Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

[GakuseiDon]

When the Gospels came out they would have been revolutionary.

I have to ask: Why? Can you explain what makes you think that the written Gospels would have been revolutionary when they came out?

If Christianity was built on a foundation of no written Gospels (which appears to be true), then I'd think that the written Gospels would have largely been ignored when they first came out, until such time that they started to be seen as authoritative. And they would have started down that path when arguments over Jesus's life began, much as an NT canon was not considered necessary until Marcion created his own canon.

It seems to me that you are assuming a late Second Century view of the written Gospels in First Century Christianity. I'd love to see the evidence for such a view. Papias wrote that "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." Papias obviously knew the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (though whether they are the same as the ones we have now is a different question.)

Dr Carrier wrote on the formation of the New Testament Canon (2000), summarising the views of scholars:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/ric ... canon.html

Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture--he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times...

Instead of referring to any NT writings as evidence, he [Ignatius] simply says that Jesus Christ is the witness to the authority of the tradition. This suggests that none of the NT was regarded even then as an authority. Like Clement, Ignatius and other Christians probably regarded these texts as wise counsel or useful collections of their oral traditions, and not as "scripture" per se.

On Papias, Carrier wrote:

Papias says "I did not think that information from books would help me so much as the utterances of a living and surviving voice" (M 52). Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change.

Do you believe that the Gospels were considered authoritative as soon as they were written? If not, when do you see the Gospels becoming authoritative? What about the letters of Paul and the others in the NT?

[Giuseppe]

Can you explain what makes you think that the written Gospels would have been revolutionary when they came out?

surely the revolution was the fact that, for the first time in the entire history of the sect, the destroyers of Jesus can be named and marked with certainty.

Papias broke the silence about the Gospel Jesus just talking diffusely about the betrayal of Judas and his effect. It was not a coincidence.

[davidmartin]

if the gospels were that unknown entering into an environment dominated by authorities that had little knowledge of a historical Jesus then the gospel's critiques of Pharisees might as well apply to Christian leadership not Jewish authorities at all. A Pharisee like Nicodemus represents a Christian teacher who doesn't know anything about what he is preaching. The condemnation of Jesus and his followers represents the Christian authorities condemnation of those who oppose them like in 1 Clement. The persecutors of Jesus were Christians who never were able to comment on his life or his teachings because they didn't know them. Later they produced gospels to make it look like they always did, with Jews as the convenient scapegoat taking their place.

[rgprice]

@GakuseiDon

But whether he knew the Gospels or not, the real point is, did he know anything about Jesus the person? I could accept that someone may not care too much about the Gospel stories, if that person also knew of comparable oral accounts that said much the same thing. But either way, whether such a person would quote from the Gospels or recite an oral legend, they would still have something to say about the life of Jesus.

In 1 Clem, the writer cites the life of Peter and Paul. He's talking about persecution and betrayal. Has he nothing at all to say about Judas?

Could someone who really knew the story of Jesus' betrayal at the hands of Judas, and even Peter, ignore this nugget when setting out examples of people who faced persecution and betrayal, in which he lists roughly a dozen figures from the LXX along with Peter and Paul?

1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.

Wouldn't Jesus be THE most righteous pillar of all? Betrayed by Judas to face persecution at the hands of the Jews unto THE most relevant death of all!!?!?

Yet, in 1 Clem no life of Jesus exists. No life is Jesus is drawn upon for lessons. It's not simply a matter of saying that 1 Clem may not have seen the Gospels as authoritative, he doesn't even see a life of Jesus as worth mentioning!

Nothing that 1 Clem says about Jesus cannot be gleaned from the LXX, the Pauline epistles, and Hebrews. Jesus is nothing more than a blood sacrifice and divine mediator in 1 Clem. There is no Jesus man to draw lessons from.

But to claim that 1 Clem knew the Gospels (as most NT scholars do) yet he only used them to find better ways to paraphrase the LXX is absurd. So we are to believe that 1 Clem doesn't see the Gospels as authoritative, while he does see the LXX as authoritative, yet when he quotes from the LXX in a few places he decides to do it via Matthew or Mark? That makes no sense at all. If he has little regard for the Gospels as not to recount any aspect of their stories, why on earth would he quote Isaiah via Mark?

If there are indeed literary relationships between 1 Clem and the Gospels within the quotes from the LXX, it cannot be 1 Clem referencing the Gospels, it must be the Gospels referencing 1 Clem.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

When you read Martyr its obvious that he knew a Gospel. It jumps out. Are we really to believe that perhaps the earliest letter from someone who knew Gospels contains only such vague references that the only way we can detect this person's knowledge of the Gospels is via vague word similarities?

I certainly did not say that 1 Clement is obvious at knowing gMark. Furthermore, the purpose of 1 Clement is not to describe the Jesus of the gospel, but to solve a feud within the Corinthian Christians.

There are no themes in 1 Clement that indicate he knew of any Gospels. When the Gospels came out they would have been revolutionary.

But the evidence shows the gospels took a long time to be accepted and considered scriptures (I agree with most of GakuseiDon's post on that matter). Anyway I wrote that "Clement" knew only of gMark.

Are we really to believe that the only thing this writer gleaned from them was a few paltry sayings?

Yes, why not? And there is more that Jesus' sayings I used to make my point. And you did not ask for "jumped out" evidence.

Your case for 1 Clem having used GMark is entirely unconvincing. It deals almost entirely with quotes from the LXX.

No, it does not. From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

"In chapter 16, "Clement" quoted the LXX version of the suffering servant (Isaiah53), "as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him [Jesus]". He kept close to the Septuagint except for his addition of three occurrences of the word "stripes" (Greek root 'plege').
a) "He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering" --> LXX (3) "he was a man in suffering"
b) "He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction" --> LXX (4) "him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction"
c) "the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes" --> LXX (10) "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke"
'Stripes' means strokes or blows with a rod or lash (or/and resulting wounds).
The three additions of 'stripes' cannot be a coincidence and is most likely a reference to the flogging of Jesus in Mk15:15."

"In chapter 15, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around."

And out of all this, the relationships are entirely based on sayings of Jesus.

From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

1Clement, ch.46 "... Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ
["remember" implies the author thought those words were already known by the Christians of Corinth]
` "Woe to that man [2a]! It were better for him that he had never been born [2b], than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect [3]. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about, and he should be sunk in the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones [1] ...""
Let's compare this with:
Mk9:42 NASB " Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea [1]."
and:
Mk14:21 NASB "... but woe to that man [2a] by whom [Judas the traitor] the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born [2b (this segment has no counterpart in Lk17:2)].''
and:
Mk14:20,22,27 NASB "... elect [3] ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

From GakuseiDon:

I have to ask: Why? Can you explain what makes you think that the written Gospels would have been revolutionary when they came out?

If Christianity was built on a foundation of no written Gospels (which appears to be true), then I'd think that the written Gospels would have largely been ignored when they first came out, until such time that they started to be seen as authoritative. And they would have started down that path when arguments over Jesus's life began, much as an NT canon was not considered necessary until Marcion created his own canon.

It seems to me that you are assuming a late Second Century view of the written Gospels in First Century Christianity. I'd love to see the evidence for such a view. Papias wrote that "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." Papias obviously knew the Gospels of Mark ...)

I agree.

Cordially. Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

If there are indeed literary relationships between 1 Clem and the Gospels within the quotes from the LXX, it cannot be 1 Clem referencing the Gospels, it must be the Gospels referencing 1 Clem.

From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

1Clement, ch.18 "... God said 'I have found a man after my own heart, David the son of Jesse; and in everlasting mercy have I anointed him?'"
The closest O.T. passages are Psalm89:20:
"[God saying] I have found my servant David with My holy oil I have anointed him"
and 1Sa13:14 LXX:
"[Samuel says] the Lord shall seek for himself a man after his own heart"
Let's notice the conflation, a specialty of "Clement"! More to come ...

Ac13:22 "... [as testified by God] I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, who will do all My will."

Who copied whom?
In '1Clement', David is named four times but never as "servant" (however Moses is declared God's servant four times!). But "Luke" did not have a problem with "servant David", which appears in Lk1:69 & Ac4:25. And if "Luke" copied from Psalm80:20, there was no reason to drop "my servant", more so because it fits "who will do all My will". All of that suggests strongly "Luke" used '1Clement', and NOT vice versa. Furthermore, "Clement" had to know about Psalm89:20, because he obviously extracted "I ... anointed him" from it. But "Luke" needed only '1Clement' when writing Ac13:22!

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

From my perspective, the Gospel writers used the epistles of Paul, without question. If they are already using the epistles of Paul, I see no reason they wouldn't have used 1 Clement also, which may well have been circulating around in the same mix. Luke was clearly using all kinds of sources such as Josephus and Philo, in addition. I'm confident Mark also used Philo. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Mark used Josephus' AJ, which puts Mark after 95 CE anyway. Matthew it seems used the Parables of Enoch in addition and possible some texts from Qumran (or at least other circulating variants).

The Gospel writers were vacuuming sources. And here we have a document that contains within in once of the clearest collections of sayings attributed to Jesus. This looks like a prime target for a would-be Gospel writer.

Even the case laid out here essentially states that as far as the writer of 1 Clem was concerned, only the LXX was scripture, which means his "knowledge" of Jesus came from the LXX. (I would dispute this to some degree given how often her references Hebrews.)

So here we have 1 Clem, with its catalog of sayings attributed to Jesus, virtually all of which are gleaned from the LXX, much like Hebrews. This is a ripe fruit for the picking of someone writing looking to expand the dialog of Jesus...

[robert j]

An excerpt you provided from your website ---

"In chapter 16, "Clement" quoted the LXX version of the suffering servant (Isaiah53), "as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him [Jesus]". He kept close to the Septuagint except for his addition of three occurrences of the word "stripes" (Greek root 'plege').
a) "He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering" --> LXX (3) "he was a man in suffering"
b) "He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction" --> LXX (4) "him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction"
c) "the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes" --> LXX (10) "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke"
'Stripes' means strokes or blows with a rod or lash (or/and resulting wounds).
The three additions of 'stripes' cannot be a coincidence and is most likely a reference to the flogging of Jesus in Mk15:15."

No cigar here Bernard.

One does not need to conjure up a reference to the flogging in GMark to account for Clement’s relevant terminology here. Isaiah 53 supplies the two relevant terms used by Clement.

1Clem 16:4, translated by J.B. Lightfoot
… and we accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes (πληγη) and in affliction.

1Clem 16:5
… with His bruises (μωλωπι) we were healed.

1Clem 16:10
… and the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from His stripes (πληγης).

… And we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering (πληγη) by God, and in affliction. But he was wounded because of our sins, and he was made infirm on account of our lawless deeds ... by his stripe (μώλωπι) we were healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5, LXX)

And the Lord wills to cleanse him of the beating (πληγής) … (Isaiah 53:10, LXX)

πληγής --- blow, stroke
μώλωπι --- mark of a stripe, weal, bruise

These translators of the Greek into English are not entirely consistent with these two somewhat related terms in these examples. But the author of 1 Clement apparently derived the relevant Greek terms from Isaiah 53 in the LXX.

[GakuseiDon]

@GakuseiDon

But whether he knew the Gospels or not, the real point is, did he know anything about Jesus the person? I could accept that someone may not care too much about the Gospel stories, if that person also knew of comparable oral accounts that said much the same thing. But either way, whether such a person would quote from the Gospels or recite an oral legend, they would still have something to say about the life of Jesus.

In this, 1 Clement is the same as the other early historicist writers. Seriously: determine for yourself which of the NT writings and other earliest writings done by historicist writer, and have a look at how interested (or rather NOT interested) they were in the life of Jesus. You've already seen Acts of the Apostles as an example. You will see that they all approach the life of Jesus the same way: vague details (if any at all) and often tied to the OT. It's an interesting exercise for setting expectations.

Now, if that supports mythicism, then so be it. But in the earliest layer of 'historicist' writers, the interest wasn't in the life of Jesus but in his death and resurrection. That's what the evidence shows. 1 Clement is simply more evidence of the same.

In 1 Clem, the writer cites the life of Peter and Paul. He's talking about persecution and betrayal. Has he nothing at all to say about Judas?

Could someone who really knew the story of Jesus' betrayal at the hands of Judas, and even Peter, ignore this nugget when setting out examples of people who faced persecution and betrayal, in which he lists roughly a dozen figures from the LXX along with Peter and Paul?

The author writes:

"Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death."

What approximate date do you believe 1 Clement was written? I know you think that the author should have included Judas, but what if he/she really meant to use examples from his/her generation? Would Judas be a part of that generation in the first place?

Yet, in 1 Clem no life of Jesus exists. No life is Jesus is drawn upon for lessons. It's not simply a matter of saying that 1 Clem may not have seen the Gospels as authoritative, he doesn't even see a life of Jesus as worth mentioning!

Nothing that 1 Clem says about Jesus cannot be gleaned from the LXX, the Pauline epistles, and Hebrews. Jesus is nothing more than a blood sacrifice and divine mediator in 1 Clem. There is no Jesus man to draw lessons from.

I agree with you: it wasn't the life of Jesus that had significance; it was the death of Jesus, the giving of his blood, and his resurrection from the dead. If you look at the earliest writers deemed 'historicist' by mythicists, that's the pattern that we see.

So 1 Clement has no interest in the life of Jesus, and uses nothing that could be tied to the written Gospels (assuming that the ideas of Jesus being a descendant of Jacob according to the flesh and similar sayings to the Gospels came from a common source). Do you think that the 1 Clement author believed that Jesus was historical?