Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Testament. The one was a written authority; is it not most natural to regard the other, the contrasted, source, as also written? So he speaks of the Epistles of St Paul as depending on the Old Testament.2 But though there is this conception of a written Testament, and though the conception of a New Testament was logically prior to any collection of writings, and may have been at work unconsciously, it is plain from Clement's treatment of other works that the conception was not consciously realised nor logically developed.

The extensive use of writings not regarded as canonical is one of the most pronounced features in the works of Clement. Of some a mere mention must suffice. The Book of Enoch is quoted as the work of Enoch, and an allusion to the same passage is found elsewhere. In view of the precedent in the Epistle of St Jude, this is in no way surprising. The Apocalypse of Elias is quoted without reference as Scripture. There is a probable reference to "The Acts of Paul," and to "The Acts of John."7 The limited use of such as compared with the "Acts of the Apostles" would seem to indicate that he had no direct knowledge of them, or that he regarded them as relatively unimportant. One passage seems to be taken from "The Apocalypse of Zephaniah." There are two references by name to to "The Traditions Matthias," and another passage with the name of Matthew only. Some have identified this work with the "Gospel according to Matthew," to which Origen makes allusion,10 but so far as can be gathered from

1 Str., iii. 107. Cf. v. 1385; vii. 16 100.

3 Ec. Pr., 53; Str., i. 178.

5 Prot., x. 94.

7 Stäh., vol. iii. p. 210.

9 Ib., ii. 945; vii. 138; iii. 426.

2 Ib., iv. 21 134.
4 Jude v. 14.

• Str., vi. 5 43.

8 Str., v. 1177.

10 Hom. in Luc. i.

of

Clement's use of it, it contained not sayings of Jesus but of Matthew the Apostle.1

The most important questions arise in connection with his use of the Apocryphal Gospels, the Didache, the First Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter.

Two Apocryphal Gospels, the Gospel according to the Egyptians and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, are mentioned by name. In speaking of the first-mentioned he says: "In the first place, we have not the saying in the Four Gospels handed down to us but in the Gospel according to the Egyptians." 2 Apparently, therefore, Clement does not recognise the authority of any Gospel other than the canonical four; and we might have expected that that would have ended the discussion, and that his use of it was only to be regarded as an "archaism." 3 But the matter is not quite so simple as it seems. For on the first occasion on which he refers to the passage, he explains the answer of the Lord in allegorical fashion; and on the second occasion he accuses the heretics who had adduced the passage of not noting the context, and explains the addition which they had omitted allegorically. No doubt this might be interpreted as meaning that he was willing to discuss the matter from their standpoint, or on the assumption of their premises. But it is much more probable that it was to him a genuine saying of the Lord. He distinguishes in effect between the validity to be ascribed to the particular saying itself and the ecclesiastical authority of the book in which the saying is recorded. Another saying of the Lord may be taken from this Gospel.* The " Gospel according to the Hebrews" is mentioned

1 See Appendix G.

Leipoldt, p. 159.

2 Str., iii. 1393; cf. Q. D., 5.

4 Str., iii. 1597. So Stählin. See Appendix G.

by name, and a saying is quoted with the formula, "It is written in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." There it is classed as parallel to a thought in the 'Theætetus' of Plato, and in the 'Traditions of Matthias.' The same saying is adduced without reference, the context, however, suggesting that he regarded it as authoritative. Clement seems to have regarded the saying as a genuine saying of the Lord, though he does not expressly say so, and does not even clearly indicate that it is such; but, as in the case of the "Gospel according to the Egyptians," this does not imply that he recognised the canonical authority of the whole book. Individual sayings are quoted with γραφή and λέγει ὁ σωτήρ, which may have come either from oral tradition or some non-canonical Gospel; but so far as they are not explained on the principle just suggested, they may be due to a slip of memory, or may be regarded as the survival of the influence of an earlier period, when he had not yet definitely formulated a distinction between what was canonical and what was not. There is no saying quoted with the phrase "In the Gospel" that can be definitely assigned to any non-canonical Gospel.

Though relative frequency of quotation does not furnish an absolute criterion of relative value, it has a certain force. While the Gospel of St Matthew is quoted or referred to from three to four hundred times, and there are references to some passage in every chapter of the Gospel of St Luke, and to all but the ninth chapter in the Gospel of St John, there is only one quotation, twice repeated from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and two or three, dealing with the same incident, from the "Gospel according to the Egyptians." If Clement or his antagonists had put any non-canonical Gospel in the same 2 Str., v. 14 96.

1 Str., ii. 945. See Appendix G.

See Appendix G.

Q

category as the canonical Gospels, it is inconceivable that the references to them should have been so few. It is a proof that the non-canonical Gospels stood in a purely external relation to his inner development, and had contributed little or nothing to it. In any case, it shows that in the non-canonical Gospels there was little that was not found in the canonical Gospels, and that that little Iwas not of much value.

The "Didache" was familiar to Clement. This is proved by the form in which he quotes the Decalogue.1 It is often said that the "Didache" is quoted by Clement as

papń. From the previous sentence to that in which the term is used it is more probable that the reference is to John x. 8.2 The "Didache" is, however, quoted in the next sentence with φησί.

If we apply to the Epistles of Clement of Rome and Barnabas the same criteria which we have applied to the Pauline Epistles, we find the results to be as follows. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is quoted by name, and as the work of Clement. It is nowhere quoted as ἡ γραφή. It is quoted with γέγραπται with the Epistle to the Corinthians by name, and in one case as the "Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians." 6 It is quoted with onoí, though in one case the subject may be Clement of Rome himself. In the series of quotations from the Epistle of Clement in Strom. iv., he is designated as the apostle Clement. He is not named with any such honorific epithets as are attached to the name of Paul. It is doubtful whether Clement could have regarded as Scripture in the fullest sense, or as on a level with the

[blocks in formation]

Pauline Epistles, a letter in which he conceived of the writer as the spokesman of a church; but it is certainly a writing which he treats with great respect, and it was probably regarded by him as authoritative.

2

The question as to the Epistle of Barnabas is more complicated. One passage is quoted with noí.1 Barnabas is designated as the Apostle or apostolic, as "one of the Seventy and a fellow-worker with Paul," as "one who proclaimed the Gospel along with the Apostle," as "one of the Seventy who received gnosis from the Apostles." " Sometimes Clement quotes or appropriates the fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament which are characteristic of Barnabas. The evidence in favour of its canonicity in his eyes seems so far cogent. But there is evidence of a contrary kind. When quoting the exposition of the First Psalm by Barnabas, he quotes other expositions with no indication that that of Barnabas stood on a different platform from the others, and, apparently, with a preference for another than that of Barnabas.8 From this attitude of his two opposite conclusions may be drawn. We may say with Leipoldt that to the consciousness of Clement there was no clear distinction between Scripture and valuable historical sources, and that his attitude to a "work which he certainly regarded as canonical" shows that his corpus ecclesiasticum" was not a fixed quantity. Or, we may hold that a work whose authority is not unquestionably accepted by him cannot have had in his eyes canonical authority. He never dreams, for example, of differing from St Paul, or St Peter, or St John, but is satisfied with expounding them. If that be so, the designation "the

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »