demons, continue to crave blood. According to Peter, the demons' power is limited, however, by God to those who pollute themselves

by offering sacrifices (to demons), making libations, partaking (their) table, or performing other forbidden acts, or by shedding blood, or consuming the flesh of the dead, or the remains of beasts, or meat that is cut or strangled, or by filling themselves with any other impure substance.

προσκυνῶν ὑμᾶς καὶ θύων καὶ σπένδων καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας μεταλαμβάνων τραπέζης ἢ ἔτερον τι ὧν οὐ χρὴ ἐκτελῶν ἢ αἴμα χέων ἢ σαρκῶν νεκρῶν γευόμενος ἢ θηρίου λειψάνου ἢ τιμητοῦ ἢ πνικτοῦ ἢ ἀλλου τινὸς ἀκαθάρτου ἐμπιπλάμενος. (Hom. 8:19,1, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 129, English translation mine)

It should be noted that these practices are reminiscent of the laws given to Gentile Christians in Acts 15:29. In the ninth *Homily*, Peter delivers a narrative concerning the genesis of animal sacrifice. He reveals that Nimrod, who inherited magical skills, compelled a powerful star to grant him a kingdom:

> He, after the Flood, aspiring to kingship and being a great magician, compelled through magical arts the star that presently reigns over evil and governs the world to grant him the kingdom he desired.

Οὖτος μετὰ τὸν καταλλυσμὸν βασιλείας ὁρεχθεὶς καὶ μέγας ὡν μάγος, τοῦ νῦν βασιλεύοντος κακοῦ τοῦ ὁροσκοποῦντα κόσμον ἰδεῖν ἀστέρα πρὸς τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ βασιλείας δόσιν μαγικαῖς ἠνάγκαζε τέχναις. (Hom. 9:4,2, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 133, English translation mine)

But the star fell from the sky as a thunderbolt and killed him. This event led the “senseless men of that era” (οἱ δὲ ἀνόητοι τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων) to worship him as a god, together with the divine fire that killed him, hoping to gain power from this worship. From these practices, pagan cults were born, which included sacrificial practices and libations:

> They did not cease from venerating the idols, on account of the pernicious contrivance of the magicians who devised for them pretexts capable of retaining them in vain worship; for, having established these [idols] with magical rites, they instituted festivals for them consisting of sacrifices, libations, pipes and cymbals, by the pretext of which the senseless were deceived.

Τοῦ δὲ τὰ ζόανα σέβειν οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο διὰ τὴν κακὴν τῶν μάγων ἐπίνοιαν εὑρόντων αὐτοὺς προφάσεις κρατεῖν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὴν ματαίαν λατρείαν δυναμένας. ἰδρύσαντες γὰρ αὐτὰ μαγικαῖς τελεταῖς ἑορτὰς αὐτοῖς ὥρισαν ἔκ τε θυμάτων, σπονδῶν, αὐλῶν τε
καὶ κρότων, ὦν προφάσει οἱ ἀνόητοι ἀπατώμενοι. (Hom. 9:7,1–2, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 134, English translation mine)

Peter further states that demons, through these practices, still gain power over human beings, especially “through the food given to them” (Hom. 9:9,2: “For the demons, having received power through the food provided to them, enter your bodies by your own hands” [Οἱ γὰρ δαίμονες διὰ τῆς αὐτοῖς ἀποδοθείσης τροφῆς ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντες ὑπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων χειρῶν εἰς τὰ ὑμέτερα ἐίσκρίνεται σώματα], Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 135). By this impure food, they penetrate and occupy human bodies, employing them for their own lust, using human organs to experience the bodily pleasures they cannot access on their own, being spiritual creatures.

The *Recognitions* provides additional context for understanding the origins of Judean sacrifice. In the first section of the text, Peter reveals that Judean sacrifices were not required by God, but Moses decided to take into account the weakness of the Hebrew people, who used to participate in pagan cults in Egypt:

> Meanwhile, the faithful and prudent servant Moses, perceiving that the vice of idolatrous sacrifice had taken deeper root in the people drawn from the stock of Egyptians and that the root of this evil could not be eradicated from them, granted them permission to sacrifice, but allowed this to be done to God alone, so that he might reserve so to speak one portion of the vice that had taken deeper root, while another portion he reserved to be amended by another person and at another time; namely, by him of whom he said: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me; listen to him in all things whatsoever he shall say to you. For whoever does not listen to that prophet shall be cut off from among his people.”

> *Eum interim fidelis et prudens dispensator Moyses pervidens, populo ex Aegyptiorum consecto al-
> tius inolevisset vitium idolatrae immolandi nec posse de eis radicem mali huius excidi, inmolare
> quidem eis concessit, sed deo soli hoc fieri permisit, ut mediam quodammodo partem vitii altius
> inoliti reservaret, aliam vero meoliam per alium et ad aliud tempus reservaret emendandam;
> per illum scilicet, de quo ipse dixit: «Prophetam vobis suscitabit dominus deus vester sicut me,
> ipsum audite secundum omnia quae dixerit vobis. quemque enim non audierit prophetam illum,
> exterminabitur anima eius de populo suo.» (Rec. 1:36,1, Latin text of Rufinus recension, from
> Rehm 1965, 29, English translation mine)

Although this passage does not appear explicitly in the *Homilies*, it seems to be presupposed by its final editor (Kelley 2022, 394). This interpretive framework is consistent with how the *Homilies* present Aaron as the antithesis of Moses, having designed the golden calf and encouraged the Hebrew nation to perpetuate Egypt's pernicious pagan traditions.

Accordingly, Aaron is introduced in *Hom*. 2:16,33 as Moses's "syzygy," namely as the shadow preceding the luminous figure, following one of the Pseudo-Clementine literature's distinctive theological views (Reed 2014, 418 and 421). For example, Peter states that:

> Thus indeed, when our God-beloved nation was about to be redeemed from the wickedness of the Egyptians, first by means of the consecrated rod which was given to Aaron, the plagues were brought to pass, and then, in this manner, the healings were effected through Moses's prayers.

> *Αὐτίκα γοῦν τοῦ θεοφιλοδος ἡμῶν ἔθνους ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων κακουργίας μέλλοντος
> λυτροῦσθαι, πρῶτον διὰ τῆς ἀφιωθείσης ῥάβδου, ἥτις τῷ Αἰαρῶν ἐδόθη, αἱ νόσοι*
ἐγίνοντο, καὶ εἴθ' οὖτως εὐχᾶτις Μουσσέως αἱ ἰάσεις ἐπεφέροντο. (Hom. 2:33,3–4, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 49, English translation mine)

Aaron causes evil plagues to come, and Moses's prayers bring healing. Within the *Homilies*, Aaron bears the same relation to Moses as Simon Magus does to Peter: a malevolent harbinger, essential for facilitating the advent of genuine revelation. This inevitably culminates in a pejorative assessment of the Jerusalem Temple, given that Aaron represents the progenitor of Hebrew clerics and Levites. Within the aforementioned passage, Moses declares the future advent of a “True Prophet,” who will guide the Hebrew nation toward God’s primordial law, the legislation uncorrupted by the written Torah and Aaron’s detrimental influence.

Returning to the *Recognitions*, we find that the “True Prophet” came to abolish sacrificial practices:

> When the time came for what we said was lacking in Moses's institutions to be fulfilled, and for the prophet whom he had foretold to appear, (this prophet), through God's mercy, admonished them first to desist from sacrifices; and lest perhaps (hostile people) might turn against those who were ceasing (from sacrificing), not as if they were sinners, he established for them baptism through water, in which, by invoking his name, they would be absolved from all sins and henceforth would pursue a perfect life destined to endure in immortality, purified not by the blood of animals, but by the purification of God's wisdom.

> *Ut autem tempus adesse coepit, quo id quod deesse Moysei institutis diximus, impleretur et propheta quem praecinerat appareret, qui eos primo per misericordiam dei moneret cessare a sacrificiis, et ne forte mutarent cessantibus hostilis populi sibi non sicut peccatorum, baptisma eis per aquam statuit, in quo ab omnibus peccatis invocato eius nomine solverentur et de reliquo perfectam vitam sequerentur in immortalitate durarent, non pecudum sanguine sed sapientiae dei purificatione purgati.* (Rec. 1:39,1–2 Latin text from Rufinus recension, *Rehm 1965*, 31, English translation mine)

This prophet is further identified as Jesus, through John the Baptist's testimony. Nevertheless, solely the Scribes and the Pharisees among the Jewish people acknowledged John the Baptist's testimony, possessing understanding of Moses's oral tradition, yet deliberately concealed this revelation from the populace (Rec. 1:54,6–9; see Bourgel 2017). Other groups among the Jews, for different reasons and dissensions, declined to acknowledge John as a prophet and, consequently, Jesus as chosen by God (Rec. 1:54–60). Accordingly, notwithstanding the instruction of both John and Jesus, they persisted in presenting sacrificial offerings at the sanctuary. This revelation was fortunately kept by Christ's disciples, namely the Apostles. Peter tells Clement that he explicitly informed the High Priest Caiaphas that Jews' unwillingness to accept this revelation would compel the Apostles to convert their ministry to the Gentiles, while God would destroy Jerusalem's temple. Peter said to Caiphas:

> For we, I declare, have ascertained with certainty that God is rendered far more exasperated by the sacrifices which you offer (at the Temple of Jerusalem than that offered by the Gentiles to their idols), now that the appointed time for sacrifices has been completed. And because you refuse to acknowledge that the time for offering victims has now expired, on account of this the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall be established in the Holy Place, and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles as testimony against you, so that by their faith your faithlessness may be judged.
Nos enim, inquam, pro certo conperimus, quod super sacrificiis quae offeritis, multo magis exasperatur deus, sacrificiorum tempore duntaxat expleto. et quia vos non vultis agnoscere, emensum esse iam tempus hostias offerendi, ob hoc destruetur et templum, et abominatio desolationis statuetur in loco sancto, et tunc gentibus evangelium praedicabitur ad testimonium vestri, ut ex illorum fide vestra infidelitas iudicetur. (Rec. 1:64,1–2, Rehm 1965, 44, English translation mine)

Consequently, Peter redirected his ministry toward the Gentiles to disclose God's primordial law and bestow on them purification and eternal salvation via the baptism of Jesus (Zetterholm 2022, 331). Within Pseudo-Clementine texts, Clement exemplifies the archetype of a Gentile convert, attaining redemption via Peter's instruction.

The precepts imparted to him, however, accommodate his spiritual weakness and idolatrous heritage. Within the *Homilies*, Peter delineates:

The religion which has been established (by God) is precisely this: to worship Him alone, to believe in the sole True Prophet, to receive baptism for the remission of sins, and thus, through the most sanctified washing, to be regenerated by God through the saving water; to refrain from partaking of the table of demons—and by this I mean things sacrificed to idols, dead animals, creatures that died by strangling, animals taken by wild beasts, and blood—; to live purely, to wash after sleeping with women, who themselves should be mindful of their periods; for all to be prudent, to act benevolently, to refrain from injustice, to anticipate eternal life from God who is capable of all things, asking to receive it through continuous prayers and supplications.

Τὸ μόνον αὐτὸν σέβειν καὶ τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας μόνω πιστεύειν προφήτη καὶ ῥέτις ἀρέσιν ἡμαρτιῶν βαπτισθῆναι καὶ οἴτως διὰ τῆς ἀγνοτάτης βαφῆς ἀγαγεννηθῆναι θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σφώζοντος ὕδατος, ἐτραπέξης δαιμόνων μὴ μεταλαμβάνειν (λέγω δὲ εἰδωλοθύτων, νεκρῶν, πνικτῶν, θηριαλώτων, αἴματος), μὴ ἀκαθάρτως βιοῦν, ἀπὸ κοίτης γυναικὸς λούσκαι, αἰτὰς μέντοι καὶ ἄφεδρος φυλάσσειν, πάντας δὲ σωφρονεῖν, εὖ ποιεῖν, μὴ ἀδικεῖν, παρὰ τοῦ πάντα δυναμένου θεοῦ ὄχην αἰώνιον προσδοκᾶν, εὐχαῖς καὶ δεήσεσιν συνεχέσιν αἰτουμένους αὐτὴν λαβεῖν. (Hom. 7:8,1–2, Greek text from Rehm and Strecker 1992, 120, English translation mine)

Similar commandments are given in *Hom.* 11:28–30. These precepts do not proscribe the consumption of meat. Nonetheless, flesh must satisfy particular stipulations, expressed in a language that resembles terminology utilized to characterize the flesh through which demons acquire dominion over humans in *Hom.* 8:19,1, a language that echoes Acts 15:29, as previously observed. Do the Apostles, having Judaic origins, adhere to more stringent regulations, given Peter's characterization of his own diet as consisting of “bread and olives, and sometimes potherbs” (*Hom.* 12:6,4; ἄρτω μόνω καὶ ἐλαίαις χρῶμαι καὶ σπανίως λαχάνοις, *Rehm and Strecker 1992, 176*)?

In conclusion, the Pseudo-Clementine *Homilies* and *Recognitions* regard both animal sacrifice and flesh consumption as having nefarious beginnings. Despite their distinct cultural orientations and addressees, a synchronic reading allows us to reconstruct the anti-sacrificial theology that likely characterized their common source. Prior to the Deluge, humanity emulated the Giants and started to eat flesh. Following the Giants' elimination by the Flood, their spirits transformed into demons and as divine retribution gained access to humans who consumed ritually unclean meat, thereby using their bodies for their own appetites. Animal sacrifices were established by magicians who falsely venerated Nimrod as a deity. The Hebrews acquired these corrupt customs from idolatrous Egyptians and proved unable to abandon them in the desert. Hence, Moses, contrary to God's initial intention, permitted sacrificial
practices to constrain this erroneous conduct. This represented a temporary concession. Simultaneously, Moses foretold the advent of a “True Prophet” who would terminate Judean sacrifices and redirect the Hebrew nation toward God’s eternal and authentic law. Nevertheless, the written Torah suffered corruption through “false pericopes” that obscured its original meaning so that Moses’s teachings were only preserved by the Pharisees and the Scribes via oral transmission. Upon the True Prophet’s arrival, the Pharisees and Scribes hid this knowledge and obstructed the identification of Jesus as chosen by God. Consequently, the Jewish people rejected the teachings of both John and Jesus, persisting in sacrificial rituals at the Jerusalem Temple. Divine judgment, deemed justified since God never prescribed sacrifices, demolished the sanctuary. The Apostles, constituting the sole custodians of God’s authentic law among the Jews, directed their ministry toward the Gentiles to bestow purification and revelation on them. The precepts imparted to Gentiles accommodated their spiritual weakness and pagan heritage, permitting them to consume flesh, despite this custom being viewed as deficient due to its evil origins. This law constrains demonic influence, which undergoes complete cleansing through baptism.

## ANTI-SACRIFICIAL DISCOURSE IN POLYTHEISTIC CONTEXTS: CONTEXTUAL ADAPTATION AND BOUNDARY-MARKING STRATEGIES

The Chinese *Book of the Messiah*, the *Homilies*, and the *Recognitions* share a mutual uncompromising rejection of animal sacrifice. They maintain that God never mandated the slaughter of any creature. They portray the chief priests as idolaters who disregarded God’s everlasting law. Within these works, Jesus is proclaimed to have arrived to guide the Hebrews back toward God’s precepts and away from idolatrous worship.

The comprehensive and systematic rejection of animal sacrifice found in these documents warrants scholarly comparison. Given the rarity of such positions in early Christian literature, it would be tempting to suggest that these texts emerged from a common marginal theological tradition that preserved distinctive anti-sacrificial teachings across different cultural contexts. However, these similarities may rather reflect the strategic adaptation of available theological resources to address comparable challenges of religious boundary-marking in polytheistic environments.

Indeed, these two works articulate divergent theological frameworks. The Chinese *Book of the Messiah* offers no explanatory narrative regarding the genesis of sacrificial practices but merely declares that this constitutes an essential element of divine law. Conversely, the Pseudo-Clementines provide no description of the Sinaitic legislation divulged to Moses prior to its corruption with “false pericopes.” The text simply recounts that sacrifices originated with the inappropriate veneration afforded to King Nimrod. Moreover, the Pseudo-Clementines do not overtly promote a vegetarian diet, in contrast with the Chinese text. In the *Homilies*, Peter permits Gentiles to partake of flesh, subject to certain stipulations, whereas the Chinese manuscript proscribes all instances of taking life, regardless of manner or situation.

Such polemics can be understood within the broader context of debates against polytheistic practices. From the first century BCE to the fourth century CE, diverse philosophical and religious groups, including Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, and Hermetists, opposed animal sacrifice, rejecting blood sacrifices and promoting spiritual sacrifices (Kelley 2022, 397). This broader context aligns with earlier Christian writers. The basic ideological framework found in the Pseudo-Clementines—the notion that God never truly wanted animal sacrifice—was already established in Christian thought well before the fourth century.
D. Côté has suggested that the *Homilies'* polemics specifically target Iamblichan theurgy through the figure of Simon Magus, whose magical practices bear striking resemblances to theurgic rituals, including the fabrication of ritual images and claims to demiurgic creation (Côté 2018, 397–409). As Kelley has argued, the *Homilies* may have developed already existing anti-sacrificial thoughts as responses to the immediate political and religious challenges posed by Julian the Apostate’s revival of pagan sacrifice and his attempted reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Kelley 2022, 398–99). The anti-sacrificial discourse would have resonated with fourth-century Christian audiences who understood such polemics as directly relevant to Julian’s Neoplatonist theurgy and his broader program of religious restoration.

This contextual approach proves particularly relevant for understanding the *Book of the Messiah*. Composed several centuries after the Pseudo-Clementines in a Central Asian environment dominated by Zoroastrian polytheistic traditions, the Chinese text likely drew on anti-sacrificial arguments as rhetorical tools for engaging with local practices. In this regard, the author’s condemnation of practices bearing the clear characteristics of Central Asian Zoroastrian cults—notably animal statuary (Balmont 2025a, 236–40)—further supports this contextual interpretation. Rather than evidence of textual transmission, the *Book of the Messiah’s* prohibition against animal sacrifice may reflect the adaptation of available theological resources to address the particular challenges of religious differentiation in a pluralistic context. The text’s explicit condemnation of offerings to “deceitful mud gods” and its association of meat consumption with idolatrous practices suggest that its anti-sacrificial discourse functioned primarily as a boundary-marking mechanism against surrounding religious traditions. In this reading, both the Pseudo-Clementines and the *Book of the Messiah* represent contextual applications of broader anti-sacrificial themes adapted to meet the specific polemical needs of their respective religious environments.

The vegetarian emphasis of the *Book of the Messiah* may have drawn particularly on Manichaean dietary traditions, which prescribed absolute vegetarianism for the elect and prohibited alcohol consumption (Tajadod 1990, 218–20; Lieu 1998, 92)—practices that closely align with the Chinese text’s moral framework. The text’s presentation of Jesus’s death as a teaching on impermanence, described as “like a transient flame” (*zhuanzhu 轉燭*), similarly resonates with central Manichaean theological features rather than traditional Christian soteriology, as impermanence constituted one of the principal teachings that Arab historians retained from Mani’s preaching (Tajadod 1990, 153) and featured prominently in Chinese Manichaean literature such as Hymn H 111 (Rault 2019, 111–29). The text’s condemnation of “mud gods” likewise diverges from New Testament traditions, which neither prohibit meat consumption nor teach against alcohol. These theological consonances are reinforced by the probable presence of Manichaeism in western China by the early seventh century, as evidenced by later Turfan manuscripts documenting the Uighur khagan’s conversion to Manichaeism in 762 (Moriyasu 2015) and the religion’s official tolerance for foreigners throughout the Chinese empire by 732. Buddhist influences are equally apparent, as vegetarianism became a distinctive characteristic of Chinese Buddhism, imposed on Buddhist clergy in the early sixth century (Greene 2016; Lavoix 2016), while the prohibition against killing all forms of life constitutes the first of the five Buddhist precepts (*pañcaśila*). These theological consonances suggest that both Manichaean and Buddhist traditions formed part of the broader religious context in which anti-sacrificial positions could be articulated in Central Asian environments.

Having been composed within distinct cultural milieus, the Chinese *Book of the Messiah* and the Pseudo-Clementine *Homilies* and *Recognitions* adopted varying approaches to accommodate their respective audiences. On this account, the Chinese manuscript demonstrates other evident influences from Confucian traditions, elements absent from the Pseudo-Clementines.
For instance, the Chinese work positions respect for the reigning emperor and for one's parrs as equivalent in significance to reverence for the divine, aligning with Confucian customs (II: 3–5, Balmont 2025d, 104–07).

This comparative analysis suggests that the anti-sacrificial discourse shared by the *Book of the Messiah* and the Pseudo-Clementine literature reflects the strategic adaptation of available theological resources to address similar challenges of religious differentiation in polytheistic contexts. As the Pseudo-Clementines would have engaged with fourth-century debates surrounding Julian's revival of pagan sacrifice and Neoplatonist theurgy, the Chinese text would have deployed comparable rhetorical strategies against Central Asian Zoroastrian practices, drawing on the broader religious milieu. As K. Zetterholm has demonstrated, ancient society's associative structure enabled the circulation of theological traditions across different communities without requiring direct institutional connections (Zetterholm 2022, 337). Such a social framework would have facilitated the adaptation of early Christian anti-sacrificial motifs as effective tools for boundary-marking in diverse cultural settings, from fourth-century Syria to medieval central Asia, revealing broader patterns of how religious communities constructed identity through strategic theological adaptation.

## CONCLUSION

In 1951, P. Saeki construed the *Book of the Messiah* as composed by Aluoben, whom he designated a “Nestorian bishop,” and stated that the work was intended for presentation at the Imperial Court of Chang’an, whereby the Chinese Emperor Taizong might comprehend and assess Christian doctrine. Would a bishop of the Church of the East, representing normative ecclesiastical doctrine, have promoted such a radical rejection of animal sacrifice and endorsed strict vegetarian principles in contrast with usual Christian beliefs? The text’s sustained polemic against “mud gods,” animal sacrifice, and meat consumption appears misaligned with the religious context of the early seventh-century Chang’an court, where such polytheistic practices were not prevalent. The text’s theological emphases prove far more relevant to Central Asian contexts, where polytheistic traditions—particularly Zoroastrian practices involving animal sacrifice and religious imagery—dominated the religious landscape.

Similar polytheistic contexts could have generated comparable discursive strategies. Both texts emerged from environments where Jesus-believers confronted sacrifice traditions, likely leading to the strategic deployment of anti-sacrificial rhetoric as a boundary-marking mechanism. The fourth-century Pseudo-Clementines would have addressed the challenges posed by Julian the Apostate’s revival of pagan sacrifice and Neoplatonist theurgy, whereas the Chinese text engaged with Central Asian religious practices within a pluralistic environment that included Manichaean and Buddhist traditions. In both cases, authors probably drew on available theological resources circulating in their respective milieus, selecting and adapting those doctrinal elements that best enabled them to construct distinctive religious identities and establish clear boundaries.

## REFERENCES

* Aguilar-Sanchez, Victor-Manuel. 2021. *Corpus Nestorianum Sinicum: "Thus Have I Heard on the Listening of Mishihe (the Messiah)"序聽迷詩所經 and "Discourse on the One-God"一神論: a Theological Approach with a Proposed Reading Structure and Translation*. Gregorian Press.

* Balmont, Alexis. 2025a. *Le Christianisme Chinois du Haut Moyen Âge: Recherche Historique, Philologique et Théologique sur les Textes Chrétiens Chinois du VIIe au Xe Siècle*. Les éditions du Cerf.
—. 2025b. "Vrais ou Faux? De L'authenticité des Textes Chrétiens Chinois du Haut Moyen Âge." *Études Chinoises* 漢學研究 XLIII:11-31.

—. 2025c. *Textes Chrétiens Chinois du Haut Moyen Âge. Les éditions du Cerf.*

—. 2025d. *Syriac Christians in Tang China: Chinese Texts and Theologies*. Lit Verlag.

Bourgel, Jonathan. 2015. "Reconnaissances 1.27-71, ou la réponse d'un groupe judéo-chrétien de Judée au désastre du soulèvement de Bar-Kohba." *New Testament Studies* 61:30-49.

—. 2017. "The Holders of the Word of Truth: the Pharisee in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71." *Journal of Early Christian Studies* 25 (2):171-200.

Cohn, Naftali. 2012. *The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis*. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Côté, Dominique. 2018. "Sacrifice et Théurgie Dans les Pseudo-Clémentines." In *La Question de la « Sacerdotalisation » Dans le Judaïsme Synagogal, le Christianisme et le Rabbinisme*, edited by S.-C. Mimouni and L. Painchaud. Brepols.

Daly, Robert. 2009. *Sacrifice Unveiled. The True Meaning of Christian Sacrifice*. T & T Clark.

De Vos, Benjamin. 2014. "Paideia, Plato's Sophist and the Pseudo-Clementines: Simon Magus' Characterisation in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies." In *The Reception of Biblical Figures: Essays in Method*, edited by D. Hamidović, E. Serra and P. Therrien. Brepols.

De Vos, Benjamin, and Danny Praet. 2022. "The Pseudo-Clementines: Title, Genre and Research Questions." In *Search of Truth in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: New Approaches to a Philosophical and Rhetorical Novel of Late Antiquity*, edited by B. De Vos and D. Praet. Mohr Siebeck.

Deeg, Max. 2020. "Messiah Rediscovered: Some Philological Notes on the So-called Jesus the Messiah Sutra." In *The Church of the East in Central Asia and China*, edited by S. N. Lieu and G. T. Thompson. Brepols.

Ferguson, Everett. 1980. "Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment." In *Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW)/Rise and Decline of the Roman World* 23 (2), edited by H. Temporini et al. *De Gruyter*.

Frankenberg, Wilhelm. 1937. *Die Syrischen Clementinen mit Griechischem Paralleltext. Eine Vorarbeit zu dem Literargeschichtlichen Problem der Sammlung (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur)*. J. C. Hinrichs Verlag.

Gebhart, Joseph Glen. 2014. *The Syriac Clementine Recognitions and Homilies. The First Complete Translation of the Text*. Grave Distractions Publications.

Greene, Eric. 2016. "A Reassessment of the Early History of Chinese Buddhist Vegetarianism." *Asia Major* 29 (1):1-43.

Haneda, Tōru 羽田亨. 1958. *Haneda Hakushi Shigaku Ronbunshū* 羽田博士史學論文集 [Collection of Historiographical Articles by Doctor Haneda]. Vol. 2. Toyoshi Kenkyukai 東洋史研究会 [Society for the Study of Far East History].

Jones, F. Stanley. 2014. *The Syriac Pseudo-Clementines. An Early Version of the First Christian Novel (Apocryphes 14)*. Brepols.

Jones, F. Stanley. 2015. *An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity. Pseudo-Clementines Recognitions 1.27-71*. Society of Biblical Literature.

Jun, Wang, and Michael Cavayero. 2025. "Exploring Early Buddhist-Christian (Jingjiao 景教) Dialogues in Text and Image: A Cultural Hermeneutic Approach." *Religions* 16 (565):1-35.

Kelhoffer, James. 2005. *The Diet of John the Baptist*. Mohr Siebeck.

Kelley, Nicole. 2006. *Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines. Situating the Recognitions in Fourth Century Syria*. Mohr Siebeck.

—. 2022. "Pseudo-Clementine Polemics Against Sacrifice: A Window onto Religious Life in the Fourth Century?" In *Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent. New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions*, edited by P. Piovanelli and T. Burke. Mohr Siebeck.

Klawans, Jonathan. 2006. *Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism*. Oxford University Press.

Kotyk, Jeffrey. 2024. *Sino-Iranian and Sino-Arabian Relations in Late Antiquity: China and the Parthians, Sasanians, and Arabs in the First Millenium*. Brill.

Kraft, Robert. 1972. *Épître de Barnabé* (Sources Chrétiennes 172). Les éditions du Cerf.

Kyōu shooku 杏雨書屋. 2020. *Tonkō hikyū. Keikyō kyōten shishū* 「敦煌秘笈」景教經典四種 [The Four Canonical Books of the Luminous Teaching from the "Dunhuang Secret Collections"]. Takeda Kagaku-Shinkō Zaidan 武田科學振興財團 [Takeda Science Foundation].
Lavoix, Valérie. 2016. "La Contribution des Laïcs au Végétarianisme: Croisades et Polémiques en Chine du Sud Autour de l'an 500." In *Bouddhisme et Lettres Dans la Chine Medievale*, edited by C. Despeux. Éditions de l'INALCO.

Lieu, Samuel. 1998. *Manichaeism in Central Asia and China* (NHMS 45). Brill.

Lin, Wushu. 2000. "Fugang Qianzang shi cang Jingjiào Yishen lun zhenwei cunyi 冈冂谦藏氏藏景教《一神论》真伪存疑" [On the Authenticity of the Tomioka Kenzō Manuscript of the Luminous Teaching Discourse on God]. *Tang yanjiu* 唐研究 6:67–86.

Moriyasu, Takao. 2015. "New Developments in the History of East Uighur Manichaeism." *Open Theology* 1:316–33.

Moule, Arthur. 1930. *Christians in China Before the Year 1550*. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Nicolini-Zani, Matteo. 2006. *La via Radiosa per l'Oriente: i Testi e la Storia del Primo Incontro del Cristianesimo con il Mondo Culturale e Religioso Cinese* (Secoli VII-IX). Edizioni Qiqajon.

Nicolini-Zani, Matteo. 2022. *The Luminous Way to the East: Texts and History of the First Encounter of Christianity with China*. Oxford University Press.

Petropolou, Marie-Zoe. 2008. *Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200*. Oxford University Press.

Rault, Lucie. 2019. *L'Hymnaire Manichéen Chinois Xiabuzan 下部讚 à L'usage des Auditeurs. Un Manuscrit Trouvé à Dunhuang, Traduit, Commenté et Annoté* (NHMS 94). Brill.

Reed, Anette Yoshiko. 2003. "From Sacrifice to the Slaughterhouse. Ancient and Modern Approaches to Meat, Animals, and Civilization." In *Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 26*, edited by M. Horii and T. Wenger. Brill.

——. 2014. "Jewish Christianity after the Parting of the Ways. Approaches to Historiography and Self-Definition in the Pseudo-Clementines." In *The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages*, edited by A. Becker and A. Y. Reed. Mohr Siebeck.

——. 2018. "Rethinking Sacrifice in the Pseudo-Clementine *Homilies*." In *La question de la « Sacerdotalisation » dans le Judaïsme Synagogal, le Christianisme et le Rabbinisme*, edited by S.-C. Mimouni and L. Painchaud. Brepols.

Rehm, Bernhard, and Georg Strecker. 1965. *Die Pseudoklementinen II: Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung. Akademie Verlag*.

——. 1992. *Die Pseudoklementinen I: Homilien*. Akademie Verlag.

Regev, Eyal. 2020. "The Early Church Fathers on Sacrifices and Temple: Rejection, Substitution, or Metaphor?" *Journal of the Jesus Movement in its Jewish Setting* 7:116–40.

Rong, Xinjiang. 2014. "Dunhuang Jingjiao wenxian xieben de zhen yu wei 敦煌景教文献写本的真与伪" [The Authenticity of Some Jingjiao Texts from Dunhuang]. In *San Yijiao yanjiu: Lin Wushu xiansheng guxi jinian lunwen ji 三夷教研究: 林悟殊先生古稀纪念论文集* [Studies on the Three Foreign Religions: Festschrift for the Lin Wushu's 70th Birthday], edited by Zhang Xiaogui 张小贵 et al. Lanzhou University Press.

Rosenkranz, Gerhard. 1937. "Die Älteste Christienheit in China in den Nestorianische Quellenzeugnissen der Tang-Zeit." *Zeitschrift für Missionkunde und Religionswissenschaft* 52:193–280.

Saeki, Peter. 1932. "The Hsu-t'ing Mi-shi-so Sutra or, Jesus-Messiah-Sutra." *Journal of the North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society* 63:31–45.

——. 1951. *The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China*. 3rd ed. The Academy of Oriental Culture.

Stroumsa, Georg. 2009. *The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity*. The University of Chicago Press.

Sun, Jianqiang. 2018. "The Earliest Statements of Christian Faith in China? A Critique of the Conventional Chronology of *The Messiah Sutra* and *On One God*." *Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies* 18 (2): 133–52.

Tam, David. 2024. "Doubts on the Authenticity of the Ancient Chinese Christian Manuscript Yishen Lun (Tomioka) - A Discourse Analysis." *HTS Theological Studies* 80 (2):1–7.

Tang, Li. 2004. *A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and its Literature in Chinese, Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents*. Peter Lang.

Tajadod, Najal. 1990. *Mani le Bouddha de Lumière. Catéchisme Manichéen Chinois. Les Éditions du Cerf*.

Thompson, Glen. 2024. *Jingjiao: The Earliest Christian Church in China*. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ullucci, Daniel. 2012. *The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice*. Oxford University Press.

Wang, Lanping. 2015. "A Textual Analysis of Chinese Characters with Their Variants in Two Dunhuang Jingjiao Manuscripts." *Ching Feng* 14:23–31.
——. 2016. *Tangdai Dunhuang hanwen Jingjiao xiejing yanjiu 唐代敦煌汉文景教写经研究 [Research on the Tang Dynasty Scriptures of the Luminous Teaching in Chinese from Dunhuang]*. Minzu Chubanshe.
Zetterholm, Karin. 2022. "Christ Assemblies within a Jewish Context. Reconstructing a Social Setting for the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies." In *Negociating Identities. Conflict, Conversion and Consolidation in Early Judaism and Christianity (200 BCE-600 CE)*, edited by K. Zetterholm et al. Rowman & Littlefield.
Zhang, Yunu. 2021. "*The Invention of the Early Tang Bible.*" Unpublished M.A. thesis, UC Santa Barbara.