Scripture in 1 Clement: Composite Citation of the Gospels (Part I)

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the function and use of scripture in the early Christian writing known as 1 Clement.

The Four Evangelists (Book of Kells)

The Four Evangelists (Book of Kells)

Clement’s relationship with written Christian texts remains far more difficult to parse than his near constant reliance on Jewish scriptures. Arguments have been made for this epistle’s use of nearly every writing now in the New Testament, [1] although in no place does Clement introduce a possible reference to these writings with anything other than a “he says/said” introduction.[2] Clement’s lack of clear citations to Christian literature contributes to the major divergence of scholarly opinion regarding this letter’s possible use of materials from the Synoptic Gospels.  Commonly noted possible parallels include the sayings on mercy and forgiveness found in 1 Clement 13.2,[3] the reference to the Parable of the Sower found in 1 Clement 24:5,[4] and the quotation of Isaiah 29:13 in 1 Clement 15:2, where Clement agrees with the form found in Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:6 over LXX Isaiah.[5] Continue reading

Advertisements

Scripture in 1 Clement: Place in Scholarship

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the function and use of scripture in the early Christian writing known as 1 Clement.

Jensen Memorial LibraryThis 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[3]—many treatments of 1 Clement and the formation of the New Testament forego careful consideration of this literary relationship. In contrast, the now dated works The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome[4] by Donald A. Hagner and The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus[5] by Edouard Massuax offer deeper considerations of the relationship between Matthew and 1 Clement. However, recent studies on 1 Clement often focus on the letter’s rhetoric,[6] its historical role in forming and extending Roman Christianity,[7] and its interaction with other non-canonical Christian literature of the period[8] rather than the 1 Clement’s insights into the formation and authority of the New Testament. This study re-evaluates the claims of Hagner and Massaux in light of recent scholarship and offers a comparative analysis that extends beyond that offered by these authors. Continue reading

The Marcion Problem: Introducing Modern Scholarship

This post is part of an ongoing series examining Marcion of Sinope and his influence of the formation of the New Testament canon.

Bible Formation WordcloudThe history of the modern interpretation of Marcion has been — not surprisingly — closely linked with general canonical research. In canonical studies in particular, there has been the tendency to form of schools of thought which have been handed down through successive generations of scholars. Regarding Marcion’s influence on the canon, three primary schools of thought have emerged: Canon Formation, Canon and Literature Formation, and Canon Refinement. Over the course of the next several weeks, Pursuing Veritas will consider the argument of each of these perspectives in turn, followed by Marcion’s views on scripture, canon, and authority as conveyed by that particular school. But first, some explanation as to what each of these schools believes about Marcion’s influence on the formation of the New Testament Canon. Continue reading

ECA: The Canon Debate

This post is part of the ongoing series examining Early Christian Authority.

courtroom-gavelUse of the term “canon” has long been subject to debate among those studying the formation of the New Testament. The word itself comes from the Greek kanonikos, the basic meaning of which is “of one rule.” So a canon is something that other things are ruled by, the “standard” by which all other things are measured. Determining precisely what this “rule” has meant, however, has not been nearly so clear, leading to a series of conversations dubbed the “Canon Debate.” Continue reading

ECA: Lee McDonald on Early Christian Scripture

This post is part of our ongoing series examining Early Christian Authority.
Lee McDonald

Lee M. McDonald

Over at Bible Odyssey, Lee Martin McDonald has offered a brief response to a question about when the writings of the New Testament became scripture:

The New Testament (NT) writings were read in churches early on (Col 4:16), but were not generally called “scripture” until the end of the second century C.E., despite being used that way earlier. Ancient texts always functioned as scripture before they were called scripture. Only one New Testament author makes the claim that what he wrote was equivalent to sacred scripture (Rev 22:18-19; compare with Deut 4:2).

By the middle of the second century C.E., Justin Martyr (1 Apology 64-67) noted that the Gospels were read alongside of and occasionally instead of the “prophets” (Old Testament books). When New Testament writings were read in church worship, or served as an authority in matters of faith and conduct this was a first step in acknowledging the sacredness of the NT writings. The first writings acknowledged as scripture included the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John and some Pauline letters. Not all New Testament writings were called scripture at the same time or place. Irenaeus of Lyon was among the first to make explicit statements about the scriptural status of the canonical Gospels; however several others took much longer to be recognized, notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Initially, early Christians also appear to have accepted other Christian writings as scripture. Some of the most popular Christian writings not included in the canon include Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and others that were read in churches well into the fourth and fifth centuries and in some cases even later.

Finally, decisions made about the sacredness of the church’s scriptures did not take place universally at the same time or location. One church father’s decision does not mean that all church leaders came to the same conclusions at the same time. By the fourth century C.E., most Christians had accepted most of the NT writings, but canon lists varied well into the eighth or ninth centuries.

Continue reading

NT Canon: Marcion, Montanus, and Gnosticism

This post is part of an ongoing series outlining the formation of the New Testament canon.
Image of Marcion (Left) with the Apostle John

Image of Marcion (Left) with the Apostle John

We come to what may be the hottest current debate among scholars concerning the formation of the Christian canon: the role of heretics. For scholars such as Adolph von Harnack and Hans von Campenhausen, the Marcionite heresy all but forced the formation of the New Testament scriptures.[1]  Indeed, Campenhausen went so far as to call Marcion the “creator of the Christian holy Scripture.”[2] Bruce Metzger argues that the formative heretical forces were threefold: Gnosticism, Marcion, and Montanism; each of these respective theological battles pushed the church to develop a canon of scripture.[3] Lee McDonald argues that while it is overbearing to say that Marcion created the New Testament, his influence in hastening the development of the canon must not be overlooked.[4] Concerning Gnosticism, Montanism, and heresy in general, McDonald concludes that the response of the early church was not a canon of sacred books, but the production of a “canon of faith.”[5] John Barton argues that Marcion actually followed the orthodox example of developing a collection of authoritative books and thus was in no way truly formative in the development of the Christian canon, thus presenting a view that is diametrically opposed to Campenhausen.[6] J. N. D. Kelly argues that the essential contours of the canon were in place before the controversies, arguing that their impact was minimal as most.[7]  The prevailing modern view concerning the role of heretics on the formation of the canonical scriptures seems to be primarily that of McDonald and Barton, that while the Marcionite, Gnostic, and Montanist conflicts certainly had an impact upon Christian theology and the role of the canon, the form of the books viewed as scripture seems to have been roughly intact prior to the controversies, thereby making the impact of the heretics slight at most. Though this position is hotly debated in some realms, it seems to represent the growing scholarly consensus. Continue reading

NT Canon: Apostolic Fathers

This post is part of an ongoing series outlining the formation of the New Testament canon.
Apostolic Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers

Before any sort of canonization could take place, the Apostolic[1] writings now included in the New Testament had to become viewed with some form of authority. The sources that scholars utilize most in determining the authority granted to the writings of the New Testament are those of the Apostolic Fathers, a designation given to late first and early second century Christian literature that is not included in the New Testament proper. These writings typically include Clement of Rome’s First Letter to the Corinthians, the seven authentic letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, the Letter of Polycarp, Second Clement, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Letter to Diognetus, the writings of Papias, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Continue reading

NT Canon: Jewish Background

This post is part of an ongoing series outlining the formation of the New Testament canon.
Model of the Second Jewish Temple

Model of the Second Jewish Temple

Vital to understanding the formation of the New Testament canon is the need to understand both the context of Second Temple Judaism as well as first century Christian use of the Jewish Scriptures (now also the Christian Old Testament). Do any Google search on “Jewish Bible” and you’re likely to find the common argument that the Jewish Bible was not closed until the Council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE). This has led some scholars, such as Lee M. McDonald, to advocate that Jesus may have considered some writings which are now not included in the Protestant Old Testament to have been scriptural and authoritative. McDonald argues that Jesus, and even the writers of the New Testament books, did not have to hold to a traditional Jewish canon, and even though most New Testament quotations are from the Torah (Books of Moses) and Nevi’im (Prophets), the writers of the New Testament felt free to quote from the open Ketuvim (Writings; see for example Jude 14’s possible quotation of Enoch).[1] Continue reading