Good Question...were the Apostolic Fathers unable to distinguish
between authentic and unauthentic books?
(Part Two: Created August 28, 1998)
Continuing from Part One...
In the last piece, we saw that the answer to Part
One of this question:
1. Was Clement even aware of the NT documents, and,
if so, was he aware of the written form of the NT documents, especially
the Gospels?
...was a decided "YES", and so we move on to the next Part of the question:
2. What was his attitude toward the NT material? Was
he influenced by it, did he consider it authoritative, was it on a par
with the OT? What does his usage patterns tell us?
The first step is to establish a methodology for determining the
answer to this question. We might look for things like:
1. Are there any explicit comments about the NT materials?
2. Does he mix OT and NT allusions/connections indiscriminately?
3. Does he use the same or similar introductory phrases?
4. Does he seem to appeal to it as authoritative (or at least the allusions/connections
as being 'binding')?
5. How much from each testament does he "use", and what implications
from this might we be warranted in drawing?
Let's see what we can glean from the data in each one of these areas...
1. Are there any explicit comments about the NT materials?
Some.
First, we note (as does the questioner) that the words
of Jesus are put on a par with the OT Scriptures.
This is clear from a number of passages:
In 1CL 2.1, we see that Christ's words are God's words:
"Moreover, ye were all distinguished by humility, and were in no respect
puffed up with pride, but yielded obedience rather than extorted it, and
were more willing to give than to receive. Content with the provision
which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words,
ye were inwardly filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were
before your eyes."
In 1CL 13, we have already seen that Christ's words were written,
and are put on a par with the OT "holy word" at the end of the
passage as well: "Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying
aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings;
and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy
Spirit saith, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let
the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man Story in his
riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking
Him, and doing judgment and righteousness" ), being especially mindful
of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching us meekness
and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain
mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you ; as ye do, so shall it
be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so
shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same
it shall be measured to you." By this precept and by these rules let us
establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His
holy words. For the holy word saith, "On whom shall I look,
but on him that is meek and peaceable, and that trembleth at My words?
"
In 1CL 22.1f, Christ is said to have authored a Psalm,
through the Holy Spirit: "Now the faith which is in Christ confirms
all these [admonitions]. For He Himself by the Holy Ghost thus addresses
us: "Come, ye children, hearken unto Me; I will teach you the fear of the
Lord..."
Second, the apostles are compared to Moses, and the apostolic
teaching to the written Mosaic Law.
This is apparent from the argument in 43-44. In 43, Moses is held up
as a source of teaching, which is the target of sedition:
"And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with
such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when
the blessed Moses also, "a faithful servant in all his house," noted
down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him,
and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one
consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry
arose concerning the priesthood...What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses
know beforehand that this would happen?"
And in 44, the pattern is applied to the Apostles:
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would
be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason,
therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge
of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards
gave instructions,
[EXCURSUS--"Levels" of inspiration:
It should be remembered, that for all the attempts of Clement to derive
the authority of the deposed elders/bishops from the Apostolic authority,
he nonetheless recognized some uniqueness of the apostles.
Their teaching, via the Holy Spirit, was still qualitatively different.
This can be seen in three ways.
1. He sets up their direct link to Christ in 42: "The apostles
have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ
[has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and
the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made
in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received
their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the
Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at
hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the
first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,
to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe" (notice
they did NOT set up 'apostles', but rather 'bishops and deacons')
2. Peter and Paul are distinguished in chapter 5 from other
saints in chapter 6. After eulogizing the OT saints in chapter 4, Clement
introduces the apostles in chapter 5 thus: "But not to dwell upon ancient
examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let
us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through
envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of
the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our
eyes the illustrious apostles." In chapter 6, in which he
moves on to "regular" martyrs, he distinguishes them from the apostles:
"To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness,
there is to be added a great multitude of the elect..."
3. The apostles are likewise given a higher status in chapter
47: "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write
to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under
the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and
Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.
But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon
you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles,
already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved."
This impacts our study here only slightly. The Fathers (like teachers
today) will claim to speak God's words and/or to be inspired by the Holy
Spirit, but only in what might be called a "local only impact zone". In
other words, the inspiration of the Apostles was of a higher order, and
hence of usefulness to the Church Global (and hence, canonized), whereas
the latter teachers' inspiration was designed only for a local community
or local issue.
Clement is no exception to this. He can claim to speak the words of
God (59.1: "what God has told them through us") and that his epistle was
prompted/written though the Holy Spirit (63.2). But it is clear that he
considered the Apostolic authority to be significantly greater than his
own--indeed, on a par with the OT authority (see below). END EXCURSUS]
Third, there is the explicit mention of Paul's letter to
the Corinthians in 47.1:
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did
he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?
Upon (epi) true (aletheias) Spirit-inspiration (pneumatikos),
he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even
then parties had been formed among you"
Although we cannot press this too far, given the differential between Patristic
authority and Apostolic authority, this amounts to a high claim of 'biblical
inspiration.' Indeed, the standard Greek lexicon of the period (BAG, s.v.
"pneumatikos") translates this as " full of the (divine) Spirit,
he wrote to you".
However, the fact that this argument from Paul is used immediately
after the words of Jesus in 1CL46, lends credence to the idea that Clement
saw the epistle as quite authoritative and binding upon his audience.
So, in this first aspect--explicit mention--we see that:
(1) Jesus is put on a par with the OT;
(2) the Apostles (and their instructions) are put on a par with Moses
(and his instructions--the Mosaic Law);
(3) Paul's epistle is accorded very, very high authority, and is used
in argument along ide the words of Jesus.
This would strongly suggest that the NT documents were understood as 'inspired'
by Clement.
................................................................................................................................
2. Does he mix OT and NT allusions/connections indiscriminately?
Here we want to look at the patterns of conflations
Let's consider a couple of passages:
Let's look first at 1CL 27, and lay out the possible connections,
phrase-by-phrase.
-
"Having then this hope" (NT, 2 Cor 3.12, "Having therefore such
a hope")
-
"let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises (NT,
Heb 10.23, "for He who promised is faithful")
-
"and just in His judgments. (OT, Psalms 119.24 , passim, "Thy
judgments are righteous")
-
" He who has commanded us not to lie" (NT, Col 3.9, "Do not lie
to one another"; the OT uses a different word, the legal 'false witness',
for this in LXX...this verb/command ONLY occurs in the NT)
-
"shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God"
(NT, Lk 1.37, passim, "For nothing will be impossible with God")
-
"except to lie" (NT, Tit 1.2,"which God, who cannot lie"
and Heb 6.18, "it is impossible for God to lie")
-
"Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us (NT, 2 Pet
3.1, "I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder")
-
"and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. (OT, Jer
23.24 and Ps 139.7-12)
-
"By the word of His might He established all things (NT, 2 Pet 3.5-7,
"by the word of God the heavens existed", and maybe Gen 1?)
-
"and by His word He can overthrow them." (NT, 2 Pet 3.5-7, pre-flood
earth destroyed by Word & water; by Word reserved for future judgment)
-
"Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done? or, Who shall resist the
power of His strength? " (OT, the first part of this matches the LXX
of Wisdom of Solomon 12.12, which itself is dependent on Job 36.23 and
word-for-word on Dan 4.35)
-
"When and as He pleases He will do all things" (OT, many sovereignty
passages; but may be dep. On Eph 1.11, "who works all things after the
counsel of His own will", or, in context, reflecting on 2 Peter's "patience"
motif)
-
"and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away" (NT is
closest here, Matt 24.35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words
shall not pass away")
-
"All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His
counsel." (NT, probably closest to Heb 4.13, "And there is no creature
hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes
of Him with whom we have to do", but could also be reflecting Ps 139,
as the Hebrews passage is)
-
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His
handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth
knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not
heard." (OT quote from Ps 19.1-3, no intro formula).
The thing to notice here is that 1CL mixes indiscriminately--without
ANY markers, formulae, or "clues"--OT quotes (Ps 19, Dan 4.35),
OT allusions (Ps 139, Ps 119), NT quotes (Lk 1.37, Heb4.13;
6.18), and NT allusions (2 Peter 3; Col 3.9). This argues quite
strongly that 1CL made no distinctions in authority, teaching appropriateness,
and 'inspiration' between the OT and NT.
I might also point out that the comment in 27.2 ("He commanded us not
to lie"), if indeed a reference to Col 3.9 and the related NT passages--instead
of the more remote OT passages bearing on 'false witness'--makes God
the author of Paul's epistle to the Colossians! This would represent
inspiration at the same level (e.g., dual authorship) of the OT Scripture.
To show that this is not an isolated phenomena, let's look at another
passage in this same way, 1CL 34:
-
"The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence;
the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. (none apparent)
-
"It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing;
(NT, Titus 3.8,passim, "those who have believed God may be careful to
engage in good deeds" or 2 Thess 3.13, "do not grow weary of doing
good" )
-
"for of Him are all things." (NT, Rom 11.36, passim, "For from
Him and through Him and to Him are all things")
-
"And thus He forewarns us:" (Notice that the following quote is
intro'd by this formula)
-
"Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render
to every man according to his work." (OT and maybe NT; the margins
of Loeb and ECF list this as a conflation of Is 40.10; 62.11; Rom 24.12;
Rev 22.12; [Hagner believes the 'short, but striking' phrase match with
Revelation is not enough to include it in the conflation, but too quickly
assumes the presence of yet another tradition or catechesis.])
-
"He exhorts us, therefore, if we believe on him with our whole heart,
not to be lazy or careless 'in every good work.'" (NT, notice this
is slightly closer to the Titus passages, esp the 'believer' clause in
3.8--"that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good
deeds"--and the final phrase is generally acknowledged as a quote from
Titus 3.1)
-
"Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him." (probably NT, Cor
1.31, with echoes of the Jeremiah passage that Paul draws upon)
-
"Let us submit ourselves to His will. (NT, closest matches are Heb
12.9--"subject to the Father of spirits" and Jas 4.7--"submit
yourselves to God")
-
" Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand
ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith," (Note
that the following quote is intro'd by "the Scripture says")
-
"Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of
thousands ministered unto Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord
of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory." [OT, unmarked
conflation of Dan 7.10 and Is 6.3; though we have earlier noticed how this
passage was definitely influenced by the passage in Revelation.]
-
"And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony,
cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth" (NT, Rom 15.6, "that with
one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ")
-
"that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises"
(NT, 2 Pet 1.4, For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent
promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine
nature)
-
"For He saith, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that
wait for Him." (Both? This is almost verbatim from 1 Cor 2.9, which
itself is based on Is 64.4. We have seen earlier that this was a very clear
case where 1CL was influenced by the literary form of the NT, but we cannot
be sure that he is actually quoting Paul under the "He saith" or merely
Isaiah.)
Notice that you have NT and OT connections intermingled here, but also
notice something strange about the citation formulae:
-
"And thus He forewarns us" introduces a conflation of OT, and possible
one NT, passages.
-
"He exhorts us" introduces a conflation of NT quotes, taken from
Titus et. al.
-
"For the Scripture says" introduces a conflation of OT quotes, but
definitely influenced by the NT.
-
"For He says" introduces a verbatim quote from the NT, but which
is probably meant to be from the OT.
Number Two above indicates that 1CL could introduce NT texts with a 'high
inspiration' intro formula!
Let's consider one final passage, 1CL 38. (here I will omit
material without close parallel/connection)
-
"Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus;" (NT,
obviously I Cor 12, the body-motif already discussed by 1CL in the immediately
preceding passage)
-
"and let every one be subject to his neighbour," (NT, Eph 5.21,
"and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ")
-
"according to the special gift bestowed upon him" (NT, 1 Pet 4.10,
"As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another")
-
"Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect
unto the strong" (NT, Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8)
-
"Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; (NT, 1 Tim
6.18, "instruct the rich to do good, to be rich in good works, to be
generous and ready to share")
-
"and let the poor man bless God, because He hath given him one by whom
his need may be supplied." (NT, 2 Cor 4.15, passim, "spreading to
more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory
of God")
-
"Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through
good deeds." (NT, Jas 3.13, "Who among you is wise and understanding?
Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom")
-
"Let the humble not bear testimony to himself, but leave witness to
be borne to him by another." (OT, Prov 27.2, "Let another praise
you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips.")
-
"Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast,
knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence."
(NT, 1 Cor 4.7, "And what do you have that you did not receive? But
if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?"
and 7.7, "Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However,
each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in
that")
-
"Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made,-who and
what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulchre,
and from utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared
His bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His
world. Since, therefore, we receive all these things from Him, we ought
for everything to give Him thanks; to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen. (OT, Psalm 139, with an closing benediction from Pauline epistles).
The main thing to notice here is that embedded in the middle of a string
of NT allusions is an OT allusion--without marker or discriminating clues,
and the string finishes up with an OT cite, rounded out with some verbiage
from the NT. It looks as if 1CL made no practical distinction between
his use of the OT and his use of the NT.
So, from the survey of three passages, we have gleaned:
-
1CL treats OT quotes, OT allusions, NT quotes, NT allusions all as peers,
relative to authority and inspiration;
-
1CL may hold to a very high inspiration of the Pauline epistles, if 27.2
is referring to Col 3.9;
-
1CL introduces a conflation from Titus with a high formula ("He exhorts
us")
-
1CL can use OT allusions within strings of NT allusions without having
to mark them out as 'different'
Thus, the pattern of usage of 1CL in mixed passages indicates no
distinction between OT and NT material.
................................................................................................................................
3. Does he use the same or similar introductory phrases?
Here we want to see if any of the introductory phrases, which we saw
applied to the OT, also occur in front of NT connections.
The first thing to note is that almost half of the OT connections
have no introduction at all, and that we have identified (in part
One) several NT connections that fell into the same pattern.
The second thing to note is that we could probably find introductory
formulas applied to NT material, if we looked more at the 'closer parallels'
than simply assuming a direct OT background. We saw specifically (above,
for example):
-
Jesus' words from the Synoptics were said to be "written" and "instructions
to do"
-
The conflation from Titus was introduced with "He exhorts us"
-
The passage in 27.2, likely referring to Col 3.9, uses a high intro: "God
commanded us..."
To this we could certainly add the epithet "commandments of God/the
Lord", for in chapters one and two of 1CL, he describes their faithfulness
to a string of NT injunctions, and then twice says they were obedient
to the "commandments of God/the Lord":
"For who ever dwelt even for a short time among you, and did not find
your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who
did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ?
Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And
who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For
ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments
of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving
all fitting honour to the presbyters among you. Ye enjoined young men to
be of a sober and serious mind; ye instructed your wives to do all things
with a blameless, becoming, and pure conscience, loving their husbands
as in duty bound; and ye taught them that, living in the rule of obedience,
they should manage their household affairs becomingly, and be in every
respect marked by discretion. (from 1CL 1)
"Moreover, ye were all distinguished by humility, and were in no respect
puffed up with pride, but yielded obedience rather than extorted it, and
were more willing to give than to receive. Content with the provision which
God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, ye were inwardly
filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were before your eyes. Thus
a profound and abundant peace was given to you all, and ye had an insatiable
desire for doing good, while a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon
you all. Full of holy designs, ye did, with true earnestness of mind and
a godly confidence, stretch forth your hands to God Almighty, beseeching
Him to be merciful unto you, if ye had been guilty of any involuntary transgression.
Day and night ye were anxious for the whole brotherhood, that the number
of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience. Ye were
sincere and uncorrupted, and forgetful of injuries between one another.
Every kind of faction and schism was abominable in your sight. Ye mourned
over the transgressions of your neighbours: their deficiencies you deemed
your own. Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being "ready to every good
work." Adorned by a thoroughly virtuous and religious life, ye did all
things in the fear of God. The commandments and ordinances of the Lord
were written upon the tablets of your hearts.(chapter two)
Even a cursory glance at the above will reveal a mass of NT 'specialty'
motifs, all subsumed under the rubric of "the commandments of" God or the
Lord. This not only demonstrates the divine authority of the NT motifs,
but even the God-originated character of them. In short, they were
inspired at the 'commandments level' (i.e., Moses)!
The third thing to note is that the word "scripture" is not
applied to it, but this is of little practical import. Given that NT connections
are "written", "commandments of the Lord", "commandments of God", and God-authored
(e.g., "God exhorts us..."), the lack of applying the word 'scripture'
to them is apparently only a historical note. That those closest to the
activity of the Spirit (e.g., Paul and Peter) could recognize the NT material
as 'scripture' counts more than the lack of use of the term in Clement's
writing. [I personally suspect that the term was merely a traditional-use
term, for the 'venerable' scrolls of the Tanakh/OT, which were in less
circulation than the more 'common' codex-forms of most of the NT documents.
Eventually, as we shall see, even this traditional usage gave way to the
sheer power of the NT to impress upon its readers the divine character
of its docs.]
Hagner understands this lack of attribution of "scripture" to the apostolic
writings as being a non-issue. He discusses the several factors which probably
contributed to this phenomena, but consistently points out that they
were treated as being as authoritative as the OT writings. So HI:UONTCL:341,
343]:
"How are we to account for the fact that these apostolic writings
did not immediately take their place beside the OT as 'Scripture'? In view
of the high authority ascribed by Clement and the Apostolic Fathers to
Christ and the Apostles, it is wrong to suggest that the words and
writings of the latter were regarded as inferior to the OT Scriptures
in authority. The explanation seems to lie in a complex of attendant
circumstances, rather than in any deficiency of intrinsic merit."
"A very important reason...for the reluctance to refer to apostolic
writings as 'Scripture' is simply that it had not become customary to
do so. The term 'Scripture' and the formula 'It is written' were convenient
for reference to a more or less clearly defined body of writings which
the Church had inherited from Judaism. Despite the acknowledged authority
of the apostolic writings--an authority which at least implicitly equaled
that of the OT--it was no small innovation to apply the title to the newer
writings, thereby going against traditional usage. Moreover, since
these writings bore the authority of Christ, it is quite possible that
in the early Church no need was felt for designating them 'Scripture'--and
no advantage either, since the Jews would simply dispute the claim. Accordingly,
the impetus for such designation may well have been lacking, at least prior
to the time of Marcion."
So, the intro formulas seem to indicate a parity between the OT and NT
documents (despite the lack of using the word 'scripture').
................................................................................................................................
4. Does he seem to appeal to it as authoritative (or at least the
allusions/connections as being 'binding')?
This we have already noted above, esp. in regards to (a) the introductory
formula and (b) the pattern of weaving OT and NT connections together into
single arguments.
We might also note here the intermingling of OT and NT in the great
argument form of 1CL 46-47. In this section, Clement uses the following
warrants:
-
46.1-4: OT citations, using "it is written" and "it says in another place"
-
46.5-7: NT allusions and semi-cites, from Ephesians and Romans
-
46.7-9: Words of Jesus (from synoptic material)
-
47.1-3: Appeal to the "epistle" of Paul, 'truly inspired'.
This mingling of material, in such a short section of argument, can
leave no doubt that they all are cut from the same cloth--the OT, the gospel
material, and the NT apostolic writings.
What we keep seeing, is that the very texture of 1CL reveals the high
status accorded to the NT writings, and its usage in authoritative contexts
and conflation illustrate this quite clearly.
................................................................................................................................
5. How much from each testament does he "use", and what implications
from this might we be warranted in drawing?
There are essentially two points to look at here.
First we need to note the massive amount of NT material in 1CL.
In part One, I had built a table of OT citations/connections
(111 or so), and the same thing for NT connections (200+). Given this mix
of material, in a book roughly the size of 1 Corinthians or Romans, we
should be careful in drawing any contrasts between Clement's attitudes
to the OT and to the NT. Citation formulae aside, the very intermingled
usage is clear in its import.
But the second point is the one raised by the questioner:
Why is he not eager to quote from the gospels and the NT letters?
(Nearly all his teaching is from the OT)
Let me make some observations about this:
First, it should be clear now that most of his teaching is not
from the OT, but from the NT. It is merely the formal citations and his
examples that are mostly from the OT.
Secondly, we must also recognize the highly speculative nature of this
question. When we get into psycho-analyzing Clement's motives, we have
moved into a different realm of argument than we have been in. The world
of textual comparison and exegesis is much more 'solid' than trying to
get inside Clement's head about why he choose to argue the way he did.
Third, given the preceding point, we must recognize that to argue from
his lack (relatively speaking) of formally introduced NT citations will
be an argument from silence (or very close to it, depending on how much
force one ascribes to it).
With all of this in mind, I personally have my theory on
why he didn't use the same OT citation style as frequently for the NT arguments:
1. First of all, it seems clear to me that he is trying to demonstrate
that the "upstarts" in Corinth had broken with tradition much older
than even the NT. It would serve his purpose better to use OT examples
and OT maxims to prove his point, than more novel and recent NT materials.
This can be seen quite clearly in his argument from apostolic 'method'
in 42.4-5:
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ;
Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by
God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made
in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received
their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the
Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at
hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the
first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,
to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. And
this was no new method, since indeed many ages before it was written
concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain
place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons
in faith."
2. This emphasis on 'continuity' and 'antiquity', besides being a dominant
value in Roman life, was consistently used and pointed out by Clement,
in a way that NT material would be useless to him:
In chapter 7.5, he argues "Let us review all the generations, and
let us learn that in generation after generation the Master has given
a place of repentance to those who will turn to him"
In 19.1, he argues concerning the "generations before us"
In 31.1, he calls the readers to ponder the old: "Let us cleave then
to His blessing, and consider what are the means of possessing it. Let
us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning.
For what reason was our father Abraham blessed?"
In 42.5, we have the comment we noted above about "no new method"
In 45, his argument is that the bad-guys of Corinth were just like the
bad-guys of the OT. The whole argument needs a wealth of examples from
the OT, to demonstrate that their "wickedness" had been judged by God
previously.
In 62, he refers again to "even as our fathers, whose example
we quoted".
3. Clement is not just going for 'antiquity', but he also wants to argue
from quantity. In 63.1 he states: "It is therefore right
that we should respect so many and so great examples...." Any such
argument from example--if trying to build a case from quantity--is
simply going to be forced to get most of its material from the OT.
4. Additionally, there is a distinct possibility that Clement is trying
to "look apostolic" in the letter, adding force to his arguments. His very
deliberate imitation of the style of Paul and of the author of Hebrews
shows he is going for this effect, but his lack of citing them may indicate
a desire on his part to not draw attention to the gap in authority
between himself and his sources. In other words, if Clement had said "Submit
to your elders, as the apostle Peter said" , then this would have been
a tacit admission that Clement did not possess the requisite authority
to command them. And this may have been a point that Clement did NOT want
to bring up, since technically speaking, at 95ad the church at Rome had
no "authority" over Corinth in any real sense of the word. He could
use apostolic forms and terms and arguments, and as long as he didn't
cite them, then he stood the chance of being perceived at 'apostolic level',
as he actually was briefly. [1CL was accepted as canonical scripture briefly
in Egypt, being cited as 'scripture' by Clement of Alexandria, and it was
included in a few NT canonical lists in Syria for a short period of time.]
Richardson points out that the fine line between "influence" and "authority"
was only now being developed in early thinking [HI:ECF:35-36]:
"It was nothing extraordinary for leaders of one church to send a letter
of advice and warning to another congregation. The apostolic prerogative
exercised by Paul had set a wide precedent which was followed by the author
of the seven letters in the Revelation, by Ignatius, by Polycarp, by Dionysius
of Corinth, by Serapion, and by many others. Each Christian community seems
to have felt a sufficient sense of responsibility for the others so that
its leaders could admonish them with solicitude. In some instances, of
course, the authors claimed a special right to speak. The seer of the Revelation
and the martyr Ignatius are examples. But the point to bear in mind is
that the local churches did not conceive of themselves as isolated and
autonomous units. They were part of the wider Church, and were not unconcerned
with what happened in other congregations. This is most forcibly brought
home to us by the style of our document. For it is not written in the name
of an individual, but of a congregation. It is very far from a papal decree,
though it was doubtless written by one of the leaders of the Roman church.
It makes no claim to superior authority, but, basing itself on the authority
of Scripture, it tries to persuade an errant congregation to return to
the right way.
"Furthermore, that Rome should intervene in the internal affairs of
the Corinthian church is partly to be explained by the close relations
between the two cities. Refounded as a Roman colony in the middle of the
first century, Corinth had built up a peculiarly intimate connection in
trade and culture with the mother city. Indeed, excavations have made clear
how exactly Corinth tried to mimic Rome--in its sculpture, architecture,
organization, and even its names. Neither the church at Rome nor that at
Corinth was, it is true, Latin in race or language. The predominant element
in both congregations was doubtless converted Hellenistic Jews. Yet these
affinities between the two cities help to explain even the Christian connections.
Corinth, moreover, by being a natural halt on the route between Rome and
the East would be in constant touch with the imperial capital.
"Yet it cannot be denied that these two explanations do not fully account
for the tone of the letter. Rome very definitely regards it as her duty
to intervene (ch. 63) and sends envoys to see that matters are put right
(ch. 65). Something of her unique place as the church of the imperial
city, and the church of Peter and Paul (ch. 5), must surely have been in
the writer's mind. Among the Roman clergy (as we learn from Hermas, Vis.,
11, ch. 4) there seems to have been one who acted as a sort of 'foreign
secretary' for the church, sending abroad various advices and exhortations
as well as gifts of charity. This implies more than a casual relation with
other churches; and while this should not be pressed to vindicate much
later papal claims, it does indicate that the Roman community took most
seriously its responsibility as a sister church for the welfare of other
congregations. Here, in germ, is that exercise of authority which was to
become the papal primacy.
5. The above points make sense from the nature of Clement's argument,
but I personally think that a more fundamental reason exists. I personally
am convinced that the NT materials do not support his thesis to begin with!
Apart from the more generic comments of Jesus on humility and meekness
(which Clement uses), I am hard pressed to find any other sections in the
Gospels that support Clement's position! Jesus seemed to be constantly
rejecting the leadership of Judaism--even setting up a "sect" of Judaism(!)--and
the one passage that might be useful to Clement (i.e., telling the healed
leper "to do what those that sit in Moses' seat command"), would end up
being a condemnation of the elders he wanted re-instated! I can almost
visualize the Corinthians, in response, using the Parable of the Wicked
Tenants against Clement!
And Clement's hero and role-model Paul might present the same problem.
The general sections on love, humility, and unity Clement uses, but the
passages on false apostles, 'wolves from among your midst' , his public
rebuke of Peter, his rejection of some local leaders (cf. John's similar
action in 3 Jn 9), and his seeming lack of authority-based action in Galatians
(cf. the "reputed to be pillars" texts) might render much of Paul's material
(other than the pro-hierarchy material that he does use) counter-productive
to Clement.
It is certainly thought by many that Clement is considerably at variance
with Pauline thought (so ABD, HI:ECF). Note Richardson's summary in HI:ECF:39:
"To summarize: Clement's letter reflects the movement away
from the Pauline faith to a type of Christianity in which ethical interests
and concern for law and order predominate. This does not, however,
exclude both acquaintance with, and some grasp of, the Pauline gospel.
The cleavage is not so sharp as it is sometimes made out. Nor do the Stoic
expressions to be found in Clement or his interest in, and familiarity
with, the pagan world, indicate that he has capitulated to an alien culture.
Rather must we say that Roman Christianity is giving evidence of its background
in Hellenistic Judaism, and adapting itself to the imperial capital."
So, between the method of Clement's argument (i.e. that the recent
activity in Corinth is against the entire tradition of God throughout history)
and possible lack of suitable NT materials to support his argument, it
makes perfect sense why he would not and could not cite the NT materials
any more than he did!
I cannot help but believe--given the argument of the book--that had
Clement found suitable materials in the NT, he would have used them.
So, where does this leave us?
1. The words of Jesus are put on a par with the OT scriptures. (Or
maybe above them, since Christ is said to have been the ultimate
Author of one of David's psalms.)
2. The apostles are compared to Moses, and their instructions with
his (i.e., the Mosaic law).
3. Paul's letter to the Corinthians is accorded very high authority,
even implicitly that of Jesus' words.
4. He treats OT quotes, OT allusions, NT quotes, NT allusions all as
peers, relative to authority and inspiration.
5. 1CL may hold to a very high inspiration of the Pauline epistles,
if 27.2 is referring to Col 3.9.
6. Clement introduces a conflation from Titus with a high formula ("He
exhorts us").
7. 1CL can use OT allusions within NT strings of NT allusions without
having to mark them out as 'different'.
8. His pattern of usage indicates no distinction between OT and NT
material.
9. Jesus' words from the Synoptics were said to be "written" and "instructions
to do".
10. A conflation from Titus was introduced with "He exhorts us".
11. The passage in 27.2, likely referring to Col 3.9, uses a high intro:
"God commanded us...".
12. He seems to consider the NT injunctions to be the "commandments
of God" and "commandments of the Lord".
13. He clearly considers the NT on the same level of authority as the
OT.
14. His (relative) lack of formal citation of NT material does not
imply that he had some 'low view' of it, but is more easily explained under
historical and literary rationales.
...................................................................................................................................................................................
So, I have to conclude on the basis of the textual and literary data,
that the answer to the question:
2. What was his attitude toward the NT material? Was
he influenced by it, did he consider it authoritative, was it on a par
with the OT? What did his usage patterns tell us?
...is that 1CL held the NT material to be on a par with the OT material.
.............................................................................................................................
But as our questioner noted, there seems to be some non-canonical material
in 1CL, and we must now get to the next question:
3. What does his alleged use of non-canonical sources
tell us about his (1) attitude toward the canonical material; and (2) his
ability to distinguish between the two?
in the next section...
Glenn Miller,
August 29, 1998
.................................
[dumbdad3.html]
From: The
Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com] (Reference
Abbreviations)