Please forgive me if I am being dense, but I don't understand your position. You have made a few sweeping generalised assertions in it. Bear with me
to the end, as I don't know what you're basic assumptions are, and hopefully we can progress in understanding.
Originally posted by Iasion
Ch.5
Mentions Paul and Peter - so what?
Becuase I originally asked where you insert your scalpel into history and say that "this is myth, and that is true". If you accept that Clement
existed, and that Clement seems to assert that Peter and Paul existed, do you then say, ok, Peter and Paul existed? And if you say that they existed,
at what point do you say that what they themselves seem to have believed was invented?
The epistles of Paul WERE written by Clement's time.
But in this passage we see -
NOTHING about Jesus,
NOTHING about the Gospels,
NOTHING about any evangelist.
Not one mention of the word "Jesus" or "Gospel",
Clement's letter states the name "Jesus" 27 times. Indeed, just in the few quotes I gave above (and there are plenty more), he is mentioned by name
three times.
The word "Gospel" is used in Chapters 42 and 47.
Clement does not apear to be referring to the written Gospel as a document in its own right, but rather as the preaching of the Gospel as message and
testamony. But that is not all that bizarre. The early church was not "Bible-based" it was based on the preaching of the apostles. The earliest date
for the Gospels themselves are not until at least a generation after Jesus, possibly around the same time as Clement in fact. To point at the absence
of a Bible-based tradition when we know that there was not one anyway is the erection of a straw-man.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?
No, to clarify, I think that Clement's choice of language that resembles the same language as used in the Gospels points to them sharing a common
ancestry. That ancestry being the preaching of the Gospel prior to it being copied down. I don't think for a moment that the first thing the apostles
did was sit down and write everything down, and only once that was done start to preach it to people. The writing down came later as a crystallisation
of the preaching. Probably in different places. I don't think any of the Gospels are thought to have originated in Rome though, which is where
Clement was?
Ch.13
A SAYING attributed to Jesus which does NOT exactly match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?
No, I was not claiming Clement knew the written Gospel texts as fixed syntactically. In any event we should not assume that the Gospels text contained
every single word ever spoken by Jesus. He'd have been a very quiet person if so. I was claiming that Clement writes as though he believes a person
called Jesus existed (or else how could he have said anything at all?).
Ch.14
Preaching about Jesus which does NOT match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?
I expect you mean chapter 16, as I didn't quote any of ch14. The bulk of ch16 is a re-phrasing of the prophecy of Isaiah, not a quote from a written
Gospel. But, again, I do not claim that Clement knew a fixed, written copy of a Gospel, but rather that he writes as though he believes that a man
called Jesus actually existed. And that he draws on a common tradition to the Gospels, using similar language, ideas and metaphors (some of which the
link you gave explores in more detail anyway).
Knowing Paul and Peter is a completely different issue than knowing the Gospels - Paul's writings were written mid 1st Century. But there is
no clear mention of the Gospels until mid 2nd Century - about a CENTURY later.
Which is what we would expect from the gradual transformation of an oral Gospel preaching into a scriptural one.
Clement does not give ONE SINGLE detail about a historical Jesus :
No dates, places, or names from any Gospel story -
no Mary, no Joseph, no Pilate, no Judas, etc.
no miracles, no healings, no sermons etc.
no trial, no empty tomb, no last supper etc.
Well, while he does not refer to dates, places and names of secondary Gospel characters (save for Peter, who he does talk about) he does really talk
about the historical events themselves though doesn't he? In fact, the one single fundamental historical event that defines Christianity. A couple of
examples:
He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead
On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God
I don't think it's a fair burdon to place on the purpose of Clement's letter (which is preaching to the converted), to demand that it retell the
bulk of the actual Gospel *narrative* itself. Why would he write a letter preaching to a Christian community retelling them the entire story that had
got them coverted in the first place? In ay event, his letter is primarily directed at a dispute over a spcific issue of episcopy in Corinth, not as a
general statement of Christian faith. To me, his writing reads like the writing of someone who accepts the preaching of Paul (who incidentally does
refer to the Last Supper), who accepts the factual existence of Jesus and Peter, and who has heard the narrative told to him - probably via Paul. If
it sounds to you like he has never heard any of the Gospel narrative I don't know how you explain any of his letter at all. Where else would he have
got these odd ideas about Jesus coming as man, dieing, being resurrected, taking on our sins, etc. etc. Are you saying Paul made it all up and that
Paul is Clement's only post-Pentecost source? If you are claiming that, it makes Clement look particularly gullible certainly...
And the original question still stands with this, as to how do decide where you seperate off the things that are fact and the things that are myth?
Cheers.
Rob.
[edit on 11-3-2007 by d60944]
[edit on 11-3-2007 by d60944]