1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

[neilgodfrey]

On learning of this—I will tell you the truth—I envied them their immortality. I summoned my daughter and told her: “Take your clothes and depart from my presence: you have, after all, evidently gained immortality and become a spirit. And you shall be called a Nerai'd, since you received eternity [aidion] from the water [neron]." She departed from my presence, weeping and wailing, and went to live with the spirits in uninhabited regions. As for the cook, I ordered a millstone to be tied to his neck and that he should be cast into the sea. There he became a spirit and went off to live in a part of the sea, which was called Andreas after him. So much then about the cook and my daughter.

Pseudo-Callisthenes. 1989. “Alexander Romance.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by Bryan P. Reardon, translated by Ken Dowden, 650–735. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 711-712

[rgprice]

Thanks Neil. I think what Massaux said makes some sense, but I'm still not convinced that 1 Clement knows Matthew proper. It's all actually much easier of 1 Clement knows Matthew. If 1 Clement knows Matthew then that's it. The writer(s) had read Matthew and got their ideas from there, enough said and no big deal.

But it doesn't seem so. It seems that 1 Clement knows Matthew's saying, but not from Matthew, which is much more complicated. This is especially complicated if Mark originated this dialog.

If Mark originated the saying, but 1 Clement knows Matthew's saying without knowing Matthew, then:

1) Matthew had already been written, and a sayings list had been gleaned from Matthew, which 1 Clement knows but doesn't know the Gospel (seems odd)
2) Mark had been written and a list of sayings had been derived from Mark, which Matthew used in addition to Mark itself. (seems unlikely also)

An alternative is that Mark and Matthew are both working from an independent list that 1 Clement also knows, but this also seems unlikely.

A fourth option is that this is a later revision of the letter. Not sure how likely that is, but also doesn't seem likely given that, if one were going to revise it they would likely have added more than just this. Unless, potentially, a later scribe just conformed this passage to Matthew because they were familiar with Matthew and it actually wasn't as close as it now appears. But Massaux's use of multiple sources goes against this.

I don't know, I'm still not sure what to make of it. The oddest part is that it's such a small thing. It's really just these two passages that are hard to explain in 1 Clement. It seems odd that out of this huge letter we have just a few small lines that are so difficult.

[John2]

On learning of this—I will tell you the truth—I envied them their immortality. I summoned my daughter and told her: “Take your clothes and depart from my presence: you have, after all, evidently gained immortality and become a spirit. And you shall be called a Nerai'd, since you received eternity [aidion] from the water [neron]." She departed from my presence, weeping and wailing, and went to live with the spirits in uninhabited regions. As for the cook, I ordered a millstone to be tied to his neck and that he should be cast into the sea. There he became a spirit and went off to live in a part of the sea, which was called Andreas after him. So much then about the cook and my daughter.

Pseudo-Callisthenes. 1989. “Alexander Romance.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by Bryan P. Reardon, translated by Ken Dowden, 650–735. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 711-712

Wow, that makes sense too because the Clementine writings are thought to be based on earlier Jewish Christian sources (in my view post-70 CE Ebionites), and Jewish Christians are said to have only used Matthew.

[John2]

On learning of this—I will tell you the truth—I envied them their immortality. I summoned my daughter and told her: “Take your clothes and depart from my presence: you have, after all, evidently gained immortality and become a spirit. And you shall be called a Nerai'd, since you received eternity [aidion] from the water [neron]." She departed from my presence, weeping and wailing, and went to live with the spirits in uninhabited regions. As for the cook, I ordered a millstone to be tied to his neck and that he should be cast into the sea. There he became a spirit and went off to live in a part of the sea, which was called Andreas after him. So much then about the cook and my daughter.

Pseudo-Callisthenes. 1989. “Alexander Romance.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by Bryan P. Reardon, translated by Ken Dowden, 650–735. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 711-712

Wow, that makes sense too because the Clementine writings are thought to be based on earlier Jewish Christian sources (in my view post-70 CE Ebionites), and Jewish Christians are said to have only used Matthew.

Ah, never mind, I misread "Callisthenes" for Clementines.

[rgprice]

On learning of this—I will tell you the truth—I envied them their immortality. I summoned my daughter and told her: “Take your clothes and depart from my presence: you have, after all, evidently gained immortality and become a spirit. And you shall be called a Nerai'd, since you received eternity [aidion] from the water [neron]." She departed from my presence, weeping and wailing, and went to live with the spirits in uninhabited regions. As for the cook, I ordered a millstone to be tied to his neck and that he should be cast into the sea. There he became a spirit and went off to live in a part of the sea, which was called Andreas after him. So much then about the cook and my daughter.

Pseudo-Callisthenes. 1989. “Alexander Romance.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by Bryan P. Reardon, translated by Ken Dowden, 650–735. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 711-712

Interesting. This would lead me to conclude that this was a common phrase. Also, if this is a Greek idiom it points to possibly Mark being a native Greek speaker, despite claims to the contrary. But of course, its just one tiny point of reference.

[Ben C. Smith]

Interesting. This would lead me to conclude that this was a common phrase. Also, if this is a Greek idiom it points to possibly Mark being a native Greek speaker, despite claims to the contrary. But of course, its just one tiny point of reference.

Drowning was also an ancient punishment:

Suetonius, Life of Augustus 67.2: 2 But he forced Polus, a favorite freedman of his, to take his own life, because he was convicted of adultery with Roman matrons, and broke the legs of his secretary Thallus for taking five hundred denarii to betray the contents of a letter. Because the tutor and attendants of his son Gaius took advantage of their master's illness and death to commit acts of arrogance and greed in his province, he had them thrown into a river with heavy weights about their necks.

Josephus, Antiquities 14.15.10 §450: 450 So when Antigonus had got possession of the dead bodies, he cut off Joseph's head, although Pheroras his brother would have redeemed it at the price of fifty talents. After which defeat, the Galileans revolted from their commanders, and took those of Herod's party, and drowned them in the lake, and a great part of Judea was become seditious; but Macheras fortified the place Gitta.

Revelation 18.21: 21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer."

There is also this image from the Talmud:

Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 29b: 29b .... Rab Judah said in Samuel's name, "The halachah is, 'One first marries and then studies.' R. Johanan said, '[With] a millstone around the neck, shall one study Torah?'" ....

[neilgodfrey]

On learning of this—I will tell you the truth—I envied them their immortality. I summoned my daughter and told her: “Take your clothes and depart from my presence: you have, after all, evidently gained immortality and become a spirit. And you shall be called a Nerai'd, since you received eternity [aidion] from the water [neron]." She departed from my presence, weeping and wailing, and went to live with the spirits in uninhabited regions. As for the cook, I ordered a millstone to be tied to his neck and that he should be cast into the sea. There he became a spirit and went off to live in a part of the sea, which was called Andreas after him. So much then about the cook and my daughter.

Pseudo-Callisthenes. 1989. “Alexander Romance.” In Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by Bryan P. Reardon, translated by Ken Dowden, 650–735. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 711-712

Interesting. This would lead me to conclude that this was a common phrase. Also, if this is a Greek idiom it points to possibly Mark being a native Greek speaker, despite claims to the contrary. But of course, its just one tiny point of reference.

Unfortunately the Ps-Callisthenes passage is well after the gospels but no doubt there will be some who will argue that Christianity became so influential that Jesus' saying inspired the saying in the novel.

But as you say, it does look like a common proverb of sorts. Revelation indicates an early provenance for the idea, and thanks to Ben's reference to Suetonius we seem have that likelihood increased.

Don't forget we also have millstones being thrown into the sea in Revelation 18:21

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore.

Suetonius, Life of Augustus 67.2: 2 But he forced Polus, a favorite freedman of his, to take his own life, because he was convicted of adultery with Roman matrons, and broke the legs of his secretary Thallus for taking five hundred denarii to betray the contents of a letter. Because the tutor and attendants of his son Gaius took advantage of their master's illness and death to commit acts of arrogance and greed in his province, he had them thrown into a river with heavy weights about their necks.

There are many references to millstones, including their place as part of the peaceful life in Jeremiah 25:10 (some suggest this was a passage that inspired an adaptation in Revelation 18), and weapons of murder in Judges 9:23. And that latter image is found as a metaphor in Herodotus' Histories, Book 5, 92 (De Sélincourt translation):

Eetion went to Delphi to ask the oracle about his chance ofan heir, and the moment he entered the shrine the priestess addressed him in these words:

Eetion, worthy of honour, no man honours you.
Labda is with child, and her child will be a millstone which
will fall upon the rulers and will bring justice to Corinth.

Like the other biblical references that is not about drowning but especially if we grant the biblical texts were influenced by Hellenistic literature (Gmirkin) then we have a millstone-death-drowning associations coming easily enough to the evangelists.

I think a Bayesian approach will yield a strong probability that Mark adapted or borrowed a common saying.

[John2]

Interesting. This would lead me to conclude that this was a common phrase. Also, if this is a Greek idiom it points to possibly Mark being a native Greek speaker, despite claims to the contrary. But of course, its just one tiny point of reference.

Drowning was also an ancient punishment:

Suetonius, Life of Augustus 67.2: 2 But he forced Polus, a favorite freedman of his, to take his own life, because he was convicted of adultery with Roman matrons, and broke the legs of his secretary Thallus for taking five hundred denarii to betray the contents of a letter. Because the tutor and attendants of his son Gaius took advantage of their master's illness and death to commit acts of arrogance and greed in his province, he had them thrown into a river with heavy weights about their necks.

Josephus, Antiquities 14.15.10 §450: 450 So when Antigonus had got possession of the dead bodies, he cut off Joseph's head, although Pheroras his brother would have redeemed it at the price of fifty talents. After which defeat, the Galileans revolted from their commanders, and took those of Herod's party, and drowned them in the lake, and a great part of Judea was become seditious; but Macheras fortified the place Gitta.

Revelation 18.21: 21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer."

There is also this image from the Talmud:

Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 29b: 29b .... Rab Judah said in Samuel's name, "The halachah is, 'One first marries and then studies.' R. Johanan said, '[With] a millstone around the neck, shall one study Torah?'" ....

it sounds like a common thing to say in Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic) then, and it wouldn't preclude Jesus from making use of it (if he did).

[rgprice]

I'm not sure I've reached any final conclusions, but this was very helpful. Thanks all.

[MrMacSon]

Regarding 1 Clement (and its authenticity), Peter Kirby has noted Hermann Detering expounded seven arguments, -

First, “Can a document consisting of some 32-35 papyrus pages be accepted without further ado as a writing that was sent from Rome to Corinth with the intention of actual correspondence? …With the passing of one or two months, the situation which the writer presupposes in his writing could be entirely different, and his writing hopelessly out of date.”

Second, “If the party conflict in Corinth and the replacement of the presbyters with younger members of the church was in fact the real incentive for the letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, it is furthermore completely impossible to understand why the writer only comes to speak of this in chapter 44 (!) and in the first two-thirds of the writing exhausts the patience of the Corinthians with discussions of the resurrection, the omniscience and omnipresence of God, and such things, which although edifying, have no importance for the matter at hand.”

Third, “In addition, there is the consideration that the entire controversy addressed by the writer of 1 Clement remains strangely unclear and vague and that the information about it is very contradictory, as even supporters of its authenticity today must concede: He [Clement] emphasizes that the uproar can be traced to a few rash and self-willed persons (1.1; in 47.6 it is only one or two persons), but then accuses the entire congregation (46.9 = your uproar). As motives he identifies jealousy; envy and contentiousness; lack of love, humility and discernment. But he does not identify the actual background of the Corinthian conflict (!), just as little as he identifies the actual motives for the certainly uninvited intervention by Rome in the inner affairs of the Corinthian church (!). Without doubt, these are closely related, but there is nothing else to learn about either.”

Fourth, “If one begins with the presumption that we have to do here with a real letter, all the peculiarities cited here should give one cause for thought! Finally, the conflict as such lacks any inner probability: how can the Corinthian church, founded so long ago, rise up against their presbyters on account of only a few ringleaders? The attempt at mediation that the writer undertakes (from Rome!), in which he onesidedly condemns the troublemakers in Corinth, as if they acted from base motives, is also entirely unrealistic and shows the fictional character of the whole thing.”

Fifth, “The tensions and obscurities revealed here are due to the contradiction between the situation presupposed in the writing and the author’s real intention. The real intention of the author, of course, is not the resolution of an actual conflict in a diplomatic way, but something quite different: his writing, that is directed not to one church, and also not to the church in Corinth, but to all the churches in the Catholic universe, is intended not to mediate, but to instruct and here a typical Catholic tendency of the letter becomes visible to warn against uprisings and disorder in the churches! The writings leads us into a time, most probably the middle of the second century, in which the distinction between priests and laity (40.5: there are much different rules for laity than for ecclesiastical officer-holders) already announces the Roman clericalism. Over against all inclinations to opposition, the authority of the church is enjoined in an impressive example…”

Sixth, “Once one has recognized the writer’s real intention, it will no longer seem strange if there are other peculiarities as well that would look odd in a real letter. Who would expect, for example, in real letter, which moreover is written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, to find the exhortation (34.7), Let us therefore come together in the same place with harmony of conscience and earnestly call upon the Lord as from one mouth, that we may share in his great and glorious promises? In view of the geographical distance between Rome and Corinth, one can only wonder how the writer imagined the common visit of a holy place…”

Seventh, “In other places, the author succeeds very well in imagining himself in the role of a letter writer: for example, in the introduction to the letter, where it reads: ‘On account of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities that have befallen us, we have been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable and unholy sedition, so inappropriate for the elect of God.’ In these lines, many people have wanted to see a reference to an actual situation of persecution (under Nero or Domitian). As the Dutch theologian Van den Bergh van Eysinga already recognized, however, what we have here is only a conventional apology, which the author of 1 Clement readily employs to give his writing the appearance of an authentic letter. According to the operative Roman law, persecutions did not usually arrive overnight.”

http://peterkirby.com/dialogue-concerni ... stems.html