1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

[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

You have to know that this argument makes no sense.

Frankly, I can't imagine why the idea of Jesus/Joshua having made what Moses is said commonly to have made has to follow, even only as a mere possibility, a text where Moses is who works as... ...as Moses. An epistle where Joshua is the hero in the place and time and role of Moses is surely very old, surely more old than an epistle where he is not.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

Frankly, I can't imagine why the idea of Jesus/Joshua having made what Moses is said commonly to have made has to follow, even only as a mere possibility, a text where Moses is who works as... ...as Moses. An epistle where Joshua is the hero in the place and time and role of Moses is surely very old, surely more old than an epistle where he is not.

Again, you have to know that this is patent nonsense. People today still speak of Moses as the miracle worker in the story of the ten plagues. Why? Because that is how the story goes in the book of Exodus. Anyone from any time and from any place after the composition of the book of Exodus is free to summarize the events of Exodus qua Exodus. According to your view, the Sunday School teachers from my childhood would predate the epistle of Jude. What is the source of this incredible misunderstanding on your part?

[Giuseppe]

Ok you are right, forgive my scanty attention.

[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.

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.

I am totally on board with you on this. Still, it would be nice to have at least one solid date that we could all agree on. And, everybody agreeing on interpolations? Even that there are interpolations at all....

[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.

I am totally on board with you on this. Still, it would be nice to have at least one solid date that we could all agree on. And, everybody agreeing on interpolations? Even that there are interpolations at all....

I agree. Yet that is the state of play.

[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.

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.

Well, sure, dating 1 Clement, Papias and the gospels is speculative. But 1 Clement at least has to be earlier than Hegesippus (mid-second century CE), given what he says in EH 4.22.3 ("And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus") and what Eusebius says in EH 4.22.1 ("It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians").

And as I survey the big picture prior to the mid-second century CE, I take the reference in 1 Clement to "the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves" to mean the persecution of Jews and Christians during the time of Domitian c. 95 CE, and since one of them was Flavius Clemens, and the author of 1 Clement is a leader in the Roman church (or someone with enough authority to write a huge letter on their behalf) and extols Paul and Paul knew people "of Caesar's household" and mentions a Clement in the same letter who was contempory with Flavius Clemens, I'm thinking 1 Clement could have been written by Flavius Clemens, and thus that 1 Clement was written no later than c. 95 CE. It would at least have to have been written sometime after Paul and before Hegessipus and during a time of "sudden and successive calamitous events" in Rome, and c. 95 CE seems like the best option to me.

[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.

Well, sure, dating 1 Clement, Papias and the gospels is speculative. But 1 Clement at least has to be earlier than Hegesippus (mid-second century CE), given what he says in EH 4.22.3 ("And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus") and what Eusebius says in EH 4.22.1 ("It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians").

And as I survey the big picture prior to the mid-second century CE, I take the reference in 1 Clement to "the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves" to mean the persecution of Jews and Christians during the time of Domitian c. 95 CE, and since one of them was Flavius Clemens, and the author of 1 Clement is a leader in the Roman church (or someone with enough authority to write a huge letter on their behalf) and extols Paul and Paul knew people "of Caesar's household" and mentions a Clement in the same letter who was contempory with Flavius Clemens, I'm thinking 1 Clement could have been written by Flavius Clemens, and thus that 1 Clement was written no later than c. 95 CE. It would at least have to have been written sometime after Paul and before Hegessipus and during a time of "sudden and successive calamitous events" in Rome, and c. 95 CE seems like the best option to me.

How do you treat the reference to the sacrifices in Jerusalem, then, John? (If you have addressed this somewhere, I apologize for not keeping track.)

1 Clement 41.1-2: 1 Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. 2 Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar, and this too through the high priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes.

The context here is the sentiment that "we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master has commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons" (40.1). The author emphasizes in the ensuing verses that the high priests and the Levites have to follow every little detail according to God's instructions (40.2-3, 5), and they are blessed for having followed those instructions (40.4). If the sanctuary is not still standing, and the priests and Levites are not still performing their sacrifices at the appointed times, then the entire point seems to be drastically undercut.

Do you adhere to an interpolation hypothesis? Or do you interpret this passage differently?

[John2]

How do you treat the reference to the sacrifices in Jerusalem, then, John? (If you have addressed this somewhere, I apologize for not keeping track.)

1 Clement 41.1-2: 1 Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. 2 Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar, and this too through the high priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes.

The context here is the sentiment that "we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master has commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons" (40.1). The author emphasizes in the ensuing verses that the high priests and the Levites have to follow every little detail according to God's instructions (40.2-3, 5), and they are blessed for having followed those instructions (40.4). If the sanctuary is not still standing, and the priests and Levites are not still performing their sacrifices at the appointed times, then the entire point seems to be drastically undercut.

Do you adhere to an interpolation hypothesis? Or do you interpret this passage differently?

It looks to me like he is just citing what the situation is in the OT and not necessarily in his own time. The instructions that the high priests and Levites follow always exist, Temple or no Temple, and thus can always be used as an example of how things ought to be.

[Ben C. Smith]

How do you treat the reference to the sacrifices in Jerusalem, then, John? (If you have addressed this somewhere, I apologize for not keeping track.)

1 Clement 41.1-2: 1 Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. 2 Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar, and this too through the high priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes.

The context here is the sentiment that "we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master has commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons" (40.1). The author emphasizes in the ensuing verses that the high priests and the Levites have to follow every little detail according to God's instructions (40.2-3, 5), and they are blessed for having followed those instructions (40.4). If the sanctuary is not still standing, and the priests and Levites are not still performing their sacrifices at the appointed times, then the entire point seems to be drastically undercut.

Do you adhere to an interpolation hypothesis? Or do you interpret this passage differently?

It looks to me like he is just citing what the situation is in the OT and not necessarily in his own time. The instructions that the high priests and Levites follow always exist, Temple or no Temple, and thus can always be used as an example of how things ought to be.

That does not jive for me at all. It would be like me praising the police force, in the present tense, for dutifully enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition).

[John2]

[That does not jive for me at all. It would be like me praising the police force, in the present tense, for dutifully enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition).

It reads to me more like praising the police for doing their eternal duties rather than specifically for enforcing only the Eighteenth Amendment.

Isn't it always true in the OT (Temple or no Temple) that "Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar, and this too through the high priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes"?