ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:13 am
So, I have been fascinated by Neil Godfrey's recent discussion upon this forum of the ways in which 1 Clement is dated, and I have some questions about that.
1. Was there any reason why people around 170 CE might have wanted to forge a document dating back decades and addressing the issues that 1 Clement addresses?
.
This begs the question, 'Did anyone forge 1 Clement?' (sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm trying to be 'open', not disparaging)
Could it just be that later [modern] scholars are the ones who date it back decades?
ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:13 am
2. ... The strongest argument in my opinion for its earliness is it lack of reference to any gospels or their stories, placing it prior to Justin, who cites gospels
a and their contents with no authors as memoirs of the apostles.
- Whether Justin cites gospels is up for debate.
Brett Nongbri has challenged the notion that he does (though he agrees with your point about 'with no authors as memoirs of the apostles').
In a series of blog posts about something Larry Hurtado said about at least one other scholar's views, Nongbri ends up saying
.
In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “
apomnemoneumata of
the apostles“), and this point is what should be catching our attention.
https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/09/ear ... /#more-943 b
b perhaps see this thread for a supposed summary of the whole saga
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7698
The Roberts-Donaldson translation of one of Justin's works (I can't recall which one & haven't looked it up for this) has, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them," ie. that's a mere assertion by Justin (with "I say"), not an allusion to an actual 'source'.
A couple of days later, Nongbri notes that when he says
When Justin refers to texts very similar to
what we would call the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark, he consistently uses the plural (both
apomnemoneumata and
euangelia) and does not distinguish individual authorship (it’s nearly always “of/by
the apostles” “and
their followers”).
https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/
Along these same lines, Markus Vinzent has noticed the same with the Ignatius letters (and he relates that to the same point about Justin's lack of references to written εὐαγγελίου / gospels)
.
Looking through all our early evidence, even if we add Ignatius (who together with many others I date after the mid second century),
IgPhld 5,1-2; 8,2; 9,2;
IgSm. 5.1; 7,2; the
Martyrdom of Polycarp (4,1) and 2
Clement (8,5), it becomes clear that we have exclusively references to sayings 'of the Lord' or the teachings of Jesus but not a single quote of any biographical story, wonder, or any other narrative from the Gospels.
When Ignatius comes closer to the latter with his reference to the Lord’s death and his resurrection (
IgPhld. 8,2; see 9,2;
IgSm. 7,2), he gives less than Justin who generally seems to avoid using ‘εὐαγγελίου of written texts’ and who assembles material especially from the Old Testament and other sources which, again, cannot simply be related directly to any of our known Gospels.
https://www.academia.edu/51206523/Vinze ... c_Question, p.37
So -
ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:13 am Later forgers, I would think, would be unable to create Christian literature without incorporating gospels' narratives to some degree - as with the pastoral reference to Jesus's interacting with Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13).
- would be a valid point.