1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Jax »

John2 wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:47 pm I have limited time so perhaps I've missed it, but I have a question. Does the interpolation idea create more problems than the non-interpolation idea? Why would someone interpolate that passage into a work that otherwise post-dates Paul and refers to the Corinthian church as "ancient"?
That I would love to know!
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Jax wrote:
But there is still the problem that the Temple part of the letter is probably not part of the original letter of 1 Clement. That part of the letter is clearly Jewish and Clement of Rome would have been Roman not Jewish.
If he was Flavius Clemens (as I suspect), then he would have been a convert, and at that time (pre-second century CE) I'm not sure if the Romans made any distinction between Jews and Christians, and as Dio Cassius puts it regarding him and his wife Flavia Domitilla (who is thought to have been a Christian), he had "drifted into Jewish ways," so perhaps he identified as being Jewish, i.e., a Jewish Christian (and if I recall correctly, he is said to have been a Jewish convert in Rabbinic writings):

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Some scholars connect Domitilla with a character in Jewish tradition, a Roman matron in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 10b) and Deuteronomy Rabbah 2.25. When the emperor had decreed that in 30 days the Senate would confirm an edict to kill all Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire, the Roman matron convinced her husband to stand up for the Jews. In that tradition, Flavius Clemens converted to Judaism after having contact with the great sage Rabbi Akiva.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Domitilla_(saint)
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:01 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:47 pm I have limited time so perhaps I've missed it, but I have a question. Does the interpolation idea create more problems than the non-interpolation idea? Why would someone interpolate that passage into a work that otherwise post-dates Paul and refers to the Corinthian church as "ancient"?
That I would love to know!
The proposed interpolation is, in and of itself, a seeming digression from the warning which is in play both before and after the passage:

21.1 Beware, beloved, lest his many blessings come to be a condemnation to all of us, unless, walking worthily of him, we do what is honorable and well pleasing before him with oneness of mind. 2 For he says in a certain place, "The Spirit of the Lord is a candle, searching out the secret places of the heart." 3 Let us see how near he is at hand, and how none of our thoughts and reasonings do escape him. 4 It is right, therefore, that we should not desert from his will. 5 Let us offend against men who are foolish, and senseless, and puffed up in the pride of their own speech, rather than against God. 6 Let us have respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us. Let us reverence them that are over us. Let us honor our elders. Let us instruct the young in the discipline of the fear of God. Let us direct our wives to that which is good; 7 let them show forth the lovely habit of chastity, and exhibit the pure disposition of meekness. Let them make manifest by their conversation the government of their tongues; let them show love, not according to partiality, but equally to all that fear the Lord in holiness. 8 Let your children be partakers of the discipline of Christ; let them learn how much humility avails before God; what power a pure love hath with God; how his fear is honorable and great, preserving all who, with a pure mind, walk in holiness before him. 9 For he is a searcher out of thoughts and counsels, his breath is in us, and when he wills he will take it away.

~

22.1b Come, children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 2 What man is he that wishes for life and would fain see good days? 3 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. 4 Turn away from evil and do good; 5 seek peace and pursue it.

[The rest of the proposed interpolation.]

41.1 Let each of you, brethren, in his own order, give thanks unto God, continuing in a good conscience, not transgressing the fixed rule of his ministry, with all gravity. 2 Not in every place, brethren, are sacrifices offered continually, either in answer to prayer, or concerning sin and neglect, but in Jerusalem only; and even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the temple in the court of the altar, after that which is offered has been diligently examined by the high priest and the appointed ministers.


~

41.3 They, therefore, who do anything contrary to that which is according to his will have for their punishment death. 4 You see, brethren, by as much as we have been thought worthy of greater knowledge, by so much the more are we exposed to danger.

The warning consists of the danger of death (pink) for those who have experienced the blessings and the knowledge of God (green) by ignoring God's will (yellow). The proposed interpolation, while generically exhorting the reader to fear God or face the consequences, does not specifically continue the same line of thought; rather, it is a digression marked out by the address to the readers as "children." Furthermore, this is actually the second digression, the first being the very brief instructions by way of illustration (respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, honoring elders, and so on). The author has already digressed once to let the reader know what kinds of things he is talking about, and has wrapped up that brief digression in 21.9: do these things or else. The "therefore" statement in 41.3 spells out altogether clearly what God taking his breath away from a person means, and then reemphasizes how high the stakes are for those "in the know."

You would like to know why an interpolator would add the intervening material, and so would I. But I would also like to know why an author would. The digression itself contains digressions within digressions, is not always on point, and quite frankly rambles a bit.

To be perfectly clear, I am not at all certain about 1 Clement as a whole. Some parts make sense to me, but other parts are puzzles. The epistle does not feel like a unified whole to me; indeed, it feels as if there is considerably more texture to it than what Peter identifies, though I have no specific recommendations as yet. I know, however, how subjective that sort of judgment is in isolation.

YMMV.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:46 pm
Jax wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:01 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:47 pm I have limited time so perhaps I've missed it, but I have a question. Does the interpolation idea create more problems than the non-interpolation idea? Why would someone interpolate that passage into a work that otherwise post-dates Paul and refers to the Corinthian church as "ancient"?
That I would love to know!
The proposed interpolation is, in and of itself, a seeming digression from the warning which is in play both before and after the passage:

21.1 Beware, beloved, lest his many blessings come to be a condemnation to all of us, unless, walking worthily of him, we do what is honorable and well pleasing before him with oneness of mind. 2 For he says in a certain place, "The Spirit of the Lord is a candle, searching out the secret places of the heart." 3 Let us see how near he is at hand, and how none of our thoughts and reasonings do escape him. 4 It is right, therefore, that we should not desert from his will. 5 Let us offend against men who are foolish, and senseless, and puffed up in the pride of their own speech, rather than against God. 6 Let us have respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us. Let us reverence them that are over us. Let us honor our elders. Let us instruct the young in the discipline of the fear of God. Let us direct our wives to that which is good; 7 let them show forth the lovely habit of chastity, and exhibit the pure disposition of meekness. Let them make manifest by their conversation the government of their tongues; let them show love, not according to partiality, but equally to all that fear the Lord in holiness. 8 Let your children be partakers of the discipline of Christ; let them learn how much humility avails before God; what power a pure love hath with God; how his fear is honorable and great, preserving all who, with a pure mind, walk in holiness before him. 9 For he is a searcher out of thoughts and counsels, his breath is in us, and when he wills he will take it away.

~

22.1b Come, children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 2 What man is he that wishes for life and would fain see good days? 3 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. 4 Turn away from evil and do good; 5 seek peace and pursue it.

[The rest of the proposed interpolation.]

41.1 Let each of you, brethren, in his own order, give thanks unto God, continuing in a good conscience, not transgressing the fixed rule of his ministry, with all gravity. 2 Not in every place, brethren, are sacrifices offered continually, either in answer to prayer, or concerning sin and neglect, but in Jerusalem only; and even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the temple in the court of the altar, after that which is offered has been diligently examined by the high priest and the appointed ministers.


~

41.3 They, therefore, who do anything contrary to that which is according to his will have for their punishment death. 4 You see, brethren, by as much as we have been thought worthy of greater knowledge, by so much the more are we exposed to danger.

The warning consists of the danger of death (pink) for those who have experienced the blessings and the knowledge of God (green) by ignoring God's will (yellow). The proposed interpolation, while generically exhorting the reader to fear God or face the consequences, does not specifically continue the same line of thought; rather, it is a digression marked out by the address to the readers as "children." Furthermore, this is actually the second digression, the first being the very brief instructions by way of illustration (respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, honoring elders, and so on). The author has already digressed once to let the reader know what kinds of things he is talking about, and has wrapped up that brief digression in 21.9: do these things or else. The "therefore" statement in 41.3 spells out altogether clearly what God taking his breath away from a person means, and then reemphasizes how high the stakes are for those "in the know."

You would like to know why an interpolator would add the intervening material, and so would I. But I would also like to know why an author would. The digression itself contains digressions within digressions, is not always on point, and quite frankly rambles a bit.

To be perfectly clear, I am not at all certain about 1 Clement as a whole. Some parts make sense to me, but other parts are puzzles. The epistle does not feel like a unified whole to me; indeed, it feels as if there is considerably more texture to it than what Peter identifies, though I have no specific recommendations as yet. I know, however, how subjective that sort of judgment is in isolation.

YMMV.
Thanks for this. I will give this thought.

Lane
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:51 pmThanks for this. I will give this thought.
I will be giving it more thought, too. :cheers: No one can ask more.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:

I suggested that, because Hegesippus knows and seems to approve of 1 Clement, and, because 1 Clement both knows and approves of Paul and contains something very similar to 1 Corinthians 2.9, Hegesippus is not likely to be so conspicuously disagreeing either with Clement or with Paul. I further suggested Stephen Gobar as the weak link above, that perhaps he had pressed Hegesippus in an unfair direction.

I don't think Hegesippus approves of 1 Clement or Paul, to judge from Photius/Gobar and Eusebius' reluctance to cite what Hegesippus said about 1 Clement (EH 4.22.1: "It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians"); it seems odd that Eusebius, who cites Hegesippus extensively regarding other matters, doesn't cite what Hegesippus said about 1 Clement, which makes me think it could have been something negative like the Photius/Gobar citation. Hegesippus being a Jewish Christian (or at least someone who was interested in Jewish Christian-related subjects and writings) is also a factor for me in this respect (not that all Jewish Christians opposed Paul, but some did, so perhaps Hegesippus did as well).

Now, what if I was right about the first part (and thus Hegesippus was not disagreeing with Clement or with Paul) but wrong about the second part (and thus Gobar was not such a weak link after all)? What if, indeed, Peter Kirby is correct about 1 Clement 22.1-41.2 being an interpolation into Clement and William O. Walker is simultaneously correct about 1 Corinthians 2.6-16 being an interpolation into Paul? 1 Clement 34.8, the Clementine saying about eyes and ears, is found in the proposed interpolation into Clement, while 1 Corinthians 2.9, the Pauline saying about eyes and ears, is found in the proposed interpolation into Paul. We need now only to imagine that Hegesippus knew the uninterpolated version of 1 Clement (and possibly of 1 Corinthians). He would, then, be disagreeing, not with Paul or with Clement, but rather with any of the many, many promoters of this saying, some of whom we have discussed before.

I'm still chewing on the idea of interpolations in 1 Clement, but if 1 Clem. 22.1-41.2 and 1 Cor. 2:6-16 are interpolations and Photius/Gobar is correct, then I would have to suppose that Hegesippus disagreed "not with Paul or with Clement, but rather with any of the many, many promoters of this saying."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:54 pm Ben wrote:
I suggested that, because Hegesippus knows and seems to approve of 1 Clement, and, because 1 Clement both knows and approves of Paul and contains something very similar to 1 Corinthians 2.9, Hegesippus is not likely to be so conspicuously disagreeing either with Clement or with Paul. I further suggested Stephen Gobar as the weak link above, that perhaps he had pressed Hegesippus in an unfair direction.
I don't think Hegesippus approves of 1 Clement or Paul, to judge from Photius/Gobar and Eusebius' reluctance to cite what Hegesippus said about 1 Clement (EH 4.22.1: "It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians"); it seems odd that Eusebius, who cites Hegesippus extensively regarding other matters, doesn't cite what Hegesippus said about 1 Clement, which makes me think it could have been something negative like the Photius/Gobar citation. Hegesippus being a Jewish Christian (or at least someone who was interested in Jewish Christian-related subjects and writings) is also a factor for me in this respect (not that all Jewish Christians opposed Paul, but some did, so perhaps Hegesippus did as well).
According to Eusebius in History of the Church 4.22.1-9, Hegesippus spent quality time both in Corinth and in Rome, getting along with everybody in both places. It would seem odd to me that 1 Clement would be a bone of contention between Hegesippus and both churches, or did they, too, reject the epistle? Hegesippus is all about the unity of the "true church" against heresy; was 1 Clement considered heresy?

As for Eusebius, if the hypotheses about the interpolations are true, and if Stephen Gobar is correct about Hegesippus' comments about the eyes and ears saying, then poor Eusebius would have been confused, right? For him, the eyes and ears saying would have been found both in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Clement. If Hegesippus said something negative about it, but also something positive about 1 Clement overall, what would Eusebius have been left to think? That might be reason enough to skip Hegesippus' actual comments about 1 Clement.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:56 pm
According to Eusebius in History of the Church 4.22.1-9, Hegesippus spent quality time both in Corinth and in Rome, getting along with everybody in both places. It would seem odd to me that 1 Clement would be a bone of contention between Hegesippus and both churches, or did they, too, reject the epistle? Hegesippus is all about the unity of the "true church" against heresy; was 1 Clement considered heresy?

As for Eusebius, if the hypotheses about the interpolations are true, and if Stephen Gobar is correct about Hegesippus' comments about the eyes and ears saying, then poor Eusebius would have been confused, right? For him, the eyes and ears saying would have been found both in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Clement. If Hegesippus said something negative about it, but also something positive about 1 Clement overall, what would Eusebius have been left to think? That might be reason enough to skip Hegesippus' actual comments about 1 Clement.

Food for thought.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

Post by John2 »

You now what? Whether he was a Jewish Christian or not, I don't think Hegesippus was opposed to Paul (despite never mentioning him and what Photius/Gobar says, even if 1 Cor. 2:6-11 is genuine). I don't know how I ever missed seeing the answer before in EH 4.22.4:

The same author [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

I figure from this that he didn't see Paul as having corrupted the Church with "vain discourses" if he thought it was a "virgin" up to the time Symeon became a bishop (sometime after c. 62 CE). This seems to be the case for James, who in my view reproves Paul in his letter and in Acts but doesn't reject him, and for the Nazarene branch of Jewish Christianity (which went back to the time of Jesus). And since Hegesippus revered James, it would follow that he wouldn't have rejected Paul either.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply