1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Bernard Muller »

Hello all. I am still alive.
I confess I did not follow that thread, and my participation in it is very late, but this is what I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html:

>>Did "Matthew" know about '1Clement'?
Let's look at these items:
a) Mt5:7 NASB "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy [1]."
The Greek root for "merciful" ('eleemon') is the same in '1Clement' and here, but different in Lk6:36-38 ('oiktirmon').
Also GMatthew is closer to '1Clement' ("Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy") than GLuke ("Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful").
b) Mt7:1-2a NASB "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged [5] ..."
This first sentence is almost word by word as in Lk6:37 ("Do not judge, and you will not be judged") but again differing from '1Clement' ("as you judge, so shall you be judged"). However, the second one is very similar to the one by "Clement".
And it appears we have a contradiction here: first "do not judge", then "as you judge"! It seems "Matthew" combined the two versions, that is the one from "Q" and the one from '1Clement' (as he did in 13:31-32 (parable of the mustard seed) and 12:31-32, combining the "Q" version with Mark's).
In conclusion, it is probable "Matthew" knew about '1Clement'.<<

I also have compelling evidence in the same webpage that "Luke" (gospel & Acts) knew about 1 Clement (and not the other way around).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:56 pm
According to Eusebius in History of the Church 4.22.1-9, Hegesippus spent quality time both in Corinth and in Rome, getting along with everybody in both places. It would seem odd to me that 1 Clement would be a bone of contention between Hegesippus and both churches, or did they, too, reject the epistle? Hegesippus is all about the unity of the "true church" against heresy; was 1 Clement considered heresy?

As for Eusebius, if the hypotheses about the interpolations are true, and if Stephen Gobar is correct about Hegesippus' comments about the eyes and ears saying, then poor Eusebius would have been confused, right? For him, the eyes and ears saying would have been found both in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Clement. If Hegesippus said something negative about it, but also something positive about 1 Clement overall, what would Eusebius have been left to think? That might be reason enough to skip Hegesippus' actual comments about 1 Clement.

And I wrote something yesterday that I've had some new thoughts about that pertain to what Ben wrote in the above citation:

You now what? Whether he was a Jewish Christian or not, I don't think Hegesippus was opposed to Paul (despite never mentioning him and what Photius/Gobar says, even if 1 Cor. 2:6-11 is genuine). I don't know how I ever missed seeing the answer before in EH 4.22.4:

"The same author [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses."

I figure from this that he didn't see Paul as having corrupted the Church with "vain discourses" if he thought it was a "virgin" up to the time Symeon became a bishop (sometime after c. 62 CE). This seems to be the case for James, who in my view reproves Paul in his letter and in Acts but doesn't reject him, and for the Nazarene branch of Jewish Christianity (which went back to the time of Jesus). And since Hegesippus revered James, it would follow that he wouldn't have rejected Paul either.

While I'm still thinking Hegesippus did not oppose Paul (and thus that if he was a Jewish Christian he was probably a Nazarene Jewish Christian), it occurred to me that since (in my view) James reproves Paul and calls him an "empty man" in his letter (over the issue of works and faith) but does not reject him, why couldn't Hegesippus similarly reprove Paul and 1 Clement and call them liars (over the issue of "no eyes/no ears") without otherwise rejecting them?

Then as for the unity of the "true church" that Hegesippus is "all about," even Paul and Jewish Christians (despite their differences regarding Torah observance) were in unity about the things that Paul calls "of first importance" in 1 Cor. 15:3-11, "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve [etc.] ... Whether, then, it was I or they [i.e., Jewish Christians], this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

Surely the people Hegesippus met in Rome and Corinth were in agreement about these things as well. Additionally, Hegesippus (as a Jewish Christian or at least as someone who was interested in Jewish Christian-related subjects and writings) would have likely seen that Matthew (which was used by Jewish Christians) was the most popular gospel, as this website notes:

The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0



So if Hegesippus and the people he met believed in the things that Paul said were "of first importance" and held Matthew in high esteem and Hegesippus reproved but did not reject Paul (like James did) and 1 Clement, I could see why he would have the impression that everyone he met on his journey subscribed to the "true doctrine" (and 1 Cor. 2:6-11 and 1 Clem. 21-41 would be of no issue as far as Gobar goes).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:49 pmWhile I'm still thinking Hegesippus did not oppose Paul (and thus that if he was a Jewish Christian he was probably a Nazarene Jewish Christian), it occurred to me that since (in my view) James reproves Paul and calls him an "empty man" in his letter (over the issue of works and faith) but does not reject him, why couldn't Hegesippus similarly reprove Paul and 1 Clement and call them liars (over the issue of "no eyes/no ears") without otherwise rejecting them?
Gobar says that Hegesippus says that "these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the holy scriptures say, 'Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear,' and the rest." Does this not imply that, for Hegesippus, both Paul and Clement are liars? Furthermore, does it not imply that, for Hegesippus, 1 Corinthians 2.9 is not scripture? Would that not be a rejection of Paul, then? The gospels are scripture, but Paul is not. And I doubt Corinth and Rome felt this way about Paul by the time Hegesippus was doing his thing.

ETA: Eusebius says in History of the Church 3.32.7, "In addition to these things the same man (= Hegesippus0, while recounting the events of that period, records that the church up to that time (= that of Trajan) had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:49 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:49 pmWhile I'm still thinking Hegesippus did not oppose Paul (and thus that if he was a Jewish Christian he was probably a Nazarene Jewish Christian), it occurred to me that since (in my view) James reproves Paul and calls him an "empty man" in his letter (over the issue of works and faith) but does not reject him, why couldn't Hegesippus similarly reprove Paul and 1 Clement and call them liars (over the issue of "no eyes/no ears") without otherwise rejecting them?
Gobar says that Hegesippus says that "these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the holy scriptures say, 'Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear,' and the rest." Does this not imply that, for Hegesippus, both Paul and Clement are liars? Furthermore, does it not imply that, for Hegesippus, 1 Corinthians 2.9 is not scripture? Would that not be a rejection of Paul, then? The gospels are scripture, but Paul is not. And I doubt Corinth and Rome felt this way about Paul by the time Hegesippus was doing his thing.

Well, but as I said, James (at least in my view) calls Paul an "empty man" (and over a much bigger issue than citing the OT incorrectly, at that; and I wonder if James uses the same word for "empty" that Gobar says Hegesippus used for "empty" words) but he ultimately doesn't reject Paul. That's at least my take on Nazarene Jewish Christians accepting Paul and James accepting Paul in Acts and the ending of James (5:19-20):

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

I think Hegesippus' remark would imply that Paul and 1 Clement were liars only about the issue of (mis)citing that particular OT passage, just like James calls Paul an "empty man" regarding the issue of works and faith but nevertheless holds out hope that he will turn from "the error of his way."

Were Paul's letters scripture for everyone in the mid-second century CE? Were they for 1 Clement (which, as far as I'm aware, only says "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul" and that Paul wrote that letter "under the inspiration of the spirit" in ch. 47)? The 19 hits for "scripture" that I get for 1 Clement appear to be only from the OT (including no eyes/no ears, as per pseudo-Philo). And wasn't Marcion (who Hegessipus rejects) the first to "canonize" Paul's letters?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:13 pmWell, but as I said, James (at least in my view) calls Paul an "empty man" (and over a much bigger issue than citing the OT correctly, at that)....
I doubt James thought of Paul as writing scripture. That is not my issue.
I wonder if James uses the same word for "empty" that Gobar says Hegesippus used for "empty" words....
I need a reference.
...but James ultimately doesn't reject Paul.
I am not sure what this means in this context. I doubt James thought that Paul was inspired by the spirit when he wrote about faith and works.
Were Paul's letters scripture for everyone in the mid-second century CE? Were they for 1 Clement...?
These passages are relevant:

1 Clement 13.1b: 1b For the Holy Spirit says, "The one who is wise should not boast about his wisdom, nor the one who is strong about his strength, nor the one who is wealthy about his wealth; instead, the one who boasts should boast about the Lord, seeking after him and doing what is just and right" (= Jeremiah 9.23-24).

1 Clement 16.2: 2 Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scepter of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says.... [And here he quotes from Isaiah 53.]

1 Clement 45.2: 2 Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.

1 Clement 47.1-3: 1 Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. 2 What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? 3 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.

1 Clement 63.2: 2 For you will make us joyful and happy if you become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit and excise the wanton anger expressed through your jealousy, in accordance with the request we have made in this letter for your peace and harmony.

The 19 hits for "scripture" that I get for 1 Clement appear to be only from the OT (including no eyes/no ears, as per pseudo-Philo).
Where in the OT do the following two come from?

1 Clement 23.3-4: 3 May this Scripture be far removed from us that says: “How miserable are those who are of two minds, who doubt in their soul, who say, ‘We have heard these things from the time of our parents, and look! We have grown old, and none of these things has happened to us.’ 4 You fools! Compare yourselves to a tree. Take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a bud appears, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these an unripe grape, and then an entire bunch fully grown.” You see that the fruit of the tree becomes ripe in just a short time.

1 Clement 46.2: 2 For it is written, “Cling to those who are holy; for those who cling to them will themselves be made holy.”

And wasn't Marcion (who Hegesippus rejects) the first to "canonize" Paul's letters?
I seriously doubt it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:45 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:13 pm
I wonder if James uses the same word for "empty" that Gobar says Hegesippus used for "empty" words....
I need a reference.
James 2:20. (I'd give you the Greek but my go-to biblehub is acting funny at the moment and won't let me see it.)

...but James ultimately doesn't reject Paul.

I am not sure what this means in this context. I doubt James thought that Paul was inspired by the spirit when he wrote about faith and works.

Well, Hegesippus revered James, so I'm thinking what was good for the goose was good for the gander (i.e., James and Hegesippus had an issue with Paul but not to the extent that they viewed him as a heretic). But I take your point that regard for Paul was or may have been different in the first century CE than the second century CE.

These passages are relevant:

1 Clement 13.1b: 1b For the Holy Spirit says, "The one who is wise should not boast about his wisdom, nor the one who is strong about his strength, nor the one who is wealthy about his wealth; instead, the one who boasts should boast about the Lord, seeking after him and doing what is just and right" (= Jeremiah 9.23-24).

1 Clement 16.2: 2 Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scepter of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says.... [And here he quotes from Isaiah 53.]

1 Clement 45.2: 2 Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.

1 Clement 47.1-3: 1 Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. 2 What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? 3 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.

1 Clement 63.2: 2 For you will make us joyful and happy if you become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit and excise the wanton anger expressed through your jealousy, in accordance with the request we have made in this letter for your peace and harmony.


That sounds pretty good, but just to be nitpicky, does 1 Clem 47.1-3 refer to all of the letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (in whatever form 1 Clement knew it), or only to the part "concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos"? And if 1 Clem. is viewing all of Paul's letter as scripture, is it also viewing itself as scripture (as per 63:2)?

The 19 hits for "scripture" that I get for 1 Clement appear to be only from the OT (including no eyes/no ears, as per pseudo-Philo).


Where in the OT do the following two come from?

1 Clement 23.3-4: 3 May this Scripture be far removed from us that says: “How miserable are those who are of two minds, who doubt in their soul, who say, ‘We have heard these things from the time of our parents, and look! We have grown old, and none of these things has happened to us.’ 4 You fools! Compare yourselves to a tree. Take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a bud appears, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these an unripe grape, and then an entire bunch fully grown.” You see that the fruit of the tree becomes ripe in just a short time.

1 Clement 46.2: 2 For it is written, “Cling to those who are holy; for those who cling to them will themselves be made holy.”


I don't know (which is why I said "appear" to come from the OT). Where do those citations come from then (out of curiosity)?

And wasn't Marcion (who Hegesippus rejects) the first to "canonize" Paul's letters?


I seriously doubt it.

Well, Marcion was at least quite fond of Paul to the exclusion of the other apostles and Hegesippus opposed him, so I reckon his fondness for Paul didn't make up for whatever his deficits were in Hegesippus' mind (not liking the other apostles, for one thing?). In other words, only liking Paul wasn't enough for Hegesippus, so perhaps he (for one) didn't view Paul's letters as scripture and thus felt free to criticize a part of them (a part that concerns what Hegesippus certainly regarded as scripture, i.e., the OT). Would that be a radical position to have in the mid-second century CE?
Last edited by John2 on Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:02 pmJames 2:20. (I'd give you the Greek but my go-to biblehub is acting funny at the moment and won't let me see it.)
Hegesippus (apud Stephen Gobar) has μάτην ("vainly," an adverb). James 2.20 has κενέ ("empty," an adjective).
Well, Hegesippus revered James, so I'm thinking what was good for the goose was good for the gander (i.e., James and Hegesippus had an issue with Paul but not to the extent that they viewed him as a heretic). But I take your point that regard for Paul was or may have been different in the first century CE than the second century CE.
Well, my main thing is the way Hegesippus seems to set up orthodoxy and heresy: orthodoxy flourished early, while heresy arose only later, around the time of Trajan. I doubt Hegesippus could deny that Paul was early, and 1 Clement treats Paul as inspired (that is, 1 Clement attributes both Paul's epistle to the Corinthians and the Hebrew scriptures to the Holy Spirit). If Eusebius is correct about Hegesippus commenting on 1 Clement, then the issue would virtually be forced for him: is 1 Clement right about Paul being inspired? Hegesippus speaks of the bishops of Corinth and Rome as if they were on the same page about everything, and Eusebius writes that it is "after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" that Hegesippus says that "the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth." Is this statement meant to imply that 1 Clement was part of a heresy which was stamped out in favor of the true faith? Given what Hegesippus says elsewhere about the church having remained a "pure virgin" until Trajan's time, that seems unlikely; rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).
That sounds pretty good, but just to be nitpicky, does 1 Clem 47.1-3 refer to all of the letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (in whatever form 1 Clement knew it), or only to the part "concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos"? And if 1 Clem. is viewing all of Paul's letter as scripture, is it also viewing itself as scripture (as per 63:2)?
I am unaware of any ancient Christian opinion about inspiration which applies to some authorial words in a text but not to others. I would hesitate to use the term "scripture" where the text does not use it, but yes, both 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement itself are inspired by the spirit, according to the author of 1 Clement. (You can compare this to the Apostolic Constitutions listing the canon of scripture and including itself in the list.)
Well, Marcion was at least quite fond of Paul to the exclusion of the other apostles and Hegesippus opposed him, so I reckon his fondness for Paul didn't make up for whatever his deficits were in Hegesippus' mind (not liking the other apostles?).
One does not have to find deficits in Paul in order to find deficits in Marcion's using Paul to the exclusion of all others. Irenaeus accuses various sects of using only the gospel of Matthew, but that does not mean that Irenaeus finds deficits in Matthew.
In other words, only liking Paul wasn't enough for Hegesippus, so perhaps he (for one) didn't view Paul's letters as scripture and thus felt free to criticize a part of them (a part that concerns what Hegesippus certainly regarded as scripture, i.e., the OT). Would that be a radical position to have in the mid-second century CE?
Again, this just gets too strained and convoluted for me, as described above.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

... rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).

But from Hegesippus' point of view the eyes and ears saying was a corruption of the OT, so his concern was only for that particular aspect in Paul and 1 Clement, even if he otherwise had respect for them. Would it be like saying "those who use that variant of the OT are wrong to do so" rather than "those who use it are wrong about everything"?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:46 pm
... rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).
But from Hegesippus' point of view the eyes and ears saying was a corruption of the OT, so his concern was only for that particular aspect in Paul and 1 Clement, even if he otherwise had respect for them. Would it be like saying "those who use that variant of the OT are wrong to do so" rather than "those who use it are wrong about everything"?
It would be, "Those who say this thing (which is a corruption of Isaiah) are lying" because "both the holy scriptures and the Lord say" (τῶν τε θειῶν γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος) otherwise. ("Wrong about everything" is irrelevant and unnecessary. "Lying" against the scriptures and the Lord himself is the charge on record.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I don't know (which is why I said "appear" to come from the OT). Where do those citations come from then (out of curiosity)?
Nobody knows for sure.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply