Just thought I would post some end of 2009 updates:

I will address the Shreveport, LA chapter of Reasons to Believe on the 3rd Monday of January, 2010 on the subject ‘The Testimony of the Witnesses’, an investigation into the credibility of the Christian Holy Writ. We will consider the weight of the earliest written testimony in regards to the claim of resurrection of Christ. And we will examine how writers such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Elaine Pagels can proceed from the the early Christian literature and arrive at results in diametric opposition to the views of both its authors and its recipients.

Michelangelo - Fresco From The Sistine Chapel

I posted the following on Facebook in response to various discussions. It is not complete, but holds the germ of a theme upon which I would like to expand  in the future, God willing:

People think that because we live in a free society, we may practice Christianity, when actually the converse is true. Because we practice Christianity we live in a free society.

Ultimately we will each act according to our most deeply held convictions. Likewise, a society will be shaped by the ideology of its members. In predominately Hindu society, for instance, there will be little compassion for the downtrodden – after all, they are merely reaping the fruits of their actions in a previous life. In the Islamic world, there exists little tolerance for opposing viewpoints – possession of a Bible is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, for instance; even though that nation is generally considered to be a rational, modern society. Likewise Marxism is a jealous god, accepting no rivals.

“But I believe in nothing,” one might say. “I have a secular viewpoint, bound by no primitive superstition.” Even so, this person has a core ideology. After all, this person believes in and wants good things for their self. And with no outside constraint, ethics for each ‘secular’ person generally devolves into ‘what’s good for me’. This leads to a materialistic, self centered society; such as we see developing in the United States as we renounce our Christian heritage, or as we saw in the Roman world after they left Stoicism.

All of the common principles of freedom that we have come to cherish – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. were birthed in western Christian society. The rest of the world not only does not practice these ‘freedoms’, they do not see the advantage in practicing these freedoms. They are ‘foolishness’ to the non-Christian world.

We may judge the viability of a belief system by the merits of the society it produces. And before we run headlong to accept an ‘enlightened’ diverse viewpoint, we should examine the societies where it has been established to see where it leads – to see the conclusion of its adoption. Likewise, we should have a BETTER society in clear view before we renounce a way of life that has led us to freedom, prosperity and world hegemony.

November 24 at 6:19am ·

Here is an open letter from Bishop Tobin to Congressman Kennedy which I found quite interesting: Dear Congressman Kennedy

I will be making submittals to major publishers again in January. I have been somewhat remiss and have not contacted anyone in about 9 months. Depending upon which statistics program referenced, this website generated between 22,830 – 28,608 hits during the month of November from 1974 sites and 984 unique visitors. And this for a one year old site whose readership spreads solely through word of mouth. Many thanks to my readers. The increasing readership of the website should at some point provide additional inducement to prospective publishers. I am very interested in IVP Academic, and would be much obliged to anyone capable of a positive referral.

I am also aware that some of the footnote links are not functional. Its on my ‘to do’ list. You can still scroll manually to find the reference.

Best Wishes to all for 2010,

John Takach

(Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

…It turns out that Christians were still being tortured to deny Christ through the first decade of the fourth century[1]. Then in 313 AD, Constantinus Augustus (Constantine) and his brother-in-law, Licinius Augustus, issued

Henryk Siemiradzki. Leading Light of Christianity. Nero's Torches. 1876. Oil on canvas. National Museum, Krakow, Poland.

the Edict of Milan. With this decree, for the first time in its nearly three-hundred year existence, Christianity was formally recognized as a legal religion within the Roman Empire.

We have previously shown that cessation of testimony was sufficient to save a Christian from the Jewish persecution. Now it appears that simple repentance granted immunity from Roman capital punishment as well. It is logical to conclude that the many Christians slaughtered during the church’s first three-hundred years believed their message was worth dying for.

2. The Witnesses to the Witnesses

In reference to the stated goals of this book, we are very fortunate to possess the written transcripts of these earliest Christians’ message today. The pages of these documents contain the most graphic eyewitness accounts of resurrection ever recorded. All of these writers risked their personal safety, and many sacrificed their lives rather than renounce their beliefs, thus providing compelling evidence of their sincerity.

Because these witnesses faced such hardship, first under Jewish, and then Roman persecution, they formed a community, bound together by common peril. Many of the witnesses, such as Jesus’ original twelve Apostles, traveled together with Jesus for years and knew each other well. Over time, the church grew and spread throughout the Roman Empire, and a dialogue developed between various members of the new sect. This dialogue was frequently in the form of written correspondence, through which even the characters who never met became acquainted with each other’s testimony.

For those of us looking back at events which transpired two thousand years ago, this ongoing dialogue is essential, for it places each writer within an historical context. Rather than having an account from any one author whose place in history is unverifiable, we have an unbroken succession of accounts spanning the ages from the time of Christ to the present, and proceeding from divers authors who largely knew of the circumstances affecting their contemporaries in the Christian order. Sometimes these men wrote to each other offering encouragement, sometimes admonishment, sometimes sharing news of mutual concern, but the trail of correspondence from a plethora of writers over so many years places each character into an historical setting which cannot easily be altered. In this way, we know that the witnesses were who they claimed to be, and that they lived in the time and place necessary for them to have been witnesses.

The same types of relationships existed between our Roman sources as well. Thus we have two letters from Pliny the younger to Cornelius Tacitus describing the death of Pliny the elder, (the younger Pliny’s uncle,) as a consequence of an heroic attempt to save victims of Vesuvius’ eruption during the short reign of Titus[2]. Tacitus in turn attributes a number of anecdotes in his own histories to the previous works of Pliny the elder[3].We have Martial’s epigram honouring the younger Pliny[4], and Pliny’s letter acknowledging his corresponding gift to Martial[5]. And we find Suetonius, probably on the staff of the younger Pliny when the latter governed Bithynia Pontus[6].

We may sometimes infer opinions of disdain or rivalry from these relationships as well. We find Tacitus completely unwilling to cite his contemporary, Josephus, or even mention his existence. We know from Josephus’ own work, as corroborated by Suetonius and Dio[7], that Josephus was writing histories at court under the auspices of the Flavian Emperors. And we have Tacitus’ written admission that he owed his own advancement to the same rulers[8]. It does not seem possible that Tacitus was unaware of Josephus’ work. More probably, the omission stems from some personal disapproval of Josephus, as demonstrated by Tacitus’ anti-Semitic polemic included previously in this chapter[9].

This in turn explains why Roman authors documenting the persecution of Christians under Nero provide only a faceless multitude of afflicted, no names are given. Christian authors covering the same experience can hardly fail to note the execution of the Apostles Peter and Paul[10], two of the most influential leaders of the Apostolic Age.

Roman authors record that Domitian later executed Flavius Clemons for atheism or drifting into Jewish ways[11]. The fate of Flavius Clemons, consul at the time, was obviously important in the minds of these Romans. But we can’t determine with certainty from Roman accounts whether he was atheist[12], Jewish, or Christian. What did it matter from their perspective? Conversion to any of these ideologies was tantamount to rejection of Roman values.

Christian sources additionally record the exile of John the Apostle during the same persecution (under Domitian.) Although John is more familiar than Flavius Clemons to those of us alive today, he was not worthy of a mention to our Roman sources.

In this way, the Romans and the Christians each participated in separate but complimentary dialogues involving matters of interest to their respective communities. As a part of the ongoing Christian dialogue, the Apostle Paul’s writings were disseminated through the existing network of churches throughout the Roman world[a]. Clear evidence of this practice is provided vis-à-vis the Apostles’ own words. For example, when the Apostle Paul wrote the canonical letter to the Colossians, he instructed them:

¹⁶After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

-The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians, 4:16 (NIV)

Likewise, when he wrote to the Galatians, he addressed the letter:

¹Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead- ²and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

-The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, 1:1-2 (NIV)

Galatia was of course a Roman Province[13] containing numerous cities and villages. As Paul addressed the letter to the “churches[14]” of Galatia, we may presume that the Christian population of each municipality therein formed a separate church. Given that literacy was common in the Roman world, and recognizing that Paul originally founded the Christian movement in Galatia, it is hard to imagine that each church in Galatia would not desire and procure its’ own copy of such a message from the leader of their order. The Apostle Peter adds weight to this argument when he writes to the “strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia[b]“ in around 66 AD:

¹⁵Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

-The Second General Epistle of St. Peter, 3:15-16 (NIV)

How does Peter know of Paul’s various letters unless copies were being spread from church to church by believers? Not only was Peter personally familiar with the writings of Paul, but he was confident that his audience had a working knowledge of these writings and certain associated contemporaneous controversies as well. At the end of v. 16, Peter compares Paul’s letters with “other Scriptures”, thus inferring that Paul’s writings had also attained scriptural status. For this reason alone devout Christians would surely spread these New Testament treatises. Since Peter’s letter was addressed to a general Christian audience throughout Asia Minor, we should conclude that Paul’s letters were common reading material throughout the Christian world prior to Peter’s execution in 67-68 AD.

Remember that the epistles of Paul were originally just letters written to individual churches or local ministers located in divers regions of the Roman Empire. If the communications between Paul and these recipients became widespread and eventually canonical in this way, how much more would the Gospel accounts, written to the general Christian population as tutorials in the faith, be widely disseminated?

So when Paul asks Timothy to:

¹³ Bring the winter coat I left in Troas with Carpus; also the books and parchment notebooks.

-The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy, 4:13 [The Message]

To which “books” and “parchment notebooks” does he refer? The Jewish scriptures were traditionally written in scroll form[15]. The “books” in the preceding verse probably relate to these types of scrolls, and may have referred to Paul’s personal copies of the Jewish scriptures, (Old Testament scrolls to a Christian[16].) Around this time, though, the Roman poet Martial described “parchment notebooks”, a new format for publishing written works[17]:

You, who wish my poems should be everywhere with you,

and look to have them as companions on a long journey,

buy these which the parchment confines in small pages.

Assign your book-boxes to the great; this copy of me one hand can grasp.

-Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams, Book I, ii

Parchment notebooks, booklets with small pages that could be held easily in one hand, were the predecessors to the modern form of a book with many pages bound together. While Jewish Synagogue worship of today still employs scrolls of scripture out of respect for tradition, these parchment notebooks would have been ideal for dissemination of the less traditional writings of the first Christians. Paul wrote of parchment notebooks fifteen to twenty years before the reference by Martial, but they employ the same distinctive terminology[18].

So Paul was in prison, awaiting execution[19], and he wrote to his disciple Timothy asking for assistance. In these dire straits, Paul desired that Timothy bring written documents, including certain parchment notebooks. If the “books” he requested were scrolls of Old Testament scriptures, it is easy to see how they would be desired by the condemned Apostle.

But what was contained within the leaves of these “parchment notebooks” that was so important that it required Timothy to risk his own life by bringing them to Rome at the height of the Neronian persecution? Were they collections of Paul’s previous letters? Or could they have been the existing Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? (John’s Gospel was probably not written yet.) Eusebius believed that whenever Paul invoked the term “my Gospel”[20] he referred to the Gospel of his understudy, Luke[21]. Surely Paul would at least keep a copy of this Gospel on hand? Whatever these texts were, they must have been of New Testament origin. And as such they were part of the dialogue that we have been researching – a dialogue that was clearly propagating by means of the widespread dissemination of these early epistles and Gospels throughout the Christian community.

Neither were these early writings merely fuzzy hearsay recited third hand. Certain authors, such as John, Matthew and Peter claimed to be eyewitnesses. Luke and Mark claim to have written accounts gathered from eyewitnesses. Paul claimed to have been involved as a part of the opposition. And later authors deferred to the historicity of the eyewitness accounts, providing commentary but respecting the original testimony as inviolate.

So Luke wrote of Paul[22], Peter[23], John[24], Mark[25], Matthew[26], and the other Apostles. Paul mentioned Peter[27], John[28], Luke[29], Mark[30] and the other Apostles[31] in his letters. Mark discussed the doings of Peter[32], John[33], and Matthew[34]. Matthew recorded events involving Peter[35] and John[36]. The Apostle John recognized many of the twelve, including Peter, Andrew, Philip[37], Thomas[38], and Judas Iscariot[39]. And Peter demonstrated his awareness of both Paul and Paul’s letters[40]. We see in this way that the testimony of these men is inextricably bound together. Due to the cross-references included in each of their writings we must accept the fact that these men all existed as contemporaries.

The Apostle John’s brother James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD[41]. Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD[42]. Jesus’ brother James was stoned to death immediately prior to Vespasian’s siege of Jerusalem, around 68 AD[43]. John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, in the 80′s or 90′s AD[44]. As they grew older and realized the extent to which they were at risk, the Apostles entrusted their mission to the men who had diligently and faithfully assisted them in their work[45].

Men such as Timothy[46] and Titus[47], to whom Paul wrote now canonical letters of instruction, left us no written material. Paul’s attendant Luke gave us the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which records Christian history until about 62 AD. And as we will demonstrate in the next Section, Peter’s helper Mark left us the Gospel of Mark, based upon Peter’s recollections.

3. The Disciples of the Apostles

(i.) Clement of Rome:

But there was also a group of writers who knew the Apostles but were born after Jesus’ time. Men whose works, largely unread today, attest to the validity of the eyewitness accounts of their mentors. In this way, Clement, known to both Peter…

*************************************************************

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

2.) Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.

3.) Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams:

Translated by Walter C. A. (Walter Charles Alan) Ker

Published by W. Heinemann, 1919

This work is now in the Public Domain in the United States according to Google Book Search. Copyrights may vary from country to country.

[b] So the addressees of Peter’s first epistle (I Peter 1:1). Peter’s second letter states, “Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.” – (II Peter 3:1), indicating the same target audience, perhaps broadened to include other unnamed recipients through church to church correspondence.

[2] Pliny II, Letters VI, xvi; & VI, xx

[3] Tacitus, Annals I, 69; XIII, 20; XV, 53; Histories III, 28

[4] Martial, Epigrams X, xix

[5] Pliny II, Letters III, xxi

[6] Pliny II, Letters X, xciv

[7] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 65, Paragraphs 359-367 & Chapter 76; Suetonius, Vespasian V, vi; Dio, Roman History LXVI, 1

[8] Tacitus, Histories I, 1

[9] Tacitus, Histories V, iii-v

[10] II Timothy 4:6-8; Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians V; Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians XII; Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians IX; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, 22; 25

[11] Suetonius, Domitian XV; Dio, Roman History LXVII, 14; Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book IV, Chapter I, Preface, Paragraph 2

[12] Justin Martyr, First Apology to The Romans, VI; Athenagorus the Athenian, A Plea for the Christians, III, IV

[13] Strabo, Geography, Book XII, v, 1; Tacitus, Histories, Book II, ix

[14] Other “General” epistles written to more than one congregation include: James (James 1:1); I Peter (I Peter 1:1-2); II Peter (II Peter 1:1, 3:1,2); and possibly I John, II John, and Jude, which name no specific recipient congregation.

[15] Luke 4:17; Hebrews 10:7

[16] Melito the Philosopher, From the Book of Extracts, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, xxvi

[17] See also, Suetonius, Julius Caesar LVI, vi; Martial, Epigrams, Book I, Introduction, 1, 3, 4, 25, 29, 35, 38, 52, 53, 117; Book II, Introduction, …

[18] Carsten Peter Thiede & Matthew D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996, Chapter 3, page 53

[19] II Timothy 1:8, 12, 15-17; 2:9-10; 4:6-8

[20] Romans 2:16; 16:25; II Timothy 2:8

[21] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, iv

[22] Acts 13:9, 13, 16, 43

[23] Acts 1:13, 15; 2:14

[24] Acts 3:1, 3, 11; 4:19

[25] Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37,39

[26] Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13

[27] Galatians 1:18; 2:7, 8, 11, 14

[28] Galatians 2:9

[29] Colossians 4:14; II Timothy 4:11

[30] Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24; II Timothy 4:11

[31] Romans 16:7; I Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:17, 19

[32] Mark 3:16; 5:37; 8:37; 8:29, 32, 33

[33] Mark 1:19, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:33, 41; 13:3; 14:33

[34] Mark 3:18

[35] Matthew 4:18; 10:2; 14:28, 29

[36] Matthew 4:21; 10:2

[37] John 1:40-44

[38] John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24-29

[39] John 6:71; 13:26

[40] The Second General Epistle of St. Peter 3:15-16

[41] Acts 12:1-4

[42] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxv

[43] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxiii

[44] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xviii

[45] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians XLII, XLIV, XLVII; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, iii, 3

[46] I Timothy 1:3

[47] Titus 1:5

The Use of Material Deriving from the Synoptic Gospels

In the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians

(Also known as I Clement)

A.) The Apostolic Fathers

There remain extant today a relatively few documents authored by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus’ disciples. These works fill a vital role in demonstrating the transition from a faith based upon the personal experience of the believer into a faith based upon documents written and endorsed by eyewitnesses. The disciples of Jesus’ disciples are commonly known as “The Apostolic Fathers”. Pre-eminent among their writings are:

1.) A letter by Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul) to the church

at Corinth (Achaia).

2.) Seven letters by Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of Peter, Paul, and possibly John). Six letters are addressed to the churches of various cities throughout the Roman Empire; the seventh to an individual, Polycarp of Smyrna.

3.) A letter by Polycarp of Smyrna (a close disciple of John) to the church at Philippi (Macedonia).

4.) Excerpts from a work in five books authored by Papias of Hierapolis, (a “hearer” of Jesus’ disciple John). These excerpts were preserved as citations by later writers, who found Papias’ subject matter useful for their own discussions. It is difficult to form generalizations concerning the writing style of Papias due to the fragmentary nature of material thus preserved.

Other examples of literature which was possibly written by those who knew the followers of Jesus include:

1.) The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)

2.) The Epistle of Barnabas

3.) The Shepherd of Hermas

4.) The Epistle to Diognetus

But these four documents are of less certain date and origin.

As Lightfoot and Westcott have shown, specific characteristic traits appear to apply to the writings of this period, and especially to the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp:

“(1) They assign a special and preeminent authority to the Apostles, while distinctly disclaiming any such exceptional position for themselves. This is the case with Clement (I Cor. 5, 47), and Ignatius (Rom. 4), speaking of S. Peter and S. Paul, and with Polycarp (Phil. 3), speaking of S. Paul, these being the only Apostles mentioned by name in their writings.

(2) On the other hand, there is no evidence that these fathers recognized a Canon of the New Testament, as a well-defined body of writings…

(3) As a rule the Apostolic Fathers do not quote the New Testament Scriptures by name…yet fragments of most of the Canonical Epistles are embedded in the writings of these fathers, whose language moreover is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction[1].”

And, “The words of Scripture are inwrought into the texture of the books, and not parceled out into formal quotations[2].”

“(4) Lastly: there is not a single Evangelical quotation which can be safely referred to any apocryphal source[3].”

B.) Methods of Citation Utilized by Clement of Rome

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians contains many passages which parallel language and ideas found in Old and New Testament literature. Since this corpus was written prior to the most probable time of creation for I Clement (AD 90-95), literary dependence indicates Clement’s usage of preexisting material. Indeed, Clement appears to expect these citations to wield additional authority for his target audience; and he takes for granted that his readers will recognize the passages as belonging to some common set of literature approved by the Christian community. Overall, the First Epistle of Clement alludes to 205 passages from twenty-three books of the Old Testament, and 676 passages from twenty-five books of current New Testament Canon[4].

A few examples will serve to illustrate the manner in which Clement utilized scripture.

Consider how Clement handled the following passage, found in the second Chapter of the Book of Joshua:

In this passage from the Old Testament, we notice that Clement retells the story in his own words, paraphrasing and emphasizing portions as necessary to illustrate his points. Clement never violates the meaning or spirit of the original passage, but his rendition is very loose when compared to the original[5]. Some examples of Clement’s additions and omissions are herein provided to the reader, referenced by letter to the original texts:

a.) Clement reports that being seized, the spies would by the king’s command be “put to death.” While this is a fair assumption, it is never stated in the Book of Joshua.

b.) Clement merely paraphrases the “message of the king” to Rahab.

c.) Clement paraphrases Rahab’s response, and then adds that, “she pointed out to them the opposite road.” In the Joshua account, Rahab states that, “I don’t know which way they went.” This is a minor contradiction, although in keeping with the spirit of Rahab’s conversion to the cause of Israel.

d.) Clement greatly abbreviates Rahab’s speech in this instance, omitting a great deal of detail.

e.) Clement informs us of the sign of the scarlet thread in the course of his narration. The scarlet thread is included within the dialogue of the Israelite spies in the Joshua account. Once again, Clement paraphrases all of the conversational passages found within the Book of Joshua.

This side-by-side comparison illustrates that Clement never quoted any portion of the Book of Joshua verbatim, even though Joshua undoubtedly contained the source text for his discussion. This is indicative of Clement’s treatment for cited materials, and not in any way unusual or exceptional to his normal practice. And although this is an Old Testament passage, it conforms to Lightfoot’s four principles as discussed in section ‘A’ above.

The next passage that we will investigate comes from the New Testament, from the epistles of Paul, whom Clement had known personally. Clement specifically refers the Corinthians to the letter they had received from the Apostle Paul as he argues against the way that they had overthrown their church government:

47. Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.  What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?  Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties…

Having thus opened the discussion, he uses points which are all compatible with modern Christian Orthodoxy, but based upon loose citations drawn from a plethora of writings which have since been included in the New Testament Canon:

Notice that Clement’s command of these New Testament writings is sufficient to allow him to use the concepts conversationally, to season his speech with scripture-isms. He seldom cites a passage verbatim, but rather he retains the main thought behind each passage in order to combine many scriptural precepts into one Orthodox position on a given subject. A final example of Clement’s method is based upon citations from the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews. Since Clement is sometimes credited with involvement (with the Apostle Paul) in the creation of this book, lack of formal word-for-word quotation is particularly significant:

Once again, we see Clement’s willingness to transpose, compress and alter the text of Hebrews as needed. But in so doing, he never violates the spirit or meaning of the author of Hebrews. Of great interest is Clement’s addition – or completion – of the passage in Psalms (2:7-8) which was cited in Hebrews 1:5. Here we see Clement’s familiarity with both the Old and New Testament literature, and his ability to draw in additional scripture to illuminate his meaning.

Some have argued that the looseness of quotation indicates mere familiarity with some oral tradition. But the ability to interweave over eight-hundred Old and New Testament citations into one homogeneous document after the manner of Clement requires, I believe, a command of scripture only available through long hours of study involving written materials. Try this exercise yourself as proof of the foregoing proposition. In addition, it seems unlikely that Clement could expect the Corinthians to recognize such a vast array of allusions based upon mere oral tradition. His confidence in their ability to identify this profusion of references betrays his belief that they shared a common Christian literature.

C.) Citation of the Synoptic Gospels by Clement of Rome

Having now established Clement’s literary and exegetical tendencies, we will now examine Clement’s use of Synoptic material. We will begin with Clement’s discourse on proper Christian attitudes, which is built upon the model of the beatitudes given by Jesus and recorded in various Synoptic Gospels:

While we can see that most of this material came from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew (Chapters 5-7) and Luke (Chapter 6, vv 20-49), Clement again introduces material from Paul’s epistles (see “f”) which is not found in the Gospel accounts. This is exactly the same method that Clement used in Chapter 49 (see previous Section) when he included excerpts from John, Peter, and Ephesians while expounding upon the “love” Chapter found in I Corinthians (13:4-7). And it is reminiscent of his inclusion of Psalms 2:7-8 during his treatment of Hebrews Chapter 1 (found in I Clement, Chapter 36).

The argument has been made that Clement’s failure to cite the exact text of a given gospel account somehow “proves” that this passage follows an unknown, apocryphal gospel. Or alternatively that Clement here follows oral tradition without written support. But we have already demonstrated Clement’s propensity and preference for supporting his arguments with Scripture in just this manner, whether citing passages from the Old or the New Testament. Surely his Old Testament citations are not from “oral tradition” or “unknown” apocryphal works? Why then would we presume his New Testament passages to be so? And considering Clement’s purpose for writing this letter – to correct an upheaval in the Corinthian church which had recently overthrown its leadership – it makes far more sense for Clement to have included as many sources as possible.

Let us assume, as seems reasonable, that Clement’s purpose was to persuade the dissenting factions in the Corinthian church into restoring the original (and in Clement’s opinion legitimate) church government. Given that Christians of this period recognized Jesus, the Christ, as Divine and therefore their supreme authority; and given the recurrent theme in period literature that the Apostles of Christ were considered the primary repositories of Christ’s directives; and given the possibility that some churches might still show particular deference to the Apostle associated with the founding of their own local church; why would Clement limit his authority to a verbatim citation from only one such source? If Clement’s purpose was to strengthen the foundation for his argument, wouldn’t he rather proceed by distilling the precepts of the majority of these authorities, (all three Synoptics, Paul’s epistles, Peter’s epistles, etc.,) into one litany (catalogue) of instruction – thus demonstrating the unity and agreement of the various Apostles with respect to his position – and thereby removing the potential for some adversary to make a case for differences of doctrine between the various documents endorsed by the church? Wouldn’t the result be as we see – all authors placed into a list emphasizing their similarities? Indeed, such appears to be Clement’s method and objective.

But the question still remains – did Clement have Matthew in mind when he wrote this passage? Or was he drawing his material primarily from Luke? Other than “d” above, which is found only in Luke, (and “f” which comes from material outside of the Synoptics,) one could really argue for either case. But I am going to suggest that the answer goes deeper than that. Given that most of Clement’s allusions to Synoptic material are found in more than one gospel account, I propose that Clement’s intention was to utilize material that was supported by more than one gospel author. In other words, it is no accident that allusions to gospel passages in Clement are generally attributable to more than one account; rather, this is Clement’s way of assuring that his audience will accept his statements as authoritative regardless of their preferred gospel. This is a difficult statement to prove, but see if Clement’s choice of which gospel passage to reference does not seem, as we go through the rest of his texts, to be more than a coincidence in this regard:

Here we find Clement taking considerable liberties with his sources. “The words of Jesus our Lord” as presented by Clement in Chapter 46 are actually a conflation of two warnings given by Christ under somewhat different circumstances. The first set of citations (“a” and “b”) alludes to the rebuke of Christ upon revelation of the imminent treachery of Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper. This incident is contained in all three Synoptics, although phrase “b” is not found in the account of Luke. The second set of citations (“c”, “d” and “e”) is a more general warning to anyone who would cause one of Jesus’ “little ones” (or Jesus’ “elect”, according to Clement) to sin. This incident is also recounted within all three Synoptics. Clement combines these admonitions into a stern warning against those who had caused the disruption within the Corinthian church; thus using the very words of Jesus, as attested to by three gospel accounts which had each been endorsed by Jesus’ own disciples. What stronger case could be made to a Christian living at the end of the First Century AD?

Once again, it is difficult to assign these allusions to one specific gospel. Whereas citation “d” from Chapter 13 of Clement’s letter was attributable only to Luke’s Gospel, citation “b” from Chapter 46 is found in Matthew and Mark but not Luke. This is consistent with the notion that Clement is purposefully arguing from the consensus of gospel narratives, rather than from one gospel alone. And this demonstrates the likelihood that Clement was utilizing at least two gospel accounts for his letter, Matthew[6] (in Chapter 46) and Luke (in Chapter 13).

Other passages in Clement which parallel the Canonical Gospel accounts include:

But these add little to the conclusions that we have already drawn.  Lightfoot[7] remarks on the probability that Clement followed the Evangelists rather than Isaiah in Chapter 15; but given the effort that we have made to demonstrate Clement’s lack of concern with exactness of language, I am unwilling to pursue this line of reasoning at length.

D.) Conclusions:

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthian Church utilizes considerable material from text which has since been included within the Canon of New Testament Scripture. Due to the abundance of such allusions, it seems unreasonable to believe that Clement was merely invoking oral tradition. The ability to interweave so many hundreds of citations into one letter of this length seems to require access to written documents, as well as the years of intense study necessary to allow one to command such a plethora of quotations in a conversational manner – to have them at one’s fingertips, so to speak.

Clement seldom named his sources, but rather he assumed that his audience would both recognize his quotations, even if loosely worded, and accept the underlying authority associated with the cited text. He made free use of rephrasing Scripture so as to better address his concerns, and he frequently combined passages from both the Old and New Testament literature into a sort of comprehensive statement of the behavior and attitude required by service to Christ. In this way, Clement takes liberties with the wording and order of his cited text; transposing, rearranging, omitting and combining passages as necessary to facilitate his argument. This methodology is equally apparent in Clement’s use of Old and New Testament materials.

Clement includes several lengthy passages which parallel the Synoptic Gospels quite well, although he frequently introduces non-Synoptic Scripture into these discourses as well. These recitations tend to be based upon portions of the gospel which are contained by three (or at least two) of the Synoptic accounts. Clement’s proclivity to draw information from as many Scriptural sources as possible would be in keeping with his motive for writing to the Corinthians. Specifically, Clement would want to base his admonition upon the authority of Christ, as specified by Christ’s own Apostles. The more agreement which Clement could show between the writings endorsed by the various Apostles, the stronger his case would be. This was especially true in dealing with a congregation which had, in Clement’s view, rebelled against their rightful church authority.

No single account exists which would account for all Clement’s allusions to passages within the Synoptic gospels. The phrase “As ye give, so shall it be given unto you” (citation “d” from Chapter 13) may only be found within the Gospel of Luke; whereas “It were good for him if he had not been born” (citation “b” from Chapter 46) may be found in Matthew or Mark, but not Luke. For this reason, we must conclude that a minimum of two gospels, Matthew and Luke, were within Clement’s possession when he wrote his letter in 95 AD. It seems likely that Clement, as a follower of S. Peter, was familiar with the Gospel of Mark as well. All early testimony agrees that Mark wrote his gospel to record the account given by S. Peter. But whether two synoptic gospels or three, Clement was familiar with accounts of eyewitness testimony concerning Christ.

Finally, it is evident from Clement’s use of these materials, and from his invocation of the names of S. Peter (I Clem. 5) and S. Paul (I Clem. 5 & 47), that Clement was seeking to introduce these citations into his arguments to provide a universally recognized authority in support of his premises. In this way, it was not Clement who was admonishing the Corinthians, but their own founding Apostle, Paul. Or alternatively Peter, arguably the leader of Jesus’ twelve Apostles, was providing the needed correction with his own reminiscence of Christ’s words. Or the three Synoptic Gospel accounts, at the time the sole repository of information concerning the earthly tenure of Christ, could be combined to show the Corinthians the true path of Christ. But in any case, Clement’s letter would speak with the voice of Jesus’ own Apostles, rather than one who was a mere contemporary of the church leadership already deposed at Corinth.

This deference to the authority of the documents which had been endorsed by the Apostles; this perception by Clement that these documents were universally accepted as such; and Clement’s confidence that the Corinthians would listen to this New Testament Scripture, even if they would not listen to their own leadership or the bishop of the church at Rome – these are the treasures bequeathed by Clement to the modern church. And any who in modern times would try to recast the early history of the church must first explain why men such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp – men who were personal disciples to Jesus’ own Apostles – Why would these men rely upon the gospel accounts as authoritative if they were not the authentic records claimed by universal testimony of the early church? Such is the consistency and merit of the succession of the true message of Christ – from Jesus, through his Apostles, to their Disciples, to the Church.

NOTICES:

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

The Translations for I Clement are either those of:

1.) James Donaldson:

Works by this author are in the public domain in countries where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or less.

Some or all works by this author are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before January 1, 1923. They may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain). However, works published before 1923 may be in the public domain in countries where they would ordinarily be copyrighted (due to the term of 70 years [or less] after the author’s death having not yet expired) but whose legislature has waived copyright by accepting the rule of the shorter term.

Or,

2.) Joseph Barber Lightfoot:

Published before January 1, 1923, Works by this author are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

[2] Brook Foss Westcott, D.D.,  A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Fifth Edition, Chapter I, The Age of the Apostolic Fathers, Section II, p. 49

[3] J. B. Lightfoot, ibid.

[4] I obtained this count by merely adding entries from the Index of References found within Donald Alfred Hagner’s The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, Leiden, E.J Brill, 1973. Certain passages in Clement reference themes that occur more than once in Scripture. While Hagner argues that some of these references could be from lost, extra-canonical sources, or merely oral tradition, the vast array of scriptural references employed leads to the inescapable conclusion that Clement was using a recognized corpus of Christian literature to support his arguments. Most of these documents must have been considered as “Scripture” either due to their inclusion in the Hebrew Holy Writ, which Jesus used as an authority; or conversely the writings were considered to have been authored or endorsed by Apostles, those entrusted by Christ with ensuring the truth for their followers to come.

[5] A rigorous comparison of the Hebrew and Septuagint Greek texts to the texts of various manuscripts of I Clement would be an interesting study. But the flagrant differences in Clement’s version render such an exercise unnecessary. The changes are obviously not due merely to transcription or translation.

[6] Either Matthew or Mark would be sufficient to account for citation “b” in Chapter 46, but much of the material found in Chapter 13 is not found in Mark. So the citations thus far could in theory be provided by a combination of Matthew and Luke, without resorting to the Gospel of Mark.

[7] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part One, Volume 2, footnote (12.) on page 55.

Useful Links:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

http://www.textexcavation.com/measureformeasure.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html#anon

It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment…

We are all going to die. We become aware of our mortality at a tender age, and we are taught by society to accept this eventuality as the price of life. Well adjusted individuals reconcile themselves to death as a part of their reality.

But instinctively we know that death is our enemy. And no healthy person wants to die.

So we wax philosophic and derive comfort from the axiom that “death is a part of life… (heavy sigh)” – Which it is not. Death is the cessation of life; this precious life being the gift of God.

Many of us believe that if the way we live our life has meaning, Death will seem less bitter at the end. This attitude is both admirable and constructive. The death which follows is still not good. But by all means put the best face on it.

So we live our lives the best that we can, and try to keep our minds off of the sudden stop at the end. We work hard to fill our lives with things, or to pass down to our children. Some may party and chase women or men to fill empty hours with meaning. Or if we are noble, we fill our lives with service. Even so, there is not much that we wouldn’t do to avoid death. But what CAN we do?

Medical science may someday be able to prolong or restore life. Or maybe not. I’m not certain that we even understand the force that we call life. What substance inhabits living tissue which causes it to differ from the dead? I sincerely hope that there are medical professionals who are hot on the trail. But I don’t expect a breakthrough this week. And the fate of men who live a thousand years from now is scant comfort to me.

Literature is replete with examples of man somehow achieving immortality. Mary Shelley introduces us to a world in which science has unlocked the mystery of life. Vampire stories reveal a race of once-men who will live forever, (although usually at the expense of their immortal souls.) Even Shangra La’s promise of a few hundred years seems hopeful to those of us doomed to a life of three score and ten. These stories illustrate our hopes and desires. But they are just stories.

In the real world, where can we turn? A plethora of religions claims to provide insight to an afterlife. An Afterlife! What a wonderful idea if it exists! If dying is just a doorway to a new and possibly better existence, then Death has lost its sting. All that is necessary then is to determine which belief system is correct, and to adhere to that faith. A correct choice guarantees an afterlife in a far better state. Of course a wrong choice might have dire consequences.

A prevalent view today is that all paths lead to God, that one religion is as good as another as long as you are sincere and a “good” person. If you are certain of this view, you may stop reading now. You have nothing left to learn, and your ascent to a positive afterlife is guaranteed no matter what you believe. In the afterlife you may chide me about my vain and fruitless search for the one true path to God. I have noticed though, that those who adhere to this doctrine don’t really believe in anything with certainty. They appear to be just hoping for the best.

These include the “modernists” who first explain away historical written records of the supernatural in terms of the limited understanding of primitive writers, and then use the “lack” of the miraculous to “prove” the lack of the Divine. As well as the “New Agers” who believe that it is arrogant and boorish to claim that your path is any better than the one that they just thought up. Like Aristotle they have no need to test their hypotheses. If it seems right in their head it must be right. It never occurs to them that a true God might just set His own perfect standard for reasons not totally comprehensible to we the finite.

And the testimony of the various religions contradicts this view as well. Many diverse religions claim exclusive access to God. Obviously some are mistaken.

So how do we “test” our hypothesis? How do we make certain that we are on the path to God without having already died? (Which may be too late?) The answer is simple: Just find a man who has overcome Death, and follow His leadership.

To find this man we must commit ourselves to the historical record. Who remembers the splendor of the Tutankhamen exhibits which toured the USA in the late 1970′s? King Tut was an important historical figure. These exhibits from his tomb indicate that Death overcame him. Likewise, a little research provides insight into the deaths of Gaius Julius Caesar, Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, Richard Coeur de Lion, Saladin, Zhu Yuanzhang and most other historical figures. History usually tells us how a famous person died. The written record also indicates that they tend to remain dead.