Clement's epistle itself contains allusions to Judith
(Cl. 55.4f.) and quotations from Wisdom (Cl. 3.4 and 27.5), but without intro-
ductory formulae. Beyond this, however, Clement quotes from at least one, but
more probably from several non-canonical writings (Eldad and Modad, Apocryphal
Ezekiel, Assumption of Moses, as we have argued), using introductory formulae
much as with canonical quotations, in one place employing yéyparal (46.2), and
once (23.3) referring to ή γραφή αύτη (cf. 2 Cl. 11.2). (Donald Alfred Hagner, The
Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum
Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973], 112)
Returning to our original question, what may we infer
concerning Clement's OT canon and his estimation of writings outside the Hebrew
canon ? There can be little question but that Clement's OT canon was not a
closed one. At the time Clement wrote, the Hebrew canon was in the process of
being finally established in Palestine. In Rome, presumably both Jews and
Christians possessed and used a number of writings, the canonicity of which was
not yet a settled matter. The majority of books were agreed upon, but there
remained the writings which we call the Apocrypha as well as a number of
apocalyptic writings which were perhaps doubtful. Several alternatives present
themselves so far as the valuation of these writings is concerned : these
writings may have been accepted as Scripture on a par with the other books of
the OT; they may have been regarded as inspired and authoritative, but to a
lesser degree than, and thus inferior to, the other books of the OT; or they
may simply have been regarded as interesting and helpful writings but not
essentially different in character from other secular literature of the day.
Unfortunately, Clement is not explicit concerning his own
view of the writings in question. There are possible indications that Clement
may have been aware of the classification of OT writings according to the
threefold Hebrew canon. In 28.3, introducing a variant quotation from Ps. 138,
Clement writes λέγει γάρ που τό γραφεΐον. The expression Tò ypapeîov may well
be an intentional reference to the third division of the canon, which on
occasion was referred to collectively as rà ypadeia (cf. Epiphanius, Haer. 29,
7, 2ff.). Another interesting term, ή πανάρετος σοφία (57.3) introduces a
quotation from Proverbs, and is probably a special designation used in
referring to this book, rather than a term referring to the Hagiographa.
Clement thus may well have known the concept of a third division of writings,
as yet not fully determined, in addition to the Law and the Prophets (for which
see 43.1). (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in
Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973], 116-17)
Perhaps the most significant of the parallels between
Clement and James is found in their common insistence on the place of good
works in the Christian life. It is not only the importance of good works, as
for example in Cl. 33-a matter concerning which Paul was also explicit- but the
relationship between good works and righteousness before God which is in
question. Not only in the futility of faith without works, but in the very
examples used to illustrate the point, Clement agrees with James. Clement, indeed,
knows the doctrine of justification by faith (cf. 32.4), and appears to combine
the Pauline emphasis with that of James in 31.2: τίνος χάριν ηυλογήθη ό πατήρ
ήμων 'Αβραάμ; ουχί δικαιοσύνην καί άλήθειαν διά πίστεως ποιήσας; In other
places the emphasis of James is more clearly to be seen. Thus in 10.1 Clement
writes ' Αβραάμ, ο φίλος προσαγορευθείς, πιστός ευρέθη έν τω αύτον ύπήκοον
γενέσθαι τοϊς ρήμασιν τού θεού, and in 10.7 διά πίστιν καί φιλοξενίαν εδόθη
αύτω υίός έν γήρα, κα δι' ύπακοής προσήνεγκεν αύτόν θυσίαν τώ θεώ πρός εν τών
δρέων ών εδειζεν
αυτω. Speaking of the necessity that faith
be accompanied by good works, James, like Clement, cites the example of Abraham
(2.21ff.):
Αβραάμ ό πατήρ ήμων ούκ έξ έργων εδικαιώθη, άνενεγκας
Ίσαάκ τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έπι τό θυσιαστήριον; βλέπεις ότι ή πίστις συνήργει τοϊς
έργοις αύτοϋ, καί έκ τών έργων ή πίστις ετελειώθη, καί έπληρώθη ή γραφή ή
λέγουσα · έπίστευσεν δέ Αβραάμ τώ θεώ καί ελογίσθη αύτω είς δικαιοσύνην, καί
φίλος θεού έκλήθη.
Although the similarities between Clement and James at
this point are interesting, they would not be judged significant, were it not
for the fact that Clement speaks of Rahab in precisely the same terms, and
Rahab provides James with his second example. Clement writes in 12.1: διά
πίστιν καί φιλοξενίαν έσώθη 'Ραάβ ή πόρνη with which may be compared Jas. 2.25f
.: ομοίως δέ καί 'Ραάβ ή πόρνη ούκ εξ έργων εδικαιώθη, υποδεξαμένη τούς
αγγέλους καί έτέρα όδω έκβα- λούσα; ώσπερ γάρ τό σώμα χωρίς πνεύματος νεκρόν έστιν,
ούτως καί ή πίστις χωρίς έργων νεκρά έστιν. The fact that Clement in mentioning
both Abraham and Rahab stresses the com- bination of faith and works found in
them, makes it probable that James 2 is in his mind. F. W. Young has pointed
out a further interesting similarity between the accounts of Rahab found in
Clement and James. In both accounts Rahab is specifically said to have sent
someone in the wrong direction, a point which, according to Young, is expressed
neither in the OT (LXX or MT) nor in the Rabbinic and early Christian
literature. The conclusion that Young draws is that only literary dependence
can account for this agreement. (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old
and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum Testamentum;
Leiden: Brill, 1973], 249-50)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
