1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

[Ben C. Smith]

(Those are not rhetorical questions. I have not made up my mind about 1 Clement yet.)

[Secret Alias]

I would include the Gospel of (Judas) Thomas as a subset of 'gospel'

[John2]

For me it would be a matter of dating 1 Clement, and since I'm happy with c. 95 CE, then the question for me would be how many written gospels were there c. 95 CE. And the way I look at it is that the earliest references to written gospels we have (Papias, who I date c. 110 CE) mentions only two, Mark and Matthew.

[John2]

There could be some leeway regarding Matthew though, since Papias says there was an original Hebrew version and multiple Greek translations.

[Giuseppe]

1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

this betrayes knowledge of the Betrayal of Judas (a very late insertion in the Gospel tradition). The fact that the readers have to "remember" the dominical saying (as from a distant past), as opposed to the pauline way of putting it as a very recent saying to not be remembered:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband

(1 Cor 7:10)

...reveals the knowledge of the gospels.

[Giuseppe]

It is evident that 1 Clement was written after the epistle of Judah:

1Clem 51:5
Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea,
and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.

Judah 5:

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that Jesus at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe

[Ben C. Smith]

1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

this betrayes knowledge of the Betrayal of Judas (a very late insertion in the Gospel tradition).

It being better that one had not been born is an ancient sentiment:

Ecclesiastes 4.2-3: 2 So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. 3 But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.

Job 3.2-3: 2 And Job said, 3 “Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, ‘A boy is conceived.’”

Job 10.18-19: 18 “‘Why then have You brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! 19 ‘I should have been as though I had not been carried from womb to tomb.’”

Jeremiah 15.10: 10 Woe to me, my mother, that you have borne me as a man of strife and a man of contention to all the land! I have not lent, nor have men lent money to me, yet everyone curses me.

The sayings in question could have easily existed before being applied to Judas. One would need to actually make an argument that they originally applied to Judas.

It is evident that 1 Clement was written after the epistle of Judah:

1Clem 51:5
Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea,
and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.

Judah 5:

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that Jesus at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe

You have to know that this argument makes no sense.

[Secret Alias]

I think - in one version of the myth - Silenus expresses the idea that best is it never to be born, next best to die quickly to King Midas when he his captured.

[Jax]

For me it would be a matter of dating 1 Clement, and since I'm happy with c. 95 CE, then the question for me would be how many written gospels were there c. 95 CE. And the way I look at it is that the earliest references to written gospels we have (Papias, who I date c. 110 CE) mentions only two, Mark and Matthew.

The problem for me however is that 95 CE for Clement is not based on anything concrete and has major problems. The timeline for Papias suffers the same problem. Factor in the problem that we have no idea when any of the Gospels were written (we can't even agree on their order of composition for heavens sake) and you have the perfect storm of just wild speculation. If we could just have one solid piece of dateable material that would be a great start, but we don't.

No. without better information we are stuck with no way, at this time, to date any of this (Clement, Papias, Gospels) IMHO.

[Ben C. Smith]

For me it would be a matter of dating 1 Clement, and since I'm happy with c. 95 CE, then the question for me would be how many written gospels were there c. 95 CE. And the way I look at it is that the earliest references to written gospels we have (Papias, who I date c. 110 CE) mentions only two, Mark and Matthew.

The problem for me however is that 95 CE for Clement is not based on anything concrete and has major problems. The timeline for Papias suffers the same problem. Factor in the problem that we have no idea when any of the Gospels were written (we can't even agree on their order of composition for heavens sake) and you have the perfect storm of just wild speculation. If we could just have one solid piece of dateable material that would be a great start, but we don't.

No. without better information we are stuck with no way, at this time, to date any of this (Clement, Papias, Gospels) IMHO.

I often resort to dating relatively rather than absolutely. Not: "At what date were these texts written?" But rather: "In which order were these texts written?" Relative dating is hard enough as it is, but absolute dating is even harder most of the time. Interpolations can wreak havoc upon the process, as well. It takes lots of time and lots of patience to arrive at any conclusions which one feels may stand the test of time.