1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 2891
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:48 pm

Geez, thanks Ben. I've coined a new term for your erudition: Benformation. So thanks for the "Benformation." :)
When it's done and over, Lord, a man is just a man.

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:31 am

John2 wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:15 pm
Neil wrote;
Are you aware of attempts to argue that the passage originated in the Ascension of Isaiah, that Paul was quoting the AoI?

No, but that sounds interesting. I'm not seeing the passage (as such) in AoI, but I see that this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=QaFu2 ... ye&f=false) says that "Similar sayings are found in the Ascension of Isaiah, where Pauline influence is to be discerned," along with a bunch of other apocryphal writings, and, interestingly, the Talmud (San. 99a). Do you have any links to other arguments?


And here is a link to San. 99a: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.99a?lang=bi
Here is Roger Parvus spelling out his version of the argument. I copy it from his post A Simonian Origin for Christianity Part 7
As it is written

Last, there is the matter of the scriptural quote Paul brings forward. By using the formula “As it is written” he clearly is appealing to a writing that he considers authoritative:
But, as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him.’
This quotation continues to puzzle scholars. It is one whose source they have been unable to positively identify:
The quotation cannot be found either in the Old Testament or in Jewish canonical writings” (1 Corinthians, H. Conzelmann, p. 63).
Some have thought that perhaps Paul was trying to quote 64:4 of the canonical book of Isaiah:
No one has heard or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides you who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. (Is 64:4)
But the differences between Is. 64:4 and 1 Cor. 2:9 are such that it is hard to believe Paul could have mangled it so badly. The Isaiah verse
  • (1) inverts the order at the beginning, mentioning the hearing before the seeing
  • and (2) it is missing the words “nor has it entered into the heart of man.”
  • Moreover, (3) its object is God himself, not the things he has prepared,
  • and (4) it is those who “wait” for God—not those who “love” him—who are the recipients.
In light of these differences some scholars allow that Paul may be quoting an apocryphal scripture.
It is by no means unlikely that the Apostle should quote from an apocryphal apocalypse to support a ‘hidden’ truth. Does not the Epistle of Jude expressly cite the book known as Ethiopic Enoch…? (J. Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, p. 19)
Paul may indeed be quoting an apocryphal apocalypse, the Vision of Isaiah. The case for this is strengthened by the presence of the verse in the L2 and S versions of the Vision:
This angel said to me, “Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for you, for these are great things, for you have observed what no one born of flesh has observed. What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, how great things God has prepared for those who love him” (Asc. Is. 11:34).
And the “wisdom” Paul speaks about in the passage was not just a peripheral part of his belief. It was his gospel.
.

The combination of the above indications constitutes, to my mind, a good case that the author of 1 Cor. 2:6-9 knew the Vision of Isaiah. And the “wisdom” Paul speaks about in the passage was not just a peripheral part of his belief. It was his gospel, “that hidden wisdom which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7), “the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence for long ages… now manifested through the writings of the prophets, made known according to the decree of the eternal God…” (Rom. 16:25-26).
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

John2
Posts: 2891
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:05 am

Thanks, Neil. That was helpful.

I'm starting to think that for Paul, whether it was his own mishmash of OT verses, an OT variant (like in pseudo-Philo), or something OT-related (like the Vision of Isaiah), it ultimately seems like six of one hand, half a dozen on the other. They all seem like viable options and ultimately amount to OT-ish things that were "written" (as Paul says), and I can live with that.


A bigger problem for me is Gobar, and I'm starting to lean towards what whoever wrote this old book writes:

It seems probable, however, that Hegesippus did not impugn the citation itself, but some false interpretation that had been fixed upon it. Possibly his observation … was directed against those heretics, who pretended that Christ was a mere phantom; or against the Gnostics, who were accustomed to apply the passage exclusively to themselves, as being gifted with a more intimate knowledge of divine things. (See Clem. Alex. Strom. IV pp. 615, 628 and elsewhere.)


https://books.google.com/books?id=YxIEA ... us&f=false

That makes a lot a sense. It would explain 1) why Hegesippus got along with the people he met in the Corinthian and Roman churches despite the passage presumably being in 1 Cor. and 1 Clem.; and 2) why he says "those who say them" (as Ben has bene pointing out) rather than criticizing a written work like 1 Cor. and 1 Clem.; and 3) it fits with his opposition to Gnosticism.

The only problem left for me would be why Hegesippus thinks the saying is a corruption of the NT and not the OT (or something OT-related), but geez, can you blame him? We can't even figure out where it came from. But maybe he isn't saying that the passage is a corruption of the OT but rather he is using the NT to refute what Gnostics were saying about that passage, i.e., that Jesus wasn't a phantom because he had said, "your eyes … see."

All I need to "see" now (pun intended) is where Clement of Alexandria (or anyone else) says that Gnostics "were accustomed to apply the passage exclusively to themselves," since I haven't been able to locate it in Strom. 1V.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm
When it's done and over, Lord, a man is just a man.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6829
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:51 am

John2 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:05 am
Thanks, Neil. That was helpful. The only problem left for me would be why Hegesippus thinks the saying is a corruption of the NT and not the OT (or something OT-related), but geez, can you blame him? We can't even figure out where it came from. But maybe he isn't saying that the passage is a corruption of the OT but rather he is using the NT to refute what Gnostics were saying about that passage, i.e., that Jesus wasn't a phantom because he had said, "your eyes … see."
I think your second notion is the correct one: Hegesippus does not regard the saying as a corruption of Jesus' words; rather, he regards Jesus' words as refuting the saying.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2891
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 » Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:16 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:51 am
John2 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:05 am
Thanks, Neil. That was helpful. The only problem left for me would be why Hegesippus thinks the saying is a corruption of the NT and not the OT (or something OT-related), but geez, can you blame him? We can't even figure out where it came from. But maybe he isn't saying that the passage is a corruption of the OT but rather he is using the NT to refute what Gnostics were saying about that passage, i.e., that Jesus wasn't a phantom because he had said, "your eyes … see."
I think your second notion is the correct one: Hegesippus does not regard the saying as a corruption of Jesus' words; rather, he regards Jesus' words as refuting the saying.

Yes, I'm positive it's door number two now.

And it's Gobar who has been the problem all along and led us on this wild goose chase. He's just being the dumb ass Photius says he is ("The work seems to have involved a lot of work without procuring a profit proportional to the great pain expended; it exhibits in fact more futile vanity than utility … And these opinions are not advanced either by logic or from the holy scriptures but uniquely, according to the author, from the citation of various Fathers of whom some advance the point of view of the church and others who reject it").

All Gobar saw (or understood) is that Paul (or whoever) said one thing and Hegesippus said the "opposite," all the while, as he himself says, "Hegesippus … in I do not know what context, says …" The context, then, is refuting Gnostics who were using the no eye/no ear passage to argue that Jesus was a phantom. So neither the no eye/no ear passage nor Hegesippus is the problem, it's Gobar, and I'm glad I don't have to think about him anymore (and props to Hegesippus for, in my view, kicking ass like he always does).
When it's done and over, Lord, a man is just a man.

Ethan
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ethan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:45 am

Who is this Clement, his he a real person? None of this is established, the name 'Clemens Romanus' is obviously a pseudonym, so more likely he never existed, any ordinary historical Roman would have a full set of names, for example, Titus Flavius Clemens, the son of Titus Flavius Sabinus.

Since the fictional New Testament Characters lack Tria nomina, thus must be assumed all is fiction and made up in 11th century documents written by monks.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf

John2
Posts: 2891
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:36 pm

Ethan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:45 am
Who is this Clement, his he a real person? None of this is established, the name 'Clemens Romanus' is obviously a pseudonym, so more likely he never existed, any ordinary historical Roman would have a full set of names, for example, Titus Flavius Clemens, the son of Titus Flavius Sabinus.

How common was it for people to refer to themselves by their adopted name "Flavius'? Josephus took the name "Titus Flavius" too but only calls himself Josephus in his autobiography.

At the same time, if Clement was Titus Flavius Clemens, who is said to have been executed by Domitian for having "drifted into Jewish ways," maybe he (or whoever attributed the letter to him) didn't want to put his full name in a writing that discusses "Jewish ways."
When it's done and over, Lord, a man is just a man.

Ethan
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ethan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:04 pm

If the Flavian family adopted Josephus, a Jew, then why would they execute someone, suspiciously named "Titus Flavius" for drifting into Jewish ways and why is Josephus barely mentioned outside his own works, perhaps Clemens and Josephus are related or the same person, both had two sons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch
Plutarch received Roman citizenship. As evidenced by his new name, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, his sponsor for citizenship was Lucius Mestrius Florus, a Roman of consular status whom Plutarch also used as a historical source for his Life of Oth

Roman citizenship was granted through sponsorship, so how did Saul became Paul, someone must have sponsored him, along with Luke and Mark and what about Polycarp and Ignatius, are these real people?

Perhaps a 1st century black market criminal gang was counterfeiting Roman citizenships.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf

John2
Posts: 2891
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:37 pm

Ethan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:04 pm
If the Flavian family adopted Josephus, a Jew, then why would they execute someone, suspiciously named "Titus Flavius" for drifting into Jewish ways and why is Josephus barely mentioned outside his own works, perhaps Clemens and Josephus are related or the same person, both had two sons.

"They" didn't execute Flavius Clemens, only Domitian did (the last of the Flavian emperors), for whatever his own reasons were at the time. And it is possible that Josephus was executed by Domitian for his "Jewish ways" too since he is the last emperor Josephus mentions.
When it's done and over, Lord, a man is just a man.

davidmartin
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by davidmartin » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:50 pm

I suspect the enmity between Paul and the Ebionites ('Judaisers') resulted in a partial reproachment at some point several decades later (80's?), a kind of merger. The Ebionites had a proto-Matthew style gospel that got reworked into Matthew we know. 1 Clement may come from the 90's and so represents this time frame. This merger is why Matthew emerged as the primary gospel in the orthodox wing of the church

Post Reply