Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael BG wrote:
...but the Greek of the rest is not a close match to either Luke or Mark, but still there is the issue of the movement of “my chosen” being at the end as in Luke and being a change from “little ones” which is likely to be the earlier text.
You again seem to be operating in a world in which the number of possible texts is limited virtually to what we have on hand. You note Luke making a change in the order of elements in a saying; then, if you see a similar change of order in some other text (1 Clement, in this case), you immediately suspect that the other text has picked up on Lucan redaction. That world of limited texts is not the one that appears to have been the case, however, in those first two or more centuries.
Lots of people like to raise the possibility of the existence of different lost texts and I am not very convinced by these arguments. Some people say that Q never existed but I think the evidence for its existence is good, because it explains why sometimes Matthew and sometimes Luke have what is likely to be the more primitive version. However if it did not do this then I would be sceptical about whether we can talk of Q or maybe Qs. It has been said that there might be a written text behind Mark’s passion and resurrection narratives and I have not rejected it. It has been suggested that Mark used a Jewish text for some of his chapter 13 and I think it is a good theory. It has been suggested that Luke had some John the Baptist stories that he re-worked for his birth narratives and I think that is a good theory.
However if someone says Matthew didn’t use Mark and Q but he used another text that does not exist I would be very sceptical. So when considering if a text we have and is known or another text we don’t have is the basis for something written in a text without the source being specified I will always consider the text we have as being the more likely and only if the text we have could not be the source would I consider a hypothetical text. So you make a valid criticism of my methodology, which I am not going to change.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Furthermore, the actual state of affairs is that 1 Clement has the element in question twice, once each in conjunction with both parts of the saying (which the synoptic tradition has as two separate sayings, found in entirely different contexts): good he were never born than that he scandalize one of my elect ones, and better that a millstone be hung round his neck and he be flung into the sea than that he turn aside one of my elect ones. This way of putting it is so natural as to defy the need for any explanation as to the position of the phrase. Nobody needs Luke as a model for putting it in this way.
You are correct I have gone for the simplistic solution. You are correct that adding the Judas saying makes a lot of sense and I have not looked at how likely that this saying was created by Mark. The changing from “little ones” to “my elect ones” also makes sense. However I was taught that if you see the redaction work of one document in another document this is strong evidence for the second document to have known the first document. If we accept that 1 Clement was written c 96 CE then the author is very likely to have known Mark’s gospel. If Matthew and Luke were written c 80 CE then he could also have known them. We are not certain when 1 Clement was written and we are not certain when Luke’s gospel was written, but it is possible that Clement knew Luke’s gospel and I am happy with that conclusion.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Your assumptions skip right past a host of other possibilities that ought at least to be explored before you declare a simple move as Lucan redaction. For example, what if Luke is preserving the order of the original source (Q?) here, whereas either Mark or Matthew has made a change and the other has followed the first? What if 1 Clement made the move first, and one of the editors of Luke copied that order from 1 Clement? And so on. But for the life of me I cannot find a single indicator in this pericope that 1 Clement has to be related to the synoptics by anything other than oral transmission of the same basic saying.
You are correct I have ignored the issue of Q, so I will try to address the issue of Q now.
Lk 17:1-2
[1]And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!
[2] It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Mt 18:6-7
[6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
[7]"Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!
Mk 9:42
[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
It seems to me that Luke’s “hung” is from Mark, but Matthew’s “fastened” might be Q. I think maybe Matthew’s longer “drowned in the depth” is more likely to be Q than Luke’s “cast”. Also I prefer Matthew’s verse 7 to Luke’s verse 1.
So the Q text might have been:
"Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!
it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Therefore it still seems to me that Clement was written after Luke was written because it includes his editorial move and then changes the group to Christians from children.
Well, "elect ones," to be exact, not Christians by name. (It is worth mentioning that at least two manuscripts of 1 Clement have
μικρῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι instead of
ἐκλεκτῶν μου διαστρέψαι; the latter is clearly the better reading, as the former would be an easy harmonization with Luke.)
I am quite ready to imagine "elect ones" as a later development than "little ones." That seems right to me. But I also suspect that the synoptic application of this saying to Judas (completely absent from the Clementine version) as the betrayer of Jesus is also quite secondary. In other words,
all of the extant versions are secondary. They
all go back, in that confusing mixture of oral and written transmission so characteristic of this period, to a saying that has been modified to new circumstances.
I think “elect” might be a word favoured by Clement as he uses it 14 times.
If you see the Marcan “woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (14:21) as secondary, then if this addition has been created by Mark, then that is where Clement gets it from.
However we should not forget why 1 Clement was raised in the first place. It was raised to date the Epistle of James as too early for the writer to have known Matthew. It is possible that 1 Clement knew Matthew and there is no convincing evidence to deny this possibility, even if we can’t agree on Clement’s use of Luke. The independent dating of 1 Clement makes it possible that he knew Matthew. We haven’t investigated whether Clement did know the epistle of James or the tradition the author of James used.
andrewcriddle wrote:
IMO the letter of Clement to the Corinthians (1 Clement) alludes to James (e.g. references to being double minded). If so it is 1st century, though maybe late 1st century, which makes use of Matthew improbable.
Andrew Criddle
The Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in
The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers considers Clement’s use of James 5:20 which is about “a multitude of sins” alongside his use of 1 Peter 4:8 and conclude “it is possible that Clement is quoting the passage from 1 Peter”. They don’t consider anything else from James.
Andrew could be referring to James 1:8 “For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord.” However it has been suggested that the allusions in 1 Clem 23 make the link here. Perhaps someone would like to make these links because I am just not seeing them unless it is to do with growing plants. 1 Clem 23 reminds me of the parable of the fig tree with the branches putting out leaves (Mk 13:28-29).