Convince me that 1 Clement knew a Gospel

[Bernard Muller]

to robert j,
After a lot of checking on the Greek of Isaiah (LXX) and the original Greek of 1 Clement, I am pained to say I cannot make a point on "stripes", and consequently the whole thing will go to the trash can.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to 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.

But "Luke" used 1 Clement, as I showed in an earlier post
Furthermore, it is probable "Matthew" used also 1 Clement:
From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

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'.

Outside the gospels, other 1st century authors showed knowledge of the gospels.

Dating and evidence for the Didache and epistle of Barnabas are explained here:
From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

1) The Didache, see http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#didache
2) Epistle of Barnabas, see http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#barnabas
3) Revelation,

It is likely the Christian additions were made with knowledge of GMatthew:
Mt24:30 "... and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven ..."
Rev1:7 "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him [from GJohn?]. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. ..."
Nowhere else in 'Revelation' Christ's coming (14:1, 19:11, 20:4, 21:2) is associated with clouds.
Another passage (of the Christian additions) apparently drawn from GMatthew:
Mt24:43-44 "... if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched ... Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (also in Lk12:39-40)
Rev3:3b "Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you."
Furthermore, among the gospels, only in GMatthew the resurrected Jesus has his own throne at some day of Judgment (Mt19:28,25:31). In Rev3:21a, Christ will also have his own (but before, (as the Lamb) he shares God's throne: Rev3:21b). And let's notice Rev20:4 makes allowance for Christ and his disciples to judge from their thrones (as in Mt19:28).

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...

1 Clement has only two sayings attributed to Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

@GakuseiDon

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.

This is a bogus excuse. Name such early historicist writers? Luke/Acts? But look at the first part of Acts. The first part of Acts, which does not appear to be based on any early source, meets expectations. Compare the trial of Peter and John to the later trial of Paul. This is explained by the writer of Acts making up the trial of Peter and John himself, while he follows an earlier source for the trial of Paul.

Acts 4:
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are asked how this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. 11 This Jesus is

‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders;
it has become the cornerstone.’

12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”

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?

So you think it would have been completely unreasonable to find any way to address the betrayal of Jesus by Judas? Even if he did want to talk about "his generation" and Jesus/Judas wasn't a part of "his generation", he can easily add another section that talks about events just prior to "his generation". But remember, Peter and Jesus are of the same generation, at least according to the Gospel stories...

But I want to be clear. Your contention is that you believe that the writer of Clement knew full well the account of Jesus being betrayed by Judas, a story that was expanded upon and cited at great length by later apologists and church fathers, but yet he chose to say nothing about it here. That's your position? If he knows a Gospel he has to know that story. Your position is that the writer must have known this story, but he either didn't find it relevant or he couldn't possibly come up with any way to work it into his letter, correct?

Do you think that the 1 Clement author believed that Jesus was historical?

Depends on what you mean as historical. I think the writer of 1 Clem saw Jesus in the same way that Qumranic Jews saw Enoch. Did they consider Enoch a "historical figure", yeah probably.

When you look at figures like Enoch, Melchezedeck and Michael, certainly plenty of Jews/Gentile God-fearers in the first century considered these "real" and also divine heavenly beings. We see words ascribed to these figures, teachings in some cases, interactions with people, revelations, etc. I think if you were to go back to Qumran circa 20 CE and ask the people there, "Was Enoch a real person?" you would get 100% Yes to that question. If you asked "Is Enoch alive right now?" You'd get 100% Yes. Does Enoch live in heaven? Yes. Have people talked to Enoch? Yes. Will Enoch return to earth some day? Yes.

Does Michael talk to people? Yes. Does Michael reveal himself to people? Yes. Does Michael help people in need? Yes. Will Michael come to earth to help the Jews during the time of Final Judgement? Yes.

[rgprice]

@Bernard Muller

But "Luke" used 1 Clement, as I showed in an earlier post
Furthermore, it is probable "Matthew" used also 1 Clement:

That I'll agree with, and I do find you page on this helpful.

1 Clement has only two sayings attributed to Jesus.

Not exactly. 1 Clem has two saying attributed to Jesus that can't be found in the LXX. For example:

And again He Himself saith; But I am a worm and no man, a reproach
of men and an outcast of the people.

I'm considering that a "quote from Jesus".

Also notice that 1 Clem cites Psalm 22:

1Clem 16:16
All they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips;
they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let Him
deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him.

Again, most NT scholars cite this as evidence that 1 Clem knew the Gospels, but I see it the other way around. This is a precursor of the Gospel story. The Gospel writers read 1 Clem, and from it were directed at what material to use. They gleaned sayings of Jesus and scriptures to use for their narrative from it. Well, either that or from common traditions that they both work from.

Outside the gospels, other 1st century authors showed knowledge of the gospels.

I haven't studied those in depth yet. Its always quite difficult because you have to contend with the possibilities of interpolations and other potential later modifications on top of everything else.

[GakuseiDon]

@GakuseiDon

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.

This is a bogus excuse.

No, it is a key part of my argument around setting expectations. Looking at the earliest 'historicist' writers (that is, those writers that mythicists like Dr Carrier and Doherty thought were historicists), you can see a lack of interest in the life of the man Jesus. The focus is around his death and its significance. It isn't until the Gospels start to become authoritative towards the second half of the Second Century that details about Jesus's life start to become significant. That's simply what the evidence shows.

Now, at the end of the day, that evidence may well support mythicism. If so, so be it. But it is clear that the earliest Christians -- even the ones deemed 'historicists' -- weren't interested in the life of Jesus, but were focused on Jesus's death and resurrection, and his ability of being a mediator in heaven (since he wasn't God yet). Again, that's what the evidence shows. And that's what 1 Clement shows.

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?

So you think it would have been completely unreasonable to find any way to address the betrayal of Jesus by Judas?

To be honest: yes, that may be. 1 Clement stresses how the apostles were chosen by Jesus. As a person chosen by Jesus, Judas might have been an embarrassing example. "The apostles were chosen by Jesus! So they were good!" "But what about Judas? He was chosen by Jesus." " Um... let's look at our generation!"

But that's just speculation. For all I know, the author hadn't heard that story or considered it apocryphal. Remember, my position is that the written Gospels were largely considered unimportant until later in the Second Century. The author of gMatthew, for example, felt free to change what he found in gMark. I'd argue that the author didn't consider gMark authoritative, so had no problems making changes.

But I want to be clear. Your contention is that you believe that the writer of Clement knew full well the account of Jesus being betrayed by Judas, a story that was expanded upon and cited at great length by later apologists and church fathers, but yet he chose to say nothing about it here. That's your position? If he knows a Gospel he has to know that story. Your position is that the writer must have known this story, but he either didn't find it relevant or he couldn't possibly come up with any way to work it into his letter, correct?

Yes (though caveat on "must have known this story". The author may not have thought it true.) And your position is that, if 1 Clement knew one or more of the written Gospels, then he must have considered them authoritative. That's the point we disagree on, I think. But from my perspective: I am working from the evidence, while you are working from an assumption (the importance of the Gospels and the life of Jesus to earliest Christians) that you have yet to prove is viable.

I think your view of the significance of the Gospels to the earliest Christians is anachronistic, as you are imposing a view that is from the late Second Century onto the earliest Christians. An analysis of the evidence actually shows that, for whatever reason, that wasn't the case. Now, perhaps that supports mythicism. If so, so be it. But that's the actual evidence. 1 Clement is simply another example of that.

Do you think that the 1 Clement author believed that Jesus was historical?

Depends on what you mean as historical. I think the writer of 1 Clem saw Jesus in the same way that Qumranic Jews saw Enoch. Did they consider Enoch a "historical figure", yeah probably.

When you look at figures like Enoch, Melchezedeck and Michael, certainly plenty of Jews/Gentile God-fearers in the first century considered these "real" and also divine heavenly beings. We see words ascribed to these figures, teachings in some cases, interactions with people, revelations, etc. I think if you were to go back to Qumran circa 20 CE and ask the people there, "Was Enoch a real person?" you would get 100% Yes to that question. If you asked "Is Enoch alive right now?" You'd get 100% Yes. Does Enoch live in heaven? Yes. Have people talked to Enoch? Yes. Will Enoch return to earth some day? Yes.

BINGO! You really need to consider the implications of what you've written here. I'd add the following question to the Qumranites: "If Enoch is in heaven right now and he can help you because he is in heaven, and the world is coming to an end, is knowing details about that more important than knowing about his life?"

It wasn't until Jesus's return was delayed that his life and the Gospels started to take on significance. He went from a heavenly figure with power to help in the coming end-of-the-world, to a wise sage whose wisdom and life were important. Again, that's what the evidence shows, for whatever reason. Perhaps that supports mythicism. But if you are starting from a position that the earliest Christians should have been all about the details of the life of Jesus, then I'd say your starting position is wrong. The evidence for that isn't there. Jesus's importance was around his death and resurrection, but he started small. For example, "Jesus came as a servant" and "emptied himself" according to Paul, and Jesus "did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition" according to 1 Clement.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the reason many historicist Christians from early 2 CE ignored deliberately the Gospels is that they addressed Christian historicist docetists, too. The docetists had no reason to emphasize the single details of the fleshly Jesus: it was only apparent for them, not the "real" thing. Hence a proto-Catholic as Clement couldn't persuade them so much by talking about Pilate, for example.

Only when Docetists, with Marcion, started to show interest about Gospel details, only then, they could be persuaded to proto-catholicism, by mentioning them that Jesus really suffered under Pilate, etc.

But precisely the fact that the docetists were a 2° CE phenomenon prevents me from thinking that the early 1°CE Christians could be justified as well for their silence about an earthly Jesus. They had to mention Pilate, for a thing. But they didn't.

[GakuseiDon]

The Epistle of Barnabas is another example of a 'historicist' writer who is vague about the details of the life of Jesus on earth and doesn't appear to know the Gospels. As Dr Carrier notes in OHJ, pages 315-316:

The Epistle of Barnabas (which assumes the historicity of Jesus) could conceivably date around this same time, but it has not been any more precisely dated than 70-130 CE, and in my opinion it surely dates to the period 130-132 CE...
...
What few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced anyway - its content thus can't be ascertained as having any source independent of the Gospels or Christian tradition influenced by the Gospels. It could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents.

As Carrier notes, early historicist theology produced works not influenced by the Gospels that are "no less expected on myth as on historicity". The "few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced". If the two types are similar except that one has a few statements -- one or two -- then how to distinguish between them?

Doherty makes a similar observation about the lack of details in Barnabas in his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", pages 465-466. I've highlighted some sentences, but I could highlight the whole thing since it illustrates the point I am making:

The Epistle of Barnabas has been dated anywhere between 90 and 125. Like Polycarp and Clement, 'Barnabas' has no documents or traditions to draw upon when he wishes to describe Jesus' passion (5:2, 5:12, 13). He, too, has recourse to Isaiah (50 and 53) and the Psalms (22 and 119). While Barnabas has a greater sense than any of the other early Fathers that Jesus had been on earth (5:8-11), he has little of substance to say about that incarnation. He speaks of Jesus as teaching the people of Israel, his miracles and wonders, but he fails to itemize any of those teachings or miracles. The latter were expected of the Messiah, so the writer may simply be assuming that such things had happened.

In 5:9 he says that Christ had chosen apostles, but he describes those apostles unlike any portrayal found in the Gospels, calling them "sinners of the worst kind." He bases this on a saying whose source he does not identify: "He came not to call saints but sinners," demonstrating yet again that biographical elements relating to Christian beginnings have been drawn—or deduced—from writings regarded as prophetic. This saying appears in Jesus' mouth in Mark 2:17, but there it applies to Jesus' general audience, not to his apostles. Barnabas quotes other things whose sources are unknown, and it is possible that this saying too is from a writing now lost, or is a unit of oral tradition that has come to be applied to Jesus. Barnabas is not likely to have known Mark and yet misapply this saying so badly, or to so misrepresent the character of the apostles in that Gospel.

His only other quotation of a saying found in the Gospels (Mt. 22:14) is 4:14: "It is written that many are called but few are chosen." The "it is written" tells us that Barnabas looks upon the source as a sacred writing. In his time, this could not have included the Gospel of Matthew—although it may have been recently written by then.

Barnabas is also ignorant of any teachings of Jesus concerning dietary laws, or on what will happen at the End-time, or on "hearing the word of God"—all of which are topics he addresses in his letter. Like the Didache, this epistle contains a Two Ways section of moral teaching (ch. 18-21) but none of it is attributed to Jesus. In fact, these directives are referred to as "the precepts of the Lord, as they are set forth in scripture" (21:1). Thus Barnabas' concept of Jesus as a teacher would seem to be a theoretical one, not grounded in actual historical memory or a record of sayings. He goes so far as to say that scripture is the means by which God has made the past known (5:3, compare 1:7)—including, we are to assume, Jesus' own experiences. He even suggests (5:12) that we know the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death because scripture says so! Amazingly, it is God, not historical memory, which has identified the Jews as those who killed his Son.

Thus, we are confronted with a situation in which four different Christian writers over a period of some 40 years, ranging from Alexandria to Antioch to Asia Minor to Rome, show no knowledge of written Gospels—and this up to a period of some 60 years after the standard dating of Mark. Even the little homily known as 2 Clement, erroneously attributed to Clement of Rome and usually dated a little before the writings of Justin, quotes only sayings allegedly spoken by Jesus; it draws on no narrative events such as might be found in a written Gospel. Jesus had lived and undergone the experiences portrayed in the Gospels, and if those Gospels had been set down beginning as early as 70 CE, it is difficult to understand how the situation revealed by the Apostolic Fathers could have existed. Though the Fathers are beginning to draw on sayings and maxims which they attribute to Jesus, their abysmal ignorance of the basic content of the Gospels, especially in regard to the passion, would indicate that such documents and their dissemination are a late phenomenon.

The Epistle of Barnabas is simply another example of what we see in 1 Clement: a historicist writer who isn't interested in the life of Jesus, despite believing that there was a historical Jesus. As Doherty notes, "he has little of substance to say about that incarnation." Might this be evidence for mythicism? Then so be it! But these examples of historicist writers who are not interested in Jesus's life on earth are too many to ignore. They have to be accounted for in any mythicist or historicist origin theory.

[rgprice]

@GakuseiDon

But Doherty is making the case that Barnabas didn't know the Gospels. So I don't see how this helps your position that 1 Clement knew the Gospels. Doherty is essentially making the same case I am here.

[GakuseiDon]

@GakuseiDon

But Doherty is making the case that Barnabas didn't know the Gospels. So I don't see how this helps your position that 1 Clement knew the Gospels. Doherty is essentially making the same case I am here.

Oh yes, definitely Doherty is making the same case as you. But my point is about addressing your comment "When the Gospels came out they would have been revolutionary." I think the evidence shows that this wasn't the case. The Gospels -- and the details about the life of Jesus -- were not considered very important by early Christians until the second half of the Second Century. So from that evidence, my conclusion is that -- whether 1 Clement knew the Gospels or not -- the author didn't consider them authoritative.

I'm not sure how you'd go about determining the difference between "1 Clement didn't know the Gospels" and "1 Clement knew the Gospels but didn't consider them authoritative."

[MrMacSon]

The Epistle of Barnabas is another example of a 'historicist' writer who is vague about the details of the life of Jesus on earth and doesn't appear to know the Gospels. As Dr Carrier notes in OHJ, pages 315-316:

The Epistle of Barnabas (which assumes the historicity of Jesus) could conceivably date around this same time, but it has not been any more precisely dated than 70-130 CE, and in my opinion it surely dates to the period 130-132 CE...
...
What few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced anyway - its content thus can't be ascertained as having any source independent of the Gospels or Christian tradition influenced by the Gospels. It could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents.

As Carrier notes, early historicist theology produced works not influenced by the Gospels that are "no less expected on myth as on historicity". The "few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced". If the two types are similar except that one has a few statements -- one or two -- then how to distinguish between them?

You've made a few references to 'historicist writers' (in the NT, I think) and to Carrier and Doherty making reference to them. I've searched Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and not found 'historicist writer' or 'historicist writers'.

I found the above quote you cite is from a footnote: n.44, chapter 8, where Carrier was talking about the Ignatian letters in this context -

.
Those letters survive. If tradition were correct about how they were produced, then this would be the next earliest datable Christian writing after 1 Clement (outside the NT.a.).44 However, almost every single element of this tradition has been challenged by modern scholars, many of whom do not believe Ignatius wrote these letters, or that they were written so early, or even in the circumstances assumed.45

---

a Carrier has given little if any indication he's engaged with various scholars propositions (and arguments arising from them) that the Gospels at least date after Marcion.

45. See Timothy D. Barnes, ‘The Date of Ignatius’, Expository Times 120 (2008), pp. 119-30; Roger Parvus, A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Other Apellean Writings (New York: iUniverse, 2008); L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity (San Francisco, CA: HarperSan Francisco, 2004), p. 346 (with n. 50 on p. 480). These (and other scholars they cite) date the ‘middle recension’ of the Ignatian letters to the 140s or 160s ce (everyone agrees the ‘longer recension’ dates to the fourth century and that the ‘shorter recension’ of a few of them, which we have in Syriac translation, is an abbreviation of the middle recension, despite some scholars once having argued those were the original versions). Even most other scholars now agree the original Ignatian letters could have been written anytime between 105 and 140 ce: see survey in Richard Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), pp. 134-35 (esp. p. 329 nn. 130 and 135). Pervo himself dates them at the end of that range; entertaining similar thoughts (and citing additional scholarship on the subject): David Sim, ‘Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Methods, Sources, and Possible Results’, in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings (ed. Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen Zangenberg; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp. 13-32 (17-18).

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press.
.

Carrier previously mentions Epistle of Barnabas in chapter 5 in the following context -

.
...when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety. This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case. If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on ‘primary source documents’ about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated—indeed, most by far. We’ll see some examples in Chapter 8.

The most obvious category is the Christian apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: hundreds of forged documents, from faked letters of Paul to Seneca, to faked letters of Clement of Rome (and by that I mean beyond 1 Clement, if that is even authentic), more faked letters from Peter and Paul than are even in the NT (e.g. 3 Corinthians, 3 and 4 Peter, etc.; for the fact that there are already forged letters in the NT, see Chapter 7, §3), even faked letters from Jesus (several in Revelation already; another, from Jesus to Abgar, is reproduced in Eusebius), and fabricated Gospels and Acts and Apocalypses far outnumbering the canonical ones, as well as countless legends and tales passed off as fact (in the commentaries of Papias and Hegesippus, for example: see Chapter 8, §§7 and 8), and countless other fictions (the Epistle of Barnabas, e.g.; or the Decree of Tiberius, cited as authoritative proof that Emperor Tiberius converted to Christianity).

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one or two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different Acts. Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity. This was clearly the norm, not the exception. Most of what Christians wrote were lies. We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust. (See also Chapter 7, §7; and Chapter 8, §§3 and 4.)

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt . Sheffield Phoenix Press.
.

It makes one wonder why he wrote "The Epistle of Barnabas (which assumes the historicity of Jesus)" in that footnote.


Furthermore, you said

As Carrier notes, early historicist theology produced works not influenced by the Gospels that are "no less expected on myth as on historicity". The "few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced". If the two types are similar except that one has a few statements -- one or two -- then how to distinguish between them?

But Carrier's comment, "no less expected on myth as on historicity", was in reference to how Epistle of Barnabas "could reflect an example of early historicist theology" [italics mine], so "as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents."

And, prior to that, he said

.
44. ... What few things Barnabas says about Jesus are rarely specific and never sourced anyway - its content thus can't be ascertained as having any source independent of the Gospels or Christian tradition influenced by the Gospels. It could reflect an early example of historicist theology, but as such it is no less expected on myth as on historicity and thus makes no difference to their consequents.

Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 315-316
.