Good Question...Were the Apostolic Fathers unable to distinguish between authentic and unauthentic books?

Created August 24, 1998; minor mod Aug 29/98

A visitor wrote in and asked a very good question...

He writes...
 

Hi Glenn,

We haven't communicated before. I've been rereading your web-pages at "nuhbias.html" and have some questions. I used to be an evangelical, but I've come to the conclusion that there are errors in the Bible, and also I've found that many of the positions put forward regarding the early history are problematical.

Let me outline one which I've been doing some research on. It concerns the early church and the subject of non-canonical writings. You say:

' 3.The ethos of the early church was to distinguish sharply between reliable and unreliable reports. (Mt 28:11-14 and Acts 9:11-14). They knew the difference and opted for truth. And in 2 Thess 2.2, Paul warned against the acceptance of the teaching of a letter 'supposed to have come from us'!

'This attitude against 'pious fraud' (including NT pseudonymity) continued in the early church. Numerous quotes and events from Eusebius, Serapion, Tertullian, and later writers shows that pseudepigraphic writings and the fanciful elaboration of the NT apocrypha--even for noble and pure motives--were NOT accepted by the church and carefully guarded against...The criteria of truth and demonstrable authenticity was too high.'

 1. Clement of Rome. He quotes many times from the Old Testament with characteristic phrases like: 'for the Holy Spirit says', 'the Scripture says', 'it is written thus', etc. His main sources are the Pentateuch, Isaiah and the Psalms. [However, he quotes three times from writings which are definitely *not* scripture (not now anyway). The learned authorities consider these quotes to be from 'Eldad and Modad', 'Assumption of Moses' and Apocryphal Ezekial.]

Clement considers the words of Jesus to be on a par with the OT writings, for he introduces them with a similar formula (Clem 13:1b-2 & Clem 46:8): Clem 13:1b-2, 'Especially we should remember the words which the Lord Jesus spoke, when He taught clemency and long-suffering. For thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you.'

Now Clement also has allusions to Hebrews, a number of Paul's epistles, and possible Acts, I Peter and James. But in none of these cases does Clement appear to think of them in the same way that he thinks of the OT.

Interestingly, the two sayings of Jesus are considered by most to be an extra-canonical collection of Jesus' sayings, or oral tradition which stands behind the synoptics, due to the significant differences.

Says Donald Hagner, 'The Use of Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome' (1973): 'While it seems difficult to deny that Clement, writing from Rome in AD95, was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels, his epistle provides us with little positive indication of this acquaintance.' (p.332).
 

2. I'll mention II Clement because it's often cited by evangelicals (although it is variously dated any time in the 2nd century). There are at least 2 OT quotations which are non-canonical. The term 'Scripture saith' is used to introduce the words of Jesus from Matthew or Mark in one instance. There are 3 quotations from the synoptics (some points of departure noted) and 5 quotations of Jesus words from non-canonical sources.
 

3. Ignatius. Many OT quotations (LXX). Many references to Jesus birth and death (strongly anti-docetist). One possible gospel quotation (Luke) introduced as 'He said to them'. Three clear NT allusions (two gospel, one Paul's letter). One allusion to the protoevangelium. Eucharistic references. Many references to the source of authority being the bishops.
 

To me, these early writers demonstrate that they had no clear idea of what was an authentic writing (as finally defined much later by the church). If Clement was aware of the fact that the four gospels were inspired, or even just authenticated by apostolic contact, why does he not quote from them, but rather from oral tradition? Why is he not eager to quote from the gospels and the NT letters? (Nearly all his teaching is from the OT) Why is the writer of II Clement in a similar situation? Why does Ignatius not direct his readers towards the authentic writings from the apostles but instead directs them to the bishops as the source of authority?

I think you probably get my drift with the questions. I ask them especially because you argue for a very early date for the NT writings, because you seem to know something of the subject, and because I really want to know how the evidence can (when considered in detail, rather than in passing) be seen to support the evangelical view of scripture.

Hopefully I'll hear from you.

Best Regards,

XXX

...........................................................................................................................

This is, of course, a HUGELY vast subject area, and one that would be a very long and detailed series in itself. I intend to do the most detail work on 1CL (First Clement) since he forms the most 'detail' in your question, but I will need to cover the others (and other apostolic fathers perhaps) also.

But before I jump into First Clement, let me make a point about the early recognition of the NT documents (as we have them) as scripture by the early church.

We have two canonical works in the NT that make very explicit statements about early recognition of the special inspired character (different from day-to-day inspiration of Christians, of generally local-only significance) of the NT writings: First Timothy and Second Peter.

First Timothy 5.18 makes this statement: "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" This text applies the word 'scripture' (graphe) to an OT quote (Deut 25.4) and to an NT quote (Luke 10.7), without ANY distinction. This accords scriptural/canonical(?) status to a verse from a Synoptic gospel.

Second Peter 3:14f makes this statement: "just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". This accords scriptural/canonical(?) status to a collection of Paul's letters.

 Both of these books are highly disputed by the non-conservative community. They are commonly seen as pseudonymous (i.e., being ascribed to Paul and Peter, even though written by someone else), even in spite of the large amounts of evidence against such a practice in NT times. So, according to Kummel, a clear representative of the more 'liberal' community [INT], both of these works are forgeries by the followers of Peter and Paul and were accepted as authoritative (in spite of that!) by the early church. They are said to have been written in the 70-125 AD period (early in the Apostolic Fathers' time-frame, with which we are concerned in this article).

Let's assume for the moment that the liberal position is correct: that 1 Tim and 2 Peter only represent very, very early Christian teaching, presumably derived from or extensions to, the positions of Peter and Paul. If this is the case, then these documents demonstrate very, very forcefully that major 'schools of thought' in the early church--those associated with Peter and Paul--viewed parts of the NT as not only 'inspired' but as "scripture"!

In other words, even if these two canonical books are actually inauthentic, then they solve this entire issue of "did the early church consider the NT documents as scripture"! Their 'high' position on early scriptural recognition would answer the question definitively for us, with a resounding 'yes'.

And if my position--that they were written by Peter and Paul--is correct, then ANY data in the sub-apostolic writings (e.g. Apostolic Fathers) to the contrary would be much less important. For, if those closest to the heart of the church and those most in tune with the ministry of the Spirit, recognized these writings as scripture, then the opinions and usage patterns of those more removed from the center of activity should be weighted less heavily. In other words, I "trust" the orthodoxy of Peter and Paul much more than I do the orthodoxy of Clement, Ignatius, or Irenaeus, when it comes to ANY matter.

So, under either scenario (i.e. pastorals written by apostles, or pastorals written by accepted and authoritative students of the apostles'/followers), we have very early and very unambiguous evidence that the early church accepted the NT documents as "Scripture".

Since any of the studies we do now in the Fathers could not possibly overthrow the conclusion reached above, we should be able to stop here. [We could, for example, assume that all the Apostolic Fathers were wrong, and that accordingly they did not recognize the NT as 'scripture'. But this could only show that they did not, and the data from 1 Tim/2 Peter would still stand to show that two important/influential/mainstream groups did!]

But we need to examine the questions raised, for Clement is indeed an important figure in the early church, and we should examine his document carefully. [And the Apostolic Fathers will end up supporting a rather high view of the NT.]

Although the questioner only mentions three of the 'apostolic fathers' (1CL, 2Clement, and Ignatius), we should probably at least survey the remaining writings under this category. [Note: "Apostolic Fathers" refers to writings, not individuals.]
 
 

So, which works should be considered in the category "Apostolic Fathers"?

This should not be TOO complex, but you never know....(smile)

Let's put together a couple of lists from the literature:

First, Metzer in NT:CTT:

1. Clement of Rome (I Clement)
2. Ignatius of Antioch (seven epistles)
3. The Didache
4. Papias of Hierapolis (fragments of Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord)
5. The Epistle of Barnabas
6. Polycarp of Smyrna (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians)
7. Hermas of Rome (The Shepherd of Hermas)
8. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement Goodspeed lists: 1. I Clement
2. II Clement
3. Epistle of Barnabas
4. Fragments of Papias
5. Epistle to Diognetus
6. Epistles of Ignatius
7. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
8. Martyrdom of Polycarp
9. Shepherd of Hermas
10. Didache The Ante-Nicene Fathers[ANF] (Hendrickson, vol 1: "The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus") lists: 1. St. Clement (Epistle to the Corinthians)
2. Mathetes. Epistle to Diognetus.
3. Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians; Martyrdom)
4. Ignatius
  • Epistle to the Ephesians
  • Epistle to the Magnesians
  • Epistle to the Trallians
  • Epistle to the Romans
  • Epistle to the Philadelphians
  • Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
  • Epistle to Polycarp
    •  5. Barnabas. Epistle
    6. Papias. Fragments     Cyril Richardson [NT:ECF]: 1. First Clement
    2. Ignatius (seven epistles)
    3. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
    4. Martyrdom of Polycarp
    5. Didache
    6. Second Clement
    7. Letter to Diognetus     So, I propose we use those that are mentioned at least two times in the above lists:
    1. Epistle to Diognetus
    2. Ignatius
    3. Epistle of Polycarp
    4. Martyrdom of Polycarp
    5. Epistle of Barnabas
    6. Shepherd of Hermas
    7. The Didache
    8. Papias
    9. Second Clement
    10. I Clement
    But we will deal with the main ones from our questioner in more detail.

    .................................................................................................................

    So, let's look again at his comments about First Clement, and start with those:

    1. Clement of Rome. He quotes many times from the Old Testament with characteristic phrases like: 'for the Holy Spirit says', 'the Scripture says', 'it is written thus', etc. His main sources are the Pentateuch, Isaiah and the Psalms. [However, he quotes three times from writings which are definitely *not* scripture (not now anyway). The learned authorities consider these quotes to be from 'Eldad and Modad', 'Assumption of Moses' and Apocryphal Ezekial.]

    Clement considers the words of Jesus to be on a par with the OT writings, for he introduces them with a similar formula (Clem 13:1b-2 & Clem 46:8): Clem 13:1b-2, 'Especially we should remember the words which the Lord Jesus spoke, when He taught clemency and long-suffering. For thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you.'

    Now Clement also has allusions to Hebrews, a number of Paul's epistles, and possible Acts, I Peter and James. But in none of these cases does Clement appear to think of them in the same way that he thinks of the OT.

    Interestingly, the two sayings of Jesus are considered by most to be an extra-canonical collection of Jesus' sayings, or oral tradition which stands behind the synoptics, due to the significant differences.

    Says Donald Hagner, 'The Use of Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome' (1973): 'While it seems difficult to deny that Clement, writing from Rome in AD95, was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels, his epistle provides us with little positive indication of this acquaintance.' (p.332).

    If Clement was aware of the fact that the four gospels were inspired, or even just authenticated by apostolic contact, why does he not quote from them, but rather from oral tradition? Why is he not eager to quote from the gospels and the NT letters? (Nearly all his teaching is from the OT)

    [Just by way of background, let me note for the reader that 1 Clement is essentially a sermon, "shaped like" a letter, written from a church leader (in Rome?) to the church at Corinth. That church had undergone some kind of schism, with previous elders/bishops being deposed and new ones (younger?) installed as the leadership. Clement writes to persuade these new leaders to confess their 'sin' of deposing the previous leadership, and to go into voluntary exile. He works very hard at this, using standard rhetorical techniques and styles of the day (see ABD, s.v. "1st Clement"). His argumentation is rather questionable, especially his use of scriptural warrants---he seems to 'read in' a lot to the biblical texts that he cites, in support of his appeal for concord and harmony.]

    As I understand the question, it breaks out into three distinct, but related questions:

    1. Was Clement even aware of the NT documents, and, if so, was he aware of the written form of the NT documents, especially the Gospels?

    2. What was his attitude toward the NT material? Was he influenced by it, did he consider it authoritative, was it on a par with the OT? What do his usage patterns tell us?

    3. What does his alleged use of non-canonical sources tell us about his (1) attitude toward the canonical material; and (2) his ability to distinguish between the two?

     So, let's look at the first of these--for I Clement...
     
     

    1. Was Clement even aware of the NT documents, and, if so, was he aware of the written form of the NT documents, especially the Gospels?

    Now, here we immediately get into a methodological question--how could we tell?

    Let's deal with the first part of this first: do we have any reason to believe that Clement was familiar with the NT content?

    How would we determine this?

    There are several approaches we could take here, but the main one would be to read his document verse by verse and look for any striking commonality in language and content (and maybe even style) with the NT documents. For example, if Clement makes use of Pauline language of "Christ as the Last Adam", then we might be warranted in assuming that he had read Pauline passages to that effect. Likewise, if he uses large chunks of material from the Book of Hebrews, then we might be warranted in assuming his familiarity with it. Since Clement is dated anywhere from 80 AD to 130 AD, all of the NT would have been written, in circulation, and considered "scripture" (according to my view) by this time.

    So, does I Clement have any thematic or linguistic connections (e.g., allusions) to the NT documents?

    Yes. Tons.

    In a document roughly the size of the Book of Romans or First Corinthians (less than 400 verses), I count approximately 215 possible 'connections' to NT documents, of varying probability and strength.

    When I sort these by type of source (e.g., gospels, pastorals, etc.), I come up with the following count of possible connections:

    Given that his argument largely concerns matters of 'obey your leaders--the deposed ones'--this mix is not surprising at all. That the Corinthian correspondence of Paul (with its sections on schism) and the Pastorals (with its sections on leadership) form the bulk of his NT usage fits quite well with his authorial intent.

    In short, Clement is saturated with NT images, language, theology--and even style. It is widely recognized, for example, that he deliberately imitated Pauline epistolary style in this letter; his opening, his emulation of the "love chapter", and his frequent doxologies [NT:ECF:37-38] all join with the massive number of possible 'connections' with Pauline documents (i.e., epistles plus Pastorals account for 117 of the 215 total possible connections) to show his extreme familiarity with, and deliberate imitation of, Paul's letters to the Churches.

    Although some of these connections could be disputed, the overall force of such a large number, such a wide spread throughout 1CL, and such a widespread representation of the NT documents argues strongly for deep familiarity on the part of Clement. So, I think we can answer the 'did he know the content' with a decisive "YES".

    But someone might object that it is possible that he might have known only the 'oral tradition' of the apostles' teaching, and that he did not derive it from the NT documents themselves. This brings us to the second part of the question: does 1CL show evidence of being aware of the very wording of the NT documents?

    How would we test this objection?

    Well, we could try to find places where the wording in 1CL was 'suspiciously like' the wording in the actual written NT documents. There are four categories of argument in this issue: If (1) the wording was very, very close, we would be entitled to suspect 'borrowing'. And, if (2) it were obvious that some word choice in the NT written document affected the word choice of 1CL (even though the other words in the phrase did NOT match the written NT document) then we would be entitled to suspect 'borrowing'. And, (3) we might look for deliberate or explicit citation, as well as (4) deliberate imitation of form or style, and any other considerations.

    In the first category, we might adduce a few examples of word or phrase choices (especially of NT-dominant vocabulary!) that we might not expect 1CL to make without a linguistic knowledge of the NT documents:

    Notice that these examples span Luke, Acts, Paul, Pastorals, James, Peter, and Hebrews. With specialty words this obvious, the argument for literary dependence of 1CL on the written NT documents becomes that much stronger.

    So, "Category One"--very close wording, esp. of 'keywords'--seems to indicate a literary awareness and acceptance of all groups of NT documents.
     
     

    The Second Category--of word selections that seem obviously influenced by NT linguistic form, when we would NOT expect it--can be seen quite clearly (oddly enough) in the OT citations in 1CL.

    By my count, there are approximately 111 OT allusions/quotations/references in 1CL. I have placed these in a Table, with the following column meanings:

    1. SEQ: this is simply a running count of the 111 connections;
    2. CHAPTER: this is the chapter in 1CL in with the connection occurs;
    3. OTref: This is the probable OT passage or passages that is/are referred to
    4. RefType: This is the category of source--historical passage, Law, Psalms, etc.
    5. IntroType: This identifies the "type" of introductory formula (e.g., 'says' vs. 'written' vs mixed vs none)
    6. Intro: This is the actual text in 1CL that 'introduces' the OT connection
    7. Text: This is the text in 1CL that is supposed to be from the OT (reduced for size in some cases)
    8. NT Q/A?: this indicates whether the OT text or content ALSO appears in the NT
    9. NT loc: This is the passage in the NT in which this OT connection occurs;
    10. Depend?: This indicates whether 1CL's use of the OT passage was demonstrably influenced by NT word choices and/or usage of the OT text. (If there is a "Y" in this field, then 1CL almost definitely was 'dependent' on the NT documents, as we will discuss below).     A quick glance at that last column will show that out of the 111 OT connections, ten or so of them clearly reveal 1CL's dependence on NT wording.

    The way we determine this is by comparison with 1CL's supposed source. Since he allegedly cited from the LXX "more or less exactly" (Metzger's phrase), any deviations from the LXX need explaining. If the best explanation for the changes is that he used words from the NT citation of the same text, or that he used words from the surrounding context in the NT, then we have a strong argument for his knowing (and using as a reliable source) the NT documents. So, our method will be to put the LXX and 1CL together, and then show the relevant NT passage that influenced the differences.

    Let's look at these in detail:

    One: 1CL 4.10:

    "Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow-countryman, "Who made thee a judge or a ruler over us? wilt thou kill me, as thou didst kill the Egyptian yesterday?"

    Grk (of the bold selection above): "tis se katestasen kritan kai dikastan eph amon"

    LXX (Ex 2.14): "tis se katestasen archonta kai dikastan eph amon" [this is quoted verbatim in Acts 7.27]

     Notice that 1CL has substituted kritan for archonta (as opposed to Acts, which reproduced it exactly). So where did 1CL get kritan for this? Probably from the words of Jesus in the Synoptic allusion to this--Luke 12.14.

    According to Aland, Luke 12.14 contains an allusion to Ex 2.14, and part of Jesus' words match:

    ENG: But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbiter over you?"
    GRK (of bold): "tis me katestasen kritan a meristan eph humas"     Notice that the first term of Jesus' allusion has the kritan word that 1CL uses in his text. All appearances are that 1CL simply 'remembered' this exact term, as he penned his OT quote. This looks like a case in which the words in the synoptics (i.e. Luke) was known (and used) by 1CL.
          Two: 1CL 13.1:

    "for the Holy Spirit saith, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man Story in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness"

    This is understood as a cite from Jer 9.23-24: "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord (NAS, using the Masoretic Text) The passage in the LXX would be translated thus: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, and let not the strong man boast in his strength, and let not the rich man boast in his wealth; but let him that boasts boast in this, the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord that exercise..." The problem is obvious: where did 1CL get "boast in the Lord" (glory in the Lord)? It is not present in any OT text.

    The solution is equally obvious--he got it from Paul in 1 Cor 1.31 ("just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.') and 2 Cor 10.17 ("But he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord").

    The Greek texts of 1CL and Paul match perfectly ("ho kauchomenos en kurio kauchastho") to the very case endings and word order. It seems quite clear that 1Cl was aware of the written form of 1 Corinthians, and given his knowledge of the LXX, probably saw Paul's understanding/translation as covered by the phrase 'the Holy Spirit saith'.
     

     Three: 1CL 13.4:

    "On whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and that trembleth at My words?"

    "epi ton praun kai asuchion kai tremonta mou ta loyia" (Grk) When we compare this to the LXX of Isaiah 66.2: "epi ton tapeinon kai asuxion kai tremonta tous logous mou" We can see that 1Cl has substituted praun for tapeinon. Where might he have found this replacement word? I suggest that two uses in Matthew--both in exemplary passages for his thought--provide the most reasonable place. Matthew 11.29: "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle (praus) and humble (tapeinos) in heart..."

    And

    Matthew 21.5: "Behold your King is coming to you, Gentle (praus), and mounted on a donkey..."

     Notice that 1CL took the first of the two terms (praus) in Matthew 11.29, instead of the LXX-compliant second term (tapeinos). This looks like a clear case with the word choices in the synoptics (i.e. Matthew) influenced his quote.
          Four: 1Cl 15.2:

    "For it says in one place, 'This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."

    "legei gar pou: Outos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima, he de kardia auton porro apestin ap' emou"

    The LXX has (Is 29.13): "This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me"
    "Eggizei moi ho laos outos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me, he de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou"     Notice that 1CL omits quite a bit of this quote, and changes the word order of the subject from ho laos outos to Outos ho laos.

    Any guess where we might find something more like this quote (smile)?

    "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. (Mark 7.6-7) ("outos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima, he de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou") "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. (Matt 15.8-9) ("ho laos outos tois cheilesin me tima, he de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou") Notice that Matthew's word order reflects the LXX, but Mark's word order is the one selected by Clement.

    Since this form of the quotation does not show up ANYWHERE in pre-Christian writings, and ONLY in the synoptics, this is very strong evidence that 1CL was familiar with--at a detailed linguistic level--the Gospel of Mark.
     

     Five: 1CL 17.5:

    "Moses was called faithful in all God's house"

    This is an easy one to see. I will simply list the four Greek texts of this passage below, and the two that are identical will be obvious: "pistos en holo to oiko autou" (Clement)
    "en holo to oiko mou pistos estin" (LXX of Numbers 12.7)
    "pistos en holo to oiko autou" (Hebrews 3.5; also in 3.2 but the holo is uncertain there)     And the winner is...Hebrews 3.5! It is word for word, letter for letter the same as the 1CL quote. This is strong evidence that 1CL was familiar (very familiar) with the text of Hebrews.
          Six: 1Cl 18.1

    "I have found a man after Mine own heart, David..." ("Euron andra kata tan kardian mou, Daveid ton tou Iessai")

    Now, the problem here is that the verse in the OT that this is supposed to be from--Ps 89.20--only says "I have found David my servant" (no mention of 'after my own heart') and the closest other choice is I Samuel 13.14 (LXX): "the Lord SHALL SEEK for himself a man after his own heart" (still future tense in Grk). [Note: The Hebrew Tanakh/OT, Masoretic Text, has the verb bqsh ("seek") in the Piel Perfect form in this verse. Although it could be stretched/extended to mean "I have sought (successfully)" [="found"?], the LXX uses a "seek" verb to translate it. To make this jump requires an exegetical decision, and is NOT present in the text. It is doubtful that Clement had adequate exegetical skills in biblical Hebrew, nor access to proto-Masoretic texts to use this as a source.]

    So where do we get a form like Clement's--with both past and 'after the heart' forms?

    Answer: Acts 13.22:

    I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart
    ("Euron David, ton tou Iessai, andra kata tan kardian mou")     Again, we seem to have Clement drawing his quotes from a specifically NT literary source.     Seven: 1Cl 23.5:

    "he shall come quickly and shall not tarry" ("tachu hazei kai ou chroniei")

    The margin of Loeb gives Is 13.22 (LXX) as the OT source. Let's look at this to see how close it is: "It will come soon and will not tarry" (Tachu erchetai kai ou chroniei") [Is 13.22, LXX] The main problem should be obvious--the main verb is different in stem and person (i.e., 'it' vs. 'he')! Clement uses hazei instead of LXX erchetai. [That Clement has a 'he' rather than an 'it' in view is clear from the way he links this verse to the persons in the rest of the verse, citing Mal 3.1].

    So, where can we find a verb form like this, in a context like this? -- Hebrews 10.37:

    "He who is coming will come, and will not delay". ("hazei kai ou chronisei") It seems 1CL has once again been influenced by the written NT, even in his citation of the OT passages.
          Eight: 1Cl 34.6:

    "For the scripture says, 'Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him..." ("muriai muriades pareistakeisan auto kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto")

    This is understood as a quotation from Daniel 7.10: "Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him" (NAS). There are two versions of the LXX here, so I will cite both: "chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto, kai muriai muriades pareistakeisan auto" (Theodotion)
    "chiliai chiliades etherapeuon auton, kai muriai muriades pareistakeisan auto" (Old Greek)     You can see that 1CL is closer to Theodotion's version (since the verbs match), but Clement reverses the word order/sequence from both. Instead of "chiliai chiliades...muriai muriades" he has "muriai muriades...chiliai chiliades". Where might this transposition have come from?

    Revelation 5:11.

    "the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands" (muriades muriadon kai chiliades chiliadon") This looks, again, strangely like Clement is being influenced on the basis of NT literary/written characteristics, in his citation of OT texts.      

    Nine: 1Cl 34.8:

    "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him" ("ophthalmos ouk eiden kai ous ouk akousen kai epi kardian anthropou ouk aneba")

    This quote is generally assumed to be from Is 64.4: "For from of old they have not heard nor perceived by ear, Neither has the eye seen a God besides Thee, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him." [NAS]

    The LXX has: "From of old we have not heard, neither have our eyes seen a God beside thee, and thy works which thou wilt perform to them that wait for mercy"

     As is readily apparent, neither of these are very close to 1Cl at all, so we need to find a more reasonable source for his linguistic forms.

    In 1 Cor 2.9 we read:
     

    "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him." ("ophthalmos ouk eiden kai ous ouk akousen kai epi kardian anthropou ouk aneba") This is a rather obvious literary dependence --against all expectations--on the NT documents.
          Ten: 1Cl 60.4:

    "just as you did to our fathers when they reverently 'called upon you in faith and truth'"

    According to Richardson in NT:ECF:72, this is a connection/cite from Psalm 145.18: "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him; To all who call upon Him in truth. The question here is "where did 1CL get the 'in faith' phrase?" A quick concordance check of the OT shows that the nouns 'faith' and 'truth' do not show up ANYWHERE in conjunction like this, not to mention in a clause with "called upon".

    [We do get 'faithful and true witness' once in the OT in Jeremiah 42.5, and two of these in Revelation (3.14; 19.11), and two "faithful and true words" in Rev 21.5; 22.6, but nothing like our phrase here.]

    So, where did 1CL get this, at a level of authority enough to 'smuggle this into' this semi-citation? Probably from his role-model Paul, in 1 Timothy 2.7: "a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" [NAS (the NIV somehow turns the phrase into 'true faith', but this is quite a problematic rendering of en pistei kai aletheia.)]

    This is literally the ONLY TIME these occur together in a parallel, conjunctive noun usage--and 1CL has decided to use this formulation in his OT cite.

     So, in this Category Two issue--OT citations being distinctly influenced by NT linguistic features--we again find strong evidence of literary knowledge, acceptance, and usage of the NT documents on the part of 1CL.
     
     
     

    Next, we need to look at Category Three--deliberate citation or references--as to what it might tell us about his literary knowledge of the NT documents.

    Here we run into the main methodological problem associated with textual implications of patristic quotations--the issue of 'looseness' of citation.

    The main point in your question (relative to this) could be stated thus:

    "Since Clement cites OT passages 'more or less exactly' (Metzger's phrase), YET he does NOT do so for the few quotations from Jesus and/or allusions to the NT, then we are supposed to believe that either (1) Clement saw oral tradition as being more authoritative than any possible written documents (esp. gospels) in front of him or (2) that he didn't have written documents in front of him. [Here we are concerned with addressing the question of his literary awareness of the NT, not with his attitude towards its authority. We will consider quotation formula later. This is an important distinction.]
     
     

    Let's consider this from a couple of angles:

    1. We have seen above at least ten cases (10%) of the OT citations which were 'not exact' because they were modified specifically by NT terminology!

    2. Almost half of 1CL's citations from the OT (50 out of 111) have no quotation formula, and we assume on the basis of similarity to OT passages that they are citations. If we allow this to apply to NT passages, we will have a number of "more or less exact" citations from the NT:

    a. Several of the passages we listed under 'first category' (above) would fall into this pattern: b. To these we may add: 3. There is a real question in my mind as to what 'more or less exact' might mean in the case of 1CL. Consider some of the patterns of usage: a. 1CL has several OT conflations, in which various OT texts are put 'end to end' without any markers between them, and without any apparent attempt at exactness. Look at just a couple of these: 1CL 17.5: "Who am I, that Thou sendest me? Nay, I am a man of feeble speech, and a slow tongue". This is a conflation of Ex 3.11 ("Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh...") and 4.10 ("for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue."). Clement has: tis eimi ego, hoti me pempeis; Ego de eimi ischnophonos kai braduglossos"
    LXX has: tis eimi, hoti poreusomai...ischnophonos kai braduglossos ego eimi"

    Notice that not only is the word order considerably different, but that one of the main verbs is completely different. (This is not to mention that a huge chunk of text is omitted between the two sayings, and that the resultant 'quote' in 1CL looks like a single speaking event by Moses.)
     

     1CL 29.3: "Behold, the Lord taketh unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth the Most Holy". This is assumed to be a conflation of words and phrases from:     [But this is so far from 'more or less exact' (and this passage is intro'd by "and it saith in another place"!), that some commentators assume it is from some lost source (so Lake, in Loeb, but not Richardson, in NT:ECF).]
          1CL 34.3: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work". This is from (LXX):         One can see that this is very far on the "less" side of "more or less exact"...

    1CL39 has a number of passages from LXX Job (4.16-18; 15.15;4.19-5.5) but it is a mixture of exactness and inexactness, even though introduced with "for it is written":

    For it is written, "There was no shape before mine eyes, only I heard a sound, and a voice [saying], What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made! He smote them as a moth; and from morning even until evening they endure not. Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died , because they had no wisdom. [lxx: "He breathes on them, and they whither; they have perished for lack of wisdom"] But call now, if any one will answer thee, or if thou wilt look to any of the holy angels; for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy killeth him that is in error. I have seen the foolish taking root, but their habitation was presently consumed. Let their sons be far from safety; let them be despised before the gates of those less than themselves, and there shall be none to deliver. For what was prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; and they shall not be delivered from evil." The section from Job 4.16-18 is an exact match, the section from Job 15.15 is almost exact (although it is inserted right in the middle of the passage!), but the section from Job 4.19-5.5 has a spot or two of significant change (esp. 1CL 39.6). A passage this large from Job would have been copied out of a manuscript no doubt, so the reading should perfectly match the LXX. That we get some variation would indicate either a variant LXX manuscript for him, or a lack of need to maintain obsessive levels of exactness. This case would be closer to the 'more' side of the spectrum.

    1CL 50.4 reads: "Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves"

    This is a conflation of Is 26.20 ("Go, my people, enter into thy closets, shut thy door, hide thyself for a little season, until the anger of the lord has passed away") and Ezek 37.12 ("Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will open your tombs, and will bring you up out of your tombs..."). There is too much abbreviation, omission (e.g., remembering the propitious day) and change for this to be considered 'more or less exact'. He may well have had the text in front of him, since several of the phrases are intact (e.g., "a little season", "secret chambers"), but we would not be able to tell on the basis of quotation exactness.
     

     b. The general trend of Clement's citation patterns is that the longer the citation from the LXX, the more likely it was 'copied out' from a scroll, and the shorter the citation from the LXX, the more likely it was cited from memory. So Hagner's intensive analysis [HI:UONTCR:106]: "In the preceding chapter, the quotations listed as 'moderately variant' and 'non-septuagintal' are relatively brief whereas all of the lengthy quotations are quoted in nearly exact agreement with the LXX. It is understandable that while Clement would probably want to refer to the MSS for the longer passages, for the shorter ones he might not take the trouble to do so. While reliance upon memory does not necessarily account for all of these aberrant quotations, there is every reason to believe that in many instances it may do so. A number of the shorter 'essentially verbatim' quotations may also derive from memory, but in these instances they have been retained more effectively."
          c. When we look at the overall pattern of Clement's OT quotes, we see that the range of variation is substantial, and easily attributed to reasonable causes. Hagner summarizes [HI:UONTCR:77, 78, 33-34 ]: "In summarizing the findings of this chapter, we may first emphasize that the great majority of OT quotations in Clement's epistle are given in very close accord with the LXX text. While it is true to say that actual verbatim quotations are few, the variants found in most of Clement's quotations are slight..."

    "It cannot be doubted that most of the slight variants from the LXX in the essentially verbatim quotations are the result of Clement's own hand, reflecting Clement's concern for smoothness of style and clarity of expression. Minor alterations of this nature are to be found in almost every quotation which we have examined."

    "Clement's quotations vary considerably in their accuracy. On the one side, many of his quotations agree exactly (or nearly so) with the LXX; on the other side, some quotations differ greatly from the LXX. A few quotations, indeed differ so radically from LXX parallels that the question of possible alternative sources becomes acute. No apparent relationship exists between the use of introductory formulae and the exactness or inexactness of citation in Clement's epistle."

     Let me point out here that this is not a very 'solid' baseline with which to compare alleged citations from the NT!     4. Given this usage pattern, let's look at just two of the passages that are considered strong evidence for Clement's literary dependence on non-synoptic works in the NT. Example one: 1Cl 36.2:

    "who, being the brightness of his majesty is by so much greater than angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name"
    ("hos on apaugasma tas megalosunas autou, tosouto meizon estin aggelon, hoso diaphoroteron onama keklaronomaken")

    Hagner points out [HI:UONTCR:180]:

    "There can be little question but that here Clement is dependent upon the text of Hebrews. Indeed, such a conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Clement continues with the citation of three passages from the Psalms, all of which are found in the first chapter of Hebrews, and one of which agrees with the text of Hebrews against that of the LXX." So, we have a case of definite literary dependence. But how 'close' is the semi-citation? How many, and how varied are the changes to Hebrews, if any?

    Here's the Greek of Hebrews 1.3,4 with the relevant clauses/phrases side-by-side (Clement on the left, Hebrews on right):

     Let's list the types of differences here: 1. large omissions of material
    2. substitution of major words
    3. additions
    4. changes in word order     Notice that this pretty well runs the gamut of possible changes: "adds, moves, changes, and exchanges"!

    Yet this is still considered "close enough" for literary dependencies.

    Example two: 1CL 49.5:

    "Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing haughty in love; love admits no schism, love makes no sedition, love does all things in concord."

    As we did with Hebrews, let's lay out the text of Clement against the text of I Corinthians 13 (the "Love" chapter).

     Hagner says [HI:UONTCR:200]: "In addition to the general similarity of the chapters in form and content, the more specific parallels listed above are impressive. Clement has indeed put his own stamp on the passage in agreement with this theme (cf. the words schisma, stasiazw, and homonoia), but it cannot be questioned that he is dependent upon Paul. The Corinthian readers would immediately have recognized the allusion, and noted its suitability to Clement's purpose." But notice that the changes above in the Greek are quite substantial--there are literally tons of changes made (including deliberate word changes to suit the author's purpose!), and yet literary dependence 'cannot be questioned'. The range of variation is even wider here than in the Hebrews passage.
          So, what we have seen is: 1. When Clement cites the OT, there is a wide range of "variance-levels";

    2. When Clement is known to reflect literary dependence on the NT documents, there is also a wide range of variance-levels

    3. NT allusions seem to follow the same pattern as OT allusions.
     

     This doesn't leave me with a good feeling about depending too heavily on linguistic details to determine literary dependence!
     
     
     

    So, now we are ready to look at the two most-prominent passages that are possibly from the Synoptics.

    First in 1CL 13.1ff:

    "Let us, therefore, be humble-minded, brethren, putting aside all arrogance and conceit and foolishness and wrath, and let us do that which is written (for the Holy Spirit says, 'Let not the wise man boast himself in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength, nor the rich man in his riches, but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, to seek him out and to do judgment and righteousness'), especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when he was teaching gentleness and longsuffering. (2) For spoke thus: 'be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that ye may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.' [Loeb]

    The passages in the synoptics that are generally compared with this passage are (NAS):

    A. be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy.

    B. Forgive, that ye may be forgiven. C. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. D. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. E. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. F. As ye are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you G. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you

    Before I begin the discussion of the detail of this, let me note Hagner's summary [HI:UONTCR:140]:

    "From this comparison of Clement's quotation with parallel material in the Synoptic Gospels, it may be said that three sayings (g, e, d) are paralleled closely enough to suggest literary dependence as a possibility; for two other sayings (b, a) such a suggestion seems less plausible; for the remaining two (c, f) no convincing parallels exist and the second, at least, may be designated as extra-canonical." The question I have to ask here should be obvious: in light of the wide range of changes allowed and something still be a case of "literary dependence", why would we not believe that these changes fit into that general range as well?

    Indeed, Hagner notes that these COULD be from the synoptic tradition (drawing upon Lightfoot) [HI:UONTCR:147]:

    "Of course, the possibility that Clement was here quoting from the Synoptic Gospels freely or from memory must be admitted. And, with Lightfoot, it must be agreed that there is no strict necessity of asserting a non-canonical source for the citation." Given the patterns of Clement's use of other OT and NT material, there is no reason to treat this passage any differently. In fact, we KNOW the passage was shaped by Clement's literary preferences, as Hagner points out himself [p.137]: "The passage consists, in fact, of seven pointed maxims derived from the teaching of Jesus, stylistically arranged so that the first pair consists of imperatives followed by hina clauses, and the remaining five of hos...houtos comparisons (the fifth being made slightly more specific by the ho metro...en auta). As will be seen from the synopsis, the material largely finds its parallels in the accounts of the Sermon on the Mount given in Mt. 5-6 and Lk. 6." In other words, some of the changes in the text were made to fit into Clement's "stylistic arrangement" to begin with.

    So, if the differences in the passages (from the Synoptics) can be explained in terms of the 'normal' kinds of Clementine variations, why would we select 'oral tradition' rather than 'stylistic collage from the synoptics'?

    Let's look at Hagner's reasoning [HT:UONTCR:137ff]:

    G - essentially identical to Matthew and Mark

    E - "close parallels in the Synoptics"; Matthew and Luke

    D - "close parallels in the Synoptics"; in Luke, but modified by 1CL with the stylistic "hos...houtos"

    A - "parallels more in thought than in wording"; [We have seen this in the 1 Corinthians 13 passage]; "substantial parallelism of thought or meaning"; 1CL puts it into a hina clause (style again);

    B - "parallels more in thought than in wording"; "such words must often have been on the lips of Jesus"; 1CL is a much more terse version that those in Matthew and Mark

    C - looks like the Golden Rule, but in a 'stylized form'; "The saying appears to have been patterned after the four sayings which it introduces"; Note that it looks simply like a terse form of the Golden Rule, designed to fit into his citation. F - the most remote of all the sayings; Hagner understands to be extra-canonical, because as it stands, there is certainly no clear parallel. So, in summary, there are several phrases here--by themselves--that demonstrate literary dependence, and the questionable ones are not outside the range of either (1) Clement's use of variation; or (2) NT patterns of data.
     
     

    To finish our discussion of this passage, let me make a brief response to Hagner's final four reasons for accepting oral tradition as the source of these quotes [HT:UONTCR:150]:

    "(1) As shown above, two of the seven maxims are without material parallel in the Synoptics. It is very difficult to believe that Clement in calling for his readers to 'remember the words of our Lord Jesus'--thus apparently words with which the Corinthians were expected to be very familiar--has in mind sayings found in the Synoptics when two of the sayings are expressed in words which find no parallel there" This is easily countered by pointing out that the more specific terms of 'words' and 'He spake' are softened considerably by the modifier "teaching" (present participle). This has the effect of softening the phrase into something like "remember the teachings of Jesus, which He personally gave us during His earthly life...". The "words" would simply be a more generic reference, and the Corinthians, having been familiar with both the exacts words of some of the sayings, and the general teachings of the others, would have not had a problem with this phrase at all. That OT citations can have a wide range of exactitude, that is independent of which introductory formula is used, would certainly suggest that we should not expect otherwise here. "(2) Of the remaining five maxims, none agrees verbatim with any of the Synoptics, and two (a and b) are very different in form from their Synoptic parallels. Only three of the maxims (d, e, and g) look as though they could have come from the Synoptic Gospels. We have seen that lack of verbatim agreements is too weak to build an adequate discriminatory hypothesis on. The fact that passages known to be in literary dependence relationship, are NEVER truly verbatim and are OFTEN containing wide ranges of variations, should have tipped Hagner off here as to the weakness of this criteria. And besides, the fact that d, e, and g make a great case for dependence, should have tipped the scale in the other direction than Hagner's conclusion. One normally must argue from the clear to the less clear. If G/E/D are very clear, then that should be used in understanding the other citations. "(3) The maxims as found in Clement are presented in a peculiar, stylized form which seems to give them their own identify, independent from the sayings as found in the Synoptic Gospels. The imperatives followed by hina clauses in the first two maxims, and the hos ... houtos comparisons of the next four maxims tie the maxims together and afford them a unity and cumulative forcefulness which they lack in the Synoptics. The introductory formula suggests that the Corinthians would already have been familiar with them in this form. Again, the pattern of citation of 1CL in the book argues that stylistic variation was a commonplace of 1CL (as Hagner himself noted, as quoted above). To take synoptic material and re-cast it (without loss of teaching content, but with different levels of exactness), is no different than what he did with the Rahab story in chapter 12. That Clement has knit familiar synoptic sayings and teachings together into a mosaic is no argument that the sayings were not familiar in their pre-mosaic form to the readers. In fact, the force of Clement's clever literary arrangement is probably due to the unfocused arrangement that would have been present in his readers' memory of the "raw" teaching in the gospels. I cannot see why the introductory formula would suggest Hagner's conclusion at all, for even modern homiletical praxis uses "remember what Jesus said" to refer to content without close attachment to the original linguistic form. "(4) Because of the considerable differences between Clement's citation and the fragment of the citation found in Polycarp, the possibility exists that Polycarp here provides independent witness to Clement's source. In view of Polycarp's intimate knowledge of Clement's epistle, it is difficult to account for the differences in the citation if he borrowed it from Clement...This fourth point, however, is only conjectural, and is not vital to the argument which rests on the first three points. Needless to say, if this point is merely "conjectural" then no response is required here.
     
     

    So, I come back to the same summary I stated earlier:

    "So, in summary, there are several phrases here--by themselves--that demonstrate literary dependence, and the questionable ones are not outside the range of either (1) Clement's use of variation; or (2) NT patterns of data. The net effect, therefore, is that this passage DOES evidence knowledge of the written/literary forms of the gospel.
     
     

    But there is actually an even stronger argument for the literary dependence that can be made from the context of the citation (which I cannot find discussed in any of the relevant literature I have available). Let me repeat verbatim the translation in Loeb again:

    "Let us, therefore, be humble-minded, brethren, putting aside all arrogance and conceit and foolishness and wrath, and let us do that which is written (for the Holy Spirit says, 'Let not the wise man boast himself in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength, nor the rich man in his riches, but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, to seek him out and to do judgment and righteousness'), especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when he was teaching gentleness and longsuffering. (2) For spoke thus: 'be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that ye may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.' And that from the Hendrikson multi-volume ANF set: "Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man Story in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness" ), being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you ; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you." By this precept and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His holy words. For the holy word saith, "On whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and that trembleth at My words? " Notice carefully the parenthesis in the first sentence. Let's remove the parenthetical material and examine the sentence structure: "Let us, therefore, be humble-minded, brethren, putting aside all arrogance and conceit and foolishness and wrath, and let us do that which is written (...), especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke" [Loeb] Notice several thing about this: 1. the immediate antecedent of "especially remembering" is "that which is written"!

    2. the "written" things are imperatives--thing which we are to do (as opposed to the previous chapter, in which the 'written things' were a historical example given, without an imperative to follow). This argues that the "written" refers to the subsequent list of imperatives from Jesus.

    3. That Jesus is said to be "speaking" is not argument against this, because the parenthetical clause ("for the Holy Spirit says,") introduces OT written Scripture with the similar "saith" as well. The "spoken" aspect could very easily be understood as an attempt at forcefulness, or even simply as stylistic variation. In fact, when Scripture is mentioned at the end of this passage--in citation from Isaiah--it uses a definite 'speaking' word (from the verb phemi).

    4. The word "especially" (malista, superlative of the adverb mala) is located BETWEEN the verbs written and remembering (not AFTER 'remembering'), indicating that something (words of Jesus) is being selected from out of the preceding superset ("that which is written")--NOT in addition to. Notice that it does not say "that which is written, and also remembering the words of Jesus"; this would have required some copulative like "and" (kai) in the passage, but there is none.

    5. That the written refers forward to the words of Jesus is also plain from the very subject in the introduction. Clement begins the passage with an injunction to "be humble-minded" which is the core content of the words of Jesus later in the passage.

    6. Attempts to make 'written' refer to the parenthetical unit (rendering it non-parenthetical) flounder on the grammar surrounding malista. Richardson renders the post-parenthetical unit "Especially let us recall", but malista cannot introduce an independent clause without there being an 'independent' verb (as opposed to the participle "remembering", which is a modifier of "let us do that which is written"). [1 Clement 43.6 shows how malista can be so used, when followed by a finite verb form.]

    7. The use of the word 'remembering' does not count against written material either, since, as we have noticed earlier, it was customary to 'remember' the written words of the OT scrolls--instead of looking them up. Thus Clement, who obviously cited the OT often from memory, might be alluding to this practice of remembering the written material in this case as well.

     What this nets out to is that Clement is explicitly claiming that the words/teachings of Jesus that he is about to give later in the passage is from a written source! [We will come back later to notice that this written source, containing synoptic material, is at the same 'authority level' as is OT scripture.]

    So, in this first of two passages in which the words of Jesus are referred to, we have both textual data (i.e., some word forms clearly from synoptic material) and literary data (i.e., the explicit statement that these words are written) to support the position that Clement was familiar with the Synoptics in a written form.
     
     

    Now, the second, in 1CL 46.8:

    "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.(ANF)

    "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus; (8) for he said, 'Woe to that man: it were good for him if he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone be hung on him, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should turn aside one of my elect'" (Loeb)

    "Recall the words of our Lord Jesus. For he said: 'Woe to that man! It were better for him not to have been born than to be the occasion of one of my chosen ones stumbling. It were better for him to have a millstone around his neck and to be drowned in the sea, than to pervert one of my chosen'" (ECF)

     Let's compare this to the possible parallels:
     
     

    A. 'Woe to that man:

    Mt 26.24b: woe to that man (exact match)
    Mr 14.21b: woe to that man (exact match)
    Lk 22.22b: woe to that man (exact match)     B: it were good for him Mt 26.24: it were good for him (exact match)
    Mr 14.21: it (were) good for him (copulative missing)     C: if he had not been born Mt 26.24: if he had not been born (exact match)
    Mr 14.21: if he had not been born (exact match)     D. than that he should offend one of my elect; Mt 18.6: whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble (verbs same, emphasis on 'one' the same)
    Mr 9.42: causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble (verbs same, emphasis on 'one' the same)     E. it were better for him that a millstone be hung on him Mt 18.6: it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck (different word for better, millstone match)
    Mr 9.42: it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck (different word for better, millstone match, 'hung around' verb match)
    Lk 17.2: if a millstone were hung around his neck (content match only, even millstone has a variation)     F. and he be cast into the sea, Mt 18.6: that he be drowned in the depth of the sea (identical, including verb, except for 'in the depth of')
    Mr 9.42: he had been cast into the sea. (verb diff, 'in sea' identical)
    Lk 17.2: he were thrown into the sea (verb diff, 'in sea' identical)     G. than that he should turn aside one of my elect' -- this a repeat of D, with the verb changed from skandalisai to diastrepsai, although there is a textual variant here, and the reading might be the same as G anyway.
     
     

    What are we to make of this?

    1. The common elements are the most concrete and vivid ones.

    2. There is no variation in content.

    3. This is a conflation of texts, done similarly to other conflations in Clement.

    4. Hagner points out that there are plenty of scholars who believe this is simply a quotation from memory from the synoptics (HI:UONTCR:160-161), discussing Lightfoot:

    "Nevertheless, he finds no difficulty in believing that Clement is quoting the synoptic Gospels since Clement frequently combines divergent OT passages, and frequently cites them in a similarly free manner"
     

    and likewise Sanday:
     

    "Sanday admits that taken by itself the citation is most easily explained [emphasis mine] as the results of quotation of the Synoptic Gospels by memory"

     5. Hagner himself admits this (p162n3): "It must be admitted that phenomena very similar to those in our citation are often found in citations made from memory."

    6. ANY Synoptic "multiple sources" critic would immediately assume literary dependence between the two--even with much LESS overlap!

    7. Hagner recognizes the weakness of his arguments for extra-canonical tradition, pointing out that they must be "recognized as valid possibilities". But the strongest of his three arguments for this to be a 'valid possibility'--that Clement would have known that the conflation did violence to the Synoptic contexts--simply cannot stand, given Clement's use of such 'out of context' arguments elsewhere. Clement is simply too 'loose' an exegete to put much weight on these kinds of arguments. And arguing from "remember the words..." to oral tradition cannot stand, given the homiletic style of much of the Patristic literature. Even today, preachers (and myself) will often use the phrase "remember what Jesus said...", and this is no indication that we (I) don't have a written copy of the NT!

     In short, there just doesn't seem to be a reason to overthrow the concrete and vivid similarities of the passages, and to discount the standard citation-from-memory practice of Clement. The surface phenomena are simply "most easily explained as the results of quotation of the Synoptic Gospels by memory." (Sanday, above).

    So, we have seen that this "Category Three" examination provides us with plentiful and strong evidence that Clement had a written copy of much of the NT in his possession, including the Synoptics.
     
     

    The last approach is "Category Four"--stylistic evidence and other considerations.

    First, do the literary structural characteristics of 1CL betray a literary knowledge of the NT?

    In this case, we are on very safe ground, for it is admitted by most that Clement is consciously imitating the Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians. The doxologies, the Love-Chapter, the greeting, etc all betray a desire to be like "Paul" to them. In fact, Clement explicitly refers to Paul's written letter in 47.1:

    "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? 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." And much of the argumentation is either based on, modeled after, and/or directly taken up from the Book of Hebrews.
     
     

    But are there any stylistic similarities with the Gospels, that might be suggestive of literary borrowing?

    Probably not. Since 1CL is structured like a cross between a Pauline Epistle and a Hebrews-like homily, that genre will more or less preclude it from being structured like a bioi--the genre of the gospels.
     
     

    Secondly, are there any other considerations that might point to a written copy of some/most/all of the NT?

    Actually, the pattern of 'looseness' of the NT citations and allusions--every bit as pervasive as those from the OT--might suggest two different additional arguments.

    The first goes like this:

    This consideration is close in content to an additional one--that the synoptic quotes are from a 'teaching manual'.

    It has been suggested by some scholars (e.g. Metzger, NT:CTT:41) that the form of these citations indicate that they were summaries of Jesus' teaching, used for new converts to the faith. Their mixture of detail and summary, and slightly stylized form would certainly support this understanding.

    But one implication of this position, for our study, could be important. If the written material was so extensive (as it is now), then the need for catechism materials (i.e. teaching summaries) would be great. In other words, without a large body of written material about Jesus' teachings, there would be no urgent need to develop a "pocket edition". This would argue (assuming that Clement was using such a summary) that the production of such a summary had preceded Clement. And correspondingly, that the bulk of the Synoptic materials had already been in writing and circulating together (i.e., to provide the critical mass needed to trigger production of a summary teaching document) even earlier.

    In either of these cases, we would have arguments for the existence (and availability) of the bulk of the written material of the Gospels.

    So, "Category Four", although giving most of its support to literary knowledge of the NT epistles (rather than synoptics), nonetheless does provide some arguments for the position that Clement had the bulk of the NT in written form, for his access and use.
     
     
     

    We are at the end of the first part of your question--was Clement aware of the NT/Gospels, and was he aware of them in their literary/written manifestation?

    What we observed:

    1. There were a massive number of "connections" with the NT (215+), from all the literature groups in the NT, including the Synoptics, demonstrating a very wide familiarity with the content of the entire NT.

    2. There were a number of passages in which the NT language/keyword usage was so close and so detailed (indeed, almost specialized) as to leave behind any doubt as to literary familiarity.

    3. We showed that ten of the 110-odd OT citations were definitely influenced by the linguistic forms in the NT, implying knowledge of the written forms. A few of these were from the Synoptics.

    4. If we use the same criteria for OT citations without introductory formula on the NT allusions, we can identify many NT allusions that reflect a literary basis.

    5. The looseness of Clement's use of short OT passages, coupled with the control data of accepted NT dependencies from Corinthians and Hebrews, shows us that while citation exactness is an indication of dependency, citation inexactness is NOT necessarily an indication of literary independence.

    6. The two main synoptic passages we looked at gave us definite reasons to accept literary dependence on the synoptics.

    7. One of these passages specifically referred to the spoken words of Jesus as being "written".

    8. The possibility that this first quote was from a catechism book, lent weight to the argument that the synoptics were in written form much earlier.

     Although these arguments are of varying weight and varying detail, overall it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Clement had access to a written copy of most (or all) of our extant New Testament.
     
     

    From here, we can now evaluate the next two questions:

    2. What was his attitude toward the NT material? Was he influenced by it, did he consider it authoritative, was it on a par with the OT? What did his usage patterns tell us?

    3. What does his alleged use of non-canonical sources tell us about his (1) attitude toward the canonical material; and (2) his ability to distinguish between the two?

     ...but I will have to do that in another file, a little later...

    Glenn Miller,

    Aug 24, 1998.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    [ .... dumbdad2.html ........  ]

    From: The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com] (Reference Abbreviations)