This post concludes our series on the function and use of scripture in the early Christian writing known as 1 Clement by providing interested readers with a select bibliography of the sources consulted in this study.
Ancient Texts
Clement of Rome. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, trans. Bart D. Ehrman. The Apostolic Fathers: Volume One, Loeb Classical Library 24, ed. Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History, trans. G.A. Williamson, ed. Andrew Louth. London: Penguin Books, 1989.
Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Philadelphians, trans. Bart D. Ehrman. The Apostolic Fathers: Volume One, Loeb Classical Library 24, ed. Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Tertullian. Prescription Against the Heresies, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed. Paul A. Boer, Sr. The Anti-Marcion Writings of Tertullian. Veritatis Splendor Publications, 2012.
Before concluding this examination, I offer two final key findings and a note on the ramifications of these conclusions. First, the relationship between 1 Clement and the Gospel of Matthew remains—at the very least—an ongoing topic of conversation. Scholarship which claims insignificant connections between these two early Christian writings cannot stand in the face of the literary connections outlined here. The author of 1 Clement had access to a version of Matthew’s gospel prior to the writing of his epistle. Second, those evaluating early Christian reception history and literary allusion should not neglect the possibility of composite citations by their authors, especially in writings where clear examples of this practice exist. In contrast to the assumption of the need for formal markers to signal literary connections, consideration of composite citations may require an extensive text- and linguistic-centered comparative process, such as the above side-by-side reading of 1 Clement 46:8 alongside potential gospel parallels. 
By way of summary, I briefly outline some of the implications of the argument that Clement compositely cited the Gospel of Matthew. First, this citation suggests Clement knew and had read Matthew’s Gospel. This is contrary to perspectives like that of Helmut Koester which reject Clement’s knowledge of written gospel accounts.
What does account for 1 Clement 46:8 is Clement’s tendency to cite written passages compositely, as was noted in his use of the Jewish scriptures.
Central to the considerations here are the “composite citations” of the Jewish Scriptures, where Clement fused together different passages and presented them as a single citation. There are several characteristics indicative of this type of citation. First, these composites often align with the meaning rather than exact verbal structure of their sources and come from the same book of the Jewish scriptures.
In exhorting the Corinthians to restore their overthrown leaders, Clement drew upon a wide variety of materials as authoritative bases for the importance of Christian concord. Immediately evident to any reader are 1 Clement’s numerous and lengthy appeals to the Jewish scriptures, which he calls the “revelation through which God speaks.”
This project investigates how Clement employed composite citations of Jewish and Christian writings, particularly the synoptic tradition, to support his arguments for proper Christian theology and practice. In doing so, this study seeks to fill two gaps in existing scholarship on 1 Clement: the void concerning the relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and 1 Clement and the lacuna regarding the practice of composite citation in early Christian literature. With regard to this first gap, while scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, Helmut Koester, Michael J. Kruger, and Lee M. McDonald comment on the relationship between Matthew and 1 Clement—either advocating or rejecting literary connections