Good Question...were the Apostolic Fathers unable to distinguish between
authentic and unauthentic books?
Part three: Created Sept 1, 1998
Continuing...
In Part One we examined the 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?
We determined that he was very aware of the NT material and that
influence by the written form of the NT was clearly discernible
in 1CL.
In Part Two we examined 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?
We determined that he considered the NT material to be on a par with
the OT material.
So, this brings us to the final question about First Clement:
3. What does his alleged use of non-canonical sources
tell us about his (1) attitude toward the non-canonical material; and (2)
his ability to distinguish between the two?
Again, we first must develop a methodology for assessing this question.
Logically, the following steps in the process would make sense:
1. Identify alleged use of non-canonical sources.
2. Examine them to determine if they really are non-canonical sources.
3. Size this usage, relative to OT and NT usage patterns and relative
to non-canonical 'inventory' of the time.
4. Explore how this usage might have come about, and what implications
this might have, relative to an alleged inability to distinguish between
authentic and inauthentic.
Let's dive in...
............................................................................................
1. Identify alleged use of non-canonical sources.
To round up the usual suspects here, we can initially scan the margins/footnotes
in the translations of Loeb and ECF and merge the lists. We get the following
possibilities (translations from Lightfoot):
A. 3.4: "by which death itself entered into the world" // (Wis
2.24): "but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those
who belong to his company experience it."
B. 7.5: "Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that,
from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance
to all such as would be converted unto Him" // (Wis 12.10): "But judging
them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent,".
C. 8.3: "Say to the sons of My people, Though your sins reach from
earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than
sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father!
I will listen to you, as to a holy people." // (?, Apocryphon of
Ezekiel?)
D. 17.6: "And again he said, "I am but as the smoke of a pot."
// (no idea, Assumption of Moses?)
E. 23.3-4: "Far from us be that which is written, "Wretched are they
who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things
we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown
old, and none of them has happened unto us." Ye foolish ones! Compare yourselves
to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves,
then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that
comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit." // (Eldad
& Modad?)
F. 26.2: "For He saith in a certain place, 'Thou shalt raise me up,
and I shall confess unto Thee'" // (?, Ps 28.7?): "The Lord is my
strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts; so I am helped, and my
heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him."
G. 27.5: "Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done? Or, Who shall
resist the power of His strength? " // (Wis 12.12): "For who will say,
'What have you done?' or will resist your judgment? Who will accuse
you for the destruction of nations that you made? Or who will come before
you to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous?"
H. 29.3: "And in another place He saith, "Behold, the Lord taketh
unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the
first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth
the Most Holy" // (?, ANF notes: "Formed apparently from Num. Xviii.
27 and 2 Chron. Xxxi. 14. Literally, the closing words are, 'the holy of
holies.'; "It shall be reckoned to you as your gift, the same as the
grain of the threshing floor and the fullness of the wine press. Thus
you also shall set apart an offering to the Lord from all the tithes that
you receive from the Israelites; and from them you shall give the Lord's
offering to the priest Aaron. " and "Kore son of Imnah the Levite,
keeper of the east gate, was in charge of the freewill offerings to God,
to apportion the contribution reserved for the Lord and the most holy offerings.")
I. 46.2: "For it is written, 'Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave
to them shall be made holy'" // (?)
J. 55.4: "The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of
the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and,
exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to
her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes
into the hands of a woman."// (Judith 8)
K. 59.3-4: "save those in despair" and "helper and defender"
// (Judith 9.11): "But you are the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed,
upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without
hope."
L. 60.1: "merciful and compassionate" // (several biblical refs,
but margins also list Sir 2.11): "For the Lord is compassionate and merciful"
M. 61.2: "the King of eternity" // (several biblical refs, but
margins also list Tobit 13.6,10): "Bless the Lord of righteousness, and
exalt the King of the ages." And "and bless the King of the ages"
This gives us our list of possible extra-canonical connections.
...............................................................................................................
2. Examine them to determine if they really are non-canonical sources.
The above list, of course, is a list of possible connections,
but Hagner points out that several of these are too tenuous to be taken
seriously [HI:UONTCR:68]:
"While there are a few possible allusions to the Apocrypha, these
generally consists of two or three words, occurring in the great prayer
of Clement, which are readily explainable by a common linguistic background
and which thus remains quite unconvincing. [He lists here 59.3-4,
60.1, and 61.2 (K,L,M above); and later adds 7.5 (B)] It is quite certain,
however, that Clement alludes to the book of Judith, whose heroine he explicitly
mentioned in 55.4f (cf. Judith 8-13). The only book in the Apocrypha from
which Clement quotes is Wisdom. There are two quotations, but in neither
instance is an introductory formula employed."
The two quotations are 3.4 (A) and 27.5 (G), which actually turn out to
be rather insignificant. Hagner says of the first [HI:UONTCR:68-9]:
"This brief quotation consists of the words thanatos eiselthen
eis ton kosmon which are found verbatim in Wisd. 2.24, but there it
is through the envy of the devil rather than the jealousy of Cain that
death comes. There is a parallel in Rom. 5.12, but the wording is different.
The most natural conclusion is that Clement has borrowed the words from
Wisdom and has inserted them into his own context where zelos is
in question. On the other hand, Clement may have derived the words of Wisdom
indirectly through traditional materials."
In other words, he borrowed the words from Wisdom to express the thought
of a NT passage. This, of course, cannot count as a "citation/connection"
between Wisdom and Clement.
The 2nd cite is in 27.5, which we have examined earlier. This is a semi-cite
of Wisdom 12.12 which is itself a cite of passages from Job and
Daniel. Clement has merely used the phraseology of Wisdom to express an
OT truth--just like he used 1 Corinthians 2.9 to express the truth of Isaiah.
Nothing here of import for the issue of extra-canonical authority.
The allusion/use of Judith in 55.4 (J) is not a cite, of course, but
a historical reference without any particular bearing on our question.
Clement can use historical sources without (1) according them 'scriptural
status' nor (2) weaving them into ethical imperatives (like he does the
NT material). He clearly trusted the historical account of Judith, as he
did the historical story of the Phoenix (ch.25) and the 'heathen examples'
of chapter 55.
1CL 26.2 is only questioned in ECF, who gives Ps 28.7 as the possible
referent, but Hagner is convinced that it is simply a conflation of passages
from memory (Ps 27.7; 3.6 and 22.4; cf. 87.11).
"It seems probable that Clement is quoting from memory and thus conflates
similar language from different passages into one quotation. That this
is the case, appears also from the introductory formula legei gar pou
("it says somewhere"), suggesting that Clement did not bother to verify
the exact wording of the passage(s)." [HI:UONTCR:58-59]
This leaves us with 5 passages to look at more closely (C, D, E,
H, I): 8.3; 17.6; 23.3-4; 29.3, and 46.2.
Let me reproduce them here again, to facilitate analysis:
C. 8.3: "Say to the sons of My people, Though your sins reach from
earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than
sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father!
I will listen to you, as to a holy people."
D. 17.6: "And again he said, "I am but as the smoke of a pot."
E. 23.3-4: "Far from us be that which is written, "Wretched are they
who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things
we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown
old, and none of them has happened unto us." Ye foolish ones! Compare yourselves
to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves,
then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that
comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit."
H. 29.3: "And in another place He saith, "Behold, the Lord taketh
unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the
first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth
the Most Holy"
I. 46.2: "For it is written, 'Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave
to them shall be made holy'"
Let's look a little closer at each of these five:
-
(One) C. 8.3: "Say to the sons of My people, Though your sins reach
from earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker
than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father!
I will listen to you, as to a holy people."
There is absolutely no consensus as to where this came from.
Suggestions include:
1. a conflation of canonical sources, with either memory errors, paraphrase,
phrase "borrowing", or stylistic adjustments. In this case the relevant
OT texts might include:
Ezek 2.3 ("Then He said to me, "Son of man, I am sending you
to the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against
Me")
Ezek 18.30 ("Repent and turn away from all your transgressions,
so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.")
Is 1.18 ("Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though
your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they
are red like crimson, They will be like wool.")
Ps 103.11f ("For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the
east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from
us.")
Jer 3.19 ("Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons, And give
you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And
I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following
Me.'")
Is 50.3 ("I clothe the heavens with blackness, And I make
sackcloth their covering.") CF, Rev 6.12: "and the sun became black
as sackcloth")
Deut 30.10 ("if you turn to the Lord your God with all
your heart and soul.")
Jer 29.12-13: ("Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me,
and I will listen to you. 13 'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you
search for Me with all your heart.")
2 Chr 6.38: ("if they return to Thee with all their heart
and with all their soul")
2. A non-canonical (and now lost) Apocryphon of Ezekiel [HI:UONTCR:71]:
"Since we have evidence, not only here but elsewhere, of the existence
of an apocryphal Ezekiel, which may well have utilized and transformed
material from the canonical Ezekiel, an appealing explanation of the present
quotation is that it was derived from this document."
But note that our only extant copies of Apocryphon of Ezekiel do
not contain this saying at all, so this is pretty much a conjecture
(i.e., "wild guess").
3. Canonical Ezekiel, with interpolations in the Greek text, like we
have in the LXX of Daniel and Jeremiah [HI:UONTCR:72]:
"As an alternative, however, it is also possible that Clement's text
of the canonical Ezekiel contained lengthy interpolations which could account
for the quotation." [He cites Lightfoot and MR James as favoring this.]
4. An anthology source of quotations (common in those days), which would
be based on canonical sources/modifications.
Hagner says "no certainty may be attained as to the exact non-canonical
source he may have used." [HI:UONTCR:72].
So, although it might be from canonically-based sources (and
#3 above is the least problematic view, as per Lightfoot, James, and Hagner),
it might be from some extra-canonical source. If it is #3 above,
then Clement is dependent on what he thinks (and probably for good reason,
given the nature of interpolated documents) is the canonical Ezekiel.
[Hagner sometimes argues against a conflation on the basis of there
being too many, thematically unconnected passages. I find this methodologically
problematic, for Clement's role model Paul did just this on a consistent
basis. For example, in 2 Corinthians 6.16-18, Paul brings together Lev
26.12, Ezek 37.27, Isa 52.11, Ezek 20.34, and 2 Sam 7.8,14--all in one
quote, introduced by "as God said:".]
-
(Two) D. 17.6: "And again he said, "I am but as the smoke of a pot."
Any attempt to locate these words in literary sources are, in Hagner's
words, "pure conjecture."
Among some of the "pure conjectures" are:
1. From the pseudox Assumption of Moses, in the Testament
of Moses. The problem with this view is that the text does not exist
in the Assumption of Moses! Our sole textual data for the AM
breaks off in the middle of a conversation between Moses and Joshua about
the future of Israel. Hagner, attempting to be charitable to this conjecture,
says
"Towards the end of the extant portion...Moses speaks in the first
person to Joshua, and it is not difficult to imagine Moses uttering
the words of our quotation shortly after the extant MS breaks off." [HI:UONTCR:88,
emphasis mine]
2. From the non-existent Eldad and Modads (Lightfoot's view). Hagner
again (op.cit.):
"It is conceivable that the latter writing contained
such words of Moses; however, the context for the utterance is much
more hypothetical there than the one which already exists in the Assumption."
3. A paraphrase (a la Living Bible or The Message) of the
self-deprecating comments of Moses. We do know that this phrase is a common
metaphor in the ancient world (HI:UONTCR:72-73) and even shows up in the
Syriac of David's prayer in 1 Chronicles 29:15. This would make Clement's
cite a paraphrase, for effect, drawing attention to Moses' humility (the
theme of the passage in Clement).
These three are conjectures, but at least number three has something
more than "imagination" and "conceivability" to support it!
-
(Three) E. 23.3-4: "Far from us be that which is written, "Wretched
are they who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These
things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we
have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us." Ye foolish ones!
Compare yourselves to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all,
it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then
it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened
fruit."
There are essentially two possibilities here: a conflation of NT texts/themes
or some extra-canonical texts. (There really are no OT texts upon which
to construct a conflation like this.)
The extra-canonical text idea is primarily based on the datum
that this passage appears to be quoted by Second Clement, and is introduced
with a high-inspiration formula there. The passage in 2CL is longer, so
many assume that they are independent of one another.
However, it must be understood that 1CL was accepted as inspired (at
least in pockets and at least briefly) and 2CL, in conscious imitation
of 1CL, could just as easily be quoting 1CL. The additional line in 2CL
could just as easily be a conflation, as was made by all the Apostolic
Fathers frequently. I cannot agree with Hagner then, that 2CL is unlikely
to have added to a quote from 1CL. I cannot see any reason to postulate
an external source for 2CL, other than 1CL.
In this case, the main positive argument for an extra-canonical source
disappears, and the only argument that remains is from the lack
of a known citation source.
[I might also add, since the questioner mentioned the book of Eldad
and Modad, that there is absolutely no scholarly consensus that this
passage comes from E&M. The E&M theory was initially
espoused by Lightfoot as a "conjecture" and everybody seems to follow his
lead. But I must point out that we only have four words of the E&M
book extant ("The Lord is near to those who turn") which does not match
this "quote" at all. In fact, the data is so obscure here that the scholar
chosen to write the introduction to "Eldad and Modad" in OTP, E.G.
Martin, says this:
"Some scholars have attempted to identify the lost pseudepigraphon
of Eldad and Modad either with anonymous citations in patristic
writings or with recently translated documents. J. B. Lightfoot suggested
that references in 1 Clement 23:3f and 2 Clement 2:2-4 refer to Eldad
and Modad. These passages are sufficiently obscure that they have been
applied also to the Testament of Moses and the Apocryphon of
Ezekiel; hence the most prudent course is to leave these verses anonymous."
We do know that there was a 'book' of Eldad and Modad, referenced
in the Shepherd of Hermas, but it is abject conjecture to assign
this cite to that work.]
The NT conflation idea would have this passage constructed from
the following passages:
-
Jas 1.6-88: "But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for
the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the
wind. 7 For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from
the Lord, 8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.".
-
Rom 14.23: "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats"
-
2 Pet 3.3-4: "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers
will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying,
"Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell
asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
"
-
Mk 13.28f: "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch
has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer
is near. 29 "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize
that He is near, right at the door. 30 "Truly I say to you, this generation
will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 "Heaven and earth
will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 "But of that day or
hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father alone." (this fits the 2 Peter context quite well.)
The first three of these make a good case, but the section of the
tree/vine seems odd to say the least.
In fact, it seems a little too odd to be part of the citation.
If you look at the broader text, it becomes apparent that the citation
ends at verse 3. Verse 4, about the tree growth cycle blends into 5, and
then the Scripture is cited to support it. If verse 4 were a
supporting citation itself, it would not require an additional citation
to support it!
Additional support for this position comes from the fact that the argument
of verse 5 about "quickly and suddenly accomplished" is very suggestive
of the argument of 2 Peter, and 3.3f was considered a major component of
the citation.
If, as I just argued, verse 4 is not part of the citation, then
the passages from James, Romans, and 2 Peter form a very reasonable
conflation-base from which to construct the saying in 1CL 23:3. And, since
we have already seen a passage or two in which high-introductory formulae
were used for an NT reference, this would establish that NT passages could
be called "scripture" by Clement.
The reader will have to decide which of these ideas are more conjectural
than the other, but the second has the advantage of fitting the known data
and textual flow better.
(Four) H. 29.3: "And in another place He saith, "Behold, the Lord taketh
unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the
first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth
the Most Holy"
This passage almost didn't make this list, since Hagner said that
it could have been discussed under "composite quotations" equally as
well as under "non-canonical quotations". He goes on to point out the
rather close connections of the first part with various Deut passages (e.g.,
4.34; 14.2; 7.6).
But the second part of the verse is quite obscure. There are word/thought
matches in Ezek 48.12; 2 Chrn 31.14; and Num 18.27. Hagner notes [HI:UONTCR:75]:
"Thus far (half-way through the verse) the quotation looks as if it
could easily have been a free citation of the Deuteronomy passage, in much
the same way that Clement elsewhere cites freely....It is possible Clement
is here confusing the canonical passages by quoting from memory, as he
elsewhere does...Again, however, it is impossible to arrive at any certain
conclusion concerning Clement's source"
What is interesting is that no specific alternatives to the canonical
sources are suggested, and even Richardson footnotes this verse as
a "conflation" of the OT passages mentioned above [HI:ECF:57].
I would have to conclude that this is much more likely to be a 'composite
quotation' than an extra-canonical citation.
(Five) I. 46.2: "For it is written, 'Cleave to the holy (or 'saints'),
for they who cleave to them shall be made holy'"
This short proverb-style saying cannot be found in this form anywhere,
although the motif itself ("cling to the good") was a very common motif
in the early church (cf. I Thess 5.21--"But examine everything carefully;
hold fast to that which is good"; Rom 12.9--"Abhor what is evil;
cling to what is good").
Related motifs, applied to people, can also be found in the OT
and in pagan sources:
Prov 13:20: "He who walks with wise men will be wise"
1 Cor 15.33: "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company corrupts good morals.'"
(originally Meander, but by Clement's time it had become a widespread proverb).
Although it would be tempting to see this as simply a statement of a widely-used
proverb, that it is preceded by an "it is written", argues that
it comes from a written source. No one even hazards a guess on this one.
But I dug around in the Patristics for the idea of "cleaving unto the
saints/righteous/servants of the Lord" to see if I could get any clues,
and I came up with a rather interesting possibility--that 1CL is doing
an almost targum-like (i.e., interpretive paraphrase) of Is 52.11/2 Cor
6.17. These verses read:
-
"Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing;
go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves. (Is 52.11, LXX)
-
"Depart, depart, go out from there, Touch nothing unclean; Go out of
the midst of her, purify yourselves, (Is 52.11, NAS)
-
"Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate," says the Lord.
"And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. (2 Cor 6.17,
NAS)
The way I arrive at this is by examining the usage of the phrase "cleave/join
unto...", when applied to believers. To cite some of the passages in which
this occurs:
-
"As to those who were cut down and thrown far away from the tower, do you
wish to know who they are? They are the sons of iniquity, and they believed
in hypocrisy, and wickedness did not depart from them. For this reason
they are not saved, since they cannot be used in the building on
account of their iniquities. Wherefore they have been cut off and cast
far away on account of the anger of the Lord, for they have roused Him
to anger. But I shall explain to you the other stones which you saw lying
in great numbers, and not going into the building. Those which are rough
are those who have known the truth and not remained in it, nor have
they been joined to the saints. On this account are they unfit for use"
(Herm. Vis. 3.6) [Notice the tower image seems inspired by the Temple
image of Paul in 2 Cor 6. Being 'joined/cleaving' to the saints, in this
Patristic passage, is the same as being a Christian disciple. The Christian
community is seen almost as a 'membership' association, in Roman terms,
as indeed it was structured at that time in history, see CRST.]
-
"And they who gave in their branches half-green and half-withered, are
those who are immersed in business, and do not cleave to the saints.
For this reason, the one half of them is living, and the other half dead.
(Herm.Sim. 8.8.1) [Notice again--cleaving was membership in the
community of the faithful, which resulted in "life".]
-
"And from the third mountain, which had thorns and thistles, they who believed
are the following. There are some of them rich, and others immersed in
much business. The thistles are the rich, and the thorns are they who are
immersed in much business. Those, [accordingly, who are entangled
in many various kinds of business, do not ] cleave to the servants
of God, but wander away, being choked by their business transactions;
and the rich cleave with difficulty to the servants of God, fearing
lest these should ask something of them. Such persons, accordingly,
shall have difficulty in entering the kingdom of God." (Herm.Sim.
9.20) [Here the opposition is quite clear: you either cleave to the faithful
are you are NOT part of the kingdom of God. ]
-
"And they who were covered with scabs are those who have denied their Lord,
and have not returned to Him again; but becoming withered and desert-like,
and not cleaving to the servants of God, but living in solitude, they
destroy their own souls. For as a vine, when left within an enclosure,
and meeting with neglect, is destroyed, and is made desolate by the weeds,
and in time grows wild, and is no longer of any use to its master, so also
are such men as have given themselves up, and become useless to their Lord,
from having contracted savage habits." (Herm.Sim.9.26) [Again, cleaving
is membership in the community of believers, and therefore the means to
salvation/sanctification.]
-
"And they who returned their branches two-thirds withered and one-third
green, are those that were faithful indeed; but after acquiring wealth,
and becoming distinguished amongst the heathen, they clothed themselves
with great pride, and became lofty-minded, and deserted the truth, and
did not cleave to the righteous, but lived with the heathen, and
this way of life became more agreeable to them. They did not, however,
depart from God, but remained in the faith, although not working the works
of faith. Many of them accordingly repented, and their dwelling was
in the tower. And others continuing to live until the end with the
heathen, and being corrupted by their vain glories, [departed from
God, serving the works and deeds of the heathen. ] These were reckoned
with the heathen." (Herm.Sim.8.9) [Here we find the exact thought
I am getting at. To not be 'cleaving to the righteous' is to be 'reckoned
outside'. One must separate from the heathen and go 'inside' by cleaving
to the faithful.]
-
"The deeds, then, of these are pure, and chaste, and divine. Whoever devotes
himself to these, and is able to hold fast by their works, shall have
his dwelling in the tower with the saints of God." (Herm.Vis.3.8.9)
[This shows that the 'tower' was inhabited by the association of the saints.]
-
""Thou shalt not join thyself or be like to such men as are ungodly
to the end, and are condemned to death." (Barn. 10) [Notice
the link between 'joining with ungodly' and 'condemnation'.]
-
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to
the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore,
which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following.
Thou shalt love Him that created thee: thou shalt glorify Him that redeemed
thee from death. Thou shalt be simple in heart, and rich in spirit. Thou
shalt not join thyself to those who walk in the way of death...
Thou shalt not be joined in soul with the haughty, but thou shalt be
reckoned with the righteous and lowly." (Barn 19) [Notice the
opposition--two different membership possibilities only.]
-
"Thy soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly
ones shall it have its intercourse." (Did. 3.9) [Again, the
opposition of the two membership classes.]
What these citations show, is that "cleaving to the saints" was the
same idea as "separating from the heathen via joining with the believing
community". Not cleaving was to be left outside, unsaved, unfit for use
in the 'tower'. To 'cleave' meant one was "useful" for inclusion in the
tower--in other words, pure and clean.
This is very, very close to the thought of the 2 Cor/Isaiah passages,
and, in light of the consistent usage of kollaw-verb forms (i.e.
"join/cleave") in these phrases, I think a case can be made for seeing
1CL's odd citation as a paraphrasing/interpretive quotation (like the Targumim
do) of this(these) canonical passage(s).
So, let's summarize our analysis here, vis-a-vis identifiable extra-canonical
sources for these five:
-
1CL 8.3: No extant pre-Clement extra-canonical sources contain this material;
conjectures made.
-
1CL 17.6: No extant pre-Clement extra-canonical sources contain this material;
conjectures made.
-
1CL 23.3-4: No extant pre-Clement extra-canonical sources contain this
material; conjectures made [This is the strongest case, due to the similar
reference in 2CL].
-
1CL 29.3: No extant pre-Clement extra-canonical sources contain this material;
no conjectures made [probably is a conflation anyway].
-
1CL 46.2: No extant pre-Clement extra-canonical sources contain this material;
no conjectures made.
The first comment I need to make is to point out that the statement in
the original question:
The learned authorities consider these quotes to be from 'Eldad
and Modad', 'Assumption of Moses' and Apocryphal Ezekiel.
is mistaken. The learned authorities make "guesses" without any textual
or literary evidence to support them, and this highly gossamer approach
could hardly justify the clause "consider...to be" in the statement.
So, what about our analysis, vis-a-vis usage of canonical sources
for these five:
-
1CL 8.3: Could be based on an expanded (i.e. interpolated, like Wuest's
NT) version of Ezekiel.
-
1CL 17.6: Could be a paraphrase of the self-deprecating remarks of Moses
.
-
1CL 23.3-4: Could be a loose conflation of NT passages.
-
1CL 29.3: [Probably a conflation.]
-
1CL 46.2: Could be an interpretive paraphrase, in common with Patristic
usage.
Now, I must admit here that methodologically I prefer the latter
list of possibilities to the former, since this latter list is more concrete
and 'doesn't multiply entities' (the old parsimony thing).
Indeed, even Metzer admits this approach, although he does not seem
to apply it consistently himself [NT:CTT:73]:
"For this reason it is generally preferable, in estimating
doubtful cases, to regard variation from a canonical text as a free
quotation from a document known to us than to suppose it to be a quotation
from a hitherto unknown document, or the persistence of primitive tradition."
And this preference also accords well with one major evidential fact: we
have tons and tons of extra-canonical writing in our possession and none
of these quotes can be found in them. I have (literally) two thousand
pages of Pseudepigraphical texts on my bookshelves (not counting the Apocrypha
in many of my bibles), and several hundred pages of Dead Sea Scroll materials,
and not a single one of these allegedly extra-canonical citations can be
found in them! Granted that we don't have all of the materials referenced
in antiquity, but I find it very odd that Clement doesn't use any
of the books (1) that were accepted widely enough to be able to survive
through history and (2) that were used as "authority" by various groups
in history.
In other words, the material that has survived to the present was the
most popular (and hence, the most copied) of the literature of the day.
That Clement does NOT cite any of the more popular extra-canonical works,
and that his alleged extra-canonical quotations are nonetheless
from sources that his readership would have accepted as "canonical" leads
almost inexorably to the conclusion that his citations are from the biblical
materials in some fashion.
I find this a rather compelling reason to lend more credibility to the
canonical-sources theory than to the unidentifiable extra-canonical-sources
theory.
But, just for the sake of argument, let me assume/grant that the main
four of these (excluding the probable conflation in 29.3) are nonetheless
from unidentifiable extra-canonical sources. We will now use these
four in the next piece of the analysis.
........................................................................................................................................
3. Size this usage, relative to OT and NT usage patterns and relative
to non-canonical 'inventory' of the time.
What I need to do here is to see how significant this is, from
a number of different bases. Assuming the four possible cites are
from extra-canonical sources:
1. From the OT citation base: Given that 1CL has some 110-115
OT allusions/citations/connections, the four (maximum) possible extra-canonical
citations discussed above seem woefully insignificant. Whatever sources
they came from must not have been major sources of teaching, doctrine,
warrants for theological or pastoral arguments, or exhortatory material.
2. From the NT citation base: Given that 1CL has some 200+ NT
allusions/citations/connections, the four (maximum) possible extra-canonical
citations discussed above seem woefully insignificant in this comparison
as well! Whatever sources they came from must not have been major
sources of teaching, doctrine, warrants for theological or pastoral arguments,
or exhortatory material.
3. From the "non-canonical inventory of possible documents" base:
Given that there are some 70-100+ extra-canonical works, comprising thousands
of pages of textual material (which survived to the present because of
popularity) that First Clement could have quoted from, the fact
that he did not cite from them (in the four possible quotations)
certainly would argue that whatever sources the four quotes came from must
not have been major (or at least not popular) sources of teaching,
doctrine, warrants for theological or pastoral arguments, or exhortatory
material.
4. From the "canonical stock of language and teachings" base:
Given that all of the four citations could have been derived from
language and teachings from within canonical materials, whatever sources
the four quotes came from must not have been major sources of original
or supplementary teachings, relative to the canonical materials.
In other words, in these four passages at least, these theoretical extra-canonical
sources add no value to the canonical materials--they essentially
are superfluous, or simply more felicitous wording or collections of canonical
teachings.
What should be obvious from this is that we are perhaps dealing with
extrema--almost insignificant exceptions. We have an insignificant
number of alleged citations from rather insignificant and superfluous sources,
and it would be methodologically very dangerous to draw conclusions
about Clement's view of extra-canonical materials from something this fringe.
...............................................................................................................................................................
4. Explore how this usage might have come about, and what implications
this might have, relative to an alleged inability to distinguish between
authentic and inauthentic.
If these four citations are from the canonical materials, they
are quite easily explained--they are the standard practice of teachers
and ministers around the world and throughout history. Paraphrase (for
clarity and impact) and conflation (for organization and schema) have always
been widely practiced.
But here we want to ask how Clement might have come to use them, if
they had come from "inauthentic" sources (i.e. extra-canonical sources),
and so here we have to discuss the relationship between the biblical and
extra-biblical materials.
This is an incredibly complex subject (to say the least!) but there
are a couple of broad themes that might be adequate for our task here.
[I can only summarize these points here (not defend these), but the interested
reader can consult the recommended books list for suitable detailed materials
on the subjects of non-canonical literature and on general literacy in
the ancient world.]
1. The ancient world (both Jewish and non-Jewish) was simultaneously
oral and graphical. Most literary works were written to be read/performed
orally, and even private ones were meant to be read aloud. Entire histories
of peoples were transmitted via a combined oral+written 'experience' in
which the written history or story formed the skeleton upon which extra
bits of true historical fact (transmitted orally) would be tacked on at
every public recital or rehearsal.
2. Israel was no exception to this. She was fortunate to have developed
an early impetus to writing (e.g., the requirements of the Law), a prophetic
guild that was more literary than 'ecstatic', and a massive push toward
non-Greek educational systems (unfortunately caused by the stresses of
"Hellenism" upon Jewish values and culture, in pre-Christian times). Her
histories had been quite stabilized by as early as the Maccabean revolt,
and certainly codified long before Qumran.
3. The codification of the histories (cf. Chronicles and Kings) early
on, as well as increased study of the earlier Mosaic materials during the
Monarchy (witness the allusions to the Genesis stories
in the Prophets), provided the impetus for several of the types of
literature we see in the extra-canonical literature.
4. One of the first types of genres we see is called the "Rewritten
Bible" genre [see HI:IIW, HI:JWSTP]. These works generally adopt the biblical
narrative structure, but "fill in the gaps" with extra-biblical material.
Some of this material can be quite fanciful or questionable (e.g. Abraham
as the inventor of the plow; Moses as inventor of Egyptian warfare methods),
but likewise some of the material could just as easily be factual material
transmitted orally (along with the biblical text, as was done, for example,
with the Hebrew OT text). "Rewritten bibles", accordingly, look like "expanded"
or "interpolated" texts. Examples of this genre would include Jubilees,
Genesis Apocryphon, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Josephus'
Jewish Antiquities, 1 Enoch, The Books of Adam and Eve, some
of the Hellenistic Jewish Poets, and the supplements to the biblical books
(e.g., Additions to the Book of Esther). Some of the material in
this category may transmit important facts about biblical events, but determination
of accuracy is very difficult. In some cases, criteria of "multiple attestation"
is most useful, arguing from the premise that the more widespread the possible
'fact' shows up in the literature, the more likely it was part of the original
"parent stock" of the various competing versions.
5. Some of these "oral-facts-now-written-down" show up in the NT writings.
Although the list of possible extra-biblical allusions (in the commercially
available reference works) find many allusions, more cautious scholars
find only a few clear references to this material in the NT. When a NT
author incorporates some fact or perspective from the genre of "Rewritten
Bible", this is not a wholesale endorsement of the inspired character of
these sources(!), but rather simply an agreement that the particular fact
derived from such a source is true. This is similar to Clement's reference
to Judith. His use of the Book of Judith, as the basis for his use
of Judith as an example, in no way implies that he considered the
Book of Judith as 'inspired' or 'scripture'--he just considered
it true and accurate history (at least in that section). Likewise, when
the NT author Jude, refers to a number of extra-biblical facts, or Paul
refers to Jannes and Jambres, they never refer to the sources as 'scripture'
but merely select out of a large mass of extra-biblical facts, a tiny subject
or a couple of details that they are convinced are true. Again, this
doesn't mean that they considered those sources to be inspired
(any more than Paul considered the Stoic poets that he quoted to be inspired!),
but that they considered those selected facts to be true.
6. Although I cannot find a scholar who discusses this, 1CL seems to
have been influenced by this type of extra-biblical material as well. The
way this is identified in a text is by looking for the value judgements
of, or nuances that are drawn from, the biblical material. In 1CL's case,
I can identify a couple of these:
-
In chapter 7, he comments that Noah 'preached repentance'. This fact is
not present in the OT text that we have, but this is widely attested in
the non-canonical materials. It shows up, for example, in the Sibylline
Oracles (1.127-131; 149-151), Josephus, and in the Rabbinical materials
(b.Sanh 108a). It also shows up in the Book of Hebrews (but as a "preacher
of righteous"). This wide attestation would generally indicate a very ancient
extra-biblical tradition, and is therefore more likely to be accurate.
(It is likely, of course, that 1Cl was dependent here on Hebrews, since
we know he was constantly using it in his letter, but it is at least theoretically
possible that he is dependent on extra-biblex.)
-
Closely related to the above, and adding extra support to the accuracy
thereof, is Clement's comment in chapter 9 that Noah was "faithful, and
preached regeneration." This extra-biblical fact (or value judgment) is
found in several extra-biblical materials as well, such as Sibylline
Oracles, Jubilees and even in the Book of Hebrews in the New
Testament. (It is likely, of course, that 1Cl was also dependent here on
Hebrews, since we know he was constantly using it in his letter, but it
is at least theoretically possible that he is dependent on extra-biblex.)
-
Also in chapter 9, 1CL understands the disappearance of Enoch in Genesis
(a biblical fact) as meaning that he didn't die (not explicitly stated
in the OT). This understanding of the "and he was nt" is found in
Josephus, and explicitly in the Book of Hebrews. (It is likely, of course,
that 1Cl was dependent here on Hebrews, since we know he was constantly
using it in his letter, but it is at least theoretically possible that
he is dependent on extra-biblex.)
-
In chapter 10 and 11, Clement describes Abraham and Lot as being "hospitable,"
and, since angels were involved in both cases, this sounds like Hebrews'
"be hospitable to strangers, for some have entertained angels" (13.2).
This attribute of "hospitality" is not made explicit in the OT text, but,
in addition to the allusion in Hebrews, is widely attested in the pseudox:
(e.g., Philo, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Jacob) and
rabbinics (e.g., Abot de R.Natan). In this case, 1CL would have had to
have known the connection between Hebrews 13.2 and the OT texts, and this
link probably would have come from this extra-biblical tradition.
-
The opposite scenario occurs in 10, in which a value judgment is made of
Abraham's prior life. 1CL uses the terms small, weak, and insignificant,
but this type of value judgment is only made in Hebrews--not in any of
the extant Pseudox. He is clearly deriving extra-OT facts from the NT data.
-
In chapter 31, he describes Isaac as a "cheerful" or "willing" sacrifice,
but this fact is not explicit in the OT text either. [The cooperation required
of a semi-adult Isaac might imply 'willingness' but not necessarily 'cheerfulness'.]
It shows up in Josephus ("received the order with delight"), and the willingness
can also be found in 4 Macc, Judith, and Pseudo-Philo. Since
this idea does not occur in the NT, we can assume that 1CL had been influenced
by either the tradition or by the extra-biblical materials incorporating
that tradition. Since it was very widespread, it was no doubt a very ancient
(and hence more likely to be accurate) historical tradition.
Now, although most of these would make the most sense as being dependent
on the NT (esp. Hebrews), I still think it would be reasonable to believe
that 1Cl was informed by at least some extra-biblical traditions (some
of which might have shown up in extra-canonical writings). The writings
in the listed items above are quite major works, and they have survived
for exactly that reason--they were used and copied frequently. But what
is clear is that the four possible extra-canonical citations are not from
them. As I have already pointed out, this alone is a major reason to
doubt the extra-canonical source for these four. Any source that was
honored enough to be used as a theological warrant (with high introductory
formulas) between two major churches of the early Christian period should
have been more likely to survive than the 70-100+ works that
did survive. Something is wrong with the picture of extra-canonical
sources for these quotes.
..............................................................................................................................
What this leaves us with, for at least 1CL, is this plausible scenario:
Clement kept his explicit argument based on undisputed materials,
common to Rome and Corinth--the canonical OT and NT. His scant knowledge
of extra-biblical "background" details is mostly derived from the NT
(esp. Hebrews), but on occasion can be traced to common traditional material,
which material he might have encountered from mainstream extra-biblical
works (e.g., Judith, rabbinic traditions, pseudox). The fact that 1CL never
cites these mainstream works, never even makes clear allusions to
them, nor uses their genres, argues rather strongly that he did NOT
consider them as legitimate spiritual authority, much less as "scripture".
We can now formulate the implication/summary of our series, as far
as Clement is concerned.
Since Clement is likely to have acquired personal knowledge of some
background extra-biblical facts through the reading of mainstream extra-canonical
(i.e., "inauthentic" in our discussion context) literary works, this indicates
that he was familiar with these major works. And the fact that he
does not use, as authority or warrant, so much as a single quote,
a single clear allusion, or an undisputed reference to these works--while
using literally hundreds of pieces of material from the canonical
Old and New Testament documents--shows clearly that he not only
was able to distinguish between the "authentic" and the "inauthentic",
but also that he maintained this distinction in the practice of theological
argument and pastoral persuasion.
So, I have to conclude on the basis of the actual detail of 1CL, that he;
1. Was familiar with much/most/all of the NT in its written form;
2. That he considered it on a par with OT scripture;
3. That he could clearly distinguish between authentic and inauthentic
scripture;
4. That he only used authentic scripture in his letter as authority
and warrant (and this included the NT materials).
Well, this is the end of the excruciating detail on Clement...(I'm tired;
I don't know about you....)...
But we have more to do; I need to now survey the other Apostolic Fathers
and writings of the period and gather similar sets of evidence. I will
not do this level of detailed analysis, nor will I have to, actually, for
after 1CL we start getting more and more explicit high-commitments to the
New Testament as well as more obvious "extra-canonical" citations (esp.
from NT apocrypha) and discussions. But we will see a strand of testimony
that will make our job easier.
The increasing recognition of the New Testament writings will be more
visible.
For example, at the end of his magisterial work, Hagner can point out
[HI:UONTCR:343f; 277]:
"We conclude then, that from our earliest witness onwards the Apostolic
Fathers maintain the certain authority of the writings of the Apostles.
The writings do not intrinsically become more authoritative over the decades,
but rather their authority assumes greater importance and is expressed
with greater clarity with the diminishing effectiveness of oral tradition.
The Apostolic Fathers are essentially united in their witness to the authority
of the new writings; there is no radical change in the valuation of these
writings between AD 95 and AD 140. There is thus no reason, as is often
done, to separate Clement's epistle from those of Ignatius and Polycarp
as witnessing to an earlier stage in the valuation of the writings. Clement
is at one with the Apostolic Fathers in this matter, and the most that
may be detected over this period of five decades is a gradual realization
of the implications of the authority of the new writings and the consequent
gradual appearance of terminology previously reserved for the writings
of the OT."
"The few early references in the Apostolic Fathers to NT writings as
'Scripture' are remarkable for their casualness. There is certainly
no awareness of a new valuation of the writings in question. These introductory
formulae point to the authoritativeness of the new writings and may be
regarded as an unconscious testimony to the parallel status of the new
with the old."
"There may be in one or two later instances (e.g. 2 Clement) the beginning
of explicit references to NT writings as 'scripture' by the application
of proper introductory formulae, but the nonchalant, incidental character
of these formulae indicates no consciousness on the author's part that
he is making a radical innovation."
But, at the same time, we will see a more complex landscape when it comes
to extra-canonical materials and references. The trends will be for greater
disapproval of pseudox and non-canonical material, and greater delineation
of them, while more and more of such works are being produced by fringe
and/or heretical groups.
So, for example, Kraft can say in TTT:63:
"Aspects of the problem [of pseudox] were recognized already in the
late second century. Irenaeus rails against the Marcosians for 'introducing
an innumerable number of apocrypha and of counterfeit writings which
they themselves created to amaze the foolish who do not understand the
true writings' (Adv. Haer. 1.20.1). Perhaps around the same time,
or not too much later, the author of the Muratorian canon rejects compositions
associated with various heterodox groups including 'those who composed
a new book of Psalms for Marcion'...But the principle of opposition to
unacceptable heterodox writings is quite plain, and is continued even more
explicitly in later authors."
And we will also see, that in spite of much discussion of NT apocryphal
writings by those who wrote after the Apostolic Fathers,
we simply don't see much of it in the Fathers' writings! Lightfoot was
surprised by this as well [cited in HI:UONTCR:301]:
"This absence of any unmistakable traces of a New Testament Apocrypha
in the Apostolic Fathers is the more remarkable, because the references
to pre-Christian apocryphal writings are not infrequent."
1CL had said this (45): "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are
the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of
an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them"; and
the church will grapple with this from day one...
hope this helps, and thanks for the question...
glenn miller
Sept 1, 1998
[dumbdad4.html]
From: The
Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com] (Reference
Abbreviations)