stephan huller

Of course scholars pretend the idea that Clement preferred a non-canonical gospel is unprecedented and he and his earlier namesake in Rome just happened to be fusing Matt 26.24, 18.6-7; Mark 9.42; Luke 17.2 together.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

The isue is complicated by textual uncertainly in the epistle of Clement of Rome but most scholars believe that Clement of Alexandria is actually quoting here from Clement of Rome. (Clement of A certainly knew and valued the epistle of C of R.)

Andrew Criddle

Juststeve

Why is it surprising that Clement of A used a source not now in the Canon? We know from Luke that there were many "gospels" at the time he wrote, we just don't know how many.

Besides it it anachronistic to call any source used by Clement non-canonical since the Canon had not been established during Clement's lifetime.

Finally, as to the assertion that he "preferred" one source over another, that is not supported by the evidence. All that can be reasonably said is that in this instance he quoted from a source not now in the Canon.

Steve

stephan huller

Clement does reference the concept of canon many times in his writings.

Juststeve

Stephen:

Your dodging. If not, tell me what the notion of non-canonical would have meant to clement, and how you know that the source he quoted would have been non-canonical given his meaning. All the evidence suggests is that Clement quoted a source not now part of the official Canon which is hardly surprising.

Steve

aa5874

We don't know that gLuke is a RELIABLE historical source.

Bart Ehrman claims the Gospels and the SOURCES for the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE.

There is ZERO external corroboration that there was an author named Luke and ZERO external corroboration for the author's claims about written sources of the Jesus story in gLuke.

All mention of a gospel called according to "LUKE" written before the Fall of the Temple are probably ANACHRONISTIC.

Juststeve

aa:

Perhaps Luke isn't completely reliable but its what we have to work with. It also confirms much of what Stephen said in the OP. There were other sources floating around that never made the Canon.

Apart from a few Evangelicals no one thinks Luke was written before the fall of the Temple.

aa5874

I am NOT going to work with your Anachronistic GHOST stories called Luke. NO WAY.

Apart from FUNDAMENTALISTS, some BELIEVERS and YOU, NO-ONE thinks Luke is an historical source for the Jesus story.

I don't work with FICTION.

mountainman

This saying preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea in respect of multiple Clementine authors reads like a primitive curse. Jesus appears to be cursing anyone who dares to lay a rough hand or an unkind word on any of his "Christian boys". Is this considered to be an agraphon ?

On the other hand, fusing canonical verses together in various unique combinations and permutations was the mark and modus operandi of the non-canoonical authors in all the centuries that they operated. Jerome calls these people "cobblers of tales".

Associating "proof" with anything to do with the Clementine literature is risky business.

stephan huller

As silly as it sounds there is a part of me that wonders whether the saying continues even further:

I know it is 'only logical' to suppose that "God's name is dishonored because of them" 'must' be a citation of Romans 2:24. The two are roughly similar:

But could Jesus have been originally citing some obscure version of Isaiah 52:5? The surviving 'LXX' reads:

2 Clement 13 cites this version of Isaiah 52:5:

So does Justin in the Dialogue with Typho:

But could Clement have had a gospel with Jesus citing what is clearly a variant version of the same scripture? I wonder. It is worth noting that Clement usually cites his sources especially the apostle. In this case the allusion to Isaiah 52:5 happens before such a citation:

I can't shake the idea the reference to Isaiah is part of the gospel citation.