Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?
Posted: 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."
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Here is Roger Parvus spelling out his version of the argument. I copy it from his post A Simonian Origin for Christianity Part 7John2 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
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:
This quotation continues to puzzle scholars. It is one whose source they have been unable to positively identify: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.’
Some have thought that perhaps Paul was trying to quote 64:4 of the canonical book of Isaiah:The quotation cannot be found either in the Old Testament or in Jewish canonical writings” (1 Corinthians, H. Conzelmann, p. 63).
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 verseNo 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)
In light of these differences some scholars allow that Paul may be quoting an apocryphal scripture.
- (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.
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: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)
And the “wisdom” Paul speaks about in the passage was not just a peripheral part of his belief. It was his gospel.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).
.
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).
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
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.John2 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:05 amThanks, 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."
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:51 amI 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.John2 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:05 amThanks, 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."
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.
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.