and Eusebius,(1) who is the first writer who mentions it, expresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome(2) and Photius(3) state that it was rejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as spurious,(4) and dated about the end of the second century,(5) or later.(6) We shall hereafter see that many other pseudographs were circulated in the name of Clement, to which, however, we need not further allude at present.
There has been much controversy as to the ident.i.ty of the Clement to whom the first Epistle is attributed. In early days he was supposed to be the Clement
{218}
mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 3)(1), but this is now generally doubted or abandoned,(2) and the authenticity of the Epistle has, indeed, been called in question both by earlier and later critics.(3) It is unnecessary to detail the various traditions regarding the supposed writer, but we must point out that the Epistle itself makes no mention of the author"s name. It merely purports to be addressed by "The Church of G.o.d which sojourns at Rome to the Church of G.o.d sojourning at Corinth;" but in the Codex Alexandrinus, the t.i.tle of "The first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians," is added at the end. Clement of Alexandria calls the supposed writer the "Apostle Clement:"(4) Origen reports that many also ascribed to him the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews;(5) and Photius mentions that he was likewise said to be the writer of the Acts of the Apostles.(6) We know that until a comparatively late date this Epistle was quoted as Holy Scripture,(7) and was publicly read in the churches at the Sunday meetings of Christians.(8) It has, as we have seen, a place amongst
{219}
the canonical books of the New Testament in the Codex Alexandrinus, but it did not long retain that position in the canon, for although in the "Apostolic Canons"(1) of the sixth or seventh century both Epistles appear, yet in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, a work of the ninth century, derived, however, as Credner(2) has demonstrated, from a Syrian catalogue of the fifth century, both Epistles are cla.s.sed among the Apocrypha.(3)
Great uncertainty prevails as to the date at which the Epistle was written. Reference is supposed to be made to it by the so-called Epistle of Polycarp,(4) but, owing to the probable inauthenticity of that work itself, no weight can be attached to this circ.u.mstance. The first certain reference to it is by Hegesippus, in the second half of the second century, mentioned by Eusebius.(5) Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter ascribed to him addressed to Soter, Bishop of Rome, is the first who distinctly mentions the name of Clement as the author of the Epistle.(6) There is some difference of opinion as to the order of his succession to the Bishopric of Rome. Irenaeus(7) and Eusebius(8) say that he followed Anacletus, and the latter adds the date of the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian (a.d. 91-92), and that he died nine years after, in the third year of Trajan"s reign (a.d. 100).(9) Internal evidence(10) shows that the Epistle was written after some persecution
{220}
of the Roman Church, and the selection lies between the persecution under Nero, which would suggest the date a.d. 64-70, or that under Domitian, which would a.s.sign the letter to the end of the first century, or to the beginning of the second. Those who adhere to the view that the Clement mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians is the author, maintain that the Epistle was written under Nero.(1) One of their princ.i.p.al arguments for this conclusion is a remark occurring in Chapter xli.: "Not everywhere, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered up, or the votive offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespa.s.s-offerings, but only in Jerusalem. But even there they are not offered in every place, but only at the altar before the Sanctuary, examination of the sacrifice offered being first made by the High Priest and the ministers already mentioned."(2) From this it is concluded that the Epistle was written before the destruction of the Temple. It has, however, been shown that Josephus,(3) the author of the "Epistle to Diognetus" (c. 3), and others, long after the Jewish worship of the Temple was at an end, continually speak in the present tense of the Temple worship in Jerusalem; and it is evident, as Cotelier long ago remarked, that this may be done with propriety even in the present
{221}
day. The argument is therefore recognized to be without value.(l) Tischendorf, who systematically adopts the earliest possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries, decides, without stating his reasons, that the grounds for the earlier date, about a.d. 69, as well as for the episcopate of Clement from a.d.
68-77(2) are conclusive; but he betrays his more correct impression by cla.s.sing Clement, in his index, along with Ignatius and Polycarp, as representatives of the period: "First and second quarters of the second century:"(3) and in the Prolegomena to his New Testament he dates the episcopate of Clement "ab anno 92 usque 102."(4) The earlier episcopate a.s.signed to him by Hefele upon most insufficient grounds is contradicted by the direct statements of Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and others who give the earliest lists of Roman Bishops,(5) as wrell as by the internal evidence of the Epistle itself. In Chapter xliv. the writer speaks of those appointed by the apostles to the oversight of the Church, "or afterwards by other notable men, the whole Church consenting.... who have for a long time been commended by all, &c.,"(6) which indicates successions of Bishops since apostolic days. In another
{222}
place (Chap, xlvii.) he refers the Corinthians to the Epistle addressed to them by Paul "in the beginning of the Gospel" [--Greek--], and speaks of "the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians" [--Greek--], which would be absurd in an Epistle written about a.d. 69. Moreover, an advanced episcopal form of Church Government is indicated throughout the letter, which is quite inconsistent with such a date. The great ma.s.s of critics, therefore, have decided against the earlier date of the episcopate of Clement, and a.s.sign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the first century (a.d. 95-100).(1) Others, however, date it still later. There is no doubt that the great number of Epistles and
{223}
other writings falsely circulated in the name of Clement may well excite suspicion as to the authenticity of this Epistle also, which is far from unsupported by internal proofs. Of these, however, we shall only mention one. We have already incidentally remarked that the writer mentions the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, the only instance in which any New Testament writing is referred to by name; but along with the Epistle of the "blessed Paul" [--Greek--] the author also speaks of the "blessed Judith" [--Greek--],(1) and this leads to the inquiry: When was the Book of Judith written? Hitzig, Volkmar, and others contend that it must be dated a.d. 117-118,(3) and if this be admitted, it follows of course that an Epistle which already shows acquaintance with the Book of Judith cannot have been written before a.d. 120-125 at the earliest, which many, for this and other reasons, affirm to be the case with the Epistle of pseudo-Clement.(3) Whatever date be a.s.signed to it, however, it is probable that the Epistle is interpolated,4 although it must be added that this is not the view of the majority of critics.
It is important to ascertain whether or not this ancient christian Epistle affords any evidence of the existence of
{224}
our Synoptic Gospels at the time when it was written. Tischendorf, who is ever ready to claim the slightest resemblance in language as a reference to New Testament writings, states that although this Epistle is rich in quotations from the Old Testament, and that Clement here and there also makes use of pa.s.sages from Pauline Epistles, he nowhere refers to the Gospels.(1) This is perfectly true, but several pa.s.sages occur in this Epistle which are either quotations from Evangelical works different from ours, or derived from tradition,(2) and in either case they have a very important bearing upon our inquiry.
The first of these pa.s.sages occurs in Ch. xiii., and for greater facility of comparison, we shall at once place it both in the Greek and in translation, in juxta-position with the nearest parallel readings in our Synoptic Gospels; and, as far as may be, we shall in the English version indicate differences existing in the original texts. The pa.s.sage is introduced thus: "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For thus he said:"(3)--
{225}
Of course it is understood that, although for convenience
{226}
of comparison we have broken up this quotation into these phrases, it is quite continuous in the Epistle. It must be evident to any one who carefully examines the parallel pa.s.sages, that "the words of the Lord Jesus" in the Epistle cannot have been derived from our Gospels.
Not only is there no similar consecutive discourse in them, but the scattered phrases which are pointed out as presenting superficial similarity with the quotation are markedly different both in thought and language. In it, as in the "beat.i.tudes" of the "Sermon on the Mount"
in the first Gospel, the construction is peculiar and continuous: "Do this.... in order that [--Greek--]"; or, "As [--Greek--]... so [--Greek--]"
The theor of a combination of pa.s.sages from memory, which is usually advanced to explain such quotations, cannot serve here, for thoughts and expressions occur in the pa.s.sage in the Epistle which have no parallel at all in our Gospels, and such dismembered phrases as can be collected from our first and third Synoptics, for comparison with it, follow the course of the quotation in the ensuing order: Matt. v. 7, vi. 14, part of vii. 12, phrase without parallel, first part of vii. 2, phrase without parallel, last part of vii. 2; or, Luke vi. 36, last phrase of vi. 37, vi. 31, first phrase of vi. 38, first phrase of vi. 37, phrase without parallel, last phrase of vi. 38.
The only question with regard to this pa.s.sage, therefore, is whether the writer quotes from an unknown written source or from tradition. He certainly merely professes to repeat "words of the Lord Jesus," and does not definitely indicate a written record, but it is much more probable, from the context, that he quotes from a gospel now no longer extant than that he derives this teaching from oral tradition. He introduces the quotation
{227}
not only with a remark implying a well-known record: "Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching, &c." but he reiterates: "For thus he said," in a way suggesting careful and precise quotation of the very words; and he adds at the end: "By this injunction and by these instructions let us establish ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to his holy words, thinking humbly of ourselves."(1) seems improbable that the writer would so markedly have indicated a precise quotation of words of Jesus, and would so emphatically have commended them as the rule of life to the Corinthians, had these precepts been mere floating tradition, until then unstamped with written permanence.
The phrase: "As ye show kindness [--Greek--] which is nowhere found in our Gospels, recalls an expression quoted by Justin Martyr apparently from a Gospel different from ours, and frequently repeated by him in the same form: "Be ye kind and merciful [--Greek--] Father also is kind [--Greek--]
and merciful."(2) In the very next chapter of the Epistle a similar reference again occurs: "Let us be kind to each other [--Greek--] according to the mercy and benignity of our Creator."(3) Without, however, going more minutely into this question, it is certain from its essential variations in language, thought and order, that the pa.s.sage in the Epistle cannot be claimed as a compilation from our Gospels; and we shall presently see that some of the expressions in it which are foreign to our Gospels are elsewhere quoted by other Fathers, and there is reason to believe that these "words of the Lord Jesus" were not derived from tradition but
{228}
from a written source different from our Gospels.(1) When the great difference which exists between the parallel pa.s.sages in the first and third Synoptics, and still more between these and the second, is considered, it is easy to understand that other Gospels may have contained a version differing as much from them as they do from each other.
We likewise subjoin the next pa.s.sage to which we must refer, with the nearest parallels in our Synoptics. We may explain that the writer of the Epistle is rebuking the Corinthians for strifes and divisions amongst them, and for forgetting that they "are members one of another,"
and he continues: "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus; for he said:"(2)
{229}
This quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but must be a.s.signed to a different written source. The writer would scarcely refer the Corinthians to such words of Jesus if they were merely traditional.
It is neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory.
The language throughout is markedly different from any pa.s.sage in the Synoptics, and to present even a superficial parallel, it is necessary to take a fragment of the discourse of Jesus at the Last Supper regarding the traitor who should deliver him up (Matth. xxvi. 24), and join it to a fragment of his remarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst (xviii. 6). The parallel pa.s.sage in Luke has not
{230}
the opening words of the pa.s.sage in the Epistle at all, and the portion which it contains (xvii. 2), is separated from the context in which it stands in the first Gospel, and which explains its meaning. If we contrast the parallel pa.s.sages in the three Synoptics, their differences of context are very suggestive, and without referring to their numerous and important variations in detail, the confusion amongst them is evidence of very varying tradition.(1) This alone would make the existence of another form like that quoted in the Epistle before us more than probable.
Tischendorf, in a note to his statement that Clement nowhere refers to the Gospels, quotes the pa.s.sage we are now considering, the only one to which he alludes, and says: "These words are expressly cited as "words of Jesus our Lord;" but they denote much more oral apostolic tradition than a use of the parallel pa.s.sages in Matthew (xxvi. 24, xviii. 6) and Luke (xvii. 2)."(2) It is now, of course, impossible to determine finally whether the pa.s.sage was actually derived from tradition or from a written source different from our Gospels, but in either case the fact is, that the Epistle not only does not afford the slightest evidence for the existence of any of our Gospels, but from only making use of tradition or an apocryphal work as the source of information regarding words of Jesus, it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on behalf of the Synoptics.
{231}
Before pa.s.sing on, we may, in the briefest way possible, refer to one or two other pa.s.sages, with the view of further ill.u.s.trating the character of the quotations in this Epistle. There are many pa.s.sages cited which are not found in the Old Testament, and others which have no parallels in the New. At the beginning of the very chapter in which the words which we have just been considering occur, there is the following quotation: "It-is written: Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be made holy,"(1) the source of which is unknown. In a previous chapter the writer says: "And our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there will be contention regarding the name, [--Greek--], office, dignity?) of the episcopate."(2) What was the writers authority for this statement? We find Justin Martyr quoting, as an express prediction of Jesus: "There shall be schisms and heresies,"(3) which is not contained in our gospels, but evidently derived from an uncanonical source,(4) a fact rendered more apparent by the occurrence of a similar pa.s.sage in the Clementine Homilies, still more closely bearing upon our Epistle: "For there shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy."(5) Hegesippus also speaks in a similar way: "From these came the
{232}
false Christs, false prophets, false apostles who divided the unity of the Church."(l) As Hegesippus, and in all probability Justin Martyr, and the author of the Clementines made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or to Peter, it is most probable that these Gospels contained pa.s.sages to which the words of the Epistle may refer.(2) It may be well to point out that the author also cites a pa.s.sage from the Fourth Book of Ezra, ii. 16:(3) "And I shall remember the good day, and I shall raise you from your tombs."(4) Ezra reads: "Et resuscitabo mor-tuos de locis suis et de monumentis educam illos," &c. The first part of the quotation in the Epistle, of which we have only given the latter clause above, is taken from Isaiah xxvi. 20, but there can be no doubt that the above is from this apocryphal book,(5) which, as we shall see, was much used in the early Church.
2.
We now turn to the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," another interesting relic of the early Church, many points in whose history have considerable a.n.a.logy with that of the Epistle of pseudo-Clement. The letter itself bears no author"s name, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special community. Towards the
{233}
end of the second century, however, tradition began to ascribe it to Barnabas the companion of Paul.(1) The first writer who mentions it is Clement of Alexandria, who calls its author several times the "Apostle Barnabas;"(2) and Eusebius says that he gave an account of it in one of his works now no longer extant.(3) Origen also refers to it, calling it a "Catholic Epistle," and quoting it as Scripture.(4) We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too familiar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by the Fathers to Apostles and their followers. In many cases such writings were deliberately inscribed with names well known in the Church, but both in the case of the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and the letter we are now considering, no such pious fraud was attempted, nor was it necessary. Credulous piety, which attributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character. To Barnabas, the friend of Paul, not only this Epistle was referred, but he was also reported by Tertullian and others to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews;(5) and an apocryphal "Gospel according to Barnabas," said to have had close affinity with our
{234}
first Synoptic, is condemned along with many others in the decretal of Gelasius.(1) Eusebius, however, cla.s.ses the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas" amongst the spurious books [--Greek--],(2) and elsewhere also speaks of it as uncanonical.(3) Jerome mentions it as read amongst apocryphal writings.(4) Had the Epistle been seriously regarded as a work of the "Apostle" Barnabas, it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank. That it was highly valued by the early Church is shown by the fact that it stands, along with the Pastor of Hermas, after the Canonical books of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is probably the most ancient MS. of them now known. In the earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistle,(5) but the great ma.s.s of critics are now agreed in a.s.serting that the composition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed to Barnabas the friend and fellow-worker of Paul.(6) Those who maintain the former opinion date
{235}
the Epistle about a.d. 70--73, or even earlier, but this is scarcely the view of any living critic. There are many indications in the Epistle which render such a date impossible, but we do not propose to go into the argument minutely, for it is generally admitted that, whilst there is a clear limit further back than which the Epistle cannot be set,(1) there is little or no certainty how far into the second century its composition may not reasonably be advanced. Critics are divided upon the point; a few are disposed to date the Epistle about the end of the first or beginning of the second century (2} while a still greater number a.s.sign it to the reign of Hadrian (a.d.