Stephen_Young_Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers_Mohr Siebeck_2011


Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
Preface
VIII
took the form of papers written for a
se on Christology
taught by Dr. Bryan Burton in Wint
the Apostolic Fathers taught by Dr.
David M. Scholer in Fall 2004. I thank
Dr. Burton for his feedback, which encouraged me to further pursue this
topic. I wish I could also thank Dr
. Scholer, who was ever supportive even
in the midst of a lengthy battle with cancer. Unfortunately, however, he
eventually lost that battle and passed away in 2008.
It has been a pleasure to work with the staff at Fullers David Allan
Hubbard Library. I thank Gail Frederic
k of the InterLibrary Loan depart-
ment who cheerfully and efficiently
tracked down many important re-
sources. I also thank Associate Provos
t for Library Services Dr. David
Bundy, and Assistant Provost for Libr
ary and Information Technology Mi-
chael Murray, for acquiring a number of
volumes for the Library that were
important for my research.
It would have been impossible for me
2.8 Conclusions
unconsciously … incorporate this possibility into their discussion only as a
for those sayings that cannot be explained in some
other (preferred?) way. Among the mi
nority of scholars who have sought
to give oral tradition e
qual consideration as othe
r sources, it is the rare
scholar who has approached the issue
based on any sophisticated theory of
orality. Most make only an occasional re
orality in support of this or that de
termination on sources. Finally, even
among those who consider oral tradition as
the main source
of Jesus tradi-
tion in the Apostolic Fathers, and here we refer specifically to H. Koester
and D. Hagner, one finds widely dive
rging views regarding the way oral
tradition functioned in antiquity. As c
oncluded above, in the case of these
two scholars these diverging views extend to the sources for the Jesus tra-
dition in question: for Koester much of the tradition originated in early
church communities, while for Hagner the tradition originated for the most
part with Jesus himself. One cannot a
fford simply to ignore the very dif-
ferent implications of these otherwis
e superficially similar positions. What
is sorely needed is a study of the Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers
that not only takes seriously the possibility of oral tradition as a source, but
that intentionally approaches the ma
terial from the perspective of recent
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
4.6
13.2, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
We turn now to consider the implications of our thesis that the sayings in
r our understanding of the material.
One implication is that verbal similarity, which becomes all-important in a
study of literary dependence, is of little to no import in the study of oral
sources. We saw above, e.g., that in th
e case of saying a the Lukan paral-
lels to
13.2 have no verbal similarity
whatsoever, but are similar at
the level of
ideas
. In a strictly textual-based
study the suggestion of a par-
allel between these texts might be dismissed as contrived, in that with lit-
erary dependence one would expect
similarity at the level of
and not just of meaning. In tran
smitting oral tradition within an in-
formal controlled context, however, there is a degree of freedom for the
traditionist to determine the form and the language of the material while
remaining true to its meaning. This freedom extends to the process of shap-
So, e.g., Koester: there is no parallel
at all in the Synoptic GospelsŽ (Extraca-
7.3 The Lords Prayer in the Didache
milieu in which he wrote, a tradition th
at was strong enough to survive in
the form reflected in the
even after Matthew gained recognition as
an authoritative gospel.
Orality allowed for such variations, as H. D. Betz
explains, It is characteristic of liturgical material in general that textual
fixation occurs at a later stage in the transmission of these texts, while in
the oral stage variability within limits is the rule. ƒ When they were writ-
ten down, [the] variant forms of the prayer became textually fixed.Ž
In sum, if the prayers in Matthew and the
ently of each other) from the oral liturg
y, this provides a simple explana-
Idem., 173.
Bibliography
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
lemented and put together collections for various
The disciples remembered what Jesus did on certain
occasions, and applied this to specific questions as they arose, not
creating
material about Jesus life and teaching
bringing it to bear
these situations.
The evangelists in their turn depended on this authorita-
tive Jesus tradition, a fixed, distinct tradition from, and about, Jesus … a
tradition that was partly memorized and partly writte
n down in notebooks
Gerhardsson is to be commended for seeking to understand the trans-
mission of the early Jesus tradition within its historical context. His early
publications especially provided a timely corrective to form criticism, and
his work overall has greatly impacted the study of the Jesus tradition.
fortunately, however, though the histori
is very attractive, it also has its problems. Due to space considerations we
will focus here only on three main problems that relate directly to the pre-
Gerhardsson,
Tradition
, 40; see also idem,
Memory
, 332; idem,
Reliability
Gerhardsson reasserts his commitment to this
formulation in his Secret,Ž 18, citing his
own words quoted here.
Gerhardsson,
Memory
, 332; here Gerhardsson is countering assumptions of the
form critics; see also idem,
Tradition
Gerhardsson,
Memory
For an in-depth analysis of Gerhardssons lasting impact on NT studies see essays
in Kelber and Byrskog, eds.,
Jesus in Memory
, including a summary of Gerhardssons
contributions to NT scholarship by his student S. Byrskog (Introduction,Ž pp. 1…20).
Byrskogs work on Jesus tradition in itself is one area of Gerhardssons lasting impact;
see Byrskogs
Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient
Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community
(CBNTS 24; Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1994); idem,
Story as History … History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the
Context of Ancient Oral History
(WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr. Lei-
den: Brill, 2002); idem, When Eyewitness Te
stimony and Oral Tradition Become Writ-
ten Text,Ž
74 (2009): 41…53; idem, A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition:
Reflections on James D. G. Dunns
Jesus Remembered
,Ž in
Memories of Jesus: A Critical
Appraisal of James D. G. Dunns
Jesus Remembered (ed. R. B. Stewart and G. R.
Habermas; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 59…78.
For other assessments of Gerhardssons model see Sanders,
Tendencies
, 294…96;
Mournet,
Oral Tradition
, 63…66; Kelber,
Oral and Written
, 8…14; idem, Memorys De-
sire,Ž 59…61; Sanders and Davies,
Studying
, 129…45. While what fo
llows will deal pri-
marily with Gerhardssons treatment of the gospel tradition, there are also problems with
his understanding of Rabbinic pedagogics, on which see P. H. Davids, The Gospels and
Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years after Gerhardsson,Ž in
Gospel Perspectives: Studies of
History and Tradition in the Four Gospels
(ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1980), 1:75…99; E. S. Alexander,
The Orality of Rabbinic Writing,Ž in
The
Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature
(ed. C. E. Fonrobert and
M. S. Jaffee; CCR; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
understanding of social memory for the
shaping of the present by the past,
or the continuity of memoryŽ that is
brought about in part by such stabi-
lizing forces as the traditioning pro
Schwartz notes that continuity of memory will be more
past cannot be conjured up to verify such
reinforcements, the imag
ination is held in
check by the combined memories of the social group of which it is a partŽ (
riographical Jesus
, 47…48). On form
criticism and the
Sitz im Leben
see section 1.4.1
above.
Schwartz, Christian Origins,Ž 45; see also the relevant statement by A. Kirk, the
fact that oral tradition is mnemonically conf
igured is a warning against exaggerating its
fluidity or underestimating a communitys resolute dedication to remembering its pastŽ
(Memory Theory,Ž 839, see further ibid., 819…38; idem, Social and Cultural Memory,Ž
14…17; Vansina,
Oral Tradition
, 94…100). As noted by J. Assmann (Collective Memory
and Cultural Identity,Ž
NGC
65 [1995]: 128…29), Halbwachs considered memories that
had crystallized so as to become objectified cultu
re (texts, rites, and
relatively stable oral
tradition) no longer as memory, but as history. This builds a certain level of instability
into Halbwachs very definition of memory
. In Assmanns own view, objectified culture
(to include stable non-written tradition) and co
mmunications standardized by ritual have
the structure of memory,Ž and are essential to social memory (ibid., 128, 131). What is
more, for Assmann (and he developed these ideas together with his wife Aleida Ass-
mann) it is precisely the presence of these obj
ectified cultural elements that distinguishes
cultural memoryŽ (
kulturelle Gedächtnis
), essential for the con
tinuity of a communitys
identity, from communicative memoryŽ (
kommunikative Gedachtnis
), which is based
upon direct communication from those who personally experienced foundational events,
contains a strong emotional component, and does not last beyond three generations (
kulturelle Gedächtnis
, 32, 50…56, 130…33; idem,
Religion and Cultural Memory
24…25). As noted by A. Kirk, Assmanns model suffers from a certain ambiguity in deal-
ing with oral tradition: while oral tradition
can be considered an objectified cultural arti-
fact … which would place it within cultural memory … it would be already present in the
period of communicative memory (Memory Theory,Ž 840 n. 150).
Schwartz, Christian Origins,Ž 46; see also the remarks along these lines under sec.
3.3.4 above, Conservative or
Traditionalist,Ž and in Assmann,
Religion and Cultural
Memory
, 114…15; Kelber, Works of Memory,Ž 234; Carr,
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
Matthean form of the saying had parallels elsewhere in the Jesus tradition,
which in turn would dissolve much of the remaining basis for the argument
that Polycarp depends on Matthew for
this saying. That Polycarp derived
saying V complete with the
\t\t\b\n
from a source other than Matthew
would then explain the absence in Polycarp of the characteristically
Matthean
\r\b\t \t
as well as Matthews
&\f\t
Once one has concluded that there is little reason to hold that Polycarp
grounds exist for positing his depend-
ence on Luke. As already noted, scholars raise the possibility of depend-
ence on Luke primarily to account
for Polycarps deviations from
Matthew. If Polycarp is not de
\r\b\t \t

was not chosen from Luke over Matthews
\r\b\t \t

in the tradition, given that eve-
rywhere else it is the standard form.
Likewise, there is no reason to argue
for Polycarps dependence on Luke by a
ppeal to the argument from shared
silence that neither Polycarp
nor Luke contain Matthews
&\f\t
It
was not in Luke or Polycarps sources
Having concluded that Polycarp probably did not derive saying V from
Matthew and/or Luke, it
might be suggested. Among the many possibilities that could be raised (a
catechism, an unknown gospel, a saying
likely source in light of our discussion of
sayings I…IV is oral tradition. As
already noted in our previous discussion, the
\t!\t
with which Polycarp
As is well known, the expression
\r\b\t \t
is only found in Mat-
thew. Elsewhere in the
Synoptics, Acts, the Gospel of
John, the Paulin
e literature, and
the Apostolic Fathers,
the form is always
\r\b\t \t
with an occasional
�\t\b
. Even Matthew reads
\r\b\t \t
in 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43. On
kingdom of God language in early Christianity see the following essays in
The Kingdom
of God in 20th-Century Interpretation
(ed. W. Willis; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1987): J. R. Michaels, The Kingdom of God and the Historical Jesus,Ž 109…18; R.
Farmer, The Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Matthew,Ž 119…30; M. E. Boring, The
Kingdom of God in Mark,Ž 131…45; R. Hodgson, Jr., The Kingdom of God in the
School of St. John,Ž 163…74; R. OToole, The Kingdom of God in Luke-Acts,Ž 147…62;
K. P. Donfried, The Kingdom of God in Paul,Ž 175…90; E. Ferguson, The Kingdom of
God in Early Patristic Literature,Ž 191…208.
Also arguing against Polycarps literary
dependence on Luke
is the absence in
Polycarp of the specification
\f
found in the parallel in Lk
6:20, as well as the ab-
sence in Luke of a parallel to the beatitude regarding
\t\t\f\t!
\t\t\b\n
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
(LXX).
Though
. 4.5 agrees with Lk 13:27 against the LXX, Mat-
thew, and Justin in reading
\t"*\f\n+\b
, ClementŽ almost
certainly did not derive
the citation directly from the Gospel of Luke, as
Luke contains no parallel to the first three lines of
$)
\f\f\b\f\t& &\f
\t\f\t\n \n\f
\r \f\n
). The agreement of
2 Clement
and Luke against the other
y the influence of Luke upon
2 Clement
sources, as there is no compelling reason to view the phrase as resulting
from Lukan redaction.
The phrase may just as well have been in sources
shared by Luke and Clement,Ž whether written or oral.
In sum, as with
the first part of the saying in
. 4.2, there is no conclusive evidence
presupposes a finished gospel, in this
case that of Luke.
2 Clement
\t\t\nG$\b\b\n\t\f\b&  
\t\t\n:\n
& \t#$)\t\b9\b\t\t \t\t;
\t)\b\n&
:&#6%\r\t\b\b\t\n 
\n\f\t#\t\f\t\n
\f%\r\t\b\n\n\f\n\t
\f\f\t\f\n\t\t 
%\r\t\b\f\t\f\n'(9\b\t-(\n\t\b\f\n
For the Lord says, You will be lik
e sheep in the midst of wolves.Ž
But Peter replied to
him, What if the wolves rip apart the sheep?Ž
Jesus said to Peter, After they are dead,
the sheep should fear
the wolves no longer. So too you: do not fear those who kill you
It is to be expected that the quotation
in the Gospels and other parallels would dif-
fer in wording from the LXX, since Jesus would not have spoken the words in Greek.
Unless those who passed on the tradition of this saying each turned to the wording of the
LXX, their renditions of it are bound to
differ, especially in
the oral stage.
Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 142; Köhler,
Rezeption
, 144; for differing
views see Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 84; Massaux,
, 2:12…13;
Roukema, Jesus Traditio
n,Ž 2132…33; Tuck
Bibliography
…. Memory, Scribal Media, and the Synoptic Problem.Ž Pages 459…82 in
New Studies in
the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christo-
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
2.3 Establishing the Scholarly
Agenda: Massaux and Koester
Building upon the careful scholarship of
the Oxford Committee, and repre-
senting divergent responses to th
Édouard Massaux,
Influence de lÉvangile de saint Matthieu sur la littérature
chrétienne avant saint Irénée
(UCL 2.42; Leuven, 1950). A 2nd ed., with new biblio-
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
circulated in the churches.
A number of scholars simply suggest a written
or oral source other than (and perhap
without further specifying its nature.
We now turn, then, to consider what
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
behind Matthew and Luke than in the case of the pre-Markan tradition).
Even the redactional criterion applied in the previous section supports this
contention, if only to a small degr
ee. The redactional criterion is a
positive
one it amounts to an argument from si-
lence; i.e., the absence of elements that reflect the redactional work of the
Evangelists does not amount to proof th
any given gospel, but all the same it does make it more likely. By increas-
ing the likelihood that Clement was de
Gospels, this in turn increases, however
slightly, the chances that this other
of an oral source we may add one
more: the formula with which Clement introduces the Jesus tradition in
\f\b \t\b 
\t"
ƒ. This formula is
very similar to those used to introduce Jesus tradition in both
13.1c…2 and Poly.
. 2.3, discussed at some length in the two previous
See discussion in secs. 4.5 and 5.3 above on the introductory words in
1 Clem.
\f \t\b\f\f\f\t \t\b\n  \b\t\b
\t\t\t\t\f\f\t !\n\t"
, and Poly.
\f\f\n
)\t"\t\n\t\b
A number of scholars have concluded, or at least suggested, that the saying(s) of
Jesus in
1 Clem
. 46.8 derived from an oral source. Hagner argues that Clement quotes an
oral tradition (
Clement of Rome
, 162…64) opinion also held by Stanton (Jesus Tradi-
tions,Ž 573) and Ehrman (
Apostolic Fathers
, 1:26), while offered as a possibility by M.
W. Holmes (Clement of Rome,Ž
DLNTD
235) and A. Jaubert (
Clément de Rome
, 52 [cf.
pp. 53, 58]: il semble que Clément se réfère à une collection de
logia
soit oraux, soit
consignés par écrit, non à un évangile précisŽ). In R. Knopfs view, while it is possible
that Clement freely combined Synoptic trad
ition, it is more probable that he cited
außerkanonische Ueberlieferung,Ž but Knopf does not specify whether he considers this
to be oral or written (
Lehre, Clemensbriefe
, 122). A. J. Carlyle in
NTAF
suggest that a
faulty quotation from memory is not impossible,Ž but considers just as probable that it is
9.3 Assessing the Evidence from the Jesus Sayings in 2 Clement
Matthew and Luke.
Third, we have found no
support the current widely held opini
on advanced by Koester and others
that a majority of the sayings in
2 Clement
derived indirectly from the gos-
pels of Matthew and Luke, via a ha
rmony made up of sayings from these
two gospels and apocryphal
materials (a collection that was also used by
Justin).
The evidence points instead in two
2 Clement
apparently depended upon a s
ource or sources that were
close to the sayings tradition that informed Matthew and Luke, whether
this be identified as Q or a source in
fluenced by Q, or in more general
Six of the sayings in
2 Clement
this direction, as they do not appear
ew or Luke, but
ith, or related to, sources used by
these two gospels (
. 3.2; 6.1…2; 8.5; 9.11; 13.4). On the other hand,
in three sayings the presence of material not paralleled in any of the ca-
nonical Gospels suggests that
2 Clement
may have depended upon other
sources as well: while two of these sayings apparently derived from
sources that were fairly removed fro
Gospels, though sharing a common history with them (
4), one saying probably derived from
a source that had little if any connec-
tion with the gospel sources (12.2, 6).
The above need not imply that the explicit appeals to Jesus tradition in
2 Clement
derived from a multiplicity of sources, but there is also no con-
clusive evidence to indicate use of a single source. The sayings of Jesus in
2 Clement
are many and varied, including
not only proverbial sayings (2.4;
We thus disagree with Massaux when he states that, The author of 2 Clement
knows the Gospel of Mt. He is literarily depe
ndent on it in many parts of his writingŽ and
when he holds similarly that The author of
2 Clement certainly knew the Gospel of LkŽ
, 2:11, 17). See similarly, e.g., Warns, Untersuchungen,Ž
279, 284…88;
Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:215, 216, 221, 243.
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 62…111; idem,
Introduction to the NT
, 2:242;
idem,
, 349…60, especially his conclusion on p. 360: ClementŽ quotes from a
collection of sayings of Jesus. Insofar as th
ese sayings have parallels in the Synoptic
Gospels, their text reveals a harmonization of Matthean and Lukan elements which occa-
sionally are paralleled elsewhere ƒ. In addition ƒ,
2 Clement
s sayings collection in-
cluded sayings from the free tradition, that
is, non-canonical sayings which have also
found their way into so-called apocryphal gospels.Ž Koester is followed by A. J. Bellin-
zoni, Luke in the Apostolic Fathers,Ž 63…65, 67, and Warns argues something similar
(Untersuchungen,Ž
279…474, esp. 323…24). As Hagner notes, the theory of a single gos-
pels harmony behind all
2 Clement
s citations is attractive, but remains beyond proofŽ
Clement of Rome
, 282, n. 2). Against Koester, Donfried finds no evidence for the asser-
tion that Justin and 2 Clement are dependent upon the same gospel harmonyŽ (
Clement
See the similar conclusions in Donfried,
Second Clement
Index of Ancient Sources
6:14
6:14…15 129, 130
6:15 130
6:19 129
6:20 126,
6:20…23 126
6:24 251…53
6:24…26 126
6:26 260
6:27…36 126
6:31 126
6:32 260
6:37…38 126
6:39 126
6:40 126
6:41…42 126
6:43…45 126
6:46 126
6:47…49 126
7:1
7:1…2
61, 121, 122…39, 280
7:2
7:5
7:6
7:11 259,
7:12
7:15 205
7:16…17 126
7:21
7:21…23 245…46
7:23 245
7:28…29 130
9:13 240
10:10 205
10:16 249…51
10:22 205
10:23 205
10:24…25 126
10:28 249…51
10:32
10:32…33 116
10:33 260
10:34…38 5
11:27 260
12:3 76
12:5 76
12:28 171
12:31 205
12:33…35 126
12:49…50 261
12:50 257…60,
14:30 186,
15:13 260
15:14 126
16:17 260
16:26 252…54,
18:6
183…86, 189…90, 194
18:6…7 183…86, 187…88,
18:7
18:10 260
18:14 259,
18:15 5
18:19 260
18:21…22 5
18:35 260
19:4 76
19:10 186
19:23 40
19:24 171
19:28 260
20:22 291…92
21:14 259
21:16 76
21:31 171
21:42 76
21:43 171
22:10 62
22:14 189
22:31 76
22:37…40 205
22:40 186
23:9 260
24
24:10…12 205
24:13 205
24:14 27
24:21 205
24:22 189
24:24 189,
24:30 205,
24:31 189,
2.8 Conclusions
Instead, these writers used pre-
synoptic oral and/or written tradition.Ž He continues,
This literature from the first half of the s
econd century reflects use not of the Synoptic
Gospels but of the same tradition that underlie
s the Synoptic Gospels. The source of that
tradition was individual Christian communities,
which, based on their practical needs,
handed down and made use of synoptic-like oral and written tradition.
appropriate end to our survey, in that they
point in the direction we have chosen to follow. If indeed the literature of
the first half of the second centuryŽ
found its sources of Jesus tradition in
community-based oral (and written) sy
cussion of these sources needs to move
on from an almost single focus on
look seriously at oral tradition in its
own right.
2.8 Conclusions
One of the overarching motifs traceable through the past century of schol-
arship on Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers is a coming to terms with
the ambiguity inherent in the nature of the available sources. Certainly
there have been those, and here I re
fer especially to Massaux and Köhler,
who have sought to play down this ambiguity, choosing to narrow down
the sources of this tradition whenever possible to surviving written
sources, especially (what would b
have rightly criticized the work of these scholars, pointing out that their
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
gospel parallels to the sayings in
13.2 as implying a
response, in light of the golden rule
(saying c) as found in Matthew and Luke: In everything you w
\t'\t
) do to you, so you do to themŽ (Mt 7:12); And just as
you will
\t'\t
) do to you, so likewise do to themŽ (Lk
6:31). The same saying in
13.2, however, should be read, As you
!\t\b\t
) to youŽ … implicit … by God.Ž
cially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ ƒŽ applies the words of the Lord to
this same theme.
As also made clear by the introduction to
the sayings in 13.2, the words the Lord
Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience ƒ.Ž
See sec. 3.3.9 above, entitled
Mnemonically Constructed,Ž and
Minchin, De-
scribing,Ž 49…64.
7.3 The Lords Prayer in the Didache
doxology in a variety of forms, however, shows that it too was used litur-
gically from early times.
It is safe to conclude, then, that the Lords
Prayer had a well-established use in the oral liturgy of the early church be-
fore either the Gospel of Matthew or the
were written.
It follows that it is very likely that both Matthew and the Didachist de-
rived the text of the prayer from its oral-liturgical use, rather than either
being dependent on the other, or both deriving it from a different written
Given that the Lords Prayer functioned as an oral text within the
s community, where it was recited three times a day (
Gospel of Matthew or a different written source for the text of the prayer.
On the assumption that Matthew and the
Prayer see Froehlich, Lords Prayer,Ž 71…73; for a more extensive treatment see
Sabugal,
Padrenuestro
It is found in MSS K L W
CA:
Bibliography
…. The Study of Homeric Discourse.Ž Pages 284…304 in
A New Companion to Homer.
Edited by Ian Morris and Barry Powell. Supplements to Mnemosyne 163. Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
Balabanski, Vicky.
Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache.
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
at its originalŽ or pureŽ form. Instead, the present study will focus on the
dynamics surrounding why oral traditions
were preserved, how they were
retained and transmitted (i.e., how a memory specialist or traditionistŽ
eir compositional elements, and how
an audience was impacted by their performance.
Birger Gerhardssons work represen
criticism. In his view, form critics have not paid sufficient attention to how
holy, authoritative traditionŽ was transmitted in New Testament times
within Jewish circles in Palestine and elsewhere.
Fittingly, Gerhardsson
takes as his starting point the rabbini
c corpus, since it both contains con-
siderable evidence of techniques of
teaching and transmission of tradition
(or pedagogicsŽ
), and illumines the historical Jewish context of the
See further ch. 3 below.
B. Gerhardsson,
The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition
(Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson, 2001), 2; for further critiques of form criticism see ibid., 29…35, 82…86; idem,
Tradition and Interpretation in Early Christianity
(trans. E. J. Sharpe; ConBNT 20;
Lund: Gleerup/Copenhagen: Munksgaard,
1964), 6; idem,
Memory and Manuscript:
Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity
(trans. E. J. Sharpe; ASNU 22; Lund: Gleerup/Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1
961), 9…15;
latter two works repr. as
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmis-
sion in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity,
with
Tradition and Interpretation in
Early Christianity
(BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Livonia: Dove, 1998).
Gerhardsson uses the term pedagogicsŽ
as a simplified substitute for technique
of teaching and transmissionŽ (
Tradition
, 11, n. 18).
Gerhardsson,
Memory
, 15, 19…189, 193…335; idem,
Tradition
, 11…12, 47, n. 115.
Gerhardsson studies the transmission of early Jesus tradition in two steps: he first tries to
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
are simply lost, while others are reinterpreted to continue to function in
light of present realities.
This characteristic of oral traditions balances
out the previous one; i.e., that oral trad
itions are shaped in such a way as to
enable memory (mnemonically constructedŽ) does not imply that all tradi-
tions are remembered. It also accounts
for one of the types of variability
that is discernible within a traditions stability: in performing a tradition,
the goal is not simply or only to reproduce the tradition itself, but also to
bring out its relevance for the present. One performance will differ from
another in reflecting different circ
brought to bear, and in this way the tradition remains a
living
tradition.
The constant interplay between memory and present relevance in the per-
formance of tradition continually genera
tes ongoing syntheses, containing
ither one canceling out the other.
tures the dynamic in question. The term homeostaticŽ as used by Goody and Watt is
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
These arguments for Polycarps dependence on the Gospels would gain
cumulative weight if it could be
shown that Polycarp depended on the
Gospels for sayings I…IV. Conversely, th
ey lose some of their force if one
concludes that Polycarp de
rived sayings I…IV from oral tradition, which his
where we stand in the present discussi
on. In addition, and as previously
noted, for sayings I…IV Polycarp appear
the structure and cadence of the quatrain suggest a pre-formed source that
Polycarp incorporated as a whole into
suit the use of saying V in Polycarp. The saying reads,
\f\t\t\t(\t\t\t
\t\f\t!\t\t\b\n!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t
Here the
!\t\t\b\n
is best understood as applying not only to
\t\t\f\t
but also to
\t(\t
; i.e., those who are poor
on account of righteousness
or for
doing what is
right
are blessed, not simply those who have had their property stolen.
Cf. Holmes cautious conclusi
on: given that we are dealing with Sermon mate-
rial, which almost certainly circulated in or
al form ... it is difficult to be so certain:
knowledge of Matthew and Luke is possible, but not demonstrableŽ (Polycarp and the
Writings,Ž 194).
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
The unity of the parallel material in
2 Clement
has been broken up by the
intervening verses 4.3…5a, which are
best understood as ClementsŽ exe-
gesis of the first part of the saying in 4.2:
So then, brothers, we should acknowledge him by what we do, by loving one another, by
not committing adultery or slandering one another or showing envy. We should be re-
strained, charitable, and good. We should be sympathetic with one another and not be
attached to money. By doing such deeds we acknowledge him, not by doing their oppo-
sites. And we must not fear people, but God. For this reason, when you do these things,
the Lord has said ƒ. (
2 Clem
As will be argued below, ClementŽ probably did not derive the two-part
saying in 4.2 and 5 from the Gospel of Matthew. It follows that the exis-
closely parallel and yet do not direc
tly depend upon each other, suggests
that both Matthew and ClementŽ accessed the material as a cohesive unit
in the tradition.
Turning to the first part of the saying, in
hold that its agreements with Matthew against Luke are indications that it
presupposes Matthews finished gospel.
The wording in
2 Clement
much closer to Matthew than to Luke, sharing verbatim with Matthew the
\n \f\t#5\t\t
against Lukes
\t\f
 \t#5\t\t
 \t
against Lukes
\t\t\t
. In
addition, most scholars hold that Lukes
form of the saying is nearer to
what was in Q, and that Matthews differences with Luke originated in
Matthean redaction.
All of this could be taken to mean that
Donfried,
Second Clement
See, e.g., Köhler,
Rezeption
, 132…34 (probableŽ), who is followed by Lindemann,
Apostolic Fathers and the Synoptic Problem,Ž 713; Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
80…83; idem,
, 356; idem, Gospels and Gospel Traditions,Ž 27…28; Massaux,
Bibliography
Johnson, Luke Timothy.
The Acts of the Apostles.
Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville: Liturgi-
cal, 1992.
Jonge, Henk Jan de. On the Origin of
the Term Apostolic Fathers.Ž
Journal of Theo-
logical Studies
n.s. 29 (1978): 503…5.
Jousse, Marcel.
The Anthropology of Geste and Rhythm: Studies in the Anthropological
Laws of Human Expression and Their Application in the Galilean Oral Style Tradi-
tion.
Edited and translated by E. Sienaert and J. Conolly. Durban: Center for Oral
Studies, University of Natal, 1997.
The Oral Style.
Translated by E. Sienaert and R. Whitaker. New York: Garland, 1990.
Juel, Donald H. The Lords Prayer in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.Ž Pages 56…70
The Lords Prayer: Perspectives for Reclaiming Christian Prayer.
Edited by
Daniel L. Migliore. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Jülicher, A.
Die Gleichnisreden Jesu.
Vol. 2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Keck, Leander E. Oral Traditional Literatu
re and the Gospels: The Seminar.Ž Pages
103…22 in
The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue.
ited by William O. Walker, Jr. Trinity Univ
ersity Monograph Series in Religion 5.
San Antonio. Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1978.
Keightley, Georgia Masters.
Christian Collective Memory and Pauls Knowledge of
Jesus.Ž Pages 129…50 in
Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early
Christianity
. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SBL Semeia Studies 52. At-
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
Apostolic Father had used any given canonical gospel.
Only in one case
did they view it as highly probableŽ th
at an Apostolic Father had used one
In a number of cases they allowed for a lower
degree of probabilityŽ that certain writin
gs of the Apostolic Fathers might
Finally, there were a number of cases in which
they considered dependence upon the Go
the evidence appeared too uncertain to allow any reliance to be placed
The implication of the above is that the possibility that a non-canonical
source (written or oral) lies behind any given passage rises in inverse pro-
portion as the degree of probability
ce decreases. In
keeping with this, the Committee often suggests (as options among others)
sources that are either (a) written, such as an apocryphal work,
an early
harmony of the Gospels,
or an early written Christian catechism,
oral, such as a well-known maxim,
an early Christian liturgy
This does not include cases in which
the Committee found clear dependence on
synoptic
tradition
, but without being able to identif
y a particular gospel, e.g., Herm.
Sim
IX.20.2 (Herm. 97.2) and Mt 19:23//Mk 10:23//Lk 18:24, on which they conclude, We
can hardly doubt that this is a quotationŽ (
NTAF
, 121). These cases, however, are quite
rare in the volume.
With Ignatius use of Matthew and John.
Elsewhere in the volume the Committee
concludes, Ignatius was certainly acquainted e
ither with our Matthew
, or with the source
of our Matthew, or with a Gospel very closely akin to it. In the present uncertain state of
the Synoptic Problem, it would be rash to ex
press any confident opinion ; but the indica-
tions on the whole favour the hypothesis that
he used our Greek Matthew is something
like its present shapeŽ and also Ignatiuss use of the Fourth Gospel is highly probable,
but falls some way short of certaintyŽ (
NTAF
The use of John in Polycarps
Philippians
, the use of Matthew and Mark in the
Shepherd
of Hermas, and the use of Matthew in
2 Clement
The use of Matthew in
Barnabas
, of Luke in the
Didache
, of Mark and Luke by
Ignatius, of Luke and John in the
Shepherd
of Hermas, and of Luke in
2 Clement
(the use
of Matthew in the
Didache
4.3 Searching for the Redactional Footprints of the Evangelists
The negative construction with
\f
found in Mt 7:1 (and its parallel Lk
6:37) is transposed in Mt 7:2a into a positive statement, and in this sense
comes closer to the form of the saying in
1 Clement
. Even with the possi-
bility that Mt 7:2a is the result of Matthean redaction,
however, the per-
son responsible for the source behind
the positive construction of the saying to reflect a stylized pattern rather
This can be seen clearly when view-
ing the whole Clementine citation of Jesus material on its own:
$ \t! 
\t!%&\f\t
\n\t\t!\t\b\t\f\t
\n\t!\n\b\t\f\t
\n\t!\n\t\b\b
\n(\b\b!\n(\b\b\t\f\t
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
Here we can see that the form of each saying has been crafted to suit the
whole (more on this below), so there is little reason to hold that the author
was dependent for the positive construction of one of them (saying e)
upon Matthew (especially given the
dissimilarities
saying, as noted above). As for the
remainder of the sayings under consid-
eration, there is nothing else that might suggest that Clement was depend-
ent upon the final form of Matthews gospel.
In general the
Lukan
parallels are no closer in wording to the sayings in
1 Clement
than we found to be the case with those in Mark and Matthew.
On the contrary, in sayings a, b,
e and g Matthew is closer than
Luke, while in sayings c and f the pa
rallelism in Luke is mostly at the
level of ideas, not wording. This leav
es only two Lukan parallels, those for
sayings d and g, which show the kind of affinity to
1 Clement
that
might suggest dependence. We alr
eady concluded above that g in
1 Clement
did not depend on Luke or any of the Gospels. As for saying d,
it has a clear Lukan parallel, but
no parallel in the other Synoptics:
1 Clem.
\n\t
!\n\b\t\f\t
Lk 6:38a:
\t
\b\t\f\t
As suggested, e.g., by Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:669, who consider it a re-
dactional elaboration of 7:1.
This is one of the reasons Massaux decides against Clements direct dependence
upon Matthew; see his
, 1:12.
Massaux would agree that Clement was not
directly
dependent upon Mt in these
sayings, but finds evidence that Clement drew from a source whose author was inspired
by Mt ... a catechism summarizing the teachi
ng of Christ ... [that] came in large part
from Matthews Sermon on the MountŽ (
, 1:12). As we will see below, there are
better explanations for
the similarities between
1 Clem.
13.2 and Matthew.
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
At first sight there seems to be a distinct possibility that
Matthean
editorial activity. We already noted above that in the
woe-saying of Mt 26:24, Matthew agrees with Clement in reading
 
"&
against Marks shorter
 &
(Mk 14:21c), and that in the
millstone saying Mt 18:6 reads
\t\b&
, which parallels Clements
\t\b\t
to a remarkable degree wh
en compared to Marks
\r\r \t
erary dependence upon Matthew is É.
Massaux, who bases his argument
primarily upon the presence of the verb
\t,
in both texts.
argument, however, is not convincing. Although
\t,
is, as Mas-
saux states, peculiar to Mt. in the entire New Testament (Mt. 14.30;
18:6),Ž it is neither (against what he also states) rareŽ outside of Matthew,
nor characteristicŽ of the latter.
As rightly noted by A. Gregory, this
shared terminology is hardly compelling; the word is also used by contem-
porary authors such as Plutarch and
Josephus, and its presence here need
imply only that 1 Clement and Matthew drew on shared tradition.Ž
Massaux also bases his argu
1 Clement
Matthew to a lesser extent upon the presence of the verb
after
 
The presence of this verb in both texts, how-
ever, allows for a number of explanati
ons. It is important to note that the
text of Mk 14:21 itself reads
after
 
in many important manuscripts
, A, C, D,
, Majority text, a, f, k, vg
), so that the
Markan reading
the
is far from conclusive.
Given the presence
in many Markan manuscripts, its presence in Matthew may simply
early manuscript of Mark that
on Luke in
1 Clem.
46.8, and simply refers the reader to other secondary literature
(p. 125 and n. 40).
Massaux,
, 1:23.
Massaux,
, 1:23 … two occurrences do not usually suffice to classify
a term as characteristic.Ž Massaux has, however, convinced some: O. Knoch, e.g., ar-
rives at the conclusion that
1 Clem
. 46.8 shows a knowledge of the finished text of Mat-
thew largely based on Massauxs arguments (including the presence of the verb
after
 
; see below), which he cites approvingly (
Eigenart und Bedeutung
, 71; for Knoch it
is also very probable that Clement knew the finished form of Luke, see ibid., 72). W.-D.
Köhler also mentions the two occurrences of
\t,\f\t
in Matthew, and argues
that it might indicate the dependence of
1 Clement
on the latter (
Rezeption
, 63 and n. 1),
but classifies
1 Clem
. 46.8 under the category of passages for which dependence upon
Matthew is only possibleŽ (ibid., 60…64).
Gregory, 
1 Clement
and the Writings,Ž 136, who references BDAG, ad loc.
Massaux,
, 1:22.
Manuscripts without
include B, L, W, 892, 2427, it, vg
; see NA
, ad loc. This
reading is to be preferred on standard text-c
ritical grounds, because it is the most difficult
and thus considered the mo
st primitive; see Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 153, n. 1.
9.3 Assessing the Evidence from the Jesus Sayings in 2 Clement
See Bellinzoni, Luke in the Apostolic
Fathers,Ž 51, and sec. 3.5 above.
2.7 Coming Full Circle (2005)
The essay by Bellinzoni, entitled The Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic
Fathers,Ž is noteworthy for making a
significant contribution to the ongo-
scholars (p. 34 n. 22), or as a possibility that
Text of the Synoptic.Ž See also W. L.
Petersen, The Genesis of the Gospels,Ž in
New Testament Textual Criticism and Exege-
sis: Festschrift J. Delobel
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
saying in Acts (see C. N. Jefford,
Apostolic Constitutions and Canons,Ž
1:312; B.
Chilton, Apostolic Constitutions,Ž
ERPWLA
37; G. D. Dragas, Apostolic Constitu-
tions,Ž
92), though the reverse may be the case. The textual variant and the parallels
may attest to a stream of oral tradition that ran parallel to that which informed Luke in
Acts 20:35, or simply a different performance of the same one.
One must also consider the possibility that Luke appropriated the saying from his
Greco-Roman context and placed it on the lips of Jesus. This view was expressed by
Haenchen (
Acts of the Apostles
, 594…95, n. 5 [who also discusses a number of parallels]),
and was followed by J. Jeremias in the 3rd edition of his
Unbekannte Jesusworte
(with O.
Hofius; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963), 37; E.T.:
Unknown Sayings of Jesus
(2nd Eng.
ed.; London: SPCK, 1964), 32…33, who cites Haenchen after expressing this view (p. 37
n. 149; E.T. p. 33 n. 1). The latter is a radical change from the first edition of Jeremias
Unbekannte Jesusworte
(ATANT 16; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1948 [pp. 67…69]), where
7.3 The Lords Prayer in the Didache
however, the current scholarly tendency is to move away from the theory
that the
If the Didachist did not know
Matthews gospel, and he and Matthew used a common Jesus tradition that
was available to them within their shared milieu, then there is little reason
 \t
is used of a written gospel, and it is likely that
it refers to the oral tradition of Jesus sayings.
One other element of the introductory lines in
8.2 might lead one
to suppose the authors awareness of
Matthews finished text: the Di-
dachists exhortation not to pray like the hypocritesŽ (
\n\t\t\t
Though this exhortation is not identified as Jesus tradition in the
it does echo Jesus similar statement in the context leading up to the Lords
Prayer in Matthew 6:9…13, do
not be like the hypocritesŽ (
'\b\b\n
\t\t\t
; Mt 6:5). On the presupposition, however, that the Jesus tra-
dition available to Matthew was also available to the Didachist, all these
similarities need imply is that those who did not pray after the prescribed
manner in these writers milieu were referred to as the hypocrites.Ž
There is no compelling reason to hold that the
derived this refer-
ence to the hypocritesŽ from Matthew.
Turning to the prayer itself, it almost certainly had an established his-
tory of oral use prior to being committed to writing by Matthew and the
Didachist.
One can assume that the prayer first circulated orally for a cer-
tain period of time as part of the early Jesus tradition.
It also had a tradi-
For scholars who hold that the
Didache
is independent of Matthew see n. 29 on p.
210 above.
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 203…9, esp. 209; van de Sandt and Flusser,
Didache
, 50; Milavec, When, Why and for Whom,Ž 80, n. 45.
For extensive discussions of the id
entity of the hypocritesŽ in the
Didache
see J.
A. Draper, Christian Self-Definitio
n against the Hypocrites in
Didache
8,Ž in
Didache
in Modern Research
(ed. Draper), 223…43; M. Del Verme,
Didache and Judaism: Jewish
Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work
(New York and London: T&T Clark Interna-
tional, 2004), 143…88.
Massaux,
, 3:154…55; Kelhoffer, How Soon a Book Revisited,Ž
18…19. In arguing against Luzs view that the reference to the hypocritesŽ and other
contextual elements are due to the Didachist
s knowledge of Matthew, that he recalls by
Bibliography
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
serving the development of other folk traditions, but by analyzing the
needs and activities of the Christian communities.Ž
Sanders,
Tendencies
, 14. Bultmann appeals to analogies in rabbinic stories and
sayings, Hellenistic stories, proverbs, anecdotes and folk-tales, and the history of the
Jakata collection of the Buddhist canon,Ž and a
dds Fairy stories are instructive in many
respects, and in some ways folk-songs are even more so, because the characteristics of
primitive story telling are even more fi
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
In witnessing the performance of
the tradition by another tradition-
ist, these aspects of the tradition w
ual memory of the receiving traditioni
st via the imagination in a manner
similar to personal experience. In passing on the tradition, the receiving
traditionist would imitate not only word
s but also gestures and other ele-
ments of body language, as well as em
otions, intonation, pauses, rhythm
and the like … all part of the organic memoryŽ of the received perform-
ance that are an integral part of its remembering.
(b) The dialogue and
sayings material within the tradition, however, require the exercise of
memorization. Memorized verbal material and remembered images and
gestures interact with each other in
the process of recall: verbal cues may
bring an image to memory, while images
or gestures serv
information.
Mnemonic devices aid in every aspect of this process of re-
See E. Minchin, Similes in Homer: Image, Minds Eye, and Memory,Ž in
ing Volumes
(ed. Watson), 26, 38, who refers to A. Paivios treatment of pictureableŽ
material in The Minds Eye in Arts and Science,Ž
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
That Polycarp derived these sayings as a pre-formed quatrain from the
oral tradition of Jesus sayings cohere
s well with the discussion in chapter
four above regarding the sources for
. 13.2. There we noted that
Dale Allison has identified a cohesive block of tradition that circulated in-
dependently prior to its incorporation into Q, comprising all of what later
His argument rests upon the resemblances not only
tradition, and literature cited there; related specifically to Poly.
. 2.3 see Hagner,
Clement of Rome
Allison,
Jesus Tradition
Rom 2:1//Q 6:37; Rom 12:14//Q 6:28; Rom 12:17//Q 6:27…36; Rom 12:21//Q
6:27…36; 1 Cor 4:12//Q
6:28; 1 Thess 4:12//Q
6:27…36; see Allison,
Jesus Tradition
1:3…5//Q 6:27…30, 32…36; see Allison,
Jesus Tradition
. 2.2…3//Q 6:27…30, 36…38; see Allison,
Jesus Tradition
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
fluenced by Matthean tradition.
It is just as likely, or perhaps more so,
that Matthew,
2 Clement
and the author of Reve
lation all independently
drew from similar or relate
d sources of Jesus tradition.
Unfortunately nei-
ther the saying in
ontain enough information
to determine whether
2 Clement
s source was oral or written, though we
will revisit this issue in sec. 9.4 below.
2 Clement
\t#/\n \f\t#5\t
\t\b\b\t \t
\t\t\b 
\t)\t\n#$)\f\f\b\f\t& &\f
\t\f\t\n \n\f\r \f\n\t\f\t#=D\f
\t)\f\n\b\t\f\t\n
For he [the Lord] says, Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will be saved, but
only the one who practices righteousness.Ž
ƒ the Lord said,
Even if you were nestled
close to my breast but did not do what I commanded, I would cast you away and say to
you, Leave me! I do not know where you are from, you who do what is lawless.Ž
As concluded by Donfried,
Second Clement
, 61; Gregory,
Reception of Luke and
, 144…45. The saying in Revelation brings together the witness before the angels of
Lk 12:8 and the witness before my FatherŽ of Mt
10:32, yet there is no reason to view it
as dependent on the Gospels or Q. Those who argue for the independence of the saying in
Revelation from the Gospels include D. E. Aune,
(WBC 52A; Dallas:
Word, 1997), 226; R. Bauckham, Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,Ž
23 (1976…77): 162…76, repr. in idem,
The Climax of Prophecy:
Studies on the Book of
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 92…117 (here pp. 95…96 in repr.); Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 145; A. Y. Collins, The Son of Man Tradition and the
Book of Revelation,Ž in
The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christian-
Bibliography
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
has been concerned with the issue of
tainly to a written record,Ž and that It appear
s most probable from the form of the quota-
tions that they were derived from oral traditionŽ (ibid., 63).
The work of D. A. Hagner might constitute
an exception: an important study that
includes the entire corpus of the ApFa and concludes that
most of the Jesus tradition it
contains can be traced to oral tradition is his article The Sayings of Jesus in the Apos-
tolic Fathers and Ju
stin Martyr,Ž in
Jesus Tradition
(ed. Wenham), 233…68. Hagner in-
cludes a brief discussion of the nature and wo
rkings of oral tradition in antiquity (ibid.,
255…57) that is much indebted to the work of B. Gerhardsson (on Gerhardsson see sec.
1.4.2 above), to which one can add Hagners earlier, fuller treatment in
The Use of the
Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome
(NovTSup 34; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 303…
12; on this see further below. A classic study
that assigns a significant role to oral tradi-
tion, and that includes the whole corpus of th
e Apostolic Fathers in its scope, is Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
. Though it is interspersed with brief discussions of the oral
sources used by various Apostolic Fathers, however, Koesters study did not include an
extended treatment of how oral tradition func
tioned in antiquity. One
is left to gather
4.3 Searching for the Redactional Footprints of the Evangelists
might indicate a dependence of
To set out the
gospel parallels to saying g again:
1 Clem.
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
Mt 7:2b:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
Mk 4:24c:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
\t\b\b\t\f\t
Luke 6:38c:
\f&\f\t
\t
\f\b\t\f\t
Assuming that Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark in writing their
gospels,
one might posit that Mark was re
the saying, and was then followed closely by Matthew (though with the
\t\b\b\t\f\t
), and to a lesser extent by Luke and
Clement. This theory, however, immediately runs into problems. First, the
saying in question was probably also pr
again below).
This would suggest not only that Matthew and Luke are
probably not dependent upon Mark for th
is saying, but also that the ele-
ments of the saying that Mk 4:24 shar
es with its Synoptic parallels proba-
The other parallel, Mk 11:25 (saying b), has little verbal similarity to
1 Clem.
13.2 beyond their common use of the verb
(and even then the form of the verb is
different in the two writings in
the second half of the saying;
1 Clem.
vs.
Mk), and there is no good reason to posit that the simple occurrence of this verb is either
redactional in Mk or a reflection of
1 Clement
s dependence on Mk.
See sec. 1.7 above entitled Presuppositions and Assumptions.Ž
This is the opinion of most scholars; s
ee the results of the International Q Project
in J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg, eds.,
The Critical Edition of Q
(Hermeneia: Supplements; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 74…75 as well as the survey of
opinions in J. S. Kloppenborg,
Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance
(FF; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988), 34 (including only one differing opinion: B. S. Easton
includes it in LŽ in his
The Gospel According to St. Luke
[New York: Scribners Sons,
As suggested, e.g., by J. Marcus,
Mark 1…8: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary
(AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 315.
A fact often noted by commentators; see, e.g., R. A. Guelich,
Mark 1…8:26
(WBC
34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 232; J. Lambrecht, 
Eh bien! Moi je vous dis": Le discourse-
programme de Jésus (Mt 5…7 ; Lc 6,20…49)
(LD 125; Paris: Cerf, 1986), 219…20; ; W. L.
Lane,
The Gospel According to Mark
(NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 167;
Marcus,
Mark 1…8
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
Marks editorial hand is not responsib
saying in Mk 14:21, that shares some words verbatim with
\t
&&\t
 
&\t
thew Black, Maurice Casey and others
have argued convincingly for the
pre-Markan origin of the material
\f
) and terms (
\t
) that are uncharacteristic of Mark, and a vo-
cabulary that as a whole reflects a Semitic tone (e.g., again
\t
dying, and
 
used as comparative).
In addition, the most striking part
alluded to the pre-Markan block of traditio
n standing behind Mk 9:33…50; see Allison,
9.3 Assessing the Evidence from the Jesus Sayings in 2 Clement
That a saying very similar to
. 13.4 formed part of a block of Je-
sus tradition that circulated fairly widely in the early church prior to its in-
corporation into the Gospels (and
other writings) further supports the
argument that
2 Clement
depends on a non-canonical source. Here we ap-
peal to work from a previous chapter: in our examination of
we dwelt at some length upon the work
gue that prior to its incorporation into Q, the material that comprises Q
nt, cohesive block of tradition.
this block of tradition is attested in
1 Clement
, Paul, Polycarp, and the
shows that it had a fairly wide circulation in the early church.
6:27b and 6:32, which go back to this
. 13.4, which implies that th
tion contained a saying very similar to the one in
2 Clement
widespread availability, it is likely th
at this block of pre-Q tradition pro-
vided the source, at least indirectly, for the saying in
. 13.4. It is not
See Allison,
Jesus Tradition
, 84…89, and sec. 4.4.1 (esp. literature cited in n. 55 on
p. 124) above.
See ibid., 80…92.
Bibliography
…. Life and Order in the Early Church: The Didache.Ž Pages 209…33 in vol. 27.1 of
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II: Principat.
Edited by H. Temporini
and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1993.
Vööbus, Arthur.
Liturgical Traditions in the Didache.
Papers of the Estonian Theological
2.7 Coming Full Circle (2005)
lels.
Drawing from this that elements from traditions that went back to
MatthewŽ circulated in the community of Hermas, Verheyden concludes
that the most plausible explanation for the presence of these elements in
the
is that Hermas used Matthew.
: in their two studies devoted to the
of Polycarp
, B. Dehanschutter
and M. Holmes
that are quite similar to each other. In sum, while there are numerous cases
on the Gospels or gospel tradi-
tion, it is not possible to demonstr
ate dependence on any particular gos-
Looking back on these brief summaries
, an element that might be said
to characterize them all is the care with which the various authors draw
their conclusions. There is very little dogmatic assertion, and much open-
ness to the ambiguity of the sources. As for their treatment of oral tradi-
tion, again we find that it is given little consideration on its own. Oral
tradition is seen in some cases as th
e main source of the Jesus or gospel
tradition in certain Apostolic Fathers. But the very question being brought
to the texts … To what extent were the documents that later became the
NT used by the Apostolic Fathers?Ž … dictates that oral tradition is given
little attention in its own right. Often oral tradition is simply left open as a
viable option alongside the use of
a gospel, but pursued no further.
Before concluding, we will look at
two additional essays in these vol-
umes, one by W. L. Petersen and one by A. J. Bellinzoni, that are directly
related to this topic. The essay by Petersen is notable in that it epitomizes
the approach that privileges literacy over orality. Petersens essay is a plea
to those who would work with identifyi
ng the source(s) of the Jesus tradi-
tion in the Apostolic Fathers, to address seriously a preliminary question:
what textual parallels are there for the recognizable passages in the Apos-
Verheydens article is primarily a history
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
covered in the case of Lk 6:36…38. Nega
tively, we already concluded at the
beginning of this chapter that there is no reason to posit a literary depend-
13.2 upon any of the written Gosp
that, even if Q 6:27…38 did become a wr
this written Q was not Clements source: the arguments against the literary
13.2 upon Matthew or Luke
… covered above … also
Positively, the collection of sayings in
the introductory formula with which th
ey are prefaced, and (b) a series of
indicators of orality.
sayings of Jesus in v. 2, but the intr
oductory material in vv. 1…2a is also
relevant to the issue of sources. In
tation of Jesus sayings with the words
\f \t\b\f\f\f\t 
\t\b\n  \b\t\b\t\t\t\t\f\f\t 
!\n\t"
. A similar introductory formula is found later in
\f\b \t\b 
\t"
This cita-
contains two especially note-
worthy elements: the verb
\f\t\f&\b\f\t
) and the aorist
\t"
The appeal to the use of memory to
recall sayings spoken in the past places
the introductory formula within the
As rightly noted by Allison,
Jesus Tradition
In ch. 6 below we will discuss the sayings in
1 Clem.
46.8 that are introduced by
this formula. As H. Koester has shown, this introductory formula is clearly distinguish-
able in Clement from other much briefer and simpler formulas that preface the written
OT Scriptures:
\t
(4.1; 14.4; 17.3; 29.2; 36.3; 39.3; 46.2; 48.2; 50.4, 6), or
\t
%
(34.6; 35.7; 42.5; cf. 23.3), or simply
(15.2; 21.2; 26.2; 30.4; 34.8; cf.
34.3); see Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 4…6. Within OT citations Clement may
use the aorist
, but only for quoting
a speaker
within the passage;
to give one exam-
ple among the many Koester offers (p. 5), in using
\n
when citing Gen 13:14…
16 in
1 Clem.
10.4 (see also
1 Clem.
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
be added to the tradition by two redactors work-
ing independently.
If we may adapt that thought somewhat, rather than
thinking of redactors, when working
with oral tradition it is more appropri-
ate to think of traditionists or perform
ers of the tradition. While oral tradi-
tion emphasizes conservation of the tradition, each performance of the
tradition will also incorporate new elements, what we have previously re-
ferred to as the variability within stabilityŽ characteristic of oral tradi-
Originality in this process does
not involve inventing new material,
but grappling with how the tradition
way into a new situation.
Tuckett identified certain features in the
that are also found in its Matth
ean parallels, where they possibly
originated in MattR. If these features, however, were also widely available
in the surrounding milieu, they could ha
tion during any given performance, tradition that in turn became a source
for Matthew and the
. This would be an example of the variability
that accompanies the stability of the tradition. The above scenario is all the
more likely when contrasting the fragments of Matthean-like material in
the
with what Milavec calls the great omissionsŽ … the large sec-
tions of Matthew not found in the
MattR features.
Especially in those sections in which the
seems
pect to find much more continuity
with the basic content of Matthew as a whole, or at least with the content
of the appropriate sec
preponderance of stability
within some variability that is characteristic of literary dependence … if the
were indeed dependent here on
a traditionists performance of a
finished Matthew.
The above discussion is certainly not
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
rately in an appendix rather than as an
integral part of the book as a whole,
given that the book as a whole is devot
ed specifically to the Jesus tradition
in the Apostolic Fathers.
Index of Subjects
Didascalia,
relation to 159
… Jesus tradition in 40, 41, 43, 44, 59,
61, 66, 104, 151…52, 155…56, 158…75,
… Ps.-Mac.
relation to 159
… socio-historical situation implied by
… unity of 66…67, 153…58
Polycarp, Martyrdom of
Pseudo-Macarius,
Homilies
1 Clem.,
relationship to 111…12
… dating 112, 159
… Poly.
., relationship to 159
Q and double traditionŽ 34, 57, 58,
… oral 5, 34, 120, 124…25, 132, 134…39,
… order of 121, 126, 185, 188
… pauline literature, relation to 123
… plurality of sources 280
… pre-Q tradition 123…24, 139, 145,
rate of recurrence, criterion of 66, 103,
reading practices in Western antiquity
redaction criticism 34, 47, 51, 56…58,
redactional criterion 47, 51, 54…59, 66,
re-oralization 104…5, 106, 200, 215,
Revelation of John, relation to
2 Clem-
rhythmography 136
scribes 77, 79, 99, 103, 216
Second Clement
see
Clement, Pseudo- /
2 Clement
Sermon on the Mount/Plain 34, 41,
social memory (
see
memory, social)
source criticism 34
synoptic problem 4…5, 6, 34, 99, 115,
textual criticism 64, 65, 103, 108…9,
textual distinctiveness, criterion of 66,
Thomas, Gospel of
2 Clement
, relation to 251, 251…53,
… composition
history 252
traditionists 15, 16, 32…33, 86, 87, 89,
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
natives to the approach to oral tradition taken in the present work, i.e.,
form criticism and the rabbinic model developed by Birger Gerhardsson,
have fallen short. We will consider why this is the case in what follows.
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
In the introductory remarks to this ch
not a new topic of discussion in New
Testament studies. Here we turn to
address the question of why the approach
to oral tradition used in the pre-
sent work was chosen over those offered by form criticism and by Birger
Gerhardsson, what we will call the rabbinic model.Ž
1.4.1 Form Criticism
Form criticism, especially the pioneering work of R. Bultmann and
M. Dibelius in the 1920s, did a great se
drawing attention to the importance of oral tradition for understanding the
background of the Gospels.
According to Bultmann (and here he agrees
The three classic form-critical texts are K. L. Schmidt,
Der Rahmen der Geschichte
Jesu
(Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919); M. Dibelius,
From Tradition to Gospel
(LTT; Cam-
bridge: James Clarke, 1971 [1st German ed. 1919]), and R. Bultmann,
The History of the
Synoptic Tradition
(3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1972 [1st German ed. 1921]). The fol-
lowing assessment of form criticism is perfor
ce brief. For fuller treatments see R. Bauck-
ham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006), 241…49; K. Berger, F
orm Criticism, New Testament,Ž
1:413…17;
C. L. Blomberg, Form Criticism,Ž
243…50; D. L. Bock,
Form Criticism,Ž in
Inter-
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
The ability to create abstract, analyti
cal categories to organize knowledge
is dependent on writing. Knowledge in an oral context is conceptualized
and communicated in a manner that remains closely related to the familiar,
everyday world of human activity. So, e.
g., inventories of people, things or
skills are embedded in a narrative context, rather than itemized abstractly
This characteristic derives in part from the previous point, By keeping
knowledge embedded in the human lifew
orld, orality situates knowledge
within a context of struggle.Ž Oral forms such as riddles and proverbs (or
bartering) do not serve simply to communicate neutral ideas, but to engage
t. The agonistic tendency of
oral cultures is also
evidenced in such things as detaile
forms of aggressive physical behavior
, and in effusive expressions of
Eyewitnesses and Critical History: A Response to Jens Schröter and Craig Evans,Ž
JSNT
31 (2008): 229; D
unn, Altering,Ž
160…69; idem, Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tra-
dition,Ž 87, 90, 92…94, 99…100; idem,
Jesus Remembered
, 210…38, 249, passim; idem,
New Perspective on Jesus
, 51…53; idem, On Faith and History, and Living Tradition: In
Response to Robert Morgan and Andrew Gregory,Ž
ExpTim
116 (2004…05): 17; idem,
Remembering Jesus,Ž 196…97; Finnegan,
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
This argument regarding the relationships between Poly.
. 2.3 and
its parallels is fairly cogent, and the theory that Polycarp depended on a
1 Clement
, Matthew and Luke for the Jesus sayings under
on. The argument, however, is not
ously in this chapter, one cannot sim-
ply assume that Polycarp is dependent on
1 Clement
at this particular junc-
ture simply because he was familiar with Clements epistle. On the
ter, Polycarps Epistle,Ž
165…66; Bellinzoni, Gospel of
Matthew,Ž 207…9; Bauer,
Polykarpbriefe
, 44…45; Berding,
Polycarp
Massaux,
, 2:29, and see also ibid., 2:30.
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
mentŽ used: it may have been a canonical gospel,
els such as a gospel harmony, a
els, a non-canonical gospel (such as
the
Gospel of the Egyptians
), a writing of an altogether different genre
such as the
2 Clement
\t\t\n#E\f \b
\f\t\f \b
\t
\n\f
Indeed, he [Christ] himself says, Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will ac-
knowledge before my FatherŽ
2 Clem

\f \b
\f\t

Mt 10:32:
\n"!\b\t\n\f \b
\t\f\t'\f\b
Lk 12:8:
\n\n\f \b
\f\t'\f\b
2 Clem
\f \b

\t\n\f
Mt 10:32:
\f \b
&'\f\b\n\f
\t\n\t\n
Lk 12:8:
\t\t\n
\f \b
&'\f\b #
Rev 3:5
\f \b
'\f
\t\n\f
\t\t 
The similarities and dissimilarities between
. 3.2 and its gospel par-
allels resemble what has been observe
d in the previous chapters regarding
many other sayings in the Apostolic
Fathers. There are a number of minor
\n


&
; the

found only in
Köhler also thinks this is very possible (
Rezeption
, 135…36); Kelhoffer refers to
2 Clem
2.4 as a citation of Mark 2.17//Matt 9.13Ž (How Soon a Book Revisited,Ž 6); Smith
finds it highly probableŽ that ClementŽ depends directly upon Mark or Matthew
Bibliography
Henderson, Ian H. Didache and Or
ality in Synoptic Comparison.Ž
Journal of Biblical
Literature
111 (1992): 283…306.
…. Style-Switching in the
Didache:
Fingerprint or Argument?Ž Pages 177…209 in
The
Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission.
Edited by Clayton
N. Jefford. Supplements to Novum Te
stamentum 77. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Hengel, Martin.
The Charismatic Leader and His Followers
. Edited by John Riches.
Translated by James C. G. Greig. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collec-
tion and Origin of the Canonical Gospels.
Translated by John Bowden. London:
SCM/Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.
Henige, David. Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implica-
tions.Ž
Oral Tradition
3 (1988): 229…38.
Oral Historiography.
New York: Longman, 1982.
Herder, Johann Gottfried.
Against Pure Reason: Writings on Religion, Language, and
. Fortress Texts in Modern Theology. Tr
anslated, edited, and with an intro-
duction by Marcia Bunge. Minneapolis: Fortress,
Hernando, James Daniel. Irenaeus and the Apos
tolic Fathers: An Inquiry into the Devel-
opment of the New Testament Canon.Ž Ph.D. Dissertation; Madison, N.J.: Drew
University, 1990.
Herron, Thomas J. The Most Probable Date of
the First Epistle of Clement to the Corin-
thians.Ž Pages 106…21 in
Studia Patristica,
Vol. 21:
Papers presented to the Tenth
International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987: Second Century,
Tertullian to Nicaea in the West, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Athanasius.
Chapter 2
A Brief History of Scholarship on the
Sources of the Jesus Traditi
2.1 Introduction
de a general overview of some of the
roads that have been traversed by scholars in the study of the Jesus tradi-
tion in the Apostolic Fathers. It will not be possible to survey all of the
number of ancient documents involved
causes scholarship to splinter into t
oo many subtopics. For example, the
topic of the Jesus and/or gospel tradition in the
alone has gener-
ated a considerable body of sec
ondary literature in its own right.
Besides the relevant sections in the major commentaries (J. P. Audet,
Instructions des Apôtres
[EBib; Paris: Lecoffre, 1958]; R. A. Kraft,
Barnabas and the
Didache
[ApFa 3; New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965]; K. Niederwimmer,
The
Didache: A Commentary
[ed. H. W. Attridge; trans. L.
M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minnea-
polis: Fortress, 1998]; W. Rordorf and A. Tuilier,
La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres [Di-
[2nd rev. and expanded ed.; SC 248 bis; Paris: Cerf, 1998]; K. Wengst,
4.2 Comparing the Jesus Tradition in 1 Clem. 13.2 to its Gospel Parallels
sence) of redactional elements from the Evangelists in
will constitute our main criterion for this e
nquiry.
4.2 Comparing the Jesus Tradition in
1 Clem.
13.2 to its Gospel
Most scholars agree that there is no literary relationship between
and the gospel parallels in the above
synopsis provide no reason to posit othe
tains a verbatim parallel to any of the sayings in
ing of some is so different that they are parallels only at the level of ideas.
Taking saying a as an example, wh
ile the idea of showing mercy to oth-
ers is expressed in
13.2 by the imperative form of
 
mercy on), in Lk 6:36 it is expressed with the imperative of the verb
\t\f\t
and the adjective
(merciful, compassionate).
weaker parallel in Lk 6:
) contains the imperative
 
, which in this context implies the idea of mercy in forgiving
personal injury or insult.
In short, for saying a, as well as for other say-
ings such as b, c, and f, the go
spel parallels show hardly any verbal
Some, however, have held that
1 Clem.
13.2 is a looseŽ or imperfect quotation of
the Gospels from memory: Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:52; G. Schneider,
Clemens
von Rom: Brief an die Korinther
(FonC; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 23 (who also considers
that the sayings may have been collected in
testimonia or florilegium). M. Hengel conjec-
tures that Clement knew all
three Synoptic Gospels but de
liberately quoted them freely
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
46.8. While the verb
\b \t,
is found in all three Synoptics (Mk
9:42//Mt 18:6//Lk 17:2; Mt 18:7//Lk 17:1 also contain the noun
\b 
\b 
. 46.8, all three Synoptics use the subjunctive ao-
rist form
\b \t\b&
in place of
1 Clement
\b \t\b\t
, and only
Clem
. 46.8 uses also the synonym
\t\b%
… another instance of the
Synoptics agreeing with each other against
Mark 14:21 and
Mt 26:24 further differ from
1 Clement
in that they both contain an em-
'\n\t\n
) at the end of their woe-saying that
In addition, while all three Synoptics and
Clem
. 46.8 refer to some form of a millstone, where
1 Clement
has simply
a millstone (
\f \n
), Mk 9:42 and Mt 18:6 specify a great millstone of the
type worked by a donkey (
\f \n\t\n
), and Lk 17:2 has a stone belong-
ing to a millŽ (
Furthermore, the vocabulary used for it is
betterŽ in the saying it is better for such a one to have a millstone
hung/cast around his neckŽ also differs in
the four texts that contain it: in
. 46.8 it is betterŽ or more fittingŽ (
\t
\n
]), in Mk 9:42
it is goodŽ or fittingŽ (
 \n
), Mt 18:6 reads it is to his advantageŽ or
it is helpfulŽ (
Koester and Massaux both argue that Clement of Rome has here changed the read-
\b \t\b\t
he found in his sources to
\t\b-\t
, anticipating and preparing for
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
Given that the introductory formula
\t
\n
), the inclusion of this saying in the present study might be viewed as
an exception. From an examination of his argument, however, it appears
that ClementŽ is using the attribu
tion to God as a synonym for Christian
teaching.Ž
Beginning in 13.1 he has been urging his readers that their be-
havior should match Gods words that they claim to follow, so as not to
cause the name of the Lord to be bl
asphemed by outsiders. In 13.2 he then
cites two words of the Lord from Isa 52:5 and an unknown source, For the
Lord says, My name is constantly blasphemed among all the Gentiles.
And again he says, Woe to the one
who causes my name to be blas-
phemed. How is it blasphemed? When
you fail to do what I wish.Ž
brings us to the immediate context of our verse, where ClementŽ gives the
application of these citations:
For when outsiders hear the sayings of God from our mouths, they are astonished at their
beauty and greatness. Then when they discover that our actions do not match our words,
they turn from astonishment to blasphemy, sa
ying that our faith is some kind of myth and
error. For, on the one hand, they hear from us that God says,
It is no great accom-
plishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and
those who hate you.Ž And when they hear these things, they are astonished by their ex-
traordinary goodness. But then when they see that we fail to love not only those who hate
us, but even those who love us, they ridicule us and the name is blasphemed. (
2 Clem
Viewing the citation in 13.4 within this context, it becomes clear that the
emphasis is not upon the precise origin
of the words … i.e., God the Father
as opposed to Jesus … but upon the divine or Christian moral teaching they
contain. From the point of view of the outsidersŽ or GentilesŽ (
\t\n
'
) there is no distinction to be
This explanation is to be preferred over
that which sees 13.4 as a Christological
statement in light of 1.1, where ClementŽ states, Brothers, we must think about Jesus
Christ as we think about God, as about the ju
dge of the living and th
e dead.Ž For this lat-
ter view see Grant and Graham,
First and Second Clement
, 124; Pratscher,
ensbrief
I have changed Ehrmans translation to read the more literal GentilesŽ in place of
outsidersŽ (see his own note in
Apostolic Fathers
, 1:185), and to include the words
How is it blasphemed? When you fail to do wh
at I wishŽ as part of the citation of the
Lords words from an unknown source (where they belong most naturally, given that they
are in the first person).
On the present tense here see n. 87 on p. 266 above.
See Lindemann,
Clemensbriefe
Bibliography
The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Gr
eek Text with Introduction, Notes, and In-
dexes.
2nd ed. London: Macmillan/New York: St. Martins, 1966.
…. The Order of Q.Ž
Journal of Theological Studies
n.s. 4 (1953): 27…31.
…. The Original Order of Q.Ž Pages 246…69 in
New Testament Essays: Studies in Mem-
ory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893…1958.
Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1959. Repr. pages 95…118 in idem,
New Testament Es-
says
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Thackeray, H. St. J., Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman, trans.
Works
of Josephus
. Loeb Classical Library. 10 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press/London: Heinemann, 1926…65.
Thatcher, Tom.
The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore.
SBL
Stephen E. Young
, born 1965; 2010 PhD in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary
in Pasadena, CA; currently teaches at Fuller as Affiliate Instructor of New Testament.
ISBN978-3-16-151010-6
ISSN0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2.Reihe)
2.7 Coming Full Circle (2005)
appears ... to have drawn on Jesus tr
served in the synoptic gospels.Ž
: Paul Foster concludes primar
ily based on the parallels be-
tween
. 1.1 and Mt 3:15 that it is most likely that Ignatius knew
Matthew gospel,Ž though he does not
wish to rule out Koesters sugges-
tion that this knowledge was indirect
. In the case of other Ignatian pas-
sages he suggests that perhaps they
presuppose Q or oral tradition that fed
into that document.Ž
Polycarp
: in his study of Polycarps
Epistle to the Philippians
, Michael
Gregory, 
1 Clement
and the Writings that later fo
rmed the New Testament,Ž in
, 157, and see his fuller remarks on p. 139; in the body of his essay Gregory
concludes regarding
1 Clem
.13.2 that Clement probably makes use of a collection of
sayings that is independent of
and earlier than the broadly si
milar sayings of Jesus that
are preserved also in Matthew and/or LukeŽ (pp. 133…34); regarding
1 Clem
. 46.8 that it
(speculatively) refer to a time when th
is particular Jesus tradition was a free-
floating logion,Ž apparently oral (p. 137); regarding
1 Clem
. 24.5 that it is unclear
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Though this final
(required by
\b\t
at the end of the con-
struction as a whole,
\t\f\b\t\f\t
(v. 36). Next in sequence we
find a series of rhythmic and rhyming lines, that rhyme even with their
concluding
\f 
\t\b\f
\b\b \f
(\f
\b\b\t\t\n \f#
This is capped off by the well-known
maxim in v. 38c that sums up the
whole collection of sayings, and ties them all back to the heading in v. 36:
)&\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
Implicit in each of these verses is the idea not just of reciprocity, but of
reciprocity, contained in the use
throughout of the divine passive.
The final two lines (38c) put this in general terms: God will measure out to
you after the manner in which you have
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
written
and in seeking to determine when the
is de-
pendent on Matthew and when on Luke, and the
to which it is in-
debted to either, does not consider whether literary dependence is
likely
Milavec states,
This tendency is probably encouraged by
the use of redaction criticism, which in
its formative stages was most successfully a
pplied to the study of the appropriation of
Mark by Matthew and Luke (see N. Perrin,
What is Redaction Criticism?
[GBSNTS;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 1…39). Since in
dealing with the Synop
tic Problem there is
an extant written source against which to
compare two other written documents, the ap-
plication of the method might predispose the
interpreter to think in terms of comparing
extant written sources. It is to Koesters credit that, although he applies redaction criti-
cism in analyzing the Jesus tr
adition in the Apostolic Fathers, he does not allow it to bias
him against orality (see discussion of
Koester in sec. 2.3.2 above).
Within this quote Mila
vec cites Achtemeier, 
,Ž 3, 9…11, 27, and
Ong,
Presence
, 52…53, 231…34; quote taken from Milavec, Synoptic Tradition,Ž 466.
Milavec, Synop
tic Traditio
n,Ž 466…71.
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
\b\t\t
\t\t
Mk 10:38b:
\b\t\t
\t\t
\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\t;
Mt 20:22b:
\b\t\t\t
Pap 13:2:
\t\b
\f\n\t\b\f#
Mk 10:39a:
\t\t"&#\f
\b\n\t"\t\n#
Mt 20:22c:
\b\t&#
\f  \t\t\n#
\t\f
%\b\t\t\b
\t\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\b
Mk 10:39b:
\t
\t\t\b

\t\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\b
Mt 20:23a:
\f\t\f
\t\b
Here, again, there is a problem with assigning the Jesus tradition to Papias.
The problem becomes apparent in light
of the wider context in Georges
, that has to do with the fate of John:
And after Domitian, Nerva reigned for one year. He recalled John from his island and
allowed him to live in Ephesus. He alone of
the twelve disciples re
mained alive at that
time; and after he composed his Gospel he
was found worthy to become a martyr. For
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, an eyewitness of John, asserts in the second book of the
Lords sayings that John was killed by Jews. And so he, along with his brother, clearly
fulfilled the prediction of Christ about them
and the confession an
d consent that they
gave to it. For the Lord said to them, Are
you able to drink the cup that I drink?Ž And
when they eagerly nodd
ed their assent and agreed to do so, he said, You will drink my
cup, and you will be baptized with the ba
ptism that I experience.Ž And it makes sense
that this happened, because God cannot lie. (13.1…2)
As noted by J. B. Lightfoot, in this wider context of the fragment, The
fate which really
befell James is attributed to
John.Ž Lightfoot derives from
this the implication that George ca
nnot be quoting directly from Papias,
of John.Ž
suggested various theories to solve th
Lightfoot,
Essays
, 211…12. The tr
adition that John suffered a martyrs death, de-
spite its antiquity, is not reliable, and unfor
tunately the text under consideration has
played a large role in its formation; see esp. the discussion in F.-M. Braun,
Jean le
(3 vols.; EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1959…72), 1:375…88; and also in Davies and
Allison,
Matthew
, 3:90…92; R. Schnackenburg,
The Gospel According to St. John
(trans.
Index of Subjects
literacy (
see also
orality and literacy in
early Christianity
orality and lit-
eracy in Western antiquity)
… definitions of 74, 76, 77
… in early Christianity 21…23
… in Western antiquity 23, 74…81
literary dependence 161…62, 173, 184…
1.3 Problems
four decades following the pioneering work of Parry and Lord.
It is this
lack that the present study seeks to address.
The thesis that will guide this work is that an oral-traditional source
best explains the form and content of the explicit appeals to Jesus tradition
in the Apostolic Fathers that predate
2 Clement
. It will argue further that
e use of any of the canonical Gos-
pels by any of the Apostolic Fathers. Rather, much of the evidence that has
been brought forward in the past in
support of the Apostolic Fathers use
of the canonical Gospels points to th
lated sources by the Apostolic Fathers and the gospel writers. While it is
2 Clement
marks the beginning of the appeal to written
sources that will characterize Christian literature after Irenaeus, this is also
H. Köster (hereafter Koester to be consis
tent with his later pu
blications) gives an
important place to oral tradition in his monograph
Synoptische Überlieferung bei den
apostolischen Vätern
(TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957). His understanding of oral
tradition, however, is derived from the presuppositions of form criticism, which leave
much to be desired; on the form-critical pers
pective on oral tradition see sec. 1.4.1 below,
under the sub-title Form Criticism.Ž Koester
will be a valuable conversation partner
throughout the present work.
For a full discussion see ch. 2 below entitled A Brief History of Scholarship on
the Sources of the Jesus Traditio
n in the Apostolic Fathers.Ž
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
cycled orally is lost.
The advent of writing in any given culture to a cer-
tain extent changes this dynamic, in that written texts provide a more dura-
ble repository of at least parts of
a tradition (though even texts may be
lostŽ if they cease to be actualized by their oral use).
In cultures that re-
main predominantly oral,
however, the traditioning process remains
heavily geared toward conservation, in that members of traditional cultures
are oriented towards the past.
In these cultures, when traditionists incor-
porate new elements in performing a tradition, originality does not consist
in inventing new stories, but (and more on this below) in grappling with
how traditional themes and formulas can
best be reshuffled to adapt them
to new situations.
(This results in our next point below: variability within
stability.) Study of the artistic expression that captures the traditionists
originality must go hand in hand with attention to the tradition they have
Ong,
Orality and Literacy
, 41…42; idem,
Interfaces
, 151 (where he refers to Have-
lock,
, 36…60); Henige,
Oral Historiography
, 5; Park,
Marks Memory Resources
73…78; Thomas,
Literacy and Orality
, 113…17. It is difficult for members of our chiro-
36 (2006): 13; and see further below under point 3.3.10, enti-
tled Socially Identified.Ž
Ong,
Orality and Literacy
, 41…42, 58…60, and see also Havelock,
Muse
54…62. As Andersen notes, th
e face-to-face context of oral communication necessitates
this reshuffling, It is in the
nature of [oral] tradition to be
adaptive. It is
shaped within a
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
ity of scholars holds that Po
lycarp was dependent neither on
1 Clement
on the Gospels, but derived the saying
early catechism,
oral tradition,
or a document written in Hebrew or
Aramaic, of which Clement and Po
lycarp contain independent transla-
). In what follows we will argue in favor of the minority position
idem,
Introduction to the NT
, 2:309; idem,
, 20; idem, Text of the Synoptic,Ž 44
(reprint); Bellinzoni, Gospel
of Matthew,Ž 207…9; Bauer,
Polykarpbriefe
, 44…45;
Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 12; Berding,
Polycarp
, 54, 56…57, 58…59; J. D.
Hernando, Irenaeus and the Apostolic Fathers:
An Inquiry into the Development of the
New Testament CanonŽ (Ph.D. Dissertation; Madison, N.J.: Drew University, 1990), 193
nn. 235, 236; P. Vielhauer,
Geschichte der urchristlichen
Literatur: Einleitung in das
Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter
(2nd corrected ed.; Berlin
and New York: de Gruyter, 1978), 564.
Massaux,
, 2:29…30. Barnard
represent this position when he states,
In Chs. I…xii he [Polycarp] appears to kno
w Matthew, Luke, Acts,
the Pauline Epistles,
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in
Rather than superimpose an artificial structure on our treatment of the say-
ings that follow based upon the results
of the investigation, we will treat
them in the order in which they appear in
2 Clement
, and categorize the
sayings according to our findings in the concluding section.
2 Clement
\t% \t!\t)
 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n#
And also another Scripture says
I did not come to call the upright, but sinners.Ž
2 Clem

 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
Barn

 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
Mt 9:13:
 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
Mk 2:17:

" 
 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
Lk 5:32:

   \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
\t\n\f\t
Justin,

 \b\t\t\t\n \f \n
\t\n\f\t
The inclusion of this saying in the present study that deals with explicit
appeals to Jesus sayings is an exception, though one made on good
grounds. On the one hand, the introduc
tory And also another Scripture
saysŽ identifies the words that follow as
an explicit quotation. On the other
hand, given that the only parallels in extant literature are from the Jesus
tradition, it is fairly safe to assume that the author is quoting words of Je-
sus. Bringing these two considerations together, it is very probable that the
author expected his readers to recognize that he was citing a written source
of Jesus tradition. In effect, then, th
e formula And also
saysŽ serves to identify the words that follow as a saying of Jesus.
Turning to the saying itself, there is very little variation among its par-
allels. The forms in
2 Clement
and Mark are identical, while those in
and Matthew are so close to the latter that for all intents and
purposes they constitute four matching
witnesses to the logion. The third
I decided upon this approach after the thir
d complete revision of
the contents of the
present chapter. I began work on the sayings in
2 Clement
assuming that most of them
were derived from a harmony of Matthew and
Luke that also included material from
other sources. Accordingly, I divided the chapte
r into two main sections, the first dealing
with sayings that presupposed the finished form of the Gospels and the second with the
few sayings that did not. When I found that the evidence from the sayings did not support
Bibliography
Matthew 1…13.
Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1993.
Matthew 14…28.
Word Biblical Commentary 33B. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1995.
…. Righteousness in Matthews Theology.Ž Pages 101…20 in
Worship, Theology and
Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin.
Edited by Mi-
chael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
…. The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr.Ž Pages 233…68 in
Gospel Perspectives,
The Jesus Tradition Ou
tside the Gospels.
Edited by
David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome.
Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Hainsworth, J. B. The Fallibility of an
Oral Heroic Trad
ition.Ž Page
s 111…35 in
The
Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context.
Edited by Lin Foxhall and John K. Davies.
Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1984.
Halbwachs, Maurice.
Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire
. Bibliothèque de philosophie
contemporaine: Les Travaux de LAnnée Sociologique. Paris: F. Alcan, 1925.
The Collective Memory
. Translated by Francis J. Ditte
r, Jr. and Vida Yazdi Ditter.
New York: Harper & Row, 1980. French original:
La mémoire collective
. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 1950.
On Collective Memory
. Edited, Translated, and with an Introduction by Lewis A.
Coser. The Heritage of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Translated from
Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire
. New ed. Paris: Presses Universi-
taires de France, 1952; and from
La topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
. This continuity of context
forming the meaning not just of the words of the tradition, but also of its
gestures and symbols (e.g., anointing,
washing, a kiss; bread, wine, oil,
and in (b) maintaining the values and communal memories
This continuity thus
served to render the tradition into an insider language with a set of associa-
tions, institutionalized references, and expectations that were fully per-
These aspects of the tradition are often i
nvestigated in liturgical studies, but are
not limited to the liturgy.
Cf. Nogueira, Oral Tradition,Ž 164.
See Foley,
Singer
, 29…59, especially his discussion of Performance Arena,Ž
Register,Ž and Communicative EconomyŽ on pp. 47…56, and cf. the notions of re-
enactmentŽ and preservationŽ developed by E. J. Bakker in Activation and Preserva-
tion: The Interdependence of Text an
d Performance in an Oral Tradition,Ž
8 (1993):
10…15; also Vansina,
Oral Tradition
See comments on the synoptic problem in sec. 1.1 above.
4.1 Introduction
ents into two groups: (a) documents
(a) The non-gospel documents incl
uded in the above synopsis were
written too late to be the source for the sayings of Jesus in
1 Clement
. It is
most likely that
1 Clement
was written sometime within the years A.D. 70…
100, possibly somewhat later.
Thus Clement of Alexandrias
Stromateis
Though there used to be a near-consensus for an A.D.
95…96 date, this has dis-
solved, and there is currently no new cons
ensus in its place. Th
e date 95…96 was mostly
based on understanding Clements words in 1.1, that the church at Rome had just experi-
enced suddenŽ or unexpected and repeated misfortunes and calamitiesŽ (
\n\t%)
\t\t\n\t  \n\f
\n\f\t\b\f%\n\t\t\b\t\n
), as referring to
imperial persecution suffered near the end of Domitians reign. L. L. Welborn has shown,
however, based on lexical, historical, and litera
ry considerations, that
this interpretation
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
46.8 existed unattached to a millstone-saying in the pre-Markan
tradition, as suggested by the similar words
\t&&\t
 &\t
Though it is
possible that Jesus said both forms of the woe-saying on separate occa-
sions, the complex web of
millstone, and supports this view
in part with the further ar
gument that Lk and Mt follow
a different order in these sayings (Reconstruction of Q,Ž 90). With all due respect to
Neirynck, I do find the pairing of the woe an
d millstone in Mt and Lk significant, and
find in it sufficient
evidence of a common source (the double tradition). The issue of or-
der is of no consequence. Not only does Matthew often depart from the order of Q, but
also, if the source accessed by the Evangelists for the material in Lk 17:1…2//Mt 18:6…7
was oral tradition (as argued above), the varia
tion in order would represent the variability
within stability that one would ex
pect to find in such a source.
It is even more significant,
as noted above, that the woe an
d millstone are paired not only in Mt and Lk, pointing to a
common source in the double tradition, but also in
1 Clement
. Given that in other re-
spects the sayings in the double traditio
n differ significantly from those in
1 Clement
, one
should hesitate to argue for the direct dependence of
1 Clement
on this source. The com-
mon pairing of woe with millstone, however, would at least suggest an influence of one
upon the other in the history of
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
To sum up the discussion so far, though the parallels to
show little evidence of literary interdependence (among themselves or with
2 Clement
), it does seem quite likely that together
2 Clement
, Clement of
Alexandria, and the
attest either to a common source, or
to sources that point back to a common history.
Can one go further and identify a pos
sible source for at least some of
these parallels? The only likely candidate for such a source, the
the Egyptians
mentioned by Clement of Alexandria,
turns out to be un-
verifiable. Immediately after citing th
e Jesus saying under consideration,
Clement of Alexandria states: Now in the first place we have not this
word in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in the
Gospel of the Egyptians [
\f"\t
\n\f\t\n\f\t
\b\t \t\t\n'(\f
 &5
]Ž (
. 3.92.2). A little further on he refers to the same pas-
sage with the words, the words s
tioned previously. I fancy the passage comes from the
Gospel according to
the Eyptians
Clement of Alexandria does not, however,
cite
the saying
from the
Gospel of the Egyptians
, but from Julius Cassians
On Self-
, as can be gathered from the wider context of
. 3.92 and his introduction to the sa
ying, Therefore Cassianus now
says ƒ.Ž
Although one cannot be certain
Clement of Alexandrias statement that the
Gospel of the Egyptians
tained a saying similar to the one in
12.2, 6. There is no way, how-
ever, to ascertain either (a) how close the saying in the
Gospel of the
was in wording and content to the saying in Cassian (since nei-
ther document is extant), or (b) how mu
ch of the saying in Cassian was in-
cluded in Clement of Alexandrias quotati
on. It is possible, e.g., that in his
writings Cassian cited only part of a saying that in its fullest form was
closer to its two parallels in
, or that Clement of Alexandria cited
only that part of the saying found in
Cassians writings that fit his pur-
poses, so that the full saying in Cass
Lightfoot attributes not only the source of
2 Clem
. 12.2, 6 but also that of other
passages in
2 Clement
to the
Gospel of the Egyptians
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:236…38).
Strom
. 3.63.1; trans. is by J. Ferguson, in
Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis:
Books One to Three
(FC 85; Washington, D. C.: Catho
lic University of America Press,
In
Strom
. 3.91.1 Clement states, In such ways Julius Cassian, the founder of Do-
Bibliography
Sim, David C. Matthew and Ignatius of Antioch.Ž Pages 139…54 in
Matthew and His
Christian Contemporaries.
Edited by David C. Sim and Boris Repschinski. Library
of New Testament Studies (JSNTSup) 333. London and New York: T&T Clark,
Slusser, Michael. Reading
Silently in Antiquity.Ž
Journal of Biblical Literature
(1992): 499.
Small, Jocelyn Penny.
2.6 Applying and Refining Koeste
Ibid., 136…149, 172.
Ibid., 147…48.
Regarding the
Didache
, Gregory notes that while it seems to show a familiarity ei-
ther with Matthew or with special Matthean material, the direction of dependence could
go either from Matthew to the
Didache
or from the
Didache
to Matthew. He finds none
of the arguments for the Didachists dependence on Luke to be conclusive. Positing that
an argument for the Didachists dependence on Luke might be made if it could first be
shown both that (a)
. 16.1 presupposes Lk 12:35, and that (b) the form of Lk 12:35 is
due to LkR, he goes on to show that neither of the latter are certain (ibid., 118…21, 171).
1 Clement
, while apparently drawing at least in part upon synoptic
tradition
(probably a
collection of sayings) cannot be shown to have been acquainted with any given synoptic
gospel (ibid., 125…29, 172). Certain material in Ignatius might appear at first sight to
show a familiarity with Luke (cf.
Smyrn
. 3.2…3 and Lk 24:36…43), but it is more probable
that Ignatius did not derive the material in
question from Luke, but rather that both Igna-
tius and Luke derived it from a common source, either written or oral (ibid., 69…75, 113).
While Polycarp may evince a knowledge of e
ither synoptic tradition or the Synoptic
Gospels in general, what is most important
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
eristically is [transmitted and] per-
formed in coherent discourses asso
ciated with particular contexts.Ž
Draper and Horsley argue that the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, or what
they prefer to call Jesus covenantal discourse,Ž is an example of such a
coherent discourse. In s
both authors apply Dell
Hymes model of measured verseŽ (which focuses on the narrative flow
and Draper also applies Mar
cel Jousses model of rhyth-
mographyŽ (which focuses upon the pe
rformative balance of small units
within the overall structureŽ)
to an analysis the oral-performative features
ermon on the Mount/Plain) in Q.
These two
models serve to bring out clearly the
oral patterning and structure of the
ll as the coherent internal oral struc-
turing of its constituent scenes, all of which is characterized by balance
of Jesus tradition in episodesŽ (Eyewitne
ss Testimony and Oral Tradition,Ž 46; idem,
Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,Ž 1472…73).
Draper, Covenantal Discourse,Ž quote from
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
their own divergent end times scen
ario based upon a mere 2 percent?Ž
The most likely answer is that they did not ignore the remainder of Mat-
thew, but simply did not know Matthews gospel when they compiled and
edited the
In conclusion, even if none of the a
sive by itself, taken together they
greatly decrease the likelihood that the
is dependent on a written Matthew. If the
grew out of a closely related milieu, a shared background and overall
commonality of tradition and idiom better explain the resemblances be-
tween them than does a theory of literary dependence. Just as importantly,
a shared milieu would also go a long way in explaining the
differences
tween the Jesus tradition in the
and Matthew, which are very dif-
a theory of literary dependence.
Didache
In his essay Tuckett does not seriously consider the possibility that the
source of the Jesus tradition in the
may have been
Milavec, Rejoinder,Ž 521. Milavec then asks, if the compilers of the
Didache
only
knew some scattered sayings from Matthew,Ž how can one explain that they did not take
the trouble to find and use the remainder of
the work? Since only 2 percent of Matt 24
shows up in
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
millennialŽ), to which was added a story from oral tradition as an illustra-
If these were the components of Papi
as work, it raises the question of
Lightfoot,
Essays
, 156…59, quote from p. 159; see also Schoedel,
Polycarp, Mar-
tyrdom, Papias
Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2:105…7, already cited in sec. 3.4 above; this material
has been reconstructed by various editors from the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th
cent.); see Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
Ibid., 111.
Index of Subjects
accessibility, criterion
of 65…66, 102…3,
Apollinaris of Laodicea 101, 290
Apostolic Fathers (
see also under each
Apostolic Father
… authors 34
… corpus 24…25, 39
… dating 24…25, 98, 279
… Jesus tradition in 8…9, 25…27, 36…69
… origin of the term 24
Barnabas, Letter of
Didache
, relation to 211
… Jesus tradition in 27, 40, 41, 45, 61…
Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis
1 Clement,
relation to 109…10, 111…
2 Clement
, relation to 252…54, 257,
… dating 111…12, 159
… Jesus tradition in 109…12, 152, 161,
… Poly.
., relationship to 159
Clement of Rome,
1 Clement
… Clem. Alex.,
Strom.
, relationship to
… dating 111…12
Didascalia,
relationship to 111…12
… Jesus tradition in 43, 59, 60, 61, 66,
… manuscripts witnesses 108
… New Testament documents and 111
… Poly.
., relationship to 61, 111,
… Ps.-Mac.
relationship to 111…
… socio-historical situation implied by
… textual variants 108…9, 177…78
Clement, Pseudo- /
2 Clement
… authorship 239
… Clem. Alex., relation to 252…54, 271,
… date 98, 257, 260, 262…66, 271, 272
Gospel of the Ebionites
, relation to
Gospel of the Egyptians
, relation to
Gospel of Thomas
, relation to 251,
… Jesus tradition in 40, 43, 45, 49, 55,
… Justin Martyr, relation to 240, 245,
… Revelation to John, relation to 242…
… textual variants 266
collective memory (
see
memory, social)
communities, impact upon Jesus tradi-
tion/oral tradition 14, 27, 29, 32…34,
conception of a discourse/writing 10,
cultural memory (
see
memory, social)
Didache
Barnabas
, relation to 211
… composition
history 202, 208…9, 211
… dating 98, 211, 213
… genre 201, 222
… Jesus tradition in 36, 38, 43, 49, 54…
… Matthew, relation to 203…4, 207…16,
… Two Ways tradition 212
… textual variants 203, 220…21
Didascalia
1 Clement,
relationship to 111…12
1.2 Thesis
Mark
and the Gospel of John,
the Pauline literature,
the Apocalypse of
John,
and the New Testament in general.
Non-canonical writings have
P. J. J. Botha, Marks Story as Oral
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
In place of the complex logical construc
tions with subordinate clauses that
one finds in written compositions, in oral-derived texts one will tend to
find phrases strung together and li
nked by additive or purposive connec-
tives (e.g., and then,Ž and nextŽ or forŽ).
Certain aspects of meaning
that in written composition are conveye
d by the more complex linguistic
structure, in oral communication are communicated by the existential con-
texts surrounding discourse.
Oral communication adheres to the idea
unit, or tone group, or intonation unitŽ
information that can be held in short term memory, rather than the com-
plete sentence which is the norm for written language.
Each idea unitŽ is
added on to the one preceding it, and is enhanced by the one following it,
to communicate complex information in a
rather than a
self-contained complex syntactical unit
(the latter being more at home in
written composition).
Similar to the above point, the components of orally based communication
tend to be clusters rather than integers … parallel terms or phrases or
clauses, antithetical terms or phrases or clauses, epithets.Ž This dynamic
formulas in enabling memory.
E. Havelock, Oral Composition in the
Oedipus Tyrannus
of Sophocles,Ž
(1984): 183; J. A. Draper, Recovering Oral Performance from Written Text in Q,Ž in
Whoever Hears
(by Horsley with Draper), 190…91; Park,
Marks Memory Resources
Ong,
Orality and Literacy
Bakker, How Oral,Ž 38…39, and see the Homeric example he gives on pp. 40…41.
Bakker clarifies that he does not mean to im
ply that orally conceived discourse does not
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
2.3 is the only one that fi
nds a verbatim parallel in
When compared with
13.2, the other sayings in Pol.
the same variability in adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and verb forms
\t! 
Cl.
Strom
 
%\b\t\t\n
\t! 
1 Clem.
13.2:
\t!%
Cl.
Strom
\t!%
1 Clem.
\n\t\t
!
\t\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
\n\t\t
!
\n\t\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
13.2:
\n\t
!\n\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
\n\t
!\n\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
13.2:
\n\t
!\n\t\b\b
Cl.
Strom
\n\t
!\n\t\b\b
f)
1 Clem.
\n(\b\b!\n
(\b\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
\n(\b\b!\n
(\b\b\t\f\t
g)
1 Clem.
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
The additional
%\b\t\t\n
in saying a is not a variation in the saying itself.
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
Finally, the saying in Poly.
. 7.2 and the words with which it is in-
one saying could
have upon another.
Though the introductory exhortation to ask God to lead us not into temp-
tationŽ is not clearly identified as Jesus tradition, its close association with
the explicit citation that follows makes it very likely that an implicit appeal
to Jesus words is intended. That the implicit citation reflects a different
wording than that of its referent, following instead the wording of the sixth
petition of the Lords Prayer, serves as another example of the variability
within stability that characterized the use of the Jesus tradition in the daily
life of the early church.
Bibliography
Glimm, Francis X. The Letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians.Ž Pages 129…43 in
The
Apostolic Fathers.
Edited by Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique and Gerald
Walsh. The Fathers of the Church 1. New York: Cima, 1947.
Glover, Richard. The Didaches Quot
ations and the Synoptic Gospels."
New Testament
Studies
5 (1958…59): 12…29.
…. Patristic Quotations and Gospel Sources.Ž
New Testament Studies
31 (1985): 234…51.
Goodspeed, Edgar J.
A History of Early Christian Literature.
Revised and enlarged by
Robert M. Grant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. 1942.
Goody, Jack R.
The Domestication of the Savage Mind.
Themes in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
cends the individuality of the tradition-
This is important to distinguish oral
from other forms of
oral communication. Along these lines
Øivind Andersen rightly refers to
tradition as not personal but
from others, and if the message has weig
ht, it is not by virtue of the trans-
mitter, but by coming from somewhere else.Ž
(5) That the tradition was the co
mmon property of the Jesus move-
ditionŽ from testimony.Ž David Henige
observes that testimonyŽ is more
appropriate as a reference to informati
on that is the property of a few in-
espread belief and common acceptanceŽ
implied by the term tradition.Ž
Though perhaps originating in testi-
mony,Ž the Jesus material that is th
e focus of this study has grown beyond
that and become traditionŽ as it became the property of the growing Jesus
(6) Finally, that the oral Jesus tr
adition was the common property of
the Jesus movementŽ also indicates that the gathering of the early Jesus
communities, including traditionists/pe
rformers (including apostles, teach-
PerformersŽ in the sense that they would conduct an oral performanceŽ of the
tradition, understood as verbalization whic
h has no direct connection with writingŽ
(Ong,
Presence
, 22); see further ch. 3 below.
Andersen, Oral Tradition,Ž 26, emphasis his; cf. Gerhardsson,
Reliability
, 25…27.
See Henige, Oral What,Ž 232; idem,
Oral Historiography
, 2…3; cf. Byrskog,
sus the Only Teacher
, 21; Havelock,
Muse
For further discussion see Andersen, Oral Tradition,Ž 26.
On the responsibility of the audience in maintaining the continuity of receptionŽ
necessary for the survival of a tradition see Foley, Bards Audience,Ž 92…108, esp. 104;
idem,
Immanent Art
, 6…13, 42…45; idem,
Singer
, 42…59; idem, MemoryŽ; see also D
unn,
New Perspective on Jesus
, 48…49; idem, Remembering Jesus,Ž 196; Vansina,
Oral Tra-
dition
, 41…42. On the participation of audiences in oral performances see S. O. Iyasere,
African Oral Tradition … Criticism as
a Performance: A Ritual,Ž in
African Literature
Today,
Myth and History
(ed. E. D. Jones; London: Heinemann/New York: Afri-
cana, 1980), 169…74; D. Rhoads, Biblical Perf
ormance Criticism: Performance as Re-
search,Ž
25 (2010): 162…63, 165…66; Shiner,
Proclaiming
, 143…52; idem, Oral
Performance in the New Testament World,Ž in
The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media:
Story and Performance
(ed. H. E. Hearon and P. Ruge-Jones; BPC 1; Eugene, Ore.: Cas-
cade, 2009), 60…62; Vansina,
Oral Tradition
, 34…36. To speak of the oral Jesus tradition
as the common property of the Jesus movementŽ is not to deny the role of individuals;
only individuals remember, and traditionists
were, after all, individuals (see Vansina,
Oral Tradition
, 36…39; J. K. Olick, Collective Memory: The Two Cultures,Ž
SocTh
[1999], 338, 346). Their individual role, however, was carried out within the context of
community, as described above … otherwise we are no longer speaking of traditionŽ; as
4.1 Introduction
\n\t!\n\t\b\b#
\n(\b\b!\n(
\b\b\t\f\t#
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
 
!













Pol.
 
\t! 
Mt 5:7:
\f\n!\t\t 
\b\t
Lk 6:36:

\t\b\t\t\f\n\n*\t+\f
\t\t\f\b\t
Lk 6:37c:

 \t \b\b
Cl.
Strom
 
%\b\t\t\n\t! 
1 Clem.
\t!%
&\f\t
Pol.
\t%
Mt 6:14:
$%

\t\n\t\n
\b\t\t\f\t
\f
\f\t\n
Mk 11:25:

\t'\t'(
\t\f\t\n
\t\n

\f\f
Lk 6:37c:

 \t \b\b
Didasc

\t%
\b\t\f\t
Ps.Mac.
. 37.3:

\t%
A reads
\t\t
for
\t
(see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:52). H changes
the order of the sayings: the saying
)&\f&\f\t&\f\b\t\f\t
that in the other MSS appear
s two lines below, is insert
ed in H before this line (
\n
\t!\n\t\b\b
), so that the order in H (using
the a-f of the synopsis below)
becomes a b c d g e f; see Bihlmeyer,
Apostolischen Väter
, 42 and Jaubert,
Clément de
, 122; also Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 137 n. 4.
A reads
(\b\b\t
for
(\b\b
(see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:52),
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
bility that is characteristic of oral tradition.
This further supports the con-
tention that the evangelists accesse
d the double tradition under considera-
If we conclude that the double
tradition behind Lk 17:1…2//Mt 18:6…7
was oral tradition, then there is little point in arguing over whether Mat-
thew or Luke best preserves their s
ources wording and/or order. Assuming
that Matthew and Luke witnessed se
dition, each one might faithfully repres
ent its content in their writings, yet
differ considerably from each other. This adds another level of uncertainty
to the already difficult tasks of determining on the one hand to what extent
the double tradition might have influen
ced the language of the Matthean
and Lukan millstone-sayings where they depart from Mark, and on the
other hand what language the double
We will address this topic further below, in discussing the editorial
contributions of each evangelist to thei
r gospels form of the sayings under
consideration. For now we simply conclude that both the double tradition
and Mark influenced the forms of the millstone-saying that have been pre-
served in Matthew and Luke.
Matthew and Luke, of the inevitability that
\b 
should come, which
has no parallel in Mk 9:42. It is interesting to note, however, that while the
other woe-saying under considerati
on, found in Mk 14:21//Mt 26:24//Lk
See subsection 3.3.5 above, under the
subtitle Both Variable and Stable.Ž
One could also speak of an oral Q,Ž an idea that is not new; see, e.g., Dunn, Q
as OralŽ 45…69, where D
unn argues that the material identified by J. Kl
oppenborg as Q
(Q 6:20b…23b, 27…35, 36…45, 46…49; 9:57…60, [61…62]; 10:2…11, 16, [23…24?]; 11:2…4,
9…13; 12:2…7, 11…12; 12:22b…31, 33…34 [13:18…19, 20…21?]; and probably 13:24; 14:26…
34…35) is best understood as oral traditionŽ (D
unns conclusion on p. 69).
Dunn is interacting primarily with Kl
oppenborgs
The Formation of Q: Trajectories in
Ancient Wisdom Collections
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) and
Excavating Q: The His-
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
dition in these texts ultimately remains an open question, all three probably
with a common tradition.
The similarity between the sayings in
2 Clement
and Clement of Alex-
andria is obvious in one line of text,
cated by a forward slash:
!\t
'\b\t!\t
'
'\b\f\n \t\n''
'\b' 
line the similarity of wording is almost verbatim, the only minor differ-
ences being
2 Clement
s indicative future
'\b\t
in place of Clement of Al-
exandrias subjunctive aorist
\t
, and the two occurrences of
'\b
2 Clement
where Clement of Alexandria reads
. Clearly one is deal-
ing with the same saying reflected in both texts.
That this is not a case of direct literary dependence, however, is sug-
gested by the more substantial differences between the two texts. First, the
settings for the sayings differ: while the saying in
2 Clement
relates to the
coming of the kingdom, in Clement of
Alexandria it has to do with attain-
ing knowledge on an unspecified matter.
\t'9\n
2 Clement
s saying is completely missing from Clement of Alexan-
dria. Third,
2 Clement
contains no reference to
Clement of Alexandrias
language of trampling on garments of shame,
!\n\t\b(\n'\f
\b
. Given these considerations, literary dependence between the two
documents is unlikely.
Donfried,
Second Clement
, 76. T. Baarda notes, however, that wider references in
Clement of Alexandrias
Stromata
may serve to place this saying in the context of a con-
versation between Salome and Jesus regarding
the consummation, so that the unspecified
matter in the text under consideration may act
ually be the coming of the kingdom; see T.
Baarda, 2 Clement 12 and the Sayings of Jesus,Ž in
Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus … The
Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens
(ed. J. Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven
Bibliography
Schneidau, Herbert N. Let the Reader Understand.Ž Pages 135…45 in
Orality, Aurality
and Biblical Narrative.
Edited by Lou H. Silberman.
Semeia
2.6 Applying and Refining Koeste
Ibid., 6…7.
This is Gregorys conclusion, e.g., rega
rding the hypothesis that Ignatius is de-
pendent on Lk 24:36…43 in Ing
Smyrn
. 3.2 (ibid., 70…75, 113; idem, Looking for Luke,Ž
Though even then one must take into account
that the form of Mark we have today
may not be that which was available to Matthew and Luke (Gregory,
and Acts
, 13…14 and n. 49).
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Mt 5:43…45, 39b…42; 7:12; Lk 6:27…38
5:46…48; 7:1…2
\t\t\b\t\f\t#
\f 
\t\b\f\b\b \f
(\f\b\b\t
\t\n \f#
\t
)&\f&\f\t

)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
Variability within stability is one of the hallmarks of oral tradition,
here both are clearly evident. In spite of their basic similarity in meaning,
the extensive variations in wording between these portions of Matthew and
Luke make it highly unlikely that the Evangelists copied the sayings from
the same written document. With no intent of denying that Matthew and
Luke knew a Q in written form that approximated in large part the current
scholarly reconstruction(s), one must also allow for the possibility that
they knew certain portions of Q as oral
tradition, perhaps including the one
presently under consideration. As Ja
mes Dunn notes specifically of Lk
If the tradition used here was ... typical of the material common to Matthew and Luke
which provides the basis for the whole Q hy
See sec. 3.3.5 above, under the subtitle
Both Variable and StableŽ and literature
cited there.
Dunn, Q
as Oral,Ž 49.
Dunn,
Jesus Remembered
, 233…34; D
unn makes these statements in reference to a
number of what are usually considered Q passages from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain,
including some of the verses under consideration here.
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
to judge the
s use of synoptic tradition as if it were a case of ex-
plicit quotation and to expect exact
diesem Argumentationsmuster müßte man etwa Paulus die Benutzung des AT abspre-
chenŽ).
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
the midst of a description of the earth cleansed from the wickedness of the
watchers and their offspring
(10:4…11:2), the passage reads:
Then all the earth will be tilled in righteousne
ss, and all of it will be planted with trees
and filled with blessing; and a
ll the trees of joy will be planted on it. They will plant
vines on it, and every vine that will be plan
ted on it will yield a thousand jugs of wine;
and of every seed that is sown on it, each
measure will yield a thousand measures; and
each measure of olives will yield ten baths of oil.
are multiplied in the similar passage in
Trans. is by Nickelsburg,
Scholars date
2 Baruch
Index of Modern Authors
Schleiermacher, Friedrich 2
Schmidt, C. 108
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig 2, 11, 234
Schnackenburg, Rudolf 292
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 262, 266, 272
Schneider, Gerhard 113, 127, 196
Schoedel, William R. 42, 52, 53, 111,
Schölgen, Georg 158
Schröter, Jens 95, 218, 220, 241, 277
Schudson, M. 96
Schulz, Siegfried 131
Schürer, Emil 75
Schürmann, Heinz 122, 124, 127
Schwartz, Barry 86, 93…95, 102
Schweizer, Eduard 116, 122, 127, 183
Sedgwick, W. B. 79
Senior, Donald P. 234
Shiner, Whitney 7, 32, 80, 105
Sienaert, E. 136
Silberman, Lou H. 8
Slusser, Michael 79
Small, Jocelyn Penny 90
Smith, D. Moody 104
Smith, Murray J. 119, 218, 241, 242,
Snodgrass, Klyne R. 125
Snyder, Graydon F. 158
Soards, Marion L. 234, 235
Sparks, Kenton L. 11, 14
Stanton, Graham N. 25, 119, 125, 126,
Stanton, V. H. 118
Stendahl, Krister 130
Stone, Michael E. 288
Strauss, David Friedrich 2
Strecker, Georg 129, 131, 229, 230,
1.2 Thesis
thew and Luke depended on Mark. In
addition, Matthew and Luke fol-
lowed a second main source, commonl
y called Q, discernible behind the
tthew and Luke but not found in
general hypothesis. He did see a
problem, however, with the way Western scholars … given their literary
mindset … envision Q as a written document that can be clearly delineated
in terms of extent, content,
redactional layers, and so on.
In order to fit the theory to the evidence, e.g., scholars hypothesize that
Matthew and Luke had access to two different Q documents, Q
and Q
that reflected the redaction to which Q was subject during the time that in-
Dunns examples are the pericopes on turning the other cheek (Mt 5:
39b…42//Lk
6:29…30), dividing families (Mt 10:34…38//L
k 12:51…53, 14:26…27), and forgiving sin
seven times (Mt 18:15, 21…22//Lk 17:3…4); see ibid., 163…64.
The words in quotation marks reflect the sub-title of Dunns Altering.Ž Dunn
himself notes that the study of the Jesus trad
ition outside the Gospels,
in documents such
as the NT epistles, the Aposto
lic Fathers, and the Nag Hammadi texts, has been seri-
ously flawed by overdependence on the literary paradigmŽ (ibid., 169…70), which in es-
sence constitutes a call to investigate this literature
afresh from the perspective of orality.
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
ing their theory with fieldwork am
ong living Serbo-Cr
oatian singers of
oral epics, together Parry and Lord sought to show that the
were the not the product of writte
of epics that had been composed orally.
Noting such phenomena as the
recurring combinations of nouns and epith
See J. M. Foley, Oral Tradition and Its Implications,Ž in
A New Companion to
(ed. I. Morris and B. Powell; Mn
S 163; Leiden:
Brill, 1997), 146…51.
This held true for them both in the case
of the Homeric works and in that of the
Yugoslav poets; for full discussions see Foley, Oral Tradition and Its Implications,Ž
149…59; idem,
Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research
, 11…17; idem,
Theory of Oral Com-
position
The impact of the work of M. Parry is described by J. M. Foley as follows, it was
to become, if one may judge by the amount, in
tensity, and most of all the quality of de-
bate it has inspired, the twentie
th centurys single most important critical perspective on
5.3 Poly. Phil. 2.3 in Relation to its Parallels
1 Clement

\t%\b\t\f\t
%\t
!





%



&\f\t
Mt 6:14:
$%
\t\n\t\n
%
\b\t\t\f\t
\f
\f\t\n
Mk 11:25:
%\t
\t'\t'(
\t!
\t

\f

\t\n
&\f\t

\f\f
Lk 6:37c:
 
\t
 \b\b


\t%\b\t\f\t
Ps.Mac.
Hom
. 37.3:
'%


\t%\b\t\f\t
The proverbial nature of this saying
makes it difficult, however, to argue
On the relationship between
1 Clement
and Clem. Alex.
Stromateis
see sec. 4.1
above, and Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 140; Carlyle in
NTAF
, 60; Gregory, 
1 Clement
and the Writings,Ž 131, n. 10; Lindemann,
Clemensbriefe
, 54; Lona,
Erste Clemensbrief
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
favors an oral over a written source. The use of the aorist
\t"
, though not
accompanied by a word for rememberingŽ is significant. Had Polycarp
used the
tense it would tend to imply quotation from a written
document. As it is, Polycarps use of the aorist may indicate that he is ap-
pealing to the oral tradition of Jesus words.
Second, the form and contents of the saying in
\f
\f\f\b9\b\n
( the spirit is willing but the flesh
is weakŽ) also suggest an oral source.
As rightly noted by R. T. France,
The classical
construction, together with the general nature of
the language, suggests a
proverbial expression.Ž
The saying would have
been very useful in the early church as a proverb that expresses in a nut-
shell one of the main problems of Ch
man nature in general).Ž
In a culture in which the proverb was a standard
part not only of speech but also of thoug
ht, sayings such as this were often
known in great numbers.
Polycarp would have had no need to turn to a
kind of proverbial saying.
The above discussion might appear to
beg the question of the source of
) implicit and explicit references to Jesus tradition in Poly.
. 7.2b…c, but it is a much more straightforward reading of the evidence
… given Polycarps cultural milieu … than the hypothesis that he is depend-
ent upon the written Gospels. For the twenty-first-century individual,
whose only access to Jesus tradition is
through written accounts, it may be
On the significance of the aorist vs. the present tense see above, pp. 140…43, 166,
171…72, and lite
rature cited there.
R. T. France,
The Gospel of Matthew
(NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007),
1006, n. 21; see also idem,
Mark
, 587. It is commonly noted that the saying sounds like
a proverbŽ (Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 3:499; J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington,
The
Gospel of Mark
[SP 2; Collegeville: Liturgi
cal, 2002], 409; D. J. Harrington
The Gospel
of Matthew
[SP 1; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991], 373). Brown (
Death of the Messiah
1:198) refers to it as an aphorism.Ž
France,
Matthew
, 1006. Regarding the basic historicity of the saying on the lips of
Jesus, it used to be common to assign its orig
in to Hellenistic infl
uence upon the early
Christian community, possibly mediated by Pa
uline theology. This
changed with the dis-
covery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which showed
that the contrast of spirit and flesh was at
home in a Semitic context (See Brown,
Death of the Messiah
, 1:198 and literature cited
there). For a detailed discussion of the various backgrounds that have been suggested see
J. W. Holleran,
Bibliography
…. Whats In a Sign?Ž Pages 1…27 in
Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and its Influ-
ence in the Greek and Roman Worlds.
Edited by E. Anne Mackay. Supplements to
Mnemosyne 188. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
…. Words in Tradition, Words in
Text: A Response.Ž Pages 169…80 in
Orality and Tex-
tuality in Early Christian Literature.
Edited by Joanna Dewey.
Semeia
65. Atlanta:
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
place.
It can be distinguished from both
(which also imply something in existence before the communication takes
place), in that while these are based on the verbal memoirs of firsthand
observers,Ž oral tradition is not first
ditioning process.
Having defined oral trad
ition negatively against these
other forms of orality, we now turn to define oral tradition in its own right.
For the purposes of this study oral
Jesus traditionŽ can be defined as
Andersen, Oral Tradition,Ž 26.
Citation from R. C. Echo-H
awk, Oral history is best defined as the verbal mem-
oirs of firsthand observers, while oral trad
itions are verbal memoirs that firsthand ob-
servers have passed along to othersŽ (Ancient History in the New World: Integrating
Oral Traditions and the Archaeolo
gical Record in Deep Time,Ž
65 [2000]: 270);
see also Andersen, Oral Tradition,Ž 27. According to D. Henige, oral history is the
study of the recent past by means of life histories or personal recollections, where infor-
mants speak about their own experiences,Ž and is to be distinguished from oral traditions
that are recollections of the past that are
commonly or universally known in a given cul-
tureŽ and must have been handed down for at least a few generationsŽ (
Oral Historiog-
raphy
[New York: Longman, 1982], 2).
This definition was crafted primarily in
conversation with Andersen, Oral Tradi-
tion,Ž 25…27; S. Byrskog,
Jesus the Only Teacher
, 20…24; idem, Eyewitness Testimony
and Oral Tradition,Ž 42…43; Henige,
Oral Historiography
, 2; idem, Oral, but Oral
What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications,Ž
3 (1988): 231…38; C.
Nogueira, Oral Tradition: A Definition,Ž
18.2 (2003): 164…65; and Vansina,
Tradition
See Gerhardsson,
Memory
, 328. As Byrskog notes, the constant focus on Jesus
was
the
characteristic feature of
the Jesus traditionŽ (
Jesus the Only Teacher
Chapter 4
Identifying Markers and Ways of Orality:
13.1c…2
4.1 Introduction
Having explained in the previous
The reason for this special attention will
be made clear in the course of the follow-
ing discussion.
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
in light of the discussion above and that
follows it may be best to refer to it
more generically as the double tradition.Ž
ble not only in the language shared by Matthew and Luke (
 \t
\b  \t
\t)
'(\t
) but also in their shared idea of
the inevitability that
\b 
should come (Mt 18:7:
 \t
\b 
; Lk 17:1:
\b\t\b \f \t
of which … most importantly
9:42. It is highly prob-
aying (parts 6…8 above) also existed in
this source, since both Matthew and Luke have chosen to pair a millstone-
saying with the woe-saying from the double tradition.
It is also very likely that Matthew and Luke had access to this double
tradition (Lk 17:1…2//Mt 18:6…7; parts 4…8 above) as
tradition rather
than as a written document (such as a written Q). This would explain why,
rities, the Matthean and Lukan par-
allels differ considerably from each other in wording and order whenever
they depart from the text of Mark. It
is clear that both Matthew and Luke
follow Mark in part. This can be seen in the phrase
\n
]\b \t\b&
!\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
, followed verbatim by
Matthew from the text of Mark with the exception of the
(which is why
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 28A; New York: Doubleday,
1985), 1136…37; Marshall,
Luke
, 640; Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
In speaking of the sources for Mt 18:6…7//Lk 17:1…2, J. Ernst suggests either Q or
variegated streams of oral tradition (
Das Evangelium nach Lukas
[RNT 3; Regensburg:
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
its source. Nor is there any consensus in this regard among scholars: be-
sides those who hold the theory of a gospels harmony,
the most part cautiously) suggested a
number of alternatives, including di-
rect use of the Gospels,
oral tradition,
or an apocryphal gospel,
while
some scholars simply note the various
termined.
For now we must move on, t
hough we will revisit the question
2 Clement
\t\n\n\t\n\t
\n!9\t\r\b\t \t\t)#
I/'\b\t!\t'9\n'\b\t'\b\f\n \t\n'
'\b'  
\f\t%\b\t
 \b\t\r\b\t \t
\n\f
For when the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he
said, When the two are one, and the outside lik
e the inside, and the ma
le with the female
is neither male nor female ƒ When you do these things, he says, the kingdom of my
Father will come.Ž
Clement of Alexandria,
(Therefore Cassianus now says,) When Salome asked when what she had inquired about
would be known, the Lord said, When you have trampled on the garment of shame and
when the two become one and the male with
the female (is) neither male nor female
.Ž
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 79, followed by Donfried,
Second Clement
73, n. 2; Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 147…48; Lindemann, Apostolic Fathers
Bibliography
…. Baptism according to the
Didache
.Ž Pages 212…22 in
The Didache in Modern Re-
search.
Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken
Judentums und des Urchristentums 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
…. The
Didache
.Ž Pages 1…23 in
The Eucharist of the Early Christians,
by Willy Ror-
2.6 Applying and Refining Koeste
Ibid., 93, with an explicit
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
c) Having dealt so far with two considerations … that the sayings in Lk
sive block of tradition that existed prior to Q,
and that these sayings in all likelihood
were never incorporated into a writ-
ten Q known by Matthew and Luke … we
tion: that the source of the sayings in
Luke was probably oral rather than
written.
block of tradition that encompassed
all of Lk 6:26…38, notes that it con-
tains indicators of orality. Allison observes, the materials now gathered in
the central section of the SP were traditionally associated with certain pat-
terns that presumably reflect the hand
ling of tradition in an oral environ-
ment.Ž
The hypothesis that this unit of
tradition circulated in oral form
best explains the great variability in language among the various parallels
that Allison adduces in arguing for its
existence, which were noted in our
This great variability in language is evident not only when one com-
pares the texts of Matthew and Luke to their extra-gospel parallels, but ex-
tends also to the intra-Synoptic relationship between Matthew and Luke
themselves. To facilitate discussion, the text of Lk 6:27…38 is given here
with its Matthean parallels, with matching language
underlined for ease of
identification:
Mt 5:43…45, 39b…42; 7:12; Lk 6:27…38
5:46…48; 7:1…2
[5:43…45]
7\b!\t#
\b\t\n \b\t\b
\t\f\t\b\b\t\n(\b 
 
\f\t
8 \f\t
\t\n\b\t#
\n(\n\f
\n(\n\f
 \n\t\t\t\n\f\t\b\b\t\f\n
 \t\n
\f\n\f\n
\b(\b

\t\f\n
\b(\b
\t
views this as the least unlikely explanationŽ [
Matthew 1…7
, 349] and this is the basic
argument of H. D. Betz in several publicatio
ns, as indicated in a previous footnote; see
Essays
, esp. 18, 89, 90; Sermon on the Mount and QŽ; Matthews InterpretationŽ;
Defense of a HypothesisŽ;
Sermon on the Mount
[Hermeneia], esp. 42…44). However, as
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
If one were to determine that the
antedates Matthew, this
make up the latter. Thus it is not necessary
to posit the incredibleŽ picture that Garrow
paints in order to hold, as do
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
authenticity and attribution to Papias, followed by a brief treatment of the
saying in light of its parallels.
Fragment 1.1b…5 (Iren.
5.33.3…4)
Thus the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered hearing him say how
the Lord used to teach about those times, saying:
The days are coming when the vines
will come forth, each with ten thousand bo
ughs; and on a single bough will be ten thou-
sand branches. And indeed, on
a single branch will be ten
thousand shoots and on every
shoot ten thousand clusters; an
d in every cluster will be te
n thousand grapes, and every
grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine.
And when any of the
saints grabs hold of a cluster, another will cr
y out, I am better, take me; bless the Lord
through me. So too a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads and every head will
have ten thousand grains and every grain w
ill yield ten pounds of pure, exceptionally fine
flour. So too the remaining fruits and s
As argued by T. Zahn,
Forschungen zur Geschichte de
s neutestamentlichen Kanons
und der altkirchlichen Literatur,
Apostel und Apostelschüler in der Provinz Asien
(Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1900), 89. J. Chapman overstates his case when he states This
[reading] seems to me quite impossibleŽ (Papias on the Age of Our Lord,Ž
9 [1908]:
See Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 94; idem, Papias,Ž
ANRW
27.1:243. F. Loofs goes further, arguing that a number of Irenaeus other appeals to uni-
Index of Modern Authors
Jefford, Clayton N. 36, 98, 142, 191,
Jeremias, Joachim 99, 125, 141, 142,
Johnson, Luke Timothy 19
Jonge, Henk Jan de 24
Jousse, Marcel 136
Juel, Donald H. 219
Jülicher, A. 255
Karakolis, Christos 224
Keightley, Georgia Masters 91, 95
Keith, Chris 95
Kelber, Werner H. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13,
Kelhoffer, James A. 218, 219, 242, 256
Keyssar, H. 77
Kilgallen, John J. 142
Kim, Seyoon 99, 198
Kirk, Alan 21, 78, 80, 86, 88, 90, 91,
Klauck, Hans-Josef 247
Klein, Hans 224
Kleist, James A. 154, 155
Klijn, A. F. J. 288
Kloppenborg, John S. 37, 38, 104, 115,
Knibb, Michael A. 287
Knoch, Otto 42, 113, 118, 124, 154,
Knopf, Rudolf 119, 196, 261
Knox, John 163
Koester (Köster), Helmut 9, 26, 38, 39,
Köhler, Wolf-Dietrich 26, 29, 42, 51…
Kraft, Robert A. 36, 201, 208
Kullmann, Wolfgang 92
Kümmel, Werner Georg 1, 2
Lake, Kirsopp 39, 154
Lambrecht, Jan 115, 126, 128, 129, 131
Lane, William L. 115
LaVerdiere, Eugene 220
Layton, Bentley 37
Le Donne, Anthony 90, 93, 95, 96
Lechner, T. 158
Lessing, Gotthold 1
Lightfoot, J. B. 108, 109, 113, 155,
Lindemann, Andreas 25, 111, 112, 119,
Löfstedt, Torsten 37
Lohmeyer, Ernst 220, 221, 222, 223
Lona, Horacio E. 111, 112, 143, 146,
Loofs, F. 286
Lord, Albert B. 2, 4, 9, 81…83, 87, 88,
Lord, Mary Louise 2
Louth, Andrew 119, 157, 210
1.1 Introduction
R. Goody,
and Walter J. Ong.
The insights of these
and other scholars have
the potential to greatly impact our understanding
of early Christian writings, both in terms of the interrelationships among
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988); idem,
Traditional Oral Epic: The Od-
many other authors as well, but those mentioned above are not only (after Parry and
Lord) pioneers in the field or contemporary ora
lity studies, but also have exerted the most
influence upon the thought process that led to the present study.
The best guide to the expanding literature on oral tradition is J. M. Foley,
Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography
(GFB 6;
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
There is another level, however, at which written texts were experienced
within a context of orality: often written texts
were not even present in the
, i.e., orators, politicians, traditionists and the like
depended upon their memory for the de
livery of the content of written
texts.
Written texts thus not only originated with the spoken word (point
(point b), but also were experi-
enced in a context of orality, often ev
en in the absence of the written text
In conclusion, one can say with Hearon that ancient texts available for
scholarly scrutiny today are written remainsŽ of texts that began in oral
expression and were actualized in performance.Ž
Today they may func-
tion mainly as artifacts to be read silently and in isolation, but in their
original context they were part of a social web of orality and literacy with
Carr,
5.2 The Date of Polycarps Letter
if it has come down to that.
Rather ironically, many
have removed every one of the othe
r supports for Harrisons argument
over the last seven and a half decades continue to appeal to his work as if
Harrison intended for his argument to be cumulative. To use his own imagery, he
wished to build a bundleŽ of twigs: It ma
y happen that a twig may be withdrawn here
or there from the bundle, and snapped acro
ss impatient knees, whereas the bundle itself
does not even bendŽ (
Polycarp
, 75). The present monograph does not provide the last
word on the matter, but it does seem in light
of the above discussion that Harrisons bun-
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
lected by the evangelists and strung together like pearls on a string.Ž
If
there was evidence to show either (a) that Mark (assuming Markan prior-
ity) created one of the two phrases Watch and pray so that you will not
fall into temptationŽ or for the spirit
is willing but the flesh is weak,Ž or
(b) that he brought together the two phrases that in pre-Markan tradition
were separate, then there would be an argument for Polycarps dependence
such evidence, so that the argu-
ment for Polycarps dependence
A different alternative arises if, in keeping with the approach taken in
this study, one presupposes that the
basic unit of pre-Synoptic tradition
was the discourse rather than the isolated saying.
In this case there is no
reason why a complete phrase similar to the one recorded in Mk 14:38//Mt
the Gethsemane narrative in the oral
tradition, and not just in the written Gospels.
Famously developed by Schmidt in
; see S. Neill and T. Wright,
The Inter-
Bibliography
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
Any given Apostolic Father may adapt, para
phrase or otherwise alter material that
he does not consider Jesus tradition in ways that
might not be true if he regarded it as the
words of Jesus. Such material, if included in
a study of the use of Jesus tradition by the
author, might lead the
researcher to assume that Jesu
s tradition was treated with more
freedom than may have actually been the case.
3.5 Giving Scribality a Fair Hearing ... in Light of Orality
of Irenaeus).
in light of what we saw above
regarding the interplay of orality and literacy in late Western antiquity.
Neither the presence of a limited number of literate people nor the commit-
ting of the Gospels to writing changed the fact that most people continued
to interact with Jesus tradition within
a context of orality. In addition, prior
to the struggles over the NT canon, wh
tive record of what Jesus said and
did, in all likelihood Jesus tradition did
not derive its authority from its in-
clusion in written gospels, but from its tie to the person of the Lord Je-
During said time period, it is
Jesus tradition would have been treated
in a manner similar to oral Jesus
tradition. This would have been true in a number of ways, which we will
consider under the following two main points:
First, from the perspective of Christian traditionists witnessing a per-
formance of any given written gospel
(that would later become canonized),
the material they were receiving would not have been much different from
tradition they had received from strictly oral sources. They were, after all,
rather than reading the tradition. It is even possible that the per-
former of the tradition would not have used the written text for the per-
formance itself, but used it in prepar
ation for the performance only as an
aid to memorization.
Regardless, the traditioni
st would have delivered
the tradition in oral form, so that the distinction between the handing on of
oral tradition and the performance of a written gospel would have been
merely academic from the perspective of the hearers.
ristian traditionists receiving the
oral performance of a written gospel, who would have appropriated the
material and incorporated it into the oral tradition they had already mas-
tered. In passing it on in their turn, it is most likely that they would have
C. M. Thomas arrives as this important conclusion in Word and Deed,Ž and see
also Koester, Written Gospels,Ž 293…95, 297. J. Assmann contends that what dams up
the stream of tradition is not the process of writing it down, but rather the closure brought
by the act of canonization (
Das kulturelle Gedächtnis
, 93…103; idem,
Religion and Cul-
tural Memory
As noted by H. E. Hearon, for the majority of people who could not read or write
the authority of a written text would have been
at best iconic,Ž while the words them-
selves took on value only as they were ora
lizedŽ (Implications of Orality,Ž 10). This is
not to deny that the written Gospels would have
gained a certain leve
l of authority within
certain circles, under the influence of those who could read them … the authority they
were given in later times implies that this
was indeed the case. The main point to be
made here is that in practice what had authority was the spoken word, as that which was
actually encountered in
a culture of orality.
See Thomas,
Oral Tradition
, 2; idem,
Literacy and Orality
, 4; Shiner,
Proclaim-
ing
, 103…25; idem, Oral Performance,Ž 51…54.
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
Treatment of the parallels in
Luke
was reserved for last because their
place in the puzzle is best seen after a
Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke does not
contain a woe-saying (that paral-
lels
. 46.8) in a context considerably removed from the millstone-
saying. Like Matthew, however, Luke
17:1 does contain a woe-saying in
the immediate context of the millstone-saying. The order of the Lukan say-
ings agrees with
1 Clement
against Matthew in placing the woe-saying
first, followed by the millstone-saying. Lukes woe-saying contains impor-
tant linguistic and other similarities to Mt 18:7 (see further below), the
second Matthean woe-saying treated a
bove. Given this similarity to its
Matthean parallel, it should come as no surprise that Lk 17:1 also relates to
its parallels in the synopsis most lik
e Mt 18:7: not only is it (a) found in
the immediate context of the Lukan millstone-saying (Lk 17:2); but it also
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
nating with the paradigm of true discipleship in 8:15: as for [the seed] in
the good soil, these are those who
worthy and good heart, and
bear fruit with patience
the word is found again in 8:18, consider therefore
When in 8:21, then, we arrive at the statement My mother and brothers
are those who the word of God [both]
the pairing of hear-
ing and doing is more than an isolat
ed Lukan redactional feature; it is a
Lukan emphasis woven into all of 8:4…21.
If this important Lukan em-
phasis were present in the wording of
with confidence of a redactional feature pointing to
2 Clement
ence on Luke. Its absence does not nega
The awkward English is intended to be
tter capture the emphasis in the Greek,

\n\t\t\n
As J. Fitzmyer notes regarding 8:21 in li
ght of its wider context, Luke has adapted
the criterion of discipleship to suit this section of his Gospel, especially to 8:11b,15
(hearing the word of God and bearing fruit); his emphasis is thus quite different [from
Marks].Ž (
Luke I…IX
, 725). See also Marshall, Thus Luke stresses the need to hear the
message of Jesus and respond to it ƒŽ (
Luke
, 332); Dupont, Parabole du Semeur,Ž 97…
99, 108; Nolland,
Luke 1…9:20
, 395. In W. C. Robinson, Jr.s view, Lukes emphasis on
hearing and doing in Lk 8:4…21 reflects his concern for asserting the authority of the
churchs preaching, as well as the danger inherent in rejecting it (On Preaching the
Word of God [Luke 8:4…21],Ž in
Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of
Paul Schubert
[ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966], 131…38,
esp. 136).
That these are part of the characteristically Matthean vocabulary is well known,
and need not be belabored here. See especi
ally Matthews use of doing the will of
my/your Father in heavenŽ in Mt 7:21:
/\n \f\t#\t\t\t\b \b\t
\t\n\r\b\t \t \t \f\n\f
\t\n\t\n
and 18:14:
!\n'\b\t \f'\f\b\n\f
\t\n\t! \t\f\t
. On Matthews use of the phrase
Father in heavenŽ or heavenly FatherŽ see Allen,
Matthew
, lvi, 44; Luz,
Matthew 1…7
34. On the phrase
\f
Bibliography
Quasten, J.
Patrology.
4 vols. Ed. Angelo di Berardino. Westminster: Christian Classics,
Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Concerning the Intention of Jesus and His Teaching.Ž
Pages 59…269 in
Reimarus: Fragments.
Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Translated by
Ralph S. Fraser. Lives of Jesus Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
Ibid., 525.
Schoedel, Review of Massaux and Köhler, 564.
Ibid., 564.
Cf. the remarks by Schoedel, the formal conclusions of [Köhlers] study strike me
as somewhat simplified in the light of many
of the details of the
argument itselfŽ (ibid.,
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
The relationship between the material in Mt 6
and Mk 11:25 follows the pattern of Ma
tthews use of Mark elsewhere in
the SM. Just as
in the SM culminates, in Mt 7:28…29, with
a summary phrase about
Mk 1:21…22
when the sabbath came, he entered
Now when Jesus had finished
the synagogue and taught.
They saying these things, the crowds
were astounded at his teaching
were astounded at his teaching
for he taught them as one having
for he taught them as one having
authority, and not as
the scribes
authority, and not as
their scribes
culminates, in Mt 6:14…15, with a summary phrase
Mk 11:25
And as you stand praying,
forgive
if you hold anything against anyone,
For if you forgive
others their
in order that your father
who is in heaven
wrongdoings
, your
heaven
ly Father
may also
forgive
you
your wrongdoings
will also
forgive
you
But if you do not forgive
others,
neither will your father
forgive
your
wrongdoings
Furthermore, as established by K. Stendahl, two linguistic peculiarities
contained in Mt 6:14…15 and Mk 11:25
all but guarantee a close relation-
It is also possible that Matthew knew the basic content of Mt 6:14…15 from tradi-
tion, and reworked it and placed it here under
the influence of his reading of Mk 11:25.
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
ments shared by Luke and the
actually arose from Lukan redac-
torical question but fails to see its significanceŽ (ibid., 121…22); on
. 1.4d…5a and Lk
6:30, Both [clauses being considered] are probably LkR in Luke, though one cannot
build too much on this here: Lukes aim is
to generalize the idea of giving, but the
has exactly the same idea and hence the
and the present imperative
\t
could just as easily be seen
as independent redaction of th
e tradition by the DidachistŽ
(ibid., 126).
Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
Ibid., 124.
In revisiting the topic of
the relationship between the
and the gospels in a
Chapter 10: Conclusions
2 Clement
supports its reliability. This re
liability does not consist, how-
ever, in capturing Jesus
… a concept at home in todays
Western cultures with our wealth of TV cameras and recording equipment
… but in faithfully conveying th
e meaning of what he said.
It would be a mistake to imagine that one could
that the Jesus tradi-
tion in the Apostolic Fathers derived
from oral sources. To some readers it
might appear from certain parts of th
is book and the above conclusions that
this has been my goal, but such is
sources and the interpenetration of orality and literacy in antiquity do not
Index of Modern Authors
Byrskog, Samuel 11, 17, 21, 30, 31, 32,
Cadoux, Cecil John 155, 156
Camelot, Pierre Thomas 109, 154
Cameron, Ron 141, 156, 164, 275
Campenhausen, Hans von 25
Chapter 1
Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
ƒ notwithstanding its stunning accomplishments, [historical biblical scholarship] is
empowered by an inadequate theory of the
art of communication in the ancient world.Ž
… Werner H. Kelber,
The Oral and the Written Gospel
1.1 Introduction
Early Christianity arose and spread within cultures that were predomi-
nantly oral.
The full implications of this basic insight are just beginning to
be worked out within the field of New Testament studies. Not that oral tra-
dition is a new concept; on the contra
ry, New Testament scholars have ap-
pealed to it for centuries in debatin
g such topics as the sources and
historical reliability of the canonical Gospels.
In the modern period, scholars began to give serious attention to the place of oral tradi-
tion in the composition of the canonical Gospels in reaction to Hermann Samuel Reima-
rus (1694…1768). In the Wolfenbütel Fragments (1774…78), Reimarus held that the
disciples fabricated much of the Gospels history and doctrine; see his Concerning the
Intention of Jesus and His Teaching,Ž in
Reimarus: Fragments
(ed. C. H. Talbert; trans.
R. S. Fraser; LJS; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1970), 59…269. The reactionary appeal to oral
tradition in support of the reliability of the Gospels is traceable thro
ugh the works of Got-
thold Lessing (1729…1781), Johann Gottfried Herder (1744…1803), Johann Gieseler
(1792…1854), and Brooke Foss Westcott (1825…1901); see Lessing, New Hypothesis
Concerning the Evangelists Regarded as Merely Human Historians,Ž in
Lessings Theo-
logical Writings
(ed. and trans. H. Chadwick; LM
RT; Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1956), 65…81; J. G. Herder,
Against Pure Reason
(FTM; ed. and trans. M. Bunge;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Westcott,
An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels
(7th
ed.; London: Macmillan, 1888), 166…71; on
Gieseler see W. G. Kümmel,
The New Tes-
tament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems
(trans. S. M. Gilmour and H. C.
Predominantly oralŽ here and below is used
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
functioned in many contexts based on the norms of orality, as is to be ex-
pected in a culture that depends largely on the latter. So W. Harris notes
that, although the Greek and Roman e
lites used writing extensively, they
d on the spoken word for purposes which in some other
cultures have been served by the written word.Ž
Harris goes on to give
several examples, They frequently dictated letters instead of writing them
for themselves; they listened to political news rather than reading it; they
slaves reading, without
having to read literary texts for themselves; and so on.Ž
The presence of
literacy in Greco-Roman antiquity thus did not destroy societys profi-
ciency in orality: a vast majority of the population continued to function on
the basis of orality in practically every walk of life, while even those who
could read incorporated it into contexts that could have been served by lit-
eracy.
In this environment those who had not acquired the ability to read
and write should not be thought of as de
ficient in literacy but as proficient
in orality,
acquire the skills of literacy should not be
imagined to have lost their proficiency in orality in the process.
Harris,
Ancient Literacy
Ibid., 36; see also ibid., 124…25, 326…27; Thomas,
Oral Tradition
, 1…34 and pas-
sim.
On all of the above see Harris,
Ancient Literacy
, 84…88, 125…27, 222…29; Ass-
mann,
Religion and Cultural Memory
, 110…14; Rhoads, Bibli
cal Performance Criti-
5.2 The Date of Polycarps Letter
In spite of its wide acceptance, Ha
rrisons thesis rests upon very slim
evidence. Even among those who have accepted Harrisons overall thesis
of two letters, few have extended acceptance to every aspect of his argu-
Polycarp
56 (1937): 72…75; J. Quasten,
Patrology
(ed. A. di Berardino; 4 vols.;
Westminster: Christian Classics, 1983…86), 1:79…80.
Harrison,
Polycarp
, 20…24; A. C. Headlam asks rather wryly, But what support is
given to one guess, by the fact that some people have made similar guesses about other
books?Ž and concludes, I should say noneŽ (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
[Review of Harrison,
Polycarp
CQR
141 [1945]: 4); see further Hartog,
Polycarp
Harrison,
Polycarp
, 169…206, see also ibid
, 13…14, 267…68, 313…14; on this Harri-
son is followed unhesitatingly by Kleist,
Didache
, 72, 192. C. M. Nielsens s
uggestion
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
ing was transmitted with a wording cl
oser to that found in Luke, with
\f
instead of
\t\f\t
, and language that drew
attention to the pres-
\b\t\b
instead of the use of
\b\f
. With the advent
Mk 14:38:
\f\f\f\b9\b\n
Mt 26:41:
\f\f\f\b9\b\n
In spite of the verbatim agreement between the text of
gospel parallels, it is doubtful that
Polycarp is dependent upon the Gospels
for the saying. We will first consider the claims for dependence, and then
R. J. Dillon,
From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Compo-
sition in Luke 24
(AnBib 82; Rome: Biblical Ins
titute Press, 1978), 193…95; J. Dupont,
Les pèlerins dEmmaüs (Luc, XXIV, 13…35),Ž in
Miscellanea biblica B. Ubach
(ed. R.
Díaz; SD 1; Montserrat: Abadia di Montserrat, 1953), 373; Marshall,
Luke
, 900; J.
Nolland,
Luke 18:35…24:53
(WBC 35C; Dallas: Word, 1993), 1216; A. Plummer,
Bibliography
sion.
Edited by Clayton N. Jefford. Supplemen
ts to Novum Testamentum 77. Leiden:
Brill, 1995.
…. Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the
Didache
Community.Ž Pages 340…63 in
The
Didache in Modern Research.
Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
…. Vice Catalogues as Oral-Mnemonic Cues: A Comparative Study of the Two-Ways
Tradition in the
Didache
and Parallels from the Perspective of Oral Tradition.Ž Pages
111…33 in
Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Bey
ond The Oral and the Written Gospel.
Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008.
The
Didache
in Modern Research.
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums
und des Urchristentums 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity.
SBL Semeia Studies 47. Atlanta:
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
(a) Studies that seek to recognize implicit Jesus tradition in the Apos-
tolic Fathers on the basis of its similarity to material contained
given extant document
will tend to be biased in favor of said document in
assigning an origin to the tradition. This criticism has often been leveled,
for example, at the work of É. Massaux and W.-D. Köhler, who after iden-
tifying Matthew-like material in the Apostolic Fathers, conclude that a vast
majority of this materi
t indirectly upon Matthew.
In
É. Massaux,
The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature
before Saint Irenaeus
(trans. N. J. Belval and S.
Hecht; ed. A. J. Bellinzoni; NGS 5;
3.5 Giving Scribality a Fair Hearing ... in Light of Orality
Apostolic Father in question would have had access to the particular
document he supposedly used in his wr
itings. Here the dates and places of
origin of the documents in que
stion are crucially important.
essentially Koesters redactional criterion as
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
tion, even if the Markan stream and
that which eventually reached Clement
may have parted ways early on.
In contrast to the woe-saying, the Markan millstone-saying shows very
little linguistic similarity to
1 Clem.
\t"&
\t\t\f 
Mk 9:42:
 \b\t&
\f \t\t\t\t\f 
\n\t\n
\t( 
1 Clem.
\t
\t\b\t\t\n \b\b
Mk 9:42:
\r\r \t
\t\n \b\b
1 Clem.
!
 \f\t\b-\t
Mk 9:42:
\t\n\b \t\b&!
\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
In spite of the linguistic dissimilarity, the two forms of the saying are so
similar in meaning that they probably go back to the same saying in the
history of the tradition.
We will focus further on this possibility after we
have surveyed the parallels in the other gospels.
In
Matthew
we find something similar to Mark, but with an added level
of complexity. Like Mark, Matthew contains a woe-saying in a context
considerably removed from the millstone-saying (Mt 26:24 and 18:6). In
this woe-saying Matthew has followed Mark (14:21) almost to the letter,
differing only in that Matthew reads
after
 
In this regard Matthew is linguistically even closer than Mark is to
46.8 also reads
after
 
below). In following closely the text of Mark, this Matthean woe-saying
likewise differs from
46.8 in that it targets the one who would be-
tray the Son of Man, rather than one
who would cause one of the Lords cho-
, in containing a second woe-
saying that in the Matthean context follows immediately after the mill-
stone-saying (Mt 18:7). As will be further argued below, it is important
that Matthew is similar to
1 Clement
in this regard: they both have a woe-
saying paired directly with a millst
one-saying, though in Matthew the or-
der of woe- and millstone-saying is reversed (Mt: millstone…woe;
woe…millstone). The two Matthean woe-sayings relate to their parallel in
. 46.8 in a rather complex way: we already noted that the woe-
saying found in a context far rem
oved from the millstone-saying (Mt
Further support for this statement will be given below.
Mk 14:21:
\t&&\t&\t
)\t\n\t\t
Mt 26:24: o
\t&&\t&\t
)\t\n\t\t
Mk 14:21:
 
&\t'\n\t\n
Mt 26:24:

 
"&\t
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
2 Clement
\t\t)\t\n#8 %\t\f)\t\t\b\t\t\t\n \f
\n\f 
For the Lord also said, My brothers ar
e those who do the will of my Father.Ž
2 Clem
 %\t\f)\t\t\b\t
\t\t\n \f\n\f
Mt 12:50:
!\b\t\n\t
\b& \f\n\f
\t\n\n\f
 %
\n\t %\t\f\b\t
Mk 3:35:
\n*+\t
\b&
 \f
)\n %
\n\f
\t %
\t\f\b\t
Lk 8:21:
\f\f\t %\t\f)\t\t\b\t\t
 
\n\t\t\n
G.Ebion.
)\t\t\b\t
\t %\t\f
\t\f\t %\t
\t\t\n
\n\f
G.Thom

\t!\t\t\n
 \f\n\f
)\t\t\b\t\t %\t\f
\t\f\f
(trans. from Coptic)
Clem. Alex.,
Proph
 %\t\f
\b\t\t\n
\t\b \f\t\t\t
\n \f\n\f
This saying in
elements that could be
Zweite Clemensbrief
Bibliography
Olick, Jeffrey K. Collective Memory: The Two Cultures.Ž
Sociological Theory
(1999): 333…48.
…. Products, Processes, and Practices: A
Non-Reificatory Approach to Collective Mem-
ory.Ž
See Hagner, Sayings,Ž 249…59, esp. pp. 255…57, 259.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.
Köhler,
Rezeption
, 2…16; on what follows cf. esp. Gregory,
Reception of Luke and
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
that it concerns Lk 6:36…38 … or so
13.2 presently under examination.
The relevant texts from Luke
and Matthew are as follows:
Lk 6:37…38 Mt 7:1…2
5\t\f\t
7:1:
6\t
\t\f\t
#
\t!\f\t
\t\f\t,
7:2a:
)&\t\f\t\t
\t\f\t\b 
\t\b\b
 
\t \b\b#
\t
\t\b\t\f\t#
\f 
\t\b\f
\b\b \f
(\f
\b\b\t\t\n \f#
\f&\f\t
7:2b:
\t)&
\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
While the first pair and the last pair of lines in both texts closely parallel
each other, this parallelism does not extend to the intervening lines. The
saying in Mt 7:2a contains an idea
that is quite independent of Lk 6:37b…
38b. In effect, Mt 7:2a is a reformula
expresing the judgment language contai
ned in the former in terms of the
reciprocity idea in the latter, and does
not provide a parallel to any part of
oral, available to Luke but not to Matthew (e.g., D. Lührmann,
Die Redaktion der
Logienquelle: Anhang: Zur weiteren Überlieferung der Logienquelle
[WMANT 33;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969], 54); and (4) Luke created the woes as part of
his redactional activity (e.g., J. Dupont,
Les béatitudes
Le problème littéraire
[2nd ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1958], 299…342 [who in light of li
nguistic parallels between the
SM and the SP argues that Lk was influenced by SM materials not found in the SP]; P.-E.
Jacquemin, Les béatitudes se
lon saint Luc: Lc 6,17.20…26,Ž
AsSeign
37 [1971]: 80…91;
Bovon,
, 223; Lambrecht, 
Eh bien,Ž
64…73, 211, 220). The complexity of the de-
bate is captured well in the words of C. H. Dodd, if either evangelist be supposed to
depend on the other, or both upon some hypothetical source, something much more radi-
cal than a mere editing of borrowed material
is to be taken into accountŽ in light of
each of the Matthean and Lukan beatitudes (and woes) being a distinct and characteris-
tic literary product, related to different established forms of compositionŽ (The Beati-
tudes,Ž in
Mélanges bibliques rédigés en
lhonneur de André Robert
[TICP 4; Paris:
Bloud & Gay, 1955], 410). It is important for the present discussion to note the possibil-
ity, if either explanation (2) or (3) above we
re correct, that Lukes SP contains tradition
from beyond QŽ as commonly understood (in brief: material common to Matthew and
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels
that these redactional elements are also present in the text of the
He concludes that these provide evidence of the
ished form of Matthew, and possibly Luke.
Double Tradition (Mark//Matthew; Mark//Luke; Q, or Matthew//
Luke)
On Matthean redaction see ibid., 101…2; and see his discussion of
. 16.3…5 and
Mt 24:10…12 and also Mt 7:15; 10:23; 24:24;
. 16.6 and Mt 24:30a, 31; in ibid., 101…
4, esp. nn. 43, 48. On Lukan redaction see ibid., 109…10, esp. n. 78, on
. 16.1a and Lk
Chapter 10: Conclusions
the neck,Ž cast,Ž and sea.Ž Here we would not be dealing with a saying
memorized and repeated, then, but with
a scene visualized and described.
(ii) Most of the Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers would require
memorization, the traditionist making
6. Other Greco-Roman and Jewish Writings
Contra Apionem
Philo
Legatio ad Gaium
Pliny the Younger
Epistolae
Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
4:31 142
16:14 116
Testament of Zebulun
Thucydides
2.97.4 142
Abbreviations
SST Schleiermacher: Studies and Translations (Edwin Mellen)
STAR Studies in Theology and Religion (Deo)
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
themselves obviously belong to the literate
minority, in which light one should under-
stand Josephus reference to his own training in literacy in
9. Millard himself (ibid.,
5.2 The Date of Polycarps Letter
5.2 The Date of Polycarps Letter
P. N. Harrison,
Polycarps Two Epistles to the Philippians
(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
1936); we will not refer to
throughout, even though I have chosen not to clutter the footnotes with every reference I
owe to them.
See Ign.
21.1;
Magn.
15.1;
Trall.
12.1;
10.1 as well as Ign.
Smyrn.
intro.;
12.1;
intro.; 8.1.
See Schoedel, Polycarp and Ignatius,Ž 276…85.
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
the Hebrew Gospel, but on Eusebius
Ecclesiastical History
Since Eusebius himself st
ates clearly that he does not know the provenance
of the Ignatian saying, while he did have access to the
Gospel according to
the Hebrews
, it seems clear that Ignatius did not derive the saying from the
latter
Origen provides another opti
on, mentioning that Jesus
saying, I am not a bodiless dem
ing of PeterŽ (
Here one must wrestle with the
ovides the source for which. In the
view of P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, Ignatius was the source for the say-
ing in the Teaching of Peter,Ž so that Origen sheds no new light on the
source of the saying in Ignatius.
We conclude that these various ancient
Christian writers do not hold the key to ascertaining the origin of the Ig-
natian saying.
(b) That part of the saying in
. 3.2a is identical to its parallel in
Lk 24:39 might suggest that Ignatius wa
s dependent on the third gospel. As
argued by W. Schoedel, however,
unlikely. Firstly, there is virtually no
other evidence for the use of Luke by
Ignatius. Secondly, the words
\t\f\t\t\n
\b\f\t\n
Ignatius uses in
Bibliography
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
1.5 Parameters
The two main parameters that limit the material in the present work are its
focus upon the Apostolic Fathers, and
explicit appeals to Jesus tradition.
We will address the rationale
The term Apostolic FathersŽ has been used since the last decade of the
17th century to refer to a group of ear
ly Christian documents that were
written shortly after the close of the New Testament age.
tions of the corpus usually include
1 Clement
2 Clement
, the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of
Smyrnas
Letter to the Philippians
, the letter from the church at Smyrna to
the church at Philomelium, usually referred to as the
of Hermas, the
The origin of the title Apostolic FathersŽ
is usually traced to J. B. Cotelier (1627…
SS. Patrum qui Temporibus Apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, Clementis, Hermae,
Ignatii, Polycarpi opera edita
3.4 The Limits of Comparative Study
even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding his nose. This was how
great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.
Here we have material that most likely originated largely from gossip-like
embellishments in an informal and uncontrolled environment.
terial was not irrelevant to the identity of the Christian community, but it
certainly was not central to it either, and so there was no (or very little)
control exercised upon its development.
Papias 4.2…3 in Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2:105…7 (unless otherwise indicated,
all citations from the Apostolic Fathers in th
e present work are from Ehrman); the source
of this material is a reconstruction by vari
ous editors from the works of Apollinaris of
Laodicea (4th cent.); see Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
Cf. Bailey, who describes the telling of
jokes, the reporting of the casual news of
the day, the reciting of trag
edies in nearby villages and
(in the case of inter-communal
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
60; Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
, 106; Jaubert,
Clément de Rome
, 176 n.; Lightfoot,
Apos-
tolic Fathers
, 1.2:142. Koester prefers
\f
as the
lectio difficilior
Synoptische
Überlieferung
, 17, n. 1).
1 Clem.
46.8f:
! \f\t\b-\t
Again we follow the texts of
Ehrman (1:118, 119, n. 86), Holmes (p. 108), F
unk and Bihlmeyer (p. 60), Jaubert (p.
176), and Lightfoot (1.2:141) (see previous paragraph) supported by L S C and Clem.
Alex. (
 \f\t\b-\t
), against A and H that both read
\f\t\f
\b \t\b\t
Almost
verbatim because Clem.
Strom
. 3.18.107 reads
\t\f
rather than
\t
, and
\t\n \b\b
rather than
\t\n \b\b
as found in
1 Clem.
46.8, otherwise the texts are identical (the additional
%\b\t\t\n
in Clem.
Strom
3.18.107 mirrors the first line of the Alexandrian Clements parallel to
1 Clem.
13.2; as
we saw when discussing the latter, neither occurrence of
%\b\t\t\n
is relevant for
this study, in that they
are not part of the Jesus tradition being cited).
See discussion in sec. 4.1 above, and also Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 156;
Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:141; Lona,
Erste Clemensbrief
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
For the Lord says in the gospel,
If you do not keep what is small, who will give you
what is great? For I say to you that the one wh
o is faithful in very little is faithful also in
much.Ž
2 Clem
. 8.5:
\t\f\t\b
\f\t\n\f\t\b\t
Lk 16:11:
\t"&\t&\f\f&\t\b\t\b
 \t\t\n\f\t
\t\b\b\t;
Lk 16:12:
\t\t& \t&\t\b\t\b
\f\t\n\f\t\b\t
2 Clem
. 8.5:
\f\t!\t\t\b\n
(\t\b&\t &\t\b\n\b\t
Lk 16:10:

\t\b\n (\t\b&\t &\t\b\n\b\t
\t (\t\b&'\t\n\t &'\t\n\b\t
Mt 25:21b, 23b:
\t \t"\n\t\b\n
\t 
\b\b\b#
There is little reason to hold that this
saying presupposes the finished form
of the Gospels. Its overall language bears little resemblance to its gospel
parallels, though the main
idea it conveys is reflected in both Matthew and
Luke. The obvious exception is the phrase
\t\b\n (\t\b&\t
 &\t\b\n\b\t
tim in Luke 16:10. Though
this verbatim correspondence could l
indirectly) upon Luke for the saying, such depend-
ence is difficult to prove for three reasons:
First, it is difficult to show
that this phrase resulted from Lukan red
action, in that (a) the other gospels
with which one might compare the passage to as-
certain the influence of Lukes hand,
and (b) there is nothing particularly
Lukan in the phrase. Second, the
\t\b\n
 (\t\b&\t &\t\b\n\b\t
) makes it difficult to argue for
any kind of literary dependence. Parallels in early Christian Latin literature
suggest that the saying may have circulated as a proverb in the early
I have changed the upper case GospelŽ in Ehrmans translation to lower case, to
Bibliography
Milavec, Aaron.
The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communi-
ties, 50…70 C.E.
New York and Mahwah: Newman/Paulist, 2003.
…. A Rejoinder [to The
Didache
and the Synoptics Once Mo
re: A Response to Aaron
2.4 Furthering Koesters Conclusions: Donald A. Hagner (1985)
In other cases he finds the evidence for dependence on oral tradi-
convincing as that for dependence on the Gospels (e.g., Ign.
2.1…2; Ign.
. 1.1; Poly.
Only when
discussing
2 Clement
does Hagner find evidence th
at is best explained by
dependence on the written Gospels, though
in the case of certain Jesus say-
ings there he still leaves open the possibility of an oral-traditional a
Overall, Hagner concludes that oral tradition is the most likely source
for most of the Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers prior to
2 Clement
He sets this conclusion in context as follows:
The situation from the end of th
e first century to the middle of the second is that the gos-
pel tradition concerning the words and works of Je
sus exists side by side in the form of
oral tradition and written Gospels. ƒ [A] tran
sition was slowly taking place. Oral tradi-
tion and the Gospels were both available, and the latter were slow in assuming the status
of canonicity. But as the decades of the seco
nd century pass the probability increases that
writers such as 2 Clement and Justin are dependent at least to some extent upon the writ-
ten Gospels.
and Hagner conclude that
oral tradition was the source
of a large part of the Jesus tradition
in the Apostolic Fathers should not be
allowed to mask the fact that these two scholars represent conflicting, even
incompatible perspectives on the manner in which oral traditions were pre-
served and passed on in antiquity. Whereas Koesters view is shaped by his
form-critical assumption that the oral
transmission of Jesus sayings was
characterized by a high level of instability,
Hagner, coming from a per-
See Hagner, Sayings,Ž 234…38, 241.
Ibid., 239…42; Hagner also concludes this regarding a number of passages in the
Shepherd
of Hermas, too numerous to add to the list above (see ibid., 243…44).
Ibid., 244…46.
Ibid., 258, and see also ibid., 239: The data of Clement taken together are best
explained as the result of de
pendence upon oral tradition similar to, but separate from,
the written Synoptic GospelsŽ; ibid., 240: Oth
er possible allusions can be mentioned [in
Ignatius], but in every
instance it is impossible to deny
the possibility that oral tradition
rather than dependence upon the Gospels may explain the wordsŽ; ibid., 241…42: Al-
though the Didache
contains an abundance of material similar, and related in some way,
to the Gospels, it is very interesting that
the case for dependence upon the Gospels is so
particularly weak. The phenomena can be readily explained as the result of dependence
upon oral traditionŽ; ibid., 243…44: noting
that Hermas probably knew the written Gos-
pels, Hagner stresses the significance of the fact that tradition can adequately account
for the data examined.Ž
Synoptische Überlieferung
; and see also his
So, e.g., Koester in his The Extracanonical Sayings of the Lord as Products of the
Christian CommunityŽ (
Semeia
44 [1988]: 57…77; Ger. orig. in
48 [1957]: 220…37,
same year as
Synoptische Überlieferung
) finds it likely that (what he identifies as) the
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Matthew, however, has also followed Qs order, as can be seen in the fol-
lowing chart developed by Graham Stanton:
Lk 6 Mt 5, 7
Introduction 20a 5:1…2
Beatitudes
20b…23 5:3…12
Woes
Love of enemy 27…36 5:38…47
Golden Rule 31
7:12
Judge not
37…38 7:1…2
The blind guide 39
Teacher and disciple 40
Speck and log 41…42 7:3…5
The tree and its fruit 43…45 7:16…20
Lord, Lord
7:21
House on the rock 47…49 7:24…27
But for one exception … the Golden Rule in Q 6:31//Mt 7:12 … there is
Chart taken with slight modifications from Stanton,
Gospel for a New People
, 287;
an almost identical chart can be found in Lambrecht, 
As noted by U. Luz, this breaks the pa
ttern of Matthews use of his sources: his
usual
modus operandi
at the large scale is to follow Ma
rks order, and insert Q material
with no regard for the Q order (on a smaller
scale he often maintain
s the Q order in ex-
cerpting Q material). In the case of the SM
//SP, however, Matthew has followed the or-
der of his main source Q, since he had no Markan framework to follow; see Luz,
Matthew and Q,Ž in idem,
Studies in Matthew
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 39…53,
esp. 45…50.
Q 6:39//Mt 15:14 (a rather weak parallel); Q 6:40//Mt 10:24…25 (reworked); Q
6:44…45 has a parallel in the SM (Mt 7:16…17) but also one that is in some ways closer in
7.2 The Didache and the Gospels

!\t\b\b\t
\f\t\n\t
9\t\n\n\t\n
In some later MSS only:
(Mat 6:13x):
!\t\b\b\t
\r\b\t \t\f\t\n\t9\t\n\n\t\n
7.2 The
Didache
Though the best witnesses to the text of Matthew contain the aorist
many Greek MSS and most ancient versions have the present
%\t\f
(see
Chapter 10: Conclusions
lieved, but rather closer to the briefer form in the other parallel in Mt 7:1…
2, or (2) not part of a written Q at all, but belonging in more general terms
to the double (oral) tradition held in common by Matthew and Luke. Relat-
ing to the contents of the Sermon on
the Mount/Plain as a whole, our find-
ings thus tend to support the arguments of those who hold that the
evangelists accessed part at least of th
e sermon as oral tradition rather than
from a written Q. In addition, our discussion of
18:6…7 and Lk 17:1…2 are dependent not
For a full discussion of the characteristics that follow, see ch. 3 above. As noted in
ch. 1, there is an element of circularity invo
lved in describing the inner workings of oral
tradition in antiquity: one first identifies th
e oral-traditional provenance of portions of
ancient writings based on certain characteris
tics of the material, and then proceeds to
describe the way oral tradition functioned in
antiquity based on
these characteristics.
Throughout the present work we have trusted, however, that comparative research into
surviving oral cultures provides enough of a control to assure the validity of the approach
upon which this study is based. In dealing w
ith this type of material one works in the
realm of hypotheses and probabilities,
not in the realm of certainty.
4. Other Early Christian Literature
Stromateis
3.107.2 177, 178
Cyril of Jerusalem
Procatechesis
Didascalia
Epiphanius of Salamis
Panarion
30.14.5 257
Eusebius of Caesarea
Chronicon
158
Historia ecclesiastica
3.39.15…16 59, 141
George Hamartolos
Chronicon
29, 285, 291…93
Gospel of Thomas
Hilary of Poitiers
Epistula seu libellus
Irenaeus
Adversus haereses
5.33.3…4 29, 285, 286…91
Jerome
Commentariorum in Isaiam
18, pref. 229
De viris illustribus
229, 230
Justin Martyr
Apologia 1
New Testament Manuscripts
MS 1424 (marginal gloss)
Mt 7:5
POxy 665
Col. i.17…col. ii.1 264
Origen
De principiis
1, prooem. 8 230
Pseudo-Clement
Homilies
Pseudo-Macarius
Homilies
see under
2. New Testament,
tween
Luke
John)
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in addition to those found in P. H.
Alexander, ed.,
The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), with
full bibliographical detail given in the Bibliography:
// Parallel(s)
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
Finally, it is also possible that the markers of orality that exist in a
document are derivative rather than original to it; i.e., the oral origin or
sources detectable in writing A may be characteristics of a writing B
upon which writing A depends, rath
er than of writing A itself.
Having noted the above difficulties,
however, there is no reason why
they should preclude the kinds of questi
ons the present study seeks to bring
to the texts. These difficulties simply serve to draw attention on the one
hand to the nature of historical resear
ch in general, which always involves
than certainty, and on the other hand to the na-
ture of the sources under consideration,
which are ambiguous at best. Final
judgment on the viability of the questions raised in the present study
These problems are compounded when one is working with fragments, such as iso-
Chapter 5
2.3
5.1 Introduction
Having examined
13.2 in the previous chapter, we now turn to
consider its close parallel in Polycarps
Epistle to the Philippians
in chapter 4, in this chapter we will also seek to 1) identify elements within
the text that might indicate the authors use of oral sources for the Jesus
draw out implications for the manner in which
tioned, in the early Christian group
to which the author belonged.
Repeating the procedure followed in
the previous chapter, our discus-
sion of Pol.
. 2.3 is prefaced below by the text followed by a synopsis
of its parallels, this time in their Philippian order. To facilitate discussion
For text-critical issues related to the text
s that follow, see notes to the synopsis in
section 4.1 above.
Chapter 8: Three Isolated Say
ings from the Jesus Tradition
as a saying of Jesus.
It is to be expected that Jesus, as a Jewish teacher,
like a Jewish teacher and make
use of the Jewish tradition of
his day.
The old criterion of double dissimila
rity used in Historical Jesus
studies, according to which Jesus could not have said anything that
s a part, has rightly ceased to com-
mand much respect in New Testament studies.
What is unique to the saying in the Jesus tradition, however, is its
J. A. Draper, who argues that the Didachist uses the saying as a Jewish prov-
erb … the LordŽ being the Lord of the OT, not Jesus … and that Matthew may have taken
this proverb and placed it on Jesus lips (Jesus Tradition,Ž 78).
On Jesus as teacher see especially Byrskog,
Jesus the Only Teacher
; Riesner,
Jesus
als Lehrer
See, e.g., the critique by
M. Hooker, Wrong Tool,Ž 573…79.
See the examples listed in van de Sandt, Eucharistic Food,Ž 230…31 [n. 17], 234,
235), noted already in n. 7 on p. 227 above.
In Matthew the meaning of the saying is no
Bibliography
Cranfield, C. E. B.
The Gospel According to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary.
Third Impression with Additional Supplemen
tary Notes. Cambridge Greek Testament
Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
3rd ed. revised. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic.
In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus.
San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1983.
Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition.
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
the aid of written texts. His model does not simply
for the presence
of written texts that antedate the Gospels (as does the model used in the
present work), it
relies
on the existence and use of these texts by the apos-
tles.
In addition, it requires the involveme
nt of highly literate individuals
not just at the point of producing the wr
itten Gospels, but also for the thirty
to forty years leading up to that, in order to preserve the integrity of the
tradition.
This dependence on literacy provides the context within which to un-
derstand Gerhardssons statement that
Jesus and his disciples did not
This statement is, again, based on both the evanescent nature of the spoken word
and the lack of evidence for Jesus making the disciples learn his teaching by rote memo-
rization. Without texts, and without Jesus ma
king the disciples learn his words by rote
memorization, the disciples could not carry
out the work that Gerhardsson envisions
when he states that they w
orked on the ƒ Christ-tradition (which was originally oral):
they gathered, formulated (narrative tradition)
, interpreted, adapted, developed, comple-
mented and put together collections for various definite purposesŽ (Gerhardsson,
Tradi-
tion
, 40; see also idem,
Memory
, 332; idem,
Reliability
3.4 The Limits of Comparative Study
gical tradition was especially tenacious, being guarded with special care
due to its central role in transmitting and preserving the identity of the
community.
The Apostle Paul appeals to this relatively fixed kind of li-
turgical tradition in relating the institution of the Lords Supper in 1 Cor
11:23…25, as indicated in part by his
use in v. 23 of the technical terms
 \f\r\t
(receivedŽ) and
\t\t
his citation of Jesus words.
The narrative traditions in the Synoptic
Gospels provide a contrast to this fixed liturgical tradition, in the great deal
of freedom the evangelists exercised
Chapter 6
Seeking Consistency
Looking for Indicators of Orality in
46.7b…8
6.1 Introduction
The choice to begin with the study of
13.2 and Poly.
the previous chapters was based on certain unique characteristics of these
texts. Their comparative length, together with the extent to which they par-
allel each other, combined to make them the ideal test case for the applica-
tion of the theory on orality and liter
acy that undergirds the present study.
In the following chapters we set out to ascertain to what extent the find-
ings of the previous chapters are corr
oborated by applying the same theory
to five additional texts that also contain explicit appeals to Jesus tradition:
. 8.2 and 9.5, Ign.
. 3.2a, and Poly.
ture chapters, so that we will enter into considerably less detail. We begin
in this chapter with
\f\b \b
\t
\f 
\t"#\t&&
\t&# "&\t
! \f\b \t\b\t#
\t"&\t\t\f \t\t\b\t\t\n \b\b!
 \f\t\b-\t
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord,
for he said, Woe to that person! It would have
See secs. 4.7 and 5.4 above for brief summaries of the findings of the previous two
chapters, that will be presupposed in the present and the following chapters.
For a list of MSS witnesses for
1 Clement
and their abbreviations see n. 4 on p. 108
above.
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
ClementŽ cites Jesus tradition paralleling the first part of Mt 6:24//Lk
. 6.1b, and follows this immediately with a statement that
closely parallels the final lines of Mt 6:24//Lk 16:13 in
all of
. 6.1b…c is part of his citation
of Jesus tradition that extends
through 6.2.
The parallels to
. 6.1 do not provide much evidence upon which
to base a decision regarding the source of Jesus words. Very little can be
said regarding the parallel in the
beyond simply noting
its existence. Besides being limited to
a single line out of the four under
 language is so different from that of
2 Clement
that
there is no reason to hold that there is a literary relationship between
them.
As for the Synoptic Gospel
s, Luke 16:13a parallels
verbatim, while Mt 6:24a, lacking the
\t\n
, does not. It would be diffi-
cult, however, to draw any implicati
ons from the presence or absence of
this single term:
there is nothing par
ticularly Lukan about
\t\n
that
would lead one to argue for the
presence of Lukan redaction in
and the term may have been in the tradition common to Matthew and
Luke (and ClementŽ) but been le
ft out by the first evangelist.
Similarly,
nothing can be said with certainty regarding
. 6.1c; its very different
shape when compared with Mt 6:24c//Lk 16:13c may indicate that Clem-
entŽ is citing tradition, whether written or oral, that he held in common
with Matthew and/or Luke, and whic
h has undergone transformation in the
The evidence that
. 6.2 presupposes the finished form of the
Gospel of Matthew is stronger but
still not conclusive. Though not reflect-
ing Mt 16:26 verbatim, 6.2 is clearly closer to its Matthean parallel than to
the other gospels. Most importantly, it shares Matthews

+ subjunctive
,\f\t&
) construction that almost certainly owes its presence in
It is also possible that ClementsŽ citation of Jesus words extends beyond 6.2.
The passage goes on, But this age and the age to come are two enemies. This one
preaches adultery, depravity, avarice, and deceit, but that one renounces these things. We
cannot, therefore, be friends of both. We must renounce this world to obtain that oneŽ
(6.3…5). While the citation of Jesus words may be meant to include some of this addi-
tional material, for lack of a more definitive criterion we will limit ourselves to the por-
tion that has identifiable parallels in
other known Jesus tradition (6.1…2).
This would be true even if the original language of
Thomas
was Greek, but is per-
haps more so if the Coptic is based on a Syriac
Vorlage
(see comments on the work of
Nicholas Perrin in n. 38 on pp. 251…52 above).
Bibliography
Maier, Gerhard. Jesustradition im
1. Petrusbrief?Ž Pages 85…128 in
Gospel Perspectives,
The Jesus Tradition Ou
tside the Gospels.
Edited by David Wenham. Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1985.
2.3 Establishing the Scholarly Agenda: Massaux and Koester (1950s)
Justin Martyr that we find the use of oral tradition
by almost
In comparing the situation between th
e Apostolic Fathers
and Justin, Koester
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Allison has put together a very cogent argument, which we need not
replicate here, as his findings are suppor
ted by the independent research of
His study suffices to establish that the sayings
within what is often identified as Q 6:37…38 (//
13.2) existed inde-
pendently of Q within a cohesive block of tradition. Allisons study does
not sufficiently show, however, that these sayings actually became a part
of Q. It is possible that Luke deri
ved what is commonly identified as Q
6:37…38, where all but one of
the Lukan parallels to
cated, directly from the independent block of tradition that Allison has
identified rather than from Q. We now turn to examine this possibility.
(b) Based upon the current shape of
Matthew and Lukes shared tradi-
regarding each evangelists use of
his sources, and assuming also that this portion of Q as known to Matthew
and Luke was a written document,
it seems likely (as will be argued be-
low) that the contents of Q 6:37…38 may
have been closer to Mt 7:1…2 than
to Lk 6:37…38.
We have already noted that the sayings that parallel
Matthew and Luke are all containe
d within Matthews Sermon on the
Mount (SM) and Lukes Sermon on the Pl
ain (SP). In the view of most Q
Q 6:27…38 as a rewriting of the holiness code in Lev 19; see his Qs New Exodus and
the Historical Jesus,Ž in
The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus
(ed. A. Linde-
Chapter 7
8.2
7.1 Introduction
In turning to study Jesus tradition in the
a few prefatory com-
ments are in order. As is commonly recognized, the work is a compilation
of materials derived from various s
ources, though the identity of these
s contents suggest that it
was used as a church order: chapte
rs 1…6 contain moral teaching based on
the Jewish Two Ways tradition, chapters 7…15 give instructions on the lit-
urgy and the ministry, and chapter 16
provides an eschatological conclu-
sion to the work.
There are those who argue that the compilation and arrangement of the
materials that make up the
took place over an extended period of
time and involved a number of ed
In this
chapter, however, position will be taken with those who consider that the
book was given its present shape by a si
ngle editor … whom we will call the
Didachist … who brought together its ra
ther disparate contents from a vari-
For a survey of various approaches that have been taken in seeking to understand
the sources of the
Didache
see J. A. Draper, The Didache in Modern Research: An
Overview,Ž in
Didache in Modern Research
W. Rordorf, Didache,Ž
4:54…55; A.
Tuilier, Didache,Ž
TRE
8:731.
Having completed the examination of explicit appeals to Jesus tradition in
the Apostolic Fathers,
we now turn to assess
gation. What follows will be divided into three main sections: (1) some
implications of the basic insight that the explicit appeals to Jesus tradition
in the Apostolic Fathers are appeals to oral tradition; (2) a description of
the main characteristics of the oral tradition used by the Apostolic Fathers;
and (3) the impact of the findings of
10.1 Oral-Traditional Sources in the Apostolic Fathers
The most basic insights resulting from th
e above investigati
likelihood that the explicit appeals to Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fa-
thers prior to
2 Clement
derive from an oral-traditional source: this likeli-
hood approaches certainty in the case of
. 13.2 and 46.8, Poly.
8.2 (the Lords Prayer), examined in chapters 4 though 7. It is
also very likely in the case of the isolated sayings examined in chapter 8:
9.5, Ign.
. 3.2a and Poly.
ficient in orality would have no need to depend on written sources for brief
sayings such as these.
Our findings on the Jesus tradition in
2 Clement
remain inconclusive:
though we found good reason to hold that it does not presuppose the fin-
ished form of the Synoptics, beyond th
to decide whether it derived from an oral-traditional or a written source.
Our tentative conclusion that it derive
The fragments traditionally attributed to Papias contain two additional explicit ap-
peals to Jesus tradition, which are covered in
Appendix: The Fragments of PapiasŽ (for
reasons given there), following this concluding section.
3. Apostolic Fathers
6.2
8.5
29, 40, 44, 239, 254…
Barnabas
5.9
41, 62
Didache
1…6
40, 205
1.3
1.3…2.1 201, 210
54, 205
8.2
220, 221
41, 220
41, 220
9.5
16
16.3…5 41, 205
Hermas
Mandates
IV (29-32) 63
Similitudes
IX.20.2 (97.2) 40
Visions
IV.2.6 (23.6) 188
Table of Contents
XI
Chapter 6: Seeking Consistency:
Looking for Indicators of Orality in
46.7b…8
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Relationship of
. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
6.2.1 The Structure and Components of
and its Parallels
6.2.2 The Order and Wording of the Gospel Parallels
to
6.2.3 Seeking the Redactional Footprints of the Evangelists
1 Clement
46.8, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the
Didache
The Lords Prayer in
Did
. 8.2
7.1 Introduction
and the Gospels
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
Jonathan Draper, Oral texts written down do not lose their most character-
istic features, although clearly the para
linguistic features will be lost … ges-
Likewise, a discourse composed
in writing and adhering to the cultural norms for such activity will remain
a literate composition even if delivered orally (a contemporary example
might be a paper read at a symposium) … it will (most likely) not sound
like everyday spoken language.
That something is oralŽ thus need not
imply that it is the opposite of written,
Ž but rather writing runs the gamut
It is important to note the reality Bakker sought to capture by using
continua in the above graph. The con
contain varying ratios of both oral and literate characteristics, so that most
Draper, Covenantal Discourse,Ž 74.
Bakker, How Oral,Ž 30, and cf. ibid., 33.
Ibid., 31. On the relationship between oral
tradition and oral-derived texts see fur-
ther Foley,
Immanent Art
; idem,
Singer
, esp. pp. 60…98.
Ibid., 30…31; see also idem,
4.7 Conclusions
plicit might be made explicit; and an implicit element made explicit might
remain so in subsequent retellings.
Finally,
13.2 provides an illustration of the socially identified
not all oral traditions are
preserved, but only those
that remain socially relevant. One of the ways in which oral tradition re-
tains its social relevance is through reinterpretation, bringing out the appli-
cability of the tradition to the present. If, as argued above, Clement is
citing Jesus words from the oral-traditional discourse that circulated
among the churches, he has applied them
in a way that is not envisioned in
this source. In the pre-Q discourse
examined above, the sayings function
within a context of
In that context, the injunctions to
be merciful, not judge,
not condemn, forgive, and give generously (Lk
6:36…38) relate to every-day social r
ealities having to do with the oppres-
sion of the poor and powerless by the rich and powerful (Lk 6:20…35).
In
1 Clement
, however, the sayings are applied
schism brought about by jealous
y and envy over leadership (
6.4). This had brough about the depositi
on of some of the older presbyters
within the church by younger member
s (44.1…6), and the author is calling
1…13.1). It is in this context that
we find Clements citation of the words of Jesus, where they are explicitly
referred to as Jesus teaching rega
rding gentleness and patienceŽ (13.1b).
4.7 Conclusions
The sayings of Jesus contained in
13.2 almost certainly derived
onclusion is supported by external as
well as internal evidence: externally, not only is there no conclusive evi-
depended on any known written sources,
13.2 and its parallels points to the exis-
tence of a block of oral tradition th
at predated not only the Synoptics but
also Q, and that circulated fairly widely in early Christianity. The discus-
sion in this chapter provided good reas
on to hold that Clement derived the
The above reflects the presupposition, held for the sake of argument, that the
block of material that fed into what b
ecame Lk 6:31…38 is earlier
than that found in
1 Clem.
13.2; but what has been said would also hold true … in reverse order … if the con-
trary were the case. The traditionist who compiled
1 Clem.
13.2 as we know it may have
reworked a source in which saying f was explicit, to make it implicit.
See Horsley, Covenant RenewalŽ; id
em, Performance and TraditionŽ; Draper,
Covenantal Discourse.Ž
See J. B. Green,
The Gospel of Luke
(NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),
Chapter 8
Three Isolated Sayings from the Jesus Tradition
8.1 Introduction
This chapter represents another trans
ition point in our discussion. The pre-
vious four chapters dealt with four bl
collections of Jesus sayings (
. 13.2; 46.7…8; Poly.
fourth that contained a fairly lengthy unit of liturgical tradition (the Lords
Prayer in
. 8.2). Now we turn to consider
three passages that contain a
single isolated saying:
9.5, Ignatius
Letter to the Smyrneans
and Polycarps
Letter to the Philippians
The task of analysis is greatly simplified when working with isolated
sayings, but any advantage to be gained from this increased simplicity is
The exception is Ign.
Smyrn
On the use of the proverb in oral cultures see Ong,
Literacy and Orality
, 44; on the
use of the proverb in a cross-section of oral
Bibliography
Cadoux, Cecil John. Review of P. N. Harrison,
Polycarps Two Epistles to the Philippi-
Journal of Theological Studies
38 (1937): 267…70.
Camelot, Pierre Thomas.
Ignace dAntioche, Polycarpe de
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
monic techniques, an insight fully in keeping with the approach to oral tra-
dition that under-girds the present work.
This need not also imply, how-
ever, that
memorization (he is never portrayed as doing so
in the Gospels
), or that the
disciples
The present critique could be viewed as an argu-
ment from silence, but silence does not
imply the truth of any given hy-
See sec. 3.3.9 below, and the similar statements in Kelber, Memorys Desire,Ž 60;
idem, The Generative Force of Memory: Early Christian Traditions as Process of Re-
membering,Ž
BTB
36 (2006): 16…17, 20.
Dunn,
Jesus Remembered
, 198; M. Hengel,
The Charismatic Leader and His Fol-
lowers
(ed. John Riches, trans., J. C. G. Greig; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 80…81;
Wright,
New Testament and the People of God
E.g., to say that Jesus sayings consist of brief, laconic, well-rounded texts, of
pointed statements with a clear profile, rich in content and artistic in formŽ so that Jesus
is creating an objectŽ with his sayings that could be passed onŽ to his hearers and by
them to others (Gerhardsson,
Reliability
, 42, 77…78) is more of a reflection on the
the Gospels
, than on the words of Jesus. We do not have direct access to the words of
3.4 The Limits of Comparative Study
The above characteristics of orally c
onceived discourse, then, will guide
degree abstract,Ž oral cultures tend to use co
ncepts in situational, operational frames of
reference that are minimally abstract in the sense that they remain close to the living hu-
man lifeworldŽ (
Orality and Literacy
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
See subsection 3.3.5 above, under the su
btitle Both Variable and StableŽ and lit-
erature cited there.
Cf. Show mercy, that you may be shown mercyŽ (Clementine saying a) to the
Golden RuleŽ Do to others as you would have them do to you,Ž which is also the Lu-
kan parallel to Clementine saying c.
This is clear especially from v. 35, love those who hate you, and do good [to
them], and
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
In Matthew and Luke, which contain parallels to the first
line of
, these parallels appear as
separate, unconnected sayings (Mt 10:
16, 28; Lk 10:3; 12:4…5). Justin
Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies
only contain parallels to the
last four lines of
conclusion that the saying in
ent forms within the tradition: one that reflected the full form of the saying
2 Clement
as a single unit (attested only in
2 Clement
nd the last four lines of
not connect them to each other (attested in Mt and Lk), and a third that
contained only the last four lines (atte
sted in Justin and Pseudo-Clement).
If this assessment is on target, it follows that neither
sources were dependent on any of the
synopsis. It is not possible to sp
ecify anything further regarding
s source, including whether it was written or oral.
2 Clement
.\t\t\n#/\t\n\t\n
\t\b\t\t\t\n \t \f\t\n
 \f\t& \t\t\f
\f&\b\f%\f\t\b\t
\t'% \n
\t\n\b\f! \b&-(,\f\t&;
But the Lord [Jesus] says,
No household servant can serve as the slave of two mas-
ters.
If we wish to serve as slaves of both
God and wealth, it is of no gain to us.
For
what is the advantage of acquiring the whole world while forfeiting your life?Ž
2 Clem
/\t\n\t\n
\t\b\t\t\t\n \t
Mt 6:24a:
/\t\n
\t\b\t\t\t\n \t
Lk 16:13a:
/\t\n\t\n
\t\b\t\t\t\n \t
G. Thom
\t
 \n\b\t\t\t\n
 \t
(trans. from Coptic)
Donfried,
Second Clement
, 68; Gregory,
, 143; Linde-
mann,
Clemensbriefe
Koester argues that the saying in
2 Clement
is secondary to the Gospels based on
the form-critical rule that names (in this cas
e Peter) are secondary additions to the tradi-
tion (
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 98). As noted by E. P. Sanders, however, such a ruleŽ
does not hold, in that names can also drop out of the tradition (
Tendencies
, 10). It follows
that one cannot argue on such a basis that
one form of the tradition was earlier than the
other.
Again there are those who hold that the source was the
Gospel of the Egyptians
(e.g., Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:219; considered by Bartlet in
NTAF
, 136), but see
sec. 9.2.8 below on
2 Clem
. 12.2, 6. Others suggest the
Bibliography
Le Donne, Anthony.
The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of
. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009.
…. Theological Memory Distortion in the Jesus Tradition: A Study in Social Memory
Theory.Ž Pages 163…77 in
Memory in the Bible and An
tiquity: The Fifth Durham-
Tübingen Research Sympos
ium (Durham, September 2004)
. Edited by Loren T.
Stuckenbruck, Stephen C. Barton and Be
njamin G. Wold. Wissenschaftliche Unter-
suchungen zum Neuen Testament
212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Lechner, T.
Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologie-
geschichtliche Studien zu den Br
iefen des Ignatius von Antiochien.
Supplements to
Vigiliae Christianae 47. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Lessing, Gotthold. New Hypothesis Concerning the Evangelists Regarded as Merely
Human Historians.Ž Pages 65…81 in
Lessings Theological Writings.
Edited and
translated by Henry Chadwick. A Library of Modern Religious Thought. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1957.
Liberty, Stephen. Review of P. N. Harrison,
Polycarps Two Epistles to the Philippians
Church Quarterly Review
124.247 (1937): 141…47.
Lightfoot, J. B.
The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, I
gnatius, and Polycarp: Revised Texts
with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations.
2nd ed. 2 parts in 5 vols.
London: Macm
illan, 1889…90.
Essays on the Work Entitle
d Supernatural Religion.
London and New York: Macmil-
lan, 1889.
Lindemann, Andreas. Antwort auf die Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben
Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochen.Ž
Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of
Ancient Christianity
1 (1997): 185…94.
…. Apostolic Fathers.Ž Page 335 in vol. 1 of
Religion Past and Pres
Theology and Religion.
Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Ja-
nowski and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill,
…. The Apostolic Fathers and the Synoptic Problem.Ž Pages 689…719 in
New Studies in
the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christo-
2.3 Establishing the Scholarly Agenda: Massaux and Koester (1950s)
tion Criticism.Ž
This, as we will see, is one of the main dividing lines be-
tween his work and that of Koester.
In his
Synoptische Überlieferung
, Koesters assessment of the work of the
Oxford Committee differs substantially
from that of Massaux. In a number
of cases Koester cites the work of
the Committee approvingly when it pos-
its oral tradition rather than written gospels,
or apocryphal rather than
Bellinzoni, Gospel of Matthew,Ž 200; cf. idem, Luke in the Apostolic Fathers,Ž
See, e.g., Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 10, 203…7 (cf.
NTAF
, 28…31), where
specifically
liturgical
oral tradition is in
view; ibid., 16, where Koester supports the al-
ternative of
oral
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Though, as will be argued below, for saying f a parallel is implicit in Lk 6:35 … it
is certainly significant that this verse prefaces
the block of verses under consideration,
and would form one unit with them to include all of Lk 6:35…38.
Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Intrinsic to an argument for a pre-
Lukan source is the understanding that the material in question is not of Lukan creation,
as argued by a number of scholars: not only does the un-Lukan terminology contained in
vv. 37b and 38 point to a pre-Lukan source (so U. Luz,
Matthew 1…7: A Commentary
H. Koester; trans. J. E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007] 349; E.
Schweizer,
The Good News according to Luke
[trans. D. E. Green; Atlanta: John Knox,
1984], 125, who also entertains the possibility that the vv. in question were in Q and
were omitted by Matthew), but also the imager
y of Lk 6:38b is on the whole so obvi-
ously Palestinian that the ques
tion of Lucan creation does not arise, despite the omission
of anything corresponding from MtŽ (Marshall,
Luke
, 267; similarly H. Schürmann,
Lukasevangelium,
Kommentar zu Kap. 1, 1 … 9, 50
(HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1969],
363; D. R. Catchpole,
The Quest for Q
[Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993], 121…22). Other
scholars have questioned the presence of all of Lk 6:37…38 in Q. Nolland finds a ques-
tion mark over the original un
ity of the section (was the section on giving added from
another tradition for the sake of the note of
plentifulness in Gods dealings which it
adds?)Ž (
Luke 1…9:20
, 301). There also are those who hold the opposite to that being ar-
gues here: Bovon, without offering any kind of supporting argument, asserts that con-
demn not, and you will not be condemnedŽ in Lk 6:37b is a redactional paraphrase that
6.3 1 Clement 46.8, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
acteristic of an oral setting, and points to the possible oral context in which
the two sayings we
(4) One aspect of the
within variability that characterizes oral
tradition can be seen in the almost identical wording of the two phrases
\t&&\t&
 
"]&\t
46.8, Mark 14:21, and Matt 26:24.
While in Matthew and Mark
this exact correspondence is attributable
to the literary use of the latter by
1 Clement
is probably an example
of how short, memorable sayings can ach
ieve fixity within oral tradition,
The 

Ž in the texts of Mark
and Matthew, being post-positiv
e, can be left out as
not intrinsic to the saying.
See subsection 3.3.5 above, under the
subtitle Both Variable and Stable.Ž
See subsection 3.3.5 above, under the
subtitle Both Variable and Stable.Ž
In addition to discussion in ch. 3 ab
ove (see previous note), see especially
Minchin, Similes in Homer,Ž 26, 38; Paivio, Minds Eye,Ž 6. Minchin words are apro-
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
In this case the distinction between
\t)
holds, as the saying in
2.4 is appropriately introduced with
. The other eight sayings in
2 Clement
ful). If these two sayings presupposed
the finished form of the Gospels,
this need not imply that they derive from a written source, especially since
most scholars are in agreement that any influence of Matthew and Luke
2 Clement
was at best indirect: it could just as well imply that
ClementŽ had access to oral tradition that has been impacted by its con-
Here I agree with Donfrieds conclusions in his
Second Clement
, 81, though I do
not agree with his argument; see n. 108 on p. 275 above.
2. New Testament
10:16 186
10:23…24 186
11:1…4 129
11:2…4 129, 186
11:9…13 186
11:34…36 129
12:2…7 186
12:11…12 186
12:22…31 186
12:33…34 129, 186
13:18…19 186
13:20…21 186
13:24 186
14:26…27 186
14:34…35 186
17:1 184
17:1…2 183, 185, 280
17:2 184
17:3…6 184
17:33 186
12:34 76
Acts
1:13…14 18
1:18 290
2:14…36 19
3:1…11 19
3:12…26 19
4:8…12 19
4:29 19
4:30 19
4:31 19
5:15 19
5:20…21 19
5:42 19
6:2
6:4
18, 19
6:7
8:1
8:4
8:12 19
8:14 18,
8:15 18
8:25 18,
8:40 19
9:32 18
9:40…41 19
10:34…43 19
11:1 19
11:1…18 18
12:24 19
15:2…30 18
16:4 18
19:20 19
20:35
21:25 18
Romans
2:1
12:14
12:17
12:21
1 Corinthians
4:12 123,
11:23 99
11:23…25 99
14:34 79
15:3…7 18
Galatians
2:1…10 18
1 Thessalonians
4:12 123,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament· 2.Reihe
Jörg Frey (Zürich)
Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg)
James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)
Table of Contents
Preface
.ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ.ƒƒ.ƒƒƒƒƒ.VII
ƒ.ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ.ƒ...IX
ƒ....ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ.ƒ.ƒ.ƒƒ.XIII
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
1.1 Introduction
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
1.4.1 Form Criticism
1.4.2 The Rabbinic Model
Chapter 3
These developments were addressed briefl
y in secs. 1.1 and 1.
2 above, and will be
described more fully in sec. 3.3 below, under
the sub-title Markers of Orality: Oral Indi-
cators in a Written Medium.Ž
4.6 1 Clement 13.2, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
your Father is compassionateŽ (
\t\b\t\t\f\n\n\t
\f\t\t\f\b\t
Since, then, the injunctions contained in
the whole passage are predicated upon
the divine exampl
) to those who are unthankful and evilŽ (v. 35b)
you have been shown kindness.Ž This
to love, be good, and lend, in that
these commands spring from the divine kindness, even though explicit
(\b\f\t
language is not used in the commands themselves.
Translations such as the NIV that intr
oduce vv. 37 and following with a new head-
ing that marks them off from v.
36 hinder this flow of the text.
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
ties that were closely related to each other geographically and historically,
which explains the overarching si
milarity between the two prayers.
7.4 Conclusion
The nature of the evidence at hand is such that any conclusions must re-
This is only one of many elements that
point to the close relationship between the
communities of Ma
tthew and the
Didache
; see further the literature
cited in nn. 28 and 29
on p. 210 above.
Unfortunately the volume edited by H.
Klein, V. Mihoc, and K.-W. Niebuhr in
cooperation with Christos Karakolis,
Bibliography
…. The Kingdom of God in Mark.Ž Pages 131…145 in
The Kingdom of God in 20th-
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
(1) There is little historical evidence to support Gerhardssons hypothe-
sis of an exclusive
of apostles in Jerusalem carefully editing,
adding to, and guarding the integrity of the Jesus tradition.
The evidence
that Gerhardsson musters in its favor
turns out upon close scrutiny to point
elsewhere.
While there are sources that place the apostles in Jerusalem,
e.g., and some mention that they dealt with doctrinal issues,
the distance
between this historical information a
Memory
, 280) and that Paul believed that the eucharistic
tradition he included in 1 Cor 11 was derived
from Jesus via the college of ApostlesŽ
(ibid., 321) (I am indebted for this insight to Kelber,
Oral and Written
, 12), Paul never
appealed to the authority of the apostles as those from whom he received the tradition.
One cannot ultimately prove or disprove that the Apostles were (or were not) Pauls di-
rect source for the Jesus tradition, since the sour
ces are silent on this point. This silence,
however, does not justify the central place of the apostolic
collegium
in Gerhardssons
model.
The Book of Acts consistently places the Twelve in Jerusalem, even after the per-
secution broke out against the Christians (Acts
8:1), at least as their center of operations
from where they travel elsewhere (8:4, 14, 25; 9:32).
E.g., Acts 11:1…18; 15:2…30; 16:4; 21:25; Gal 2:1…10.
Gerhardsson presents the apostolic gathering described in Acts 15 as an example of
the traditioning work of the
collegium
Memory
, 245…61), but in so doing far overreaches
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
expression in the stability within variability that is one of the hallmarks of
oral tradition.
From the perspective of social memory studies, then, one can speak
with Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher of
irreducibly complex artifact of the continual negotiation and semantic
interpenetration of present social realities and memorialized pasts.Ž
Werner Kelber notes, the purpose of
tradition understood in this way is
not transmission per se, but negotiation between ... a constitutive past and
the contingencies of an ever-shifting present.Ž
In effect, when viewed in
terms of social memory, the early Jesus traditions are growing out of a
tension between two competing aspirations: retaining the words of Jesus so
While one could conceivably view oral
tradition as a sub-category of social mem-
ory studies, many studies on social memory deal with aspects of memory that do not in-
volve a traditioning process, and so have at most only indirect bearing on the study of
oral tradition. Here Le Donnes critique is also relevant, that social memory theorists
often confuse literal memory with memory as a metaphor for traditionŽ (
Historiographi-
cal Jesus
, 60, n. 92).
A. Kirk and T. Thatcher, Jesus
Tradition and Social Memory,Ž in
Memory, Tradi-
tion, and Text
(ed. Kirk and Thatcher), 33; the en
37 (2007): 90…
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
[saying V]. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the
\t!\t
before say-
ing V thus implies, and here is anot
her thing also to be remembered of
what Jesus said when he taught ƒ.Ž We may be able to infer, then, that if
the introductory formula was a standard
means of appealing to oral tradi-
tion, not only sayings I…IV but also saying V is included within the oral
tradition that is being cited.
One final element to discuss regarding saying V is that, when compared
to its Matthean parallels, it brings together two beatitudes that hold out the
promise of the kingdom.
It is important to r
chapter 3 that the bringing together of sayings that share a common subject
matter is a common device for organizing material in an oral milieu.
It
may be that saying V provides an exam
tains two separate sayings that were paired based on their similar subject
matter as kingdom beatitudes. It is al
so possible that the saying was trans-
mitted as a single unit in the tradition, much like we find it in Polycarp,
and that Matthew has separated it into two beatitudes to cohere with the
single-beatitude structure of Mt 5:
3…10 … this, however, would not explain
why Matthew did not separate 5:
11 into distinct beatitudes:
\f\t\t\b
!\t\t\b\b\t\f\n\t\t9\b\t\t\t'\b\t
\f-\f\t!\f
. Given the presupposition of an oral milieu
for these sayings, one need not opt c
onclusively for either of these possi-
bilities. It is just as likely that different performances of the tradition con-
tained beatitudes for
\t(\t
\t\t\f\t!
\t\t\b\n
, sometimes together, and some
times apart, depending on the
traditionist and on the occasion of the performance.
In sum, when Polycarp prefaces the block of sayings in
formula containing the verb rememberingŽ and the aorist tense of
is not quoting Clement, but rather like Clement he was drawing the read-
ers attention to material that was living oral tradition. Polycarp may have
derived from Clement the idea of quoting a comparatively lengthy collec-
This latter point is also made by Massaux,
, 2:31.
Those who assume that Polycarp knew Matthew hold that he chose these two out
of all the Matthean beatitudes because of this promise they have in common (Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2.3:326; Hartog,
Polycarp
, 193…94), or that these two sayings present
a summary of the beatitudes, apparently base
d on their position as first and last of the
beatitudes (Massaux,
, 2:31).
See sec. 3.3.2 above, under the subtitle
Aggregative Rather
than Analytic.Ž
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
and then can do nothing more to you; but fear the one who, after you die, has the power
to cast your body and soul into the hell of fire.Ž
2 Clem.

'\b\b\n
\t\f\b& 
Mt 10:16:

\t\b \f\n\n
\r\f\b& 
Lk 10:3:

#\t
\b \f\n
\n'
\f\b& 
2 Clem.
\t\t\n:\n& 
\t#$)\t\b9\b\t\t
\t\t;\t)\b
\n&:&#6%\r\t\b\b
\t\n \n\f
\t#
2 Clem.

\f\t\n\f%\r\t\b
\n

\n\f\n
Just.
Apol.
\f%\r\t\b
\n
\t\n\f\n
Ps.Clem.
\f%\r

\b\f
Mt 10:28:
\f%\r\t\b


\b\f
Lk 12:4:
\f%\r

\b\f
2 Clem.

\f\f\t
\f\n
\t
Just.
Apol.
\f\f
\f\n
\t\t
\b\t
Ps.Clem.
&-(&\f\f
\t
\b\t#
Mt 10:28:

-(\f\f
\t\t#
Lk 12:4:

\f\f(\t\b\b\t\t
\b\t 
2 Clem.
 %\r\t\b
\f\t
\f\n'(9\b\t
Just.
Apol.
%\r
\f\t
\f
Ps.Clem.
%\r

\f
Mt 10:28:

%\r\t\b
\f 
\f
Lk 12:5:

\t9\f\t\t%\r#

%\r
\f
\t\t'(9\b\t
2 Clem.

-(
\n\t\b\f
\n\r \t
\n
Just.
Apol.
19.7:
\t-(
\t\b\f

\f\r \t
Ps.Clem.
\t-(
\t\b\f
\t\n

\n
Mt 10:28:

\t-(
\t\b\f
 \b\t
Lk 12:5:


5.2…4 presents many of the same issues as
the last passage considered. It agrees in minor details at times with Mat-
thew (e.g.,
\f%\r\t\b
vs Lks
\f%\r
) and at times with Luke (e.g.,
\t
'\n
\r
), at times with both (e.g.,
\f\b& 
and at times with neither (e.g.,
vs. the Gospels
\b \f\n
). It also contains a more substantive agreement with Luke
against Matthew:
2 Clement
%\r\t\b\f\t\f\n
'(9\b\t
, much closer to Lukes
%\r\f\t\t
'(9\b\t
than to Matthews
%\r\t\b\f \f
I have modified the fourth word of th
is translation from Ehrmans saidŽ (
Apos-
tolic Fathers
, 1:171) to saysŽ in order to reflect the present tense of
, as tenses will
be important in the discussion below.
Bibliography
…. The Use of the Synoptics or Q in
1:3b…2:1.Ž Pages 105…29 in
Matthew and the
Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu?
Edited by Huub
van de Sandt. Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005.
…. Variation in the Reproduction of
the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?Ž
Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses
83 (2007): 53…80.
2.3 Establishing the Scholarly Agenda: Massaux and Koester (1950s)
outside of the canonical Gospels for th
e Jesus tradition used by the Apos-
tolic Fathers. Illustrative of this di
fference is Massauxs response to the
Committees suggestion that the dominical saying in Pol.
. 7.2 may not
derive from the Gospels themselves,
but from oral tradition or a document
that was similar to the Gospels. Massaux states, I do not see the need to
multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, since
the text of Mt. was within reach
.ƒ Why then turn to an oral tradition or to a parent document of the gos-
Massaux,
, 2:32 (cf. the similar statement on
2 Clem
. 2.4 in ibid., 2:5…6,
and on the
Didache
in general in ibid., 3:176, tho
ugh the latter two are not related to his
reading of
NTAF
). It bears noting that the Committee had not suggested a parent docu-
mentŽ but a document akin to our GospelsŽ (
NTAF
, 103). Elsewhere Massaux also rec-
ognizes his basic disagreement with the Committee in the above regard, e.g., The
Oxford Committee,
not usually given to find a reference to a specific writing
, shares here
[Ign.
5.2] my point of view [that the saying in question is derived from Mt]Ž (ibid
1:87, n. 4; emphasis added); also when he states that the Committee, 
despite its leaning
still gives preference here [Ign.
. 17.1] to the Matthean textŽ (ibid
, 1:92, n. 16; em-
phasis added); see also ibid., 3:156, 163 and on non-gospel related material see ibid.,
2:155.
Massaux,
, 1:70; even then, however, in this particular case he goes on to
suggest that perhaps it may have been a composition of the author of the epistle himself.
The Oxford Committee was of the view that th
is saying did not derive from Jesus tradi-
tion at all, but was a dramatic rendition of what came before it; see
NTAF
21. Examples
of when Massaux clearly considers oral tradition as a source (among other possibilities)
of Jesus tradition in the Aposto
lic Fathers include his discussi
on of (references in paren-
theses are to volume and page numbers of Massauxs
, followed by a short
summary of Massauxs conclusions):
1 Clem
. 2.1 (1:33…34; a logion which either ex-
isted in a collection of logia or was transmitted through oral traditionŽ);
1 Clem.
(1:7…12; the source is a catechism that was based on Matthew, perhaps with sentences
incorporated into it from oral tradition);
1 Clem
. 15.1…2 (1:19…21; oral tradition as a
source not probableŽ);
2 Clem
. 3.5 (2:7; not probableŽ);
. 8.1…2 (3:154…55, 175: the
Lords Prayer in the
Didache
not dependent on an oral catechism but on Mt);
(3:156: not cited as an independent [oral] saying of the Lord, but from Mt 7:6). In dis-
cussing
. 16.4 Massaux mentions a theme that ex
isted in the first days of Christian-
ityŽ but does not specify the nature of this
source, either oral or written (3:170…71).
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
an examination of the gospel parallels to
13.2 might reveal regard-
ing Clements source.
As will become clear in what follows, there is evidence to suggest that
the source of the sayings of Jesus in
discussion leading up to this conclusion will proceed as follows: first, by
comparing the distribution of the parallels to
13.2 in the Synoptic
Gospels it will narrow down Clements source to Q-related tradition. Next,
by comparing Matthew and Lukes use of sources, it will investigate what
might have been the contents of the relevant portion of Q. This will feed
into a hypothesis regarding the oral-t
raditional source(s) used by Q, and
usually considered a written Q may
have been oral tradition. All of this
will be used to consider the possibility
that the oral source(s) of
Q may also stand behind
13.2, possibility
that will be supported by appeal to ot
her indicators of orality within the
clementine material.
The placement of the parallels to
13.2 in each gospel is significant
As noted above, Mark contains only two
Richardson, The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, Commonly
Called Clements First Letter,Ž in
Early Christian Fathers
(ed. C. C. Richardson; LCC 1;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 50 n. 39; A. von Harnack, Das Schreiben der
römischen Kirche an die kori
nthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Clemensbrief),Ž in
counters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement
(ed. C. Breytenbach and
L. L. Welborn; AGJU 53; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 92; E. Jacquier, in
Le Nouveau Testament
dans leglise chrétienne
(3rd ed.; 2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1911…13), considers a number
of possibilities, concluding that the issue
remains open (1.40…43). R. Roukema notes the
scholarly consensus that
1 Clem.
is not dependent on the Gospels, but does not advance a
personal opinion (Jesus Tradition in Early Patristic Writings,Ž in
Having laid out the arguments in favor of
an oral-traditional source for the sayings
1 Clem.
13.2, the chapter will then
conclude with some suggestions as to how
1 Clem-
might inform our understanding of how
oral tradition functioned in antiquity.
The
order
of the sayings in each Gospel (following the designations a through f
used above) provides no further guidance:
1 Clem.
13.2 a … b … c … d … e … f … g
Matthew a … b … e … g … c
Mark g … b
Luke c … f … a … e … a … b … d … g
(a is listed twice for Lk because the latter contains two parallels to this saying, sepa-
rated by a parallel to saying e.) The considerable variation in order, especially between
1 Clement
and Mark and Luke, provides little upon
which to construct an argument based
on order. The order in Matthew does not vary
as much, but it is diffi
cult to attach much
significance to this fact, in the absence of other factors that might tie the sayings in
Clem. 13.2 to this Gospel.
6.3 1 Clement 46.8, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
The remainder of this chapter w
tics of orality reflected in the Jesus tradition contained in
This will serve to simultaneously pursue two objectives: (1) to provide fur-
46.8 received its present shape
in an oral-traditional context, while
also (2) drawing out what one may
learn from the Jesus tradition in
46.8 regarding the inner workings
of oral tradition as transmitted within
this segment of the early church. We
will focus here upon the most important
five characteristics of orality as
reflected in
(1) The contents of
46.8 probably reflect oral traditions ten-
dency to be
, which among other things involves
the grouping together of sayings with a common theme as an aid to memo-
rization.
As argued above in light of what
d of the history
of its parallels, the saying as it appears in
46.8 is most likely a
conflation of two se
parate sayings of Jesus.
These sayings were probably
brought together by a traditionist because of their common theme: an ac-
tion or behavior is regarded as so da
mnable that it would be preferable for
the person engaging in it to not exist at
all (either never having been born,
or ending their life at once). Initially the two sayings may have been sim-
ply grouped together, their common theme serving as an aide to initial re-
(Schreiben der römischen Kirche,Ž 99). Others suggest a gospel source: Hengel posits
that Clement may show knowledge of all three Synoptics,Ž in combining elements from
a woe-saying and the millstone saying that w
ithin the Gospels come from different con-
Four Gospels
, 129). Lightfoot considers oral tr
adition as an option among others,
but appears to favor quotation from the canonical Gospels, which in his view presents
no difficultiesŽ in light of the changes Clemen
t (also) makes to his sources in quoting the
Old Testament (
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:141). R. M. Grants position varied: in 1964 he
was unclear regarding Clements source for 46.8,
but apparently leaned toward oral tradi-
tion (
Apostolic Fathers
, 40…41). In 1965, in Grant and Graham,
First and Second Clem-
, Grant followed Koester in holding that
Clement does not quote from the written
Gospels, but left open the question of an oral or written source, suggesting also memory
quotationŽ (p. 77). In the same year, however, in
Formation
, he viewed the passage under
consideration as evidence for the existence in Rome of a gospel-like book ... of the
teaching of Jesus ... much like our gospels,
especially Matthew and LukeŽ (pp. 80…81).
Roukema notes scholars for and against Clements dependence either on the Gospels or
oral tradition, but does not advance a personal opinion (Jesus Tradition,Ž 2127).
See sec. 3.3.9 above, under the
subtitle Mnemonically Constructed.Ž
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
3.2; 9.11; 13.4), but also lengthier
sayings (4.2, 5; 6.1…2; 8.5) and dia-
logues (5.2…4; 12.2, 6), ranging in length from six (2.4) to sixty-three
words (5.2…4). These sayings are paralle
W. Pratscher rightly concludes, The so
urce of the quotations [of Jesus tradition
2 Clement
] is nearly impossible to determine. ƒ No
t least of the reasons for this fact is
the open question of orality and written texts
in the second century
Ž (The Second Epis-
tle of Clement,Ž in
The Apostolic Fathers
[ed. Pratscher], 76 and n. 9)
See further the discussion in sec. 9.2.1 above on the use of
%
introductory formula.
2. New Testament
24:42 206
24:44 206
25:14…30 255
25:21 255
25:23 255
26:24
26:41 232,
27:3…10 290
27:14 41
Mark
1:21…22 130
2:17 240
3:28 205
3:35 257…58
4:24
6:8
8:36 252…53,
9:33…50 192
9:35…50 191
9:42
9:50 191
10:23 40
10:38 291…92,
10:39 292,
11:25
11:25…26 130
11:26 130
12:10 76
12:26 76
12:29…31 205
13:13 205
13:19 205
13:20 189
13:22 189,
13:26 205,
13:27 189
13:33 206
13:35 206
14:12…26 192
14:17 192
14:18…21 192
14:21
93, 194, 198…99, 282
14:22 192
14:38 232,
2:49 260
5:1…2 126
5:3…12 126
5:32 240
5:38…47 126
6:3
6:12…7:17 136
6:20
6:20…35 149, 282
6:20…49 121, 124
6:26…38 132, 138
6:27 266,
6:27…28 205
6:27…30 134
6:27…31 174
6:27…35 134, 146
6:27…36 175
6:27…38 132…34, 139, 146
6:29…30 5
6:30 205,
6:31
6:31…38 148, 149
6:32 266,
6:32…33 205, 206…7
6:32…35 134
6:32…36 174
6:35
6:35…36 146, 175
6:35…38 122
6:36
6:36…38 121, 122…39, 140,
6:37
Preface
This monograph is a slightly revised
version of my Ph.D. thesis, submitted
in June 2010 to the faculty of the School of Theology at Fuller Theological
Seminary. I have become indebted to
many during my years at Fuller. I
would like to thank Dr. Richard Beat
on, who walked with me as I nar-
rowed down my dissertation topic,
and provided guidance and encourage-
ment in my work. I also thank Dr. Ma
rianne Meye Thompson, who read an
early draft of Chapter 3 and made
many helpful suggestions. I owe
Dr. Donald A. Hagner a special debt
of gratitude: he ha
s always made time
to discuss my work, and to provide va
luable feedback as needed. His inter-
est has not been limited to my academic pursuits, as he has ever been con-
cerned also with my well-being and th
at of my family. His friendship has
been a constant source of encourag
ement, strength, and inspiration
throughout my doctoral prog
ram and after. For all of this I am deeply
grateful. I am also grateful to Dr. Andrew Gregory of the University of Ox-
ford for his insightful and relevant criticism. His feedback, informed by his
deep familiarity with my subject matter (I cite him frequently in the pages
that follow), proved uniquely helpful
during the final revision process. I
also thank Susan Wood in Faculty Pub
lications at Fuller for her advice on
to my manuscript. I am,
of course, fully responsi-
ble for any and all shortcomings that remain.
It has been a pleasure to work with the editors and staff at Mohr Sie-
beck, who have been not only efficien
able and gracious. I warmly thank Pr
ofessor Jörg Frey and Dr. Henning
Ziebritzki for accepting this work for
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament. I also thank
Anna Krüger for her excellent editorial advice and her assistance with sev-
eral technical matters that were quite over my head.
I deeply appreciate the assistance received from many other people dur-
ing the long process that led to the completion of this project. Among them
I would like to thank Dr. Richard Er
ickson, Dr. Seyoon Kim, Dr. Charles
Scalise, and Dr. Pamela Scalise, former professors who I am fortunate to
count among my friends. Each of them
has not only taught me much, but
also affirmed and encouraged me in various ways, for all of which I am
grateful. My previous forays into
the subject matter of this monograph
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
rion continues to be deba
ted. Two conclusions seem fairly certain: (a)
There is no evidence to suggest that any of the Apostolic Fathers used the
Gospel of Mark directly; and (b)
the use of Luke in the Apostolic Fath
when subjected to close scrutiny. When it comes to the use of Matthew by
the Apostolic Fathers that predate
2 Clement
4.5 The Gospel Sources and 1 Clem. 13.2
\n
!\n
\b
\n
\b!\n
\t\f\t
)&
&
\t\f\t
Many have identified a mnemotechnic stamp on this material, and concluded as a
result that it may derive from oral sources; see, e.g., Jaubert,
Clément de Rome
, 52, 123
n. 1; Massaux,
Draper, Covenantal Discourse,Ž 71…98, esp. 72.
C. Thomas words are appropriate here, In the case of oral tradition, one can
never demonstrate exactly what circulated, but
only that certain stories were told more
than once, in more than one wayŽ (Word and Deed,Ž 135).
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
Christian liturgy.
is oriented toward the liturgy: it is a
church manual intended to provide guidance in liturgical practice, and so it
logically includes the doxology. The absence of the doxology in Matthew
may simply be a result of the gospel
being liturgically oriented. As van
de Sandt and Flusser explain, When
the original function of the doxology
in the Lords Prayer was that of re
sponse by the worshiping congregation,
it might have been taken as not belong
ing to the Lords Prayer itself and
was, consequently, not incorporated in the gospel.Ž
For further discussion of the relationship of the Christian doxology to Jewish daily
prayer, and the forms of the doxology in early Christian writings, see Lohmeyer,
Van de Sandt and Flusser,
Didache
, 294; cf. Jeremias,
Prayers of Jesus
Jeremias notes that Jewish custom included two forms of prayer endings, a fixed conclu-
sion and a sealŽ or freely formulated conclusion,Ž and that perhaps the Lords Prayer
originally was an example of the latter, but with time became associated with a standard
doxological ending (Jeremias,
New Testament Theology
, 1:202…3). Building on this in-
sight, Cullmann suggests that, The reason why the old manuscripts [of Matthew] omit
the doxology may be that Jesus did not have
to add it, since it was more or less a matter
of courseŽ (
Prayer
E. Lohmeyer represents the position taken
here when he states, These peculiarities
Bibliography
Bauer, Walter.
Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief.
Handbuch
zum neuen Testament, Ergänzungsband: Die apostolischen Väter 2. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1920.
Baum, Armin D. Matthew's Sources … Oral or Written? A Rabbinic Analogy and Em-
pirical Insights.Ž Pages 1…23 in
Built Upon the Rock: Studies
in the Gospel of Mat-
thew.
Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
Der mündliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage: Analogien aus
der antiken Literatur, der Experimental
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
Gerhardsson begins by tracing a c
onsistent approach to pedagogics
from the Rabbinic period back through
first-century Palestine and further
still to the time of the OT. This
approach was founded upon memorization
techniques for learning la
rge blocks of tradition,
the learning by heart of the basic texts; the principle that learning comes before under-
standing; the attempt to memorize the teachers
ipsissima verba
; the condensation of
material into short, pregnant
texts; the use of mnemonic technique ƒ; the use of note-
See Gerhardsson,
Tradition
, 11…17; idem,
Memory
, 19…189; idem,
Reliability
Gerhardsson,
Tradition
, 17, summarizing his
Memory
, 181…89; see also idem,
liability
Gerhardsson,
Tradition
Gerhardsson,
Tradition
, 22; see also ibid.,
22…31; idem,
Memory
, 326…33; idem,
Reliability
Gerhardsson,
Memory
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
The field of study variously term
ed social memory,Ž cultural mem-
oryŽ or collective memoryŽ provides valuable insights into the symbiotic
As noted by A. Le Donne, M. Halbwachs (on whom see what follows) made a dis-
tinction between collective memoryŽ and soc
ial memory,Ž reserving the latter for the
influence of group ideologies upon individu
al memories, but the terms social,Ž collec-
tiveŽ and culturalŽ are today us
ed fairly interchangeably in memory studies; see A. Le
Donne, Theological Memory Distortion in the Jesus Tradition: A Study in Social Mem-
ory Theory,Ž in
Memory in the Bible and Antiquity
: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Re-
search Symposium (Durham, September 2004)
(ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck, S. C. Barton, and
B. G. Wold; WUNT 212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 165, n. 6. A. Kirk provides
good introductions to the study of social memory in relation to early Christianity (and the
relevant literature) in his Social and Cultural Memory,Ž 1…24 and Memory Theory,Ž
809…42. For an introduction
to the wider literature (prior to 1998), see J. K. Olick and J.
Robbins, Social Memory Studies: From Collective Memory to the Historical Sociol-
ogy of Mnemonic Practices,Ž
24 (1998): 105…40.
So for Halbwachs, [T]he past does not recur as such ... the past is not preserved
but is reconstructed on the basis of the present. ƒ Collective frameworks are ... the in-
struments used by the collective memory to r
econstruct an image of
the past which is in
accord, in each epoch, w
ith the predomin
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
pendence upon Matthew for saying V comes from the contention that the
presence of the word
\t\t\b\n
reflects dependence upon Matthean re-
daction. U. Luz views this as the
only Matthean beatitude that is undoubt-
edly redactional, due to the presence of
\t\t\b\n
and the very Matthean

If Polycarp had also included

in his form of
the saying, there would then be a very
strong argument in favor of his de-
pendence on Matthew. With only
\t\t\b\n
appearing in Poycarp, how-
Luz,
Matthew 1…7
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
\n\f\t\n\t\n
, are not found in
2 Clement
If these
Matthean elements were present in
2 Clement
it would make for a very
strong argument that
2 Clement
As it is, their absence does not negate this argument, but it does weaken it
considerably. There is nothing partic
ularly Matthean about the remaining
two phrases that
2 Clement
and Matthew do share,
\n \f\t#
5\t\t
 \t
. Both of these phrases could have been in
a source common to both authors … whether oral or written … rather than
taken by ClementŽ from Matthew or
a source influenced by Matthew.
The parallels to the second part of the saying in
. 4.5 are com-
plex: There is only one known parallel to the first three lines, and its close
relationship to the Gospel of Matthew
tic as an inde-
pendent witness to the saying. The para
llel is found in a marginal gloss to
Mt 7:5 in MS 1424 (Jewish G[ospel]Ž in the above synopsis), prefaced by
the words The Jewish gospel [
E\tF
] reads here as follows.Ž
Given its nature as a marginal gloss closely associated with the Matthean
text, its wording may have been influen
ced by Mt 7:21, especially in read-
ing
 \f\n\f\t\n
in place of the
\n \n
\f
of the saying in
2 Clement
This diminishes the value of this gloss as
wording of the saying under consid-
eration.
. 4.5 are closer to Luke than to Mat-
thew, but this need not imply that
they presuppose the finished form of
Luke. These lines contain what appears
to be Jesus quotation of Psalm 6:9
As noted by Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
Bibliography
…. Modalities of Communication, Cognition, and Physiology of Perception: Orality,
2.2 Foundation for a New Approach (1905)
catechism,
or streams of tradition parallel to those that were incorporated
At times they consider the possibility that a
passage may have originated from a written gospel, while its form is to be
explained as due to faulty quotation from memory.
Unfortunately, the Committee did not
include any extended discussion
E.g.,
1 Clem
. 13.1…2 (ibid., 59…61), possibly
1 Clem
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
Here, however, the insight from our di
scussion of the Matthean parallel to
saying e also applies: the form of each saying as found in
1 Clement
been crafted to suit the whole, which leaves little reason to hold that the
author was dependent upon Luke for the
form of the single saying d.
In sum, the application of the redactional criterion to the Jesus material
ovide any substantial evidence
1 Clement
is dependent upon the fin-
ished form of any of the written Gospels.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in
13.2
Although scholars for the most part ag
they disagree considerably in identifying an al-
ternative source: suggested options
have included an unknown gospel,
written
or oral catechism or collection of
See, however, scholars mentioned in n. 37 on p. 118 above.
As held most prominently by A. Resch, who posited that
1 Clem.
13.2 and a num-
ber of its parallels derived from a single Synoptic
Grundschrift
tied to a Hebrew
Urevan-
gelium
(see Resch,
Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente
[TU 5; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1889], 137; idem,
Die Logia Jesu
[Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898], 25). For a critique,
including a summary of a response by J. H. Ropes (in
Die Sprüche Jesu
[TU 14; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1896], 6) see Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 145…46. Henry Wotton,
in his edition
of
1 Clement
published in 1718, held that Clement was here dependent on the
the Nazaraeans
; see J. Donaldson,
The Apostolical Fathers: A
Critical Account of their
Genuine Writings and of their Doctrines
(London: Macmillan, 1874), 185.
V. H. Stanton,
The Gospels as Hist
orical Documents
(3 vols.; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1903…20), 1.7; W. K. L. Clarke, ed.,
The First Epistle of Clem-
ent to the Corinthians
(London: SPCK, 1937), 33 (Clarke oddly states that
rememberingŽ in
1 Clem.
13.2 does not suit ... an oral traditionŽ [loc. cit.]; cf. the
comments by Hagner [
Clement of Rome
6.3 1 Clement 46.8, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
contained it as well, in which case it
tional activity.
One could assume for the sake
of argument, however, that
the earliest text of Mark did not contain
and that Matthew used a manu-
script with such a reading, so that the
in Matthew is redactional. Even if
such were the case, the fact that scribes also added
to their manuscripts
should give one pause before maki
ng too much of the presence of
the verb in
1 Clement
. Though some of the occurrences of
in the Mar-
kan manuscripts may
be attributed to scribal harmonization with the text of
Matthew, others would have likely
resulted from scribes improving upon
Marks style, either intentionally or
otherwise. If sc
ribes could improve
upon the text of Mark by supplying the verb
without being dependent
on Matthew, there is no reason why Cl
to his source(s) if it (they) did not
contain it, without deriving it from the
text of Matthew.
In short, to argue that the presence of
can only be attributed to Matthean redaction, and therefore that Clement
tthew, would go far beyond what the evidence
We conclude, in light of our app
lication of the redactional criterion
t to show that the saying(s) in
. 46.8 depended directly or indirec
tly upon the finished form of any
of the Synoptics.
6.3
46.8, Oral Tradition, and Orality in Antiquity
Everything considered so far in this
chapter has tended to support the conten-
tion that the sayings of Jesus in
. 46.8 derived from oral tradition. We
noted that the material in the gospel parallels to
. 46.8 probably de-
on of oral pre-Markan tradition and
oral double tradition), which increases
been available to Clement also in this form. We also noted that the type of
variability within stability that is characteristic of the relationship between
. 46.8 and its parallels suggests developments within related streams
of oral tradition (more closely rela
ted in the case of the double tradition
Here it is good remember Bellinzonis comment, cited on p. 103 above: we can
never be confident that we
are comparing the texts that demand comparisonŽ (Luke in
the Apostolic Fathers,Ž 48).
There is also the possibility that a later scribe added
to the text of
1 Clem
under the influence of a text of Mark or Ma
tthew, and that it has on
ly survived in this
form. Such hypotheses could be multiplied, bu
t we are dealing in such cases with un-
knowns.
Cf. the comments in Gregory, 
1 Clement
and the Writings,Ž 136.
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
ing all these Matthean and Lukan elements. The simplest explanation for
the shape of this saying in
2 Clement
and the Gospels is that it circulated as
a proverb among the churches in the
basic form in which we find it in
2 Clement
(My brothers are those who do the will of my FatherŽ), and in
this way was available both to the evangelists and to Clement.Ž Clem-
entŽ cited it in this basic form in his writing, and in this form it influenced
Matthew and Luke in their redaction of their Markan source. That in this
2 Clement
would not presuppose the finish
Luke coheres well with the overall paucity of evidence for
2 Clement
… even indirectly … of the canonical Gospels.
Before moving on it is important to
clarify that the above does not im-
ply a complete rejection of the possibility that
2 Clement
finished form of the Gospels. It is still possible that
and Luke. It is equally as impor-
tant to recognize, however, that according to the analysis of the sayings of
Jesus in
2 Clement
carried out in this chapter, the argument that
2 Clement
presupposes the finished form of the Gospels rests on evidence from only
two sayings, evidence that also lends
See discussion in sec. 9.2.8 above in relation to
2 Clem
. 12.2 and Clem. Alex.
Strom
. 3.92.2, and see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:236…38, esp. his statement, As
several of his quotations [in
2 Clement
] cannot be referred to the canonical Gospels, is
seems not unnatural to assign them to the apocryphal source which in this one instance he
is known to have used [the
Gospel of the Egyptians
]Ž (p. 238); also Bartlet,
NTAF
, 136:
it is quite likely that the Egyptian Gospel embodied much matter from earlier Gospels,
ƒ in which case the
Gospel according to the Egyptians
may be the one source cited by
2 Clem. throughout.Ž But see Schneemelcher, Gospel of the Egyptians,Ž 212
…15, espe-
Index of Ancient Sources
1. Hebrew Scriptures and Septuagint
Genesis
13:14…16 140
Leviticus
Psalms
6:9 (LXX) 245, 247…48
Isaiah
52:5 267
2. New Testament
Matthew
3:15 61
5:1…7:29 121, 136
5:3
5:3…10 172
5:7
5:10
5:11 172
5:16 260
5:17 127
5:21 76
5:21…48 127
5:27 76
5:29 186
5:30 186
5:33 76
5:38 76
5:38…48 175
5:39 123,
5:39…42 5, 132…34
5:39…44 127
5:40 127
5:41 54,
5:41…42 123
5:42 127,
5:42…46 127
5:43 76,
5:43…45 132…34
5:44
5:44…48 123
5:45 260
5:45…47 205
5:46 266,
5:46…48 132…34
5:48
6:1
6:1…18 129
6:5
202, 219
6:6
6:9
6:9-13
6:10 202
6:11 202
6:12
6:13 202,
To Susan and Berto
for the joy of
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
ings; here the dates and places of origin of the documents in question are
of crucial importance.
Textual Distinctiveness
: this is essentially Koesters redactional crite-
rion; one must identify redactional
document, and then look for clear ev
dactional characteristics in our sec
ond-century writings.Ž Bellinzoni con-
siders this criterion the most difficult to apply.
: this criterion asks how of
ten there appear to be
parallels between the texts in question.Ž The probability of the use of one
document by the writer of another incr
eases in proportion to the number of
ied, though the presence of only one isolated paral-
lel does not negate use.
Bellinzoni considers this criterion a
sine qua non
in considering the question of
useŽ (Luke in the Apostolic Fathers,Ž 51).
Ibid
Ibid
Bellinzoni cites Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 110…11; idem,
60; idem,
Introduction to the New Testament
(2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress/Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1982), 2:235 [in the rev. ed. of the latter volume, New York and Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2000, Koester repeats this opinion on p. 242]; Gregory,
Reception of Luke and
Bellinzoni, Luke in the
Apostolic Fathers,Ž 65.
Here Bellinzoni considers that Poly.
. 2.3 is possibly dependent on Lk 6:38,
but finds the overall evidence of Polycarps dependence on Luke decidedly under-
whelmingŽ (ibid
, 59…60). Later in the same essay he mentions at most one example of
useŽ of Luke by Polycarp, which we may assume is the parallel mentioned, but clarifies
(66…67). Bellinzoni co
ntinues to allow for
the remote possibility that Polycarp used Luke (as Koester before him, see his
tische Überlieferung
, 117) only because he accepts P. N. Harrisons thesis that Poly.
. is a conflation of two documents, the
4.5 The Gospel Sources and 1 Clem. 13.2
All of this leads to the conclusion that the language the author of
uses to introduce the sayings of Je
sus in 13.1c…2a is
fairly standard
terminology indicating his use
(b) There are also a number of
indicators of orality in
sayings in Clement on the whole are shorter than in their gospel parallels,
and each saying is presented in stylized form, in two clauses: either an im-
perative followed by a
clause, or a
clause followed by a
clause … a pattern broken
only minimally by the last saying, that echoes
elements of the others (
&
As for their content, all of the sayings in
of any elements that would tie them to a narrative context (if these ele-
the first place). In addition, each say-
ing in
1 Clement
has been shaped as a variation upon the golden rule. Here,
however, it is not do unto others as
you would have them do unto youŽ
but implicitly do unto others as you would have
do to you.Ž That this
is the meaning of the passive in the
second clause of each saying (the di-
) is made clear by the wider context of the passage.
It is
On all of the above see also Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 151, 258, 306…7, and esp.
272…73; idem, Sayings,Ž 235; Koester,
, 66, 18; Lona,
Erste Clemensbrief
B. Dehandschutter di
smisses this possibility by reading both
1 Clem.
13.1…2 and 46.7…8
in light of 53.1, which reads, For you know the sacred Scriptures, loved ones … and
know them quite well … and you have gazed into the sayings [
 \t
] of God. And so
we write these things simply as a reminder [
\n\f\b\t
].Ž Dehandschutter posits,
The reminder of the words of Jesus in
1 Clem.
13,1…2 and 46,7…8 seems to us to be read
in the light of 53,1, i.e. it gives no indication of a reference to
oral
tradition (of Jesus-
sayings)Ž; B. Dehandschutter, Polycarps Ep
istle to the Philippian
s: An Early Example
of Reception,Ž in
The New Testament in Early Christianity: La Réception des écrits
Néotestamentaires dans le Christianisme Primitif
(ed. J.-M. Sevrin; BETL 86; Leuven:
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
tional life of its own, however, within the early Christian liturgy.
(oral) liturgical use of the prayer in the Didachists community can be de-
duced from its doxological ending,
!\t\b\b\t\f\t\n\t9
\t\n\n\t\n
and from the exhortation that follows, Pray
this way three times a dayŽ (
Originally the Matthean prayer did
not include a doxology, as is clear from its absence in the earliest manu-
scripts and the early commentaries by Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian.
New Testament Theology
, 1:193. As the prayer that Jesus ta
ught his disciples to pray (Mt
6:6, 9; Lk 11:1…2;
. 8.2a), it was preserved by cons
tant use within the early Jesus
community.
diere, The Lords Prayer in Literary Context,Ž in
Scripture and Prayer: A Celebration
for Carroll Stuhlmueller, CP
(ed. C. Osiek and D. Senior; Wilmington: Michael Glazier,
1988), 107, 110; J. Luzarraga,
El Padrenuestro desde el arameo
(AnBib 171; Roma: Pon-
tificio Istituto Biblico, 2008), 12…13; J. Schröt
er, Jesus and the Canon: The Early Jesus
Traditions in the Context of the Origins of
the New Testament Canon,Ž in
Performing the
(ed. Horsley, Draper, and Foley), 114.
See also the doxological endings to the eucharistic prayers in
. 9.2, 3, 4. As ar-
Bibliography
…. Literary and Doctrinal Relationships of the Manual of Discipline.Ž Pages 129…147
The Didache in Modern Research.
Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
the Jesus of history and the Christ of
faith, so that they had no interest in
preserving the reliability of tradition th
at spoke about the past of Jesus;
that the tradition was transmitted by
anonymous communities; that the
early Christian communities played a large role not only in transmitting the
tradition but also in freely creating a
nd modifying much of it (e.g., by not
These and other problems with the form-cr
itical model are often noted in the litera-
ture; see the items by Bauckham, Berger, Blomberg, Bock, Evans, Robbins, Sparks,
Travis, and Tuckett listed in n. 32 on p. 11 above, and also Dunn, Altering,Ž
144; idem,
Jesus Remembered
, 194…95; idem, Reappreciating,Ž 12…14; M. D. Hooker, On Using
the Wrong Tool,Ž
Theology
75 (1972): 570…81; W. H. Kelber, The Case of the Gospels:
Memorys Desire and the Lim
its of Historical Criticism,Ž
17 (2002): 62…65. Not all
form critics based their work on these presuppositions. Vincent Taylor, the leading form
critic in the English-speaking world, called a number of these presuppositions into ques-
tion; see his
The Formation of the Gospel Tradition
(2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1935
[1st ed. 1933]).
Bauckham,
Eyewitnesses
, 244…45; D
unn, Altering,Ž
144; idem,
Jesus Remem-
bered
, 194…95, 248…49; idem,
New Perspective on Jesus
Oral and Written
2…8; Robbins, Form Criticism,Ž 842.
Here I agree with R. Bauckham when he states, the form critical paradigm has
now been comprehensively disproved, and it is time we adopted another paradigm for
understanding how the Gospel traditions were
preserved in the predominantly oral period
prior to the written GospelsŽ (The Transmission of the Gospel Traditions,Ž
RCatT
[2008]: 378).
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
call. The most basic mnemonic devices
genres of oral tradition involve allitera
tion, assonance, rhyme, tonal repe-
tition, parallelism, and rhythm.Ž
tered include the grouping together of sayings with a common theme,
formalized speech patterns, standardized formats for describing items,
messages put to music, dramatization, rituals in which the tradition is en-
acted, and ritualized processes for transmitting the tradition.
3.3.10 Socially Identified
Not all oral traditions are preserved,
but only those that remain socially
relevant and acceptable.
sung in former times … passages not memorized so that they can be repeated, but just re-
memberedŽ (
Winged Word
Draper, Recovering Oral Performance,Ž 184; see also J. Assmann, Form as a
Mnemonic Device: Cultural Text
s and Cultural Memory,Ž in
Performing the Gospel
Horsley, Draper, and Foley), 72…73. W. Kelb
er points to the abundance of alliteration,
appositional equivalence, proverbial and aphori
stic diction, contrasts and antitheses, syn-
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
IV, as a result of the exigencies of rhyme and rhythm in an oral-
compositional context, rather than resulting from the literary dependence
of Polycarp upon Luke. That likewise the form of saying I in
attributable to the exigencies of oral composition, in order to set up a
rhythm and rhyme consonant with saying III, makes
literary dependence
\t\t\t
\f\t
!\t\t\b\n
Mt 5:3:
\f\t\t\t(\t
&\f\t
Mt 5:10:
\t
\f\t
!\t\t\b\n
Lk 6:20b:
\f\t\t\t(\t
Pol.
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t
Mt 5:3:
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t

Mt 5:10:
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t

Lk 6:20b:
!\t
\f\b\t\r\b\t \t
The vast majority of scholars hold that
Polycarp, having conflated the two
beatitudes found in Mt 5:3 and 5:10, is
saying.
on this view: while Polycarp is
primarily dependent upon
dependent upon Luke, in
that he follows Luke in leaving out Matthews qualifier
&\f\t
(\t
, and uses the Lukan phrase
\r\b\t \t
in place of Mat-
thews
\r\b\t \t
Massaux,
, 2:31; Dehandschutter, Polycarps Epistle,Ž 166…67; Her-
nando, Irenaeus and the Apostolic Fathers,Ž 193, nn. 235, 236; Knoch, Kenntnis,Ž 171.
Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2.3:326 n. 2; Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
118, 120…21; Berding,
Polycarp
, 58…59; Köhler,
Rezeption
, 99…100; M. E. Boring,
The
Continuing Voice of Jesus: Chris
tian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition
(Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 195. Schoedel, (
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 12) con-
siders dependence on Luke as well as Matthew
a possibility. Hartog states, in explaining
the absence of
&\f\t
in Polycarp, Although
Phil
2.3 contains a conflation of he
exact vocabulary of Matthew 5:3 and 10, the abridging of Matthews poor in spiritŽ (re-
sembling Lukes mere poorŽ) is puzzling. If we remember that Polycarp applied the
Matthean material to the Philippians exact s
ituation of material poverty due to Valens
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
2 Cl
/\n \f\t#5\t\t

\b\b\t

Mt 7:21:
/\n \f\t#5\t\t



\b\t \t
Lk 6:46:

E\t\f \t#5\t\t
2 Cl
 \t

\t\t\b





Mt 7:21:
 \t
 \f\n\f\t\n\t\n

Lk 6:46:
\t\t
2 Cl
4:5:
)
\f\f\b\f\t& &\f
Jewish G.Ž
)

& &\f
2 Cl
4:5:
\n \n\f
Jewish G.Ž
 \f\n\f
\t\n\f\t
2 Cl
4:5:
\r \f\n
Jewish G.Ž
 \f
2 Cl
4:5:
Mt 7:23:
\f \b\t\n!\t
Lk 13:27:
Jus.

\t\n#
2 Cl
4:5:
\f
\t)\f\n\b
\f\t\n
Ps. 6:9 (LXX):
\b\f
\n\t
,\f\t\f\t
Mt 7:23:

'\f\n
#(\t\f
\t
,\f\t\f\t
Lk 13:27:
\t"*\f\n+\b
#\b\f
\n\t
\t\t\n
Jus.
(\t\f
\t
\n\f\t\n
As argued cogently by Karl Donfried, it is very likely that the sayings in
. 4.2 and 4.5 formed a single unit in
2 Clement
is buttressed especially by the two Matthean parallels to the saying(s),
which belong to a single cohesive
unit of discourse (parallels to
in italics):
Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord,Ž
will enter into the ki
only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day,
Lord, Lord, was it not in your name that we
prophesied, and in your name that we cast
out demons, and in your name that we performed many mighty works?Ž
And then I will
declare to them, I never knew you,
leave me, you who do what is lawless!Ž
(Mt 7:21…
Donfried,
Second Clement
, 62…66. As will be s
uggested below, this need not imply
that ClementŽ followed a single source, but only that in his sources the words of Jesus
in 4.2 and 4.5 formed a cohesive whole. As will be developed further in what follows, he
may have been familiar with more than one
source that contained a form of the saying,
which would account for the wording of the saying and for the introductory formulas.
Bibliography
Iyasere, Solomon O. African Oral Traditio
n … Criticism as a Performance a Ritual.Ž
Pages 169…74 in
African Literature Today,
Myth and History
. Edited by El-
dred Durosimi Jones. London: Heinemann/New York: Africana, 1980.
Jacquemin, Paul-Edmond. Les béatitudes selon saint Luc: Lc 6,17.20…26,Ž
Assemblées
du Seigneur
37 (1971): 80…91.
Jacquier, E.
Le Nouveau Testament dans leglise chrétienne.
3rd ed. 2 vols. Paris:
Gabalda, 1911…13.
Jaffee, Martin S. Figuri
ng Early Rabbinic Literary Culture: Thoughts Occasioned by
Boomershine and Dewey.Ž Pages 67…73 in
Orality and Textuality in Early Christian
Literature.
Edited by Joanna Dewey.
Semeia
2.2 Foundation for a New Approach (1905)
2.2 Foundation for a New Approach (1905)
Prior to the turn of the 20th century it was commonly assumed that the
Apostolic Fathers had de
pended on the canonical Gospels when quoting or
alluding to Jesus tradition.
This assumption was challenged in 1905 with
The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers
, written by

This assumption provided the basis for th
e appeals to the Apostolic Fathers in argu-
ing for a
terminus ad quem
for the writing of the canonical Gospels. Constantin von
Tischendorf wrote the classic treatment,
Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfaßt?
4th
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
sources as, with what measure a man measures, in that same they (i.e.
God) measure to him,Ž and clarifies,
i.e., the impersonal plural is used
where the NT has the passive [
\f\b\t
\t\f\b\t
].Ž
Given, then, that this saying was widely available in a form that mirrors
reason to hold (especially in light of
the variations between them) that Ma
tthew or Luke or Clement derived it
from Mark.
Based on the above we conclude
that it is highly unlikely that
the form of saying g as reflected in
on that of the other Evangelists.
Turning to the
Gospel of Matthew
, its parallel for saying e has poten-
tial to yield results for the redactional criterion:
1 Clem.
\n\t
!\n\t\b\b
Mt 7:1:
\f\t
\t!\f\t
Mt 7:2a:
)&\t\f\t\t
\t\b\b
C. S. Mann,
Matthew
(AB 26; Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 84; D. A. Hagner,
Mat-
thew 1…13
(WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993), 169; J. Nolland,
The Gospel of Matthew: A
Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 318…19; E.
Schweizer,
The Good News According to Matthew
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 167; D.
L. Bock,
Luke 1: 1:1…9:50
(BECNT 3A; Grand Rapids: Baker 1994), 608; J. Nolland,
Luke 1…9:20
(WBC 35A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 301. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison list a
number of Jewish parallels (
. on Ex 13:19, 21; 14:25; 15:3, 5, 8; 17:14;
1.7;
t. So
3.1;
Tg. Ps.-J
. on Gen 38:26;
. 105b;
. 100a;
8b; see fur-
ther Str-B 1:444…46), and point to similar sayings in Sir 16.14;
T. Zeb.
5.3;
. 44.5;
and
Tg. Isa.
on 27:8 (in the measure you were
measuring with they will measure
you...Ž); see their
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
of the material that
46.8 and Mk 14:21 hold in common,
 
&\t
, is attested by similar sayings in other Jewish texts;
e.g.,
38.2 reads, when the Righteous One shall appear ..., where
will the dwelling of the sinners be,
and where the resting place of those
who denied the name of the Lord of
Though I disagree with N. Perrins contention that the early church created the Jesus say-
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
Sayings for which there is no compelling reason to hold that they
: four of the six sayings in this category, those
. 2.4, 5.2…4, 8.5 and 13.4, contain no clear evidence of the
evangelists redactional work. There are additional reasons to hold that
these sayings are not dependent upon the
the saying in 2.4 is enough to account
for the verbatim similarity among
the parallels; 5.2, 4 is significantly different from its gospel parallels, es-
pecially given the sizeable block of
material it contains … extending for
twenty-eight words … with no gospel parallel; similar to 2.4, the section of
8.5 which has gospel para
ture, which is enough to
account for the similarity among the parallels, and the rema
no true parallel in the Gospels; finally, a saying similar to 13.4 circulated
widely as part of an independent, cohesive
ttested not only by Matthew and
Luke but also by
1 Clement
, Paul, Polycarp, and the
, so that there
is little reason to argue that 13.4 is dependent on the Gospels.
Regarding the other two sayings in this category, found in 3.2 and 4.2,
5, we concluded that they may depe
nd upon a source or sources shared by
ClementŽ and the evangelists that perhaps influenced the evangelists re-
dactional work. In the case of 3.2, cer
tain scholars have held that it pre-
supposes the finished form of Matth
ew. We argued, however, that the
existence of a saying in Rev 3:5 that
circulated independently of the Gos-
pels, and is closer than the Matthean parallel to the wording of
2 Clement
makes it unlikely that the saying in
2 Clement
derived from Matthew or a
source influenced by Matthew. As for th
e saying in 4.2, 5, certain scholars
hold that 4.2 presupposes the finished
ished form of Luke. The elements
Bibliography
Wright, Leon E.
Alterations of the Words of Jesus: As Quoted in the Literature of the
Second Century.
Harvard Historical Monographs 25. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1952.
Wright, N. T.
Christian Origins and the Question of God,
The New Testament and
the People of God.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Christian Origins and the Question of God,
Jesus and the Victory of God.
Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Wright, Stephen I. Debtors, Laborers and Virgins: The Voice of Jesus and the Voice of
Matthew in Three Parables.Ž Pages 13-23 in
Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in
Honor of James D. G. Dunn for His 70th Birthday
. Edited by B. J. Oropeza, C. K.
Robertson and Douglas C. Mohrmann. Library of New Testament Studies 414. Lon-
don and New York: T&T Clark International, 2009.
Yates, Frances A.
The Art of Memory
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.
Zahn, Theodor.
Forschungen zur Geschichte des ne
utestamentlichen Kanons und der
altkirchlichen Literatur,
Apostel und Apostelschüler in der Provinz Asien.
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1900.
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons.
2 vols. Erlangen and Leipzig: A. Deichert,
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
tolic Fathers, and what do thes
textual complex-
of the documents … whatever they
may have been … that were known to
the Apostolic Fathers?Ž
This very question, in my opinion, predisposes
Petersen to view said sources as written documents. This is evident, e.g.,
when he states,
ƒ in the overwhelming majority of cases, th
ose passages in the Apostolic Fathers which
offer recognizable parallels with our present-day New Testament display a text that is
very different from what we now find in our modern critical editions of the New Testa-
ment.
In speaking of the source of these sayings as a text,Ž Petersen does not
seriously consider the possibility of an
source, but is working under
the assumption that the Apostolic Fathers witness to a form of the
written
text different from that of our critical editions of the NT. This in turn is
based on his argument that, at the time of the Apostolic Fathers, the text of
the documents that later were to comprise the NT was still very much in
flux and subject to change.Ž
For him, since there is a
complete
lack of
the first century,Ž one should not speak, e.g.,
of the use of MatthewŽ by an Apostolic Father.
While one might be able to speak of the us
e of tradition which later coalesced, and
eventually became part of the fixed text that
today
bears the title The Gospel according
to Matthew (that is,
Matthew, of the great uncials
 and of our modern, critically
reconstructed text), one cannot speak with
any degree of certainty about the form of
Matthew in the first half
of the second century.
Thus for Petersen it is a mistake to argue, e.g., that deviations from our
critically reconstructed text of Matthew in the text of
are due to
the latter quoting the text of Matthew freely from memory, or adapting it to
suit the moment. To argue the latter is to miss entirely the most likely ex-
planation: that Bar
nabasŽ simply had a
different
text from ours, one
accurately
But here we must ask if a
better
explana-
tion is not offered by
 dependence on oral tradition for the say-
ings in question. Petersen raises the possibility of oral tradition only in his
Petersen, Textual
Traditions,Ž 45; emphas
original.
Ibid., 34; original
Ibid., 41; emphasis
original.
Ibid., 41; emphasis
original.
Ibid., 42…45, quote from p. 42 n. 43; emphasis in the original.
See Petersens critique of W. R. Inges contribution to
NTAF
on Ignatius, in ibid.,
31, n. 12. Oral tradition is mentioned in other places in Petersens essay, but only in quo-
tations from the work of other scholars (p. 32), in noting the options considered by other
4.5 The Gospel Sources and 1 Clem. 13.2
context of the early Christian process of preserving and transmitting say-
ings of Jesus.
Noteworthy parallels to this cita
tion formula are found in other writ-
ings: Acts 20:35 reads,
\f\f\t 
\t\b!\t
\n\t"
, and Poly.
\f\f\n)\t"\t\n
\t\b
13.1c…2 and 46.7…8, in both of these parallels
we find language for rememberingŽ (
) as well as the aorist
\t"
. In the case of the passage in Acts 20:35, that the words of the Lord
which follow the introductory formula (
\f\t\b\t\f \t\t
\f\r\t
) are not preserved in any of th
e canonical Gospels, and are prover-
bial in form, would further su
ggest dependence on oral tradition.
Of the parallels provided in J. D. Crossan, ed.,
Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the
Jesus Tradition
(FF; Philadephia: Fortress, 1986), 110, W. D. Stroker,
Extracanonical
Sayings of Jesus
(SBLRBS 18; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 227…28, and J. Jeremias,
known Sayings of Jesus
(1st ed; New York: Macmillan, 1957), the closest to the saying as
found in the NA
text of Acts are the following (the text from NA
is provided for com-
parison):
Acts 20:35
\f\t\b\t\f 
\t\t \f\r\t
Acts 20:35 sy
\f\t\n\t\n\f
Apostolic Constitutions
\f\t
\t! \f\r
1Clem.
!\t\t\n \f\r\n#
The saying as found in
1 Clement
remains closer in content to that of Acts, since the em-
phasis remains on the action,
while the textual variant in sy
and the saying as found in
Apostolic Constitutions
remain closer to the saying as found in Acts
in form
(beati-
tude; structure) but focus upon the person rather than the action. It is clear that the
Apos-
tolic Constitutions
, which date to the late fourth
century, cannot be the source of the
See the similar statements in R. Cameron, ed.,
The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical
Gospel Texts
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 55…56 (and on what follows see also
ibid., pp. 91…124); idem,
Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James
(HTS 34; Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1984; repr., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), 92…
93, on the opening scene of the
Apocryphon of James
, which reads Now the twelve dis-
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
only a means toward the end of
continuing to hold that the
dependent at least indirectly upon the
Gospels. In the remainder of this
chapter, however, we will argue that the use of oral tradition
As already noted,
G. N. Stanton, Matthew:
\r\t\r \n \t
\r\t\n
?Ž in
Four Gospels 1992
Bibliography
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
with Dibelius), the ultimate goal of form criticism is to rediscover the ori-
gin and the history of the particular un
its [of Jesus tradition] and thereby to
throw some light on the history of
the tradition before it took literary
form.Ž
The influence of Bultmann, Di
belius and other form critics upon
New Testament studies was such that their view of the traditions oral pe-
riod became dominant for over half a century. As a result it has become
almost axiomatic to recognize that there was a period prior to the forma-
tion of the Gospels during which th
e Jesus tradition was transmitted pri-
marily in oral form.
In this regard not only the present work but also the
entire field of gospels studies stands in debt to the form critics.
The basic problem with the form critical approach, however, is that it
was not based upon an informed model of how oral tradition functioned in
antiquity. Instead, it was based upon the
form critics understanding of the
needs of the early church. In an important work dedicated to examining the
form-critical approach to Jesus tradition,
E. P. Sanders explains this
problem as follows: given that the early form critics appealed to analogies
to the Jesus tradition such as folk tradition, one would expect that they
rstanding of how oral tradition worked in early
Christianity upon these analogies. In
stead, Sanders notes, the early form
critics turned to the churchs
motive
for spreading the early Jesus tradition,
and upon this basis fashioned lawsŽ th
at governed the tradition. For ex-
ample, for Dibelius the sermon was one of the essential ways in which the
early church spread the Jesus tradition, given the motive to further the mis-
sion of the church. Dibelius identified the paradigmŽ as the form in which
the words and deeds of Jesus were pa
ssed on in keeping with the require-
ments of the sermon. He then explained the presence of elements in para-
digmatic Jesus sayings that did not c
onform to the needs of the sermon as
arising out of the churchs changed situation (
Sitz im Leben
later developments. Sanders
that, for Dibelius, the
laws of the development of the Chri
Redaction Criticism
(trans. W. G. Doty; PTMS 26; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979) and E. P.
Sanders,
The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition
(SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969).
Bultmann,
Synoptic Tradition
As stated by E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, Everyone accepts oral transmission at
the early stages of the gospel tradition. ƒ
The problem is that we do not know how to
imagine the oral period, neither how long it
lasted not how oral transmission actually
functionedŽ (
Studying the Synoptic Gospels
[London: SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1989), 141.
On what follows see Sanders,
Tendencies
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
his grief or his anger. You yourself
became Achilles and so did the reciter
to whom you listened.Ž
The participatory aspect can also be seen in the
role of the audience in the performance of a tradition: not only the per-
former, but also the audience must be fluent in the traditional idiom in or-
der to enable the transmission of th
e tradition with the necessary economy
of words. In this process both perfo
rmer and audience, leave behind the
general-purpose standard language in fa
Havelock,
, 45; I owe this reference to Dewey, Oral-Aural Event,Ž 152.
Foley, Bards Audience,Ž 101, and see also ibid
, 97…105. In the cited passage
Foley speaks of a bardŽ rather than a perform
er,Ž but clarifies in
the introduction to the
cited article that he means bardŽ in a very
inclusive sense of all traditional oral perform-
ers (p. 93).
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
the present study, the structure,
rhythm and rhyme of the quatrain in
almost certainly are the
result of mnemonic technique. Massaux
Massaux,
, 2:29…30; he had already concluded this in regard to the mate-
rial in
1 Clem.
13.2 (ibid., 1:10…12), and here s
uggests that Polycarp had access to a more
developed form of the same catechism. As noted in discussing the history of scholarship
on Jesus tradition and the Apostolic Fathers,
Massauxs method has a built-in bias in fa-
vor of finding Matthew in the sources he investigates (see section 2.3.1 above).
See, e.g., Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 112. Koester reaches this conclusion
based on three considerations
: the shared words for rememberingŽ and said,Ž that (in
his view) Polycarp is
citing
the collection of sayings from
1 Clem.
13.2, and the general
knowledge of
1 Clement
Polycarp evinces in hi
s epistle. In the present work, however, all
three of these considerations
are being called into question.
See previous discussion (pp. 140…43 above) on the verb for rememberingŽ and the
aorist tense of
1 Clem.
13.1 and other passages as pointing to a source in oral
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
Mt), verb forms (
\f \b
\f \b\t
\f \b&
), and syn-
onymous terms (
\t
twice vs.
'\f\b
twice). There are also two
differences of greater substance in th
e second line of the saying, both cases
of ClementŽ and Matthew agreeing
against Luke: (a) the first person
\f \b
\f
vs. Lukes third person
\t\n
\f \b\t
, and (b) confession taking place before
\n\f
which Matthew adds
\t\n\t\n
) vs. before Lukes

 
Bibliography
…. Didache, The.Ž Pages 300…302 in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its De-
velopments.
Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity, 1997.
…. The
Martyrdom of Polycarp
and the New Testament Passion Narratives.Ž Pages 407…
32 in
Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers.
Edited by
2.1 Introduction
vey that follows will therefore be
with the corpus of the Apostolic Fath
ers as a whole, supplemented by some
uential in the ongoing discussion.
Other contributions will not be ignored, but interaction with them will be
limited to brief comments, primarily in the footnotes.
vant for the present study begins
with the early twentieth century. At the beginning of this period scholars
made the first serious attempt to challenge the widely held assumption that
the canonical Gospels were the main source of the
Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers.
Since then much of scholarship
N. Jefford; NovTSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 177…209; J. S. Kloppenborg, Didache 16
6…8 and Special Matthaean Tradition,Ž
70 (1979): 54…67; idem, The Use of the
Synoptics or Q in
1:3b…2:1,Ž in
Matthew and the Didache
(ed. van de Sandt), 105…
29; B. Layton, The Sources, Date and Transmission of
Didache
(1968): 343…83; T. Löfstedt, A Message for the Last Days: Didache 16.1…8 and the New
Testament Traditions,Ž
60 (2002): 351…80; Milavec, S
ynoptic TraditionŽ; idem,
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
similarity at all to the sayings in
, even though they communicate a
very similar meaning.
In addition, there is insufficient reason to posit a literary relationship
See discussion of this criterion in secs. 2.3.2, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 above, under the con-
tributions of Koester,
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
gospel are reflected in their Clementine parallel. What is more, most of the
. 46.8 has in common with its gospel parallels are either the
minimum of words necessary to communicate the same saying (e.g., some
form of
\f \n
\t\n \b\b
), or represent a
C. N. Jefford articulates something simila
r to the above as follows, For those who
would argue that our author has made use of a specific canonical gospel in these two cita-
tions [
1 Clem
. 13.2 and 46.8], one is hard pressed to argue why so little has been used in
this process. It seems much more likely that we find here specific citations of a free-
floating tradition of teachings that have been attributed to Jesus prior to their inclusion
into any particular literary workŽ (
The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament
[Pea-
body, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 130).
What is more, it is doubtful that one could identify
Markan redactional ele-
ments in Mk 9:42. E. Best suggests that Mark derived all of 9:3
5…50, with the possible
exception of the last clause in v. 50, from
pre-Markan oral tradition; see Best, Marks
Preservation of the Tradition,Ž in
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
of Jesus in
. 13.4 can be regarded as an explicit appeal to Jesus tra-
dition, which warrants their inclusion in the present study.
Some scholars have argued, based on the similarities between the form
of this saying in
2 Clement
and in Luke, that
2 Clement
finished form of Lukes gospel.
In support of this view, the wording in
. 13.4 is considerably closer to its Lukan than to its Matthean paral-
lel: Luke and ClementŽ share the words
\t
(against Matthews
\b
) so that the line
\t\n\n\f\n
identical in both documents. They also share references to loving those
who hate youŽ (Lk
\t\n\f\t\b\b\t\f\n
\n\f\t\b\n\f\n
, both of which are not found in Matthew. If the elements in
Luke that agree with
. 13.4 are seen as the result of Lukan redaction
of Q, then it is viable to conclude that
2 Clement
form of Luke.
See, e.g., Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:243 (A loose quotation from Luke vi.
32, 35); Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 75…76; Massaux,
Bibliography
…. Form Criticism.Ž Pages 21…38 in
Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal
Practices.
Edited by Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog. Waco, Tex.: Baylor
University Press, 2009.
Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
…. Synoptic Tradition in 1
Thessalonians?Ž Pages 160…82 in
The Thessalonian Corre-
spondence.
Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
explanation may apply to
other material as well.
Overall he arrives at
the conclusion that, even in cases where an Apostolic Father appears to
4.5 The Gospel Sources and 1 Clem. 13.2
ten Q. If Matthew and Luke had access to this source in oral form, this in
itself would explain the variability with
in stability prevalent throughout the
material. In this case the presen
ce of the sayings in Lk 6:37b…38b not
tradition. If Matthew and Luke kne
ment, it is nevertheless likely that the sayings that parallel
Lk 6:37b…38b derived not from this wr
itten Q but from a separate oral
source. Assuming, based on our discussi
on, that Luke rather than Matthew
diverged from his Q source, it seems likely that Luke had access to a col-
lection of Jesus sayings from a di
fferent source (L) that included Lk
well as the essential wording of Q
6:35…37a and probably (but not
certainly) Q 6:38c. If this were the case, it
stands to reason that Luke woul
triggered by the presence of v. 6:37a in Q. The
indicators of orality present throughout
Lk 6:36…38 make it likely that this
is an oral-derived text; i.e., Lukes source for this material was oral tradi-
4.5 The Gospel Sources and
1 Clem.
13.2
Having noted the close relati
In addition to the above discussion, see Allison,
Jesus Tradition
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
See comments in sec. 6.3 above, and also Beaton, How Matthew Writes,Ž 116;
Mattila, Question Too Often Neglected,Ž 202, 213…17.
This is one of Milavecs basic prem
ises in most of his work on the
Didache
; for
Fragment 13.2 (George Hamartolos, Chronicon)
misunderstood what they contained.
We will treat the fragment, however,
as if it came from Papias in order to
move forward with our examination.
The core of the words of Jesus in 13.2 is stable, as reflected in the ver-
batim parallelism between two of the lines in Papias and Mark (we will
following discussion, on the presuppo-
\b\t\t
\t\t
Mk 10:38b:
\b\t\t
\t\t
\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\t;
\t\f
%\b\t\t\b
\t\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\b
Mk 10:39b:
\t
\t\t\b

\t\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\b
The tradition that informed the saying in Papias is probably even closer to
Mark than this surviving written saying, as it is obvious that the fragment
of Papias presupposes the longer form
of the Lords question in Mk 10:38:
the
\t\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\b
of the answer
(paralleling Mark verbatim) contains implicitly the
\bHHH
\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\t;
of the Markan question. (Jesus
\t'\t\t\t\b
place in the latter, which did not contain the question that precedes this
line in the gospel.)
Where one finds most variability in the tradition is precisely where one
would expect it: not in the words of Jesus, but in the reply of the disciples:
Pap 13:2:
\t\b
\f\n\t\b\f#
Mk 10:39a:
\t\t"&#\f
This variability within stability may indicate that Papias and Mark de-
Due to the status of the sons of Ze
bedee in the early church, one would
expect the tradition regarding what Jesus said about their fate to become
fairly widespread. There is thus no in
trinsic reason to doubt that the oral
tradition of the Jesus saying under c
onsideration would have been avail-
Given that we have treated the fragmen
ts of Papias in this appendix only
for the sake of completeness, we will not here draw out implications of the
above discussion for the present work. It bears noting, however, that the
confirmed what was said in
appendix: one cannot be c
onfident that the explicit sayings of Jesus in the
fragments usually attributed to Papi
as actually were found in his writings.
This justifies the choice in the present study to treat these fragments sepa-
Index of Subjects
… discourses as building blocks of 135…
… diversity of 82…83, 97…98, 100…101,
… formal vs. informal 100…101, 222…23,
… liturgical 34, 45, 87, 98…99, 100, 129,
… New Testament studies and 1…5, 7,
… no originalŽ 20, 87, 145, 185, 214,
… non-verbal aspects of 34, 72, 89…91,
… performance of 15, 32, 82, 89…91, 92,
… preservation and transmission of 15,
… proverbial 13, 20, 50, 88, 91, 136,
… Rabbinic model of 11, 15…23, 75…76
… technical terms for receiving and
transmitting (
 \f\r\t
\t\t
… vs. oral discourse 31, 32
… vs. oral history 30
… vs. oral testimony 30, 31, 33, 90, 98
… vs. teaching 31
… written sources, in 10, 31, 70…74, 82…
oral tradition, characteristics of 2…3,
… additive 84
… agonistically toned 88
… aggregative 84
… close to the human life world 88
… conservative or
traditionalis
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
being compared are of the same saying, let alone of the same utterance. In
identifying parallels to consider, materials that are similar to each other
will be chosen for comparison, but similarity may arise not from a shared
origin in a single speaking event, but from Jesus having said similar things
on different occasions. Jesus probably repeated the same stories and sayings
times, in many different cont
exts, before many audiences,
applications, as suited both to the para-
eaching and to his itinerant career.
Even though
this brings an element of unknown to inve
stigations such as the one undertaken
here, one can only proceed, as the
alternative would be paralysis.
d in the type of work attempted
here is that one only has access to the
oral Jesus tradition from antiquity as
it has been captured in written sources.
In the form the oral Jesus tradi-
tion has come down to us, it is no longer
oralŽ in the most basic sense of
the term. As will be developed more fully in chapter 3, however, the fluid
relationship between writing and reading in antiquity means that to classify
materials primarily on the basis of wh
W. H. Kelber, Jesus and Tradition: Words in Time, Words in Space,Ž in
Orality
(ed. Dewey), 146, 148…51; idem, The Works of Memory: Christian Ori-
gins as Mnemohistory … a Response,Ž in
Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past
in Early Christianity
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
captured in their rendition; it is at this intersection that one will find what
the traditionist is communicating.
Foley, Whats In a Sign,Ž 12…13, 18…19, 25; see also Kelber, Jesus and Tradi-
tion,Ž 148…51.
See Lord,
Singer of Tales
These statements are provisional because, as we will see further below (sec. 3.3.10,
entitled Socially IdentifiedŽ), the variability of
oral tradition is not only associated with
its orality, but also with its identity as trad
ition: tradition must be variable in order to
remain viable or relevant; see Foley, Bards Audience,Ž 96.
Kelber, Jesus and Tradition,Ž 147.
Kelber, Jesus and Trad
ition,Ž 150…51;
elsewhere Kelber states succinctly, From
its very inception, ... and beginning with Jesus the oral performer himself, the so-called
Synoptic tradition is constituted by plural or
iginals, and not by
original singularity ....
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
that Polycarp derived these sayings from oral tradition. Our approach will
be to outline the argument of the majority position … that he derived them
from a combination of Clement, Matth
ew and Luke … and show in which
Agrapha: Evangelienfragmente
, 140; idem,
Logia Jesu
, 25. More recently Glover has
argued a form of this theory for an Aramaic source (Patristic Quotations,Ž 240…43). This
9.2 The Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement in Relation to its Parallels
person singular
, the only variant in
5.9, is necessary given the
context of the sentence in that documen
t, as there it is not part of a quota-
As noted by Donfried, the
of Matthew functions as a connective; if the connective were missing one
would have to change the
, in which case the Matthean rendition
would be identical to the parallels in Mark and
2 Clement
Lukes change
to the perfect
  
\t\n\f\t
Justin also reflects, probably in dir
ect dependence upon Luke … are thus the
only substantive variants in the above
parallels. The almost verbatim simi-
larity among all the parallels indicates
that this saying was known fairly
widely in the early Christian community, perhaps as a proverb.
The recurrence of this proverb in a variety of Christian writings makes
it impossible to say anything specific
about the source used by ClementŽ
beyond the basic fact that it was written.
Only by going against the plain
meaning of the words
%
could one argue that the saying is
cited from oral tradition.
One might also infer that the reference to

%
implies that ClementŽ attributed a certain authority to his
Perhaps at this juncture in hi
story one of the canonical Gospels
would be the best candidate
The evidence is simply insufficient to de-
And when he [the Lord] selected his own apostles who were about to preach his
Bibliography
…. Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche an
die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I.
Clemensbrief).Ž Pages 1…103 in
Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Let-
ter of Clement.
Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Laurence L. Welborn. Arbeiten
zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und
des Urchristentums 53. Leiden: Brill,
Harrington, Daniel J.
The Gospel of Matthew.
Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville: Liturgical,
Harris, William V.
Ancient Literacy.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Harrison, P. N.
Polycarps Two Epistles to the Philippians.
Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1936.
Hartin, Patrick J.
James and the Q Sayings of Jesus.
Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Hartog, Paul.
1.8 Procedure
1.8 Procedure
The discussion that follows will unfold in four main steps: First, chapter 2
will provide a brief history of the schol
arly treatment of the Jesus tradition
in the Apostolic Fathers. In this survey particular attention will be given to
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
the
Homilies
of Pseudo-Macarius would have been
composed too late … late 2nd, early
tively
1 Clement
. Further, none of these three docu-
ments witness to a separa
te document that might have informed both them
1 Clement
. Clement of Alexandria was familiar with
1 Clement
clearly dependent upon the latter.
, in turn, does not show
any particular affinity with th
e form of the sayings found in
1 Clement
certainly not to the extent that one would posit a literary dependence of
As for Pseudo-Macarius, the sin-
gle parallel to saying b is identical to the form in the
has been said of the latter applies to it as well.
(b) One cannot discount the possibility of
1 Clement
g alone. In all likelihood
1 Clement
is roughly
contemporary with or a little later than
the Synoptic Gospels, so that one
must at least consider the possibility that Clement used the Synoptics as
be ascertained on the basis of
an analysis of the parallels. We begin this analysis by seeking to learn as
much as possible about the source(s) of the sayings in question via an ex-
amination of a number of aspects such as wording, structure, location (of
parallels within the Gospels) and the like. This will be followed by an ap-
plication of the redactional criterion … ascertaining the presence (or ab-
can date
1 Clement
to roughly A.D.
55…112, while considerations in the above secondary
literature narrow down this date to a probable A.D. 70…100.
These dates are well known; see, e.g., the articles on the respective authors in
ODCC
This is the consensus view, and need not be argued further here; see Hagner,
Clem-
, 140, and literature cited there; and further Carlyle in
NTAF
, 60; Gregory,
1 Clement
and the Writings,Ž 131, n. 10; Lindemann,
Clemensbriefe
, 54; Lona,
Erste
Clemensbrief
, 93…104. In the passages laid out in the above synopsis, the Alexandrian
Clement cites
1 Clement
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
an oral-traditional context. Two main
factors probably contributed to the
conflation of the woe-sayi
ng related to the pre-Marcan tradition with the
woe- and millstone-saying re
lated to the double tradition,
leading to the
combined form of both sayings as found in
46.8: the presence of a
woe-saying in both traditions would have attracted them to each other dur-
ing the oral stage, and the idea of inevitability (of either
\b 
\t
itions, might have facili-
The findings of our inquiry up to this point clearly lessen the possibility
bility of direct dependence is further contradicted by the many smaller dif-
ferences (within the larger areas of similarity and dissimilarity already
The choice of the wording related toŽ in
both cases is intentiona
l, in that we sim-
ply cannot know in what venue Clements source (assuming it was not Clement himself)
encountered the pre-Markan an
d double-tradition-related material under consideration.
L. E. Wright argues that Clement was here citing the finished from of the Synop-
tics (most probably Mt [implicit]) from memory, and in so doing deliberately chose to
replace the Synoptic
\f\t
with
 
for dogmatic purposes: to vindicate the sa-
cred and divinely ordered office of the bishop
and the other spiritually selected officials
ƒ [whom] Clement contends, God has chosen (
  \t
) for his priesthood and min-
istry (xliii)Ž (
Alterations
, 59…60). I disagree with this assessment on a number of points:
(a) as argued throughout this chapter, there is no g
ood reason to hold that Clement knew
the finished form of the Gospels; (b) in k
eeping with this, Clemen
t is not citing the Gos-
pels from memory, but (as also argued throughout this chapter) is appealing to oral tradi-
tion; (c) I agree with Koester that one cannot assume that the
 
in 46.8 refers to
church leadership; and it follows that (d) (als
o with Koester) this choice of wording is not
dogmatically motivated on Clements part (see Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
n. 3). In my view the presence of
 
in 46.8 reflects the vagaries of oral tradition;
it may have been used in place of
\f\t
in the tradition upon which Clement depended
due to being more readily identifiable with the
followers of Jesus. It need not represent a
late form of the saying, however, as
 
is well attested elsewhere in the Synoptic
tradition (e.g., Mt 22:14; Mk 13:20, 22, 27//Mt 24:22, 24, 31; Lk 18:4).
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
Stromateis
In short, it is impossible to recon-
struct the saying as it was found in the
Gospel of the Egyptians
, so that any
argument that this gospel was the source for Cassian,
2 Clement
remains purely speculative.
In sum, the most likely hypothesis regarding the sources of
2 Clement
the
Stromateis
for the saying under considera-
tion is that all three documents refl
forms of the same tradition. The available evidence is simply insufficient
to further specify the identity or nature of
2 Clement
2 Clement
\t\n#/(\t\n\f\t
\t\n\n
\f\n (\t\n\f\t
\t\n(\n
\t\n\f\t\b\n\f\n#
ƒ God says, It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is
great if you love your enemies and those who hate you.Ž
2 Clem
\f\t\t
\n\n\f\n
Lk 6:32:

\t\t\n\n\f\n
\t\f\t(\t\n
\b\t;
Mt 5:46:

\b
\n\n\f\n
\t\f\t\b'(;
2 Clem
 (\t\n\f\t\t
\n(\n
\t
\f\t\b
Mt 5:44:
\n(\n
\f
Lk 6:27b:
\n(\n
\f \n\t\t
\f\t\b
\b\t\f\n
Lk 6:35:
 \n(\n
\f
For an analysis of the possible textual history behind the saying(s) in the three
relevant documents see Baarda, 2 Clement 12,Ž 269…79, who concludes that all three
documents preserve developments of the same saying, of which
2 Clement
preserves the
most original form (p. 279). Cf. Donfried,
Second Clement
, 76…77, who argues that
2 Clement
represents the earliest,
Thomas
the middle, and the
Gospel of the Egyptians
latest stage of the developm
ent of a shared tradition.
See the careful treatment of this issue by Schneemelcher in Gospel of the Egyp-
tians,Ž 212…13. Schneemelch
ers statement that
2 Clem
. 12.2 possibly derives directly
from the Gospel of the Egyptia
ns or at least is connected
with the traditions handed down
in it,Ž is clarified by his general assessment:
Bibliography
Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra.
Edited by Frank Moore
Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Strauss, David Friedrich. Hermann Samuel Reimarus and His Apology.Ž Pages 44…57 in
Reimarus: Fragments
, by Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Edited by Charles H. Talbert.
Translated by Ralph S. Fraser. Lives of Jesus Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Stephen E. Young
Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic
Fathers
Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
2.7 Coming Full Circle (2005)
The year 2005 saw the publication of
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
and parallelism.
Draper also notes other elements that point to an oral
Ibid., 80…85, 86…91.
Ibid., 85…86.
On orality and the full text of Q see furt
her the remaining articles in Horsley with
Whoever Hears You Hears Me
, and Horsley, ed.,
Oral Performance
, as well as
Kelber, Jesus and Tradition,Ž 153…57.
It is clear that Matthew has made this verse (Q 6:36) the conclusion of his preced-
ing material, changing the language of mercyŽ to that of perfection,Ž and inserting all
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
Fragment 13.2 (George Hamartolos, Chronicon)
It may be that Papias fragment 1.
5 is to be understood along similar
lines to the above, even though its brevity does not offer much to the inter-
not be among those to come into thos
in chapter 3, the type of oral trad
ition represented by both of these frag-
ments on Judas would have been subject to very little control.
We tentatively conclude, in
light of the above discussion, that it is very
likely that the contents of vv. 2…3 in
this fragment of Papias did not origi-
nate in oral tradition, but from the literary reworking of Jewish written
sources. In addition, it is possible that
these verses were not part of the tra-
dition passed on by Papias, but rather
of his interpretation of a tradition.
There is less to conclude regarding the Jesus tradition in v. 5, but it may
have originated as gossip-
type material in order
to portray Judas as the
Fragment 13.2 (George Hamartolos,
\t\t\n\n\n#C\b\t\t\t\tK\t
\b\f\n\t
\b\f#\t\f
%\b\t\t\b\t
\r\t\b\f\r\t,\f\t\r\t\b\b\bH
For the Lord said to them, Are you able to
drink the cup that I drink?Ž And when they
eagerly nodded their assent and agreed to do so, he said, You will drink my cup, and
you will be baptized with th
e baptism that
I experience.Ž
\t\n\n
\n#
Mk 10:38a:
\b\n\t"
\t\n#\t'\t\t\t\b
Mt 20:22a:
\t\t\n\b\n\t"
#\t'\t\t\t\b
See comments in sec. 3.4 above.
In light of these conclusions, F. F. Bruce may be fully justified when he states, if
this was the kind of thing with which oral
tradition provided Papias in addition to the
dominical oracles recorded in the books at his disposal, we can only conclude that the
stream of genuine oral tradition had dried up almost entirely in his part of the worldŽ
Tradition Old and New
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], 111).
Index of Subjects
… dating 112, 159
… Jesus tradition in 110, 152, 159…60
… Poly.
., relationship to 158…59
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
also been the focus of orality studies, including the Gospel of Thomas,
the
the
and the
oral dans le Nouveau Testament,Ž
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
Redundancy is important
within an oral medium, as a hearer may quickly
forget something said only once.
Repetition and circling back provide a
source of continuity for both speaker and hearer in orally
enabling the latter to move forward in the absence of the linear continuity
texts. Redundancy thus enables the
Draper, Recovering Oral Performance,Ž 184.
Ong,
Orality and Literacy
, 39…41; Park,
Marks Memory Resources
Foley, Whats In a Sign,Ž 6…7, 11 (quote from p. 11). Foley gives the example of
Homers use of swift-footed AchilleusŽ: by appealing not to a conventional lexicon but
to traditional usage, [it] simply summons th
e whole of the named figure to center-stage.
Achilleus need not be sprinting or even poi
sed to run ƒ. Homers formulaic names for
dramatis personae
refer to the tradition at large, economically conjuring the actors,
script and résumé in handŽ (ibid., 7); cf. th
e comments on the artificialŽ forms of the
Homeric style in Bakker,
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
one would conclude that there is no compelling reason to hold that Poly-
carp depended for these sayings on
1 Clement
Further support for this
provisional conclusion will emerge in the discussion that follows.
As we turn next to consider the relationship between the sayings in
Polycarp and their gospel parallels, it is best to approach the material in
two blocks, taking sayings I…IV togeth
parate from saying
this approach is suggested by the wording of our
text (Pol.
. 2.3), which is introduced by the words,
\f\f\n
)\t"\t\n\t\b
, with saying V both connected to this intro-
duction and distinguished from sa
yings I…IV by a connecting
\t!\t
: re-
membering what the Lord said when he taught ƒ,Ž and that [he also said]
ƒŽ Alternatively, the
ated as that,Ž but could
be functioning as a marker of direct discourse. Regard
\t!\t
suggests that Polycarp himself treated
sayings I…IV and V as two blocks of material, which raises the possibility
from separate sources.
We begin with a brief descri
ption of the gospel parallels
to sayings I…IV. When compared to Poly.
2.3 most of the gospel par-
ability within stability that we encountered in our
13.2. For sayings I and IV
some of the parallels
show a similar variability in adverbs, particles, conjunctions, and verb
tenses, while for sayings II and III the wording is almost completely dif-
ferent, and the parallelism
With two of the parallels, however,
we encounter a new element not pre-
correspondence. Saying I in Pol.
\f\t\t!\f\t
is paralleled verbatim by
Mt 7:1, and saying IV …
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
… is paralleled verbatim
by Lk 6:38c (the latter is
not contradicted by the presence of the
in the Lukan passage, as it is
post-positive).
Most of the explanations that ha
ve been offered to account for the
shape of sayings I…IV in
those in the majority position hol
d that Polycarp is dependent on
13.2, but corrects the Clementine sayings to bring them into closer align-
ment with the written Gospels (mostly Mathew, but also Luke).
Cf. P. V. M. Beneckes careful assessment in
NTAF
, It is possible that [Poly-
carps] language, including the form of citatio
n..., may have been influenced by Clement.
Polycarp does not, however, quote Clement directly, as he omits some of Clements most
characteristic phrasesŽ (p. 102); see also Lindemann, Apostolic Fathers and the Synoptic
Problem,Ž 709 and n. 84.
Harrison,
Polycarp
, 286…87; Hartog,
Polycarp
, 180…81, 191, 195; Dehandschutter,
Polycarps Epistle,Ž 165…66 (reprint); Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 118, 120…21;
Chapter 9
Another Scripture says ƒŽ
9.1 Introduction
Interpreting the sayings of Jesus in
2 Clement
is a complex task. The sheer
number of explicit appeals to Jesus tr
pending on how one breaks up the sayings
… contrasts sharply with the
paucity of such appeals in the Apostolic Fathers studied in the previous
chapters. This increase in number of
appeals carries a corresponding in-
2 Clement
6.1…2 and 4.2, 5 can both be viewed as containing either one saying or
two; see further below.
The ascription of the document known as
2 Clement
to Clement of Rome dates from
the third century, and is widely recognized as false (see Grant and Graham,
First and
Second Clement
, 109). Rather than speak in this chapter of pseudo-Clement,Ž however,
we will refer to the author of
the document as Clement.Ž
Bibliography
…. An Oral and Written Gospel? Reflections on Remembering Jesus.Ž
Expository Times
116 (2004…05): 7…12.
The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period
before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the
Second Century
. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
…. Review of Paul Hartog,
Polycarp and the New Testament
, and Kenneth Berding,
carp and Paul
Journal of Theological Studies
n.s. 54 (2003): 738…46.
…. What Is Literary Dependence?Ž Pages 87…114 in
New Studies in the Synoptic Prob-
1.6 Definition of Oral Jesus TraditionŽ
reception was guaranteed because the or
al Jesus tradition was central to the
identity of the early Jesus communities. There was a symbiotic relationship
between tradition and community: th
e tradition both engendered the com-
munity (e.g., as essential to the proclamation that gave it birth) and shaped
it (e.g., as essential to its catechetical and didactic activity),
as the com-
munity both preserved the tradition (through its retelling and application)
and in turn also shaped it (e.g., by interpreting it and bringing out those
aspects of it that were most relevant to the communitys present).
That the early Jesus communities were responsible for the ongoing
preservation and performance of the
Jesus tradition gave the tradition
Dunn states succinctly, it is not really possible to speak of
tradition
except as commu-
nity traditionŽ (On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses,Ž 482; emphasis his; see further
Vansina,
Oral Tradition
, 147…60). One should not confuse the individual nature of the
traditionists role with the individual nature
of personal recollections by eyewitnesses …
the latter constitutes testimonyŽ
rather than traditionŽ if it has not become the common
property of the community via the role of th
e traditionist(s); cf. S. Byrskog, A New
Quest for the
Sitz im Leben
: Social Memory, the Jesus Tr
adition and the Gospel of Mat-
thew,Ž
52 (2006): 324…25.
This is one of Dunns main emphases in
Jesus Remembered
, which can be summa-
rized in his statement, it was the realization that the impact [Jesus] made on individuals
was shared by others which drew disciple groups and then churches together; and ƒ
what gave them their continuing identity as
disciples was that shared memory and the
continuing sharing of these memo
ries, that is, the or
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
1 Clem.

\n\t\t
!\t\b\t\f\t
Mt 7.12a:
"!\b \t!\t
\b\t\f\t
\t'\t!
\n\t
\t\n
Lk 6:31:
\t\n \t!\t
\b\t\f\t
\t'\t\t\t
\t\n\f\t\n
Cl.
Strom
\n\t\t
!
1 Clem.

\n\t
!\n\b\t\f\t
Lk 6:38a:

\t
\t\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom

\n\t
!\n\b\t\f\t
Didasc.

\t
\t\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
13.2:
\n\t
!\n\t\b\b
Pol.
\f\t
\t!\f\t
Mt 7:1:

\f\t
\t!\f\t
Mt 7:2a:
)&\t\f\t\t
\t\b\b
Lk 6:37a:

\t\f\t
\t\f\t
Lk 6:37b:

\t\f\t,\t\f\t\b
Cl.
Strom
\n\t
!\n\t\b\b
Didasc
)&\t\f\t\t
\t\b\b

\t\n\t,\t\b\b\b
f)
1 Clem.
\n(\b\b!\n
(\b\b\t\f\t
Lk 6:35c:
!\t\n
!-\t\b\n
(\b
\n\b\t\t\n(
\t\b\n\t\n
Cl.
Strom
\n(\b\b!\n
(\b\b\t\f\t
g)
1 Clem.
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
Pol.
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
Mt 7:2b:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
Mk 4:24c:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
\t\b\b\t\f\t
Luke 6:38c:
)&
\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
h) Pol.
\t!\t
\f\t\t\t(\t\t\t
\t\f\t!\t\t\b\n
Mt 5:3:
\f\t\t\t(\t&\f\t
Mt 5:10:
\f\t\t\t\t\f\t!\t\t\b\n
Lk 6:20b:
\f\t\t\t(\t
Pol.
!\t\b\t\r\b\t \t
Mt 5:3:
!\t\b\t\r\b\t \t
Mt 5:10:
!\t\b\t\r\b\t \t
Lk 6:20b:
!\t\f\b\t\r\b\t \t
See discussion in section 3.5 above,
and Bellinzoni, Luke in the Apostolic Fa-
thers,Ž 51.
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
22:22, also lacks the specific idea of the inevitability of
\b 
troduced with an element of inevitability:
Mk 14:21a:
!\t
\f\t\n
\t\n\t\t
Mt 26:24a:
\f\t\n
\n\t\t
Lk 22:22a:
!\t
\t\n\f

\t\b\f\t
The nature of the inevitability, and the subject to which it applies, are very
different in Mk 14:21//Mt 26:24//Lk 22:22 than in Mt 18:7//Lk 17:1: in Mk
14:21 and parallels, the inevitability has to do with the goingŽ (
\t
\t
The Lukan parallel is included in what follows even though it does not provide a
true parallel to
1 Clem.
46:8, and therefore was not incl
uded among the parallels in the
synopsis at the beginning of the present chap
ter. Mark and Matthew provide parallels to
1 Clem.
46:8 because the lines below lead directly
into the woe-saying that contains the
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, and an image in
place of an image.
The longer saying in
clearly has some affinities, then, with the
saying in
2 Clement
, but there is little to indicate that the two documents
are related at the literary level. It is certainly possible that either (a)
2 Clement
is dependent on a Greek translation of
left out a considerable portion of the
saying as found in his source, or (b)
the compiler of
2 Clement
for the saying un-
der consideration, supplementing what he found in
2 Clement
for this say-
ing with material from other sources. It is impossible to verify either of
these possibilities, however, the basic problem of lack of evidence being
compounded further by the limitations of
comparing the Greek to the Cop-
tic. It is also much simpler to view the similarities and differences between
the parallels as pointing to their inde
tion or of divergent traditions that at some point shared a common history,
a view that is also more likely.
The likelihood that at least
and Clement of Alexandria depend
on a common tradition (or traditions with
a common history) is bolstered
by another text in
that we have not yet considered:
37 (partial Greek text from POxy 655 col. i, 17…col. ii, 1)
\b\t&\t\f\t#
\f\t\f%\n'\b\t\t\b-\fK
\t#!\b\b\t\f\t\b(
[- - -
2\r
\b\b
His disciples said, When will you appear to
us and when shall we see you?Ž Jesus said:
When you strip without being ashamed and you take your clothes and put them under
This statement is base
d on the assumption that
Thomas
Vorlage
was in Syriac
rather than Greek (see n. 38 on pp. 251…52 above).
As concluded also by Donfried,
Second Clement
Trans. is that of Meyer, Gospel of Thomas,Ž 144; cf. ibid., 155.
Bibliography
Schürer, Emil.
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. …
A.D. 135).
Revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and
Martin Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973…87.
Schürmann, Heinz.
Das Lukasevangelium
Kommentar zu Kap. 1, 1 … 9 , 50
Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Ne
uen Testament 3.1. Freiburg: Herder,
Schwartz, Barry. Christian Origins: Historical Truth and Social Memory.Ž Pages 43…56
Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity
. Edited by
Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SBL Semeia St
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
dependently both by Luke and by the
writer of the supposed receptor text.
It would also imply, not so obviously
, that any given feature could have
been added independently
by Luke and by the writer of a third source, the
writer of the supposed receptor text
being dependent on
than on Luke. In either case, Luke w
ould not be the precursor text for the
supposed receptor text. The above argu
ments become even more plausible
with the recognition that many more sources, both written and oral, were
second century than those which have
survived the accidents of history to be available to scholars today.
Greg-
ory notes that the finds at Qumran
and Nag Hammadi ha
ve greatly broad-
ened scholars understanding both of th
e Judaism of the period and of early
Jesus traditions, and adds, even now we are aware that more texts existed
than are now extant, and this raises the possibility that we rush too quickly
Gregory cites M. Hengel, who observes that 85% of second-century Christian
writings known by their titles have been lost, an
d that the real loss is
likely to be substan-
tially higherŽ (Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 17 n. 58, referring to M. Hengel,
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus
Christ: An Investigation of the Collection
and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
[trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM/Harrisburg: Trin-
ity Press International, 2000], 55); Gregory further notes that the figure of 85% was
calculated by C. Markschies on the basis of Harnacks
Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur bis Eusebius
Ž (loc. cit.).
Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 75; see also his full discussion of the need to
take into account non-extant texts and oral tradition as sources for the documents that
have come down to us, in ibid., 15…20.
Nor, I suspect, would he consider that the latter quest would have much hope of
success. A sampling of other sources which Gregory considers (in his
and Acts
) in attempting to account for the form of the Jesus material as found in the Ap-
ostolic Fathers include a harmony of the Synoptics, or a harmony made up of both synop-
tic and non-synoptic material (pp. 141, 147…48); a non-synoptic source with some
overlap with synoptic material (p. 141), the hypothetical document Q (including different
form of Q which might have been available to each evangelist, i.e., Q
and Q
; p. 120);
other non-canonical sources which might have had a closer affinity to a given extant ca-
nonical source than to others (e.g., closer
to Mt than to Lk;
p. 144); oral tradition
(p. 145); apocryphal sources (e.g., the
Gospel of Thomas
; p. 145); and short proverbial
utterances (p. 147), among others.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
consideration were created in a world that functioned in most respects at
the level of orality.
The traditional approach has been to argue that Mat-
thew and Luke freely edited written doc
sions of Q. It is just as likely, however, and perhaps more so, that the many
variations between Matthew and Luke reflect the variability within stabil-
ity that is characteristic of oral transmission of tradition; i.e., they knew
this portion of Q in oral form.
The Synoptic Problem is
a literary
Dunn is not alone in exploring the th
eory of an oral Q behind the Ser-
mon on the Plain. Richard Horsley and
Jonathan Draper have also devel-
oped various aspects of this theory
in a number of publications, paying
special attention to the presence of elements that witness to the imprint of
Basic to Draper and Horsleys ap-
proach is the insight that, contrary to the standard form-critical view, the
oral Jesus tradition was not preserved and transmitted in the form of iso-
lated or floatingŽ sayings but rather in the form of speechesŽ or dis-
Study of oral-derived text
... shows that it can have a high
See discussion of Dunns AlteringŽ in sec. 1.1 above, and Dunn, Q
as Oral,Ž
To cite Dunns own conclusi
on, These are all teachings
remembered as teachings
of Jesus in the way that oral tradition preserves such teaching: the character and emphasis
of the saying is retained through stable words and phrases, while the point is elaborated
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
credible that someone who through direct access to Matthew and/or Luke was able to
retain distinct impressions of Matthean or
Lukan redactional choices would sometimes
reproduce those impressions stylistically, but almost never reflect an understanding of the
Matthean or Lukan argument?
In other words, the
contains much material that
like Mat-
thew, but apparently does not
from Matthew. The
thew sound alike because they share a common idiom and a common
tradition, as documents that arose out of a shared milieu.
Fourthly, while the compiler of the
indicates explicitly that he
is quoting various sources on a number of occasions (1.6; 9.5; 14.3;
he never does so in the context of materials that according to
Tuckett derive from Matthew.
One cannot put much weight on an argu-
ment from silence, but the most obvi
ous explanation for why the compiler
gives no indication that he is citing Matthew is that he is not doing so.
Fifth and finally, the Didachist is ope
n to incorporating large blocks of
material into his text, as shown by his use of the Two Ways tradition that
Henderson, Style-Switching,Ž 182, 183; I am indebted to Hendersons article for
this and the following two points (points 3…5). Along similar lines, Draper concludes that
the overall pattern of parallelism between the
Didache
and the first and third gospels,
might at first suggest a knowledge of Matthew and Luke, in which the Synoptic Gospels
are harmonized on the basis of Matthew,Ž
but continues, this must be considered
unlikely. The context, order and wording of the sayings is independent and cannot be
derived from eitherŽ (Draper, Tradition in the
Didache
Fragment 1.1b…5 (Iren. Adv. Haer. 5.33.3…4)
able conclusion that the tradition in Pa
pias did not derive from Jesus when
(3) There is a parallel in early Chris
tian literature to vv. 2…3 that is not
identified as a saying of Jesus, in the
mid-third to late fourth century Chris-
. This parallel pushes the
eschatological abundance found in
level similar to Papias:
And the trees were full of fruit from root (up)
to tree-top. From the root of each tree up to
its heart there were ten thousand
branches with tens of thousands of clusters [and there
were ten thousand clusters on each branch] and there were ten thousand dates in each
cluster. And it was the same with the vines. Each vine had ten thousand branches, and
each branch had on it ten thousand bunches of grapes, and each bunch had ten thousand
grapes. And there were other trees there, myriads of myriads of them, and their fruit was
in the same proportion (
Apoc. Paul,
In terms of the abundance described, the
saying in Papias is much closer to
the later saying in the
than to the earlier leanerŽ say-
ings found in
. Again it is important to emphasize,
however, that in the
this material is not attributed to
Jesus.
That a later document such as the
material so similar to the Jesus saying
in Papias vv. 2…3, yet not attribute it
to Jesus, implies that the saying in Papias may have been a foreign element
incorporated at some point into the Jesus tradition. This is more feasible
than the alternative, that an extended saying of Jesus would have lost its
connection to him in Christian circles; why, then, preserve it? In addition,
that the material is not treated as Jesus tradition in the
implies that the
is probably not depende
nt on Papias, in spite
of their similarity. It is more likely that the author of the
Papias both derived the saying
from a closely related source.
(4) Finally, what can be reconstruc
The
Apocalypse of Paul
is a composite work, its earliest material dating from the
mid-third century, and its final compilation probably ca. 388 (Elliott,
Apocryphal New
Testament
, 616…17) or more generally in the late fourth or early fifth century (E. Fergu-
son, Vision of Paul,Ž
Trans. is that of H. Duensing and A. de Santos Otero, Apocalypse of Paul,Ž in
New Testament Apocrypha
(ed. Schneemelcher), 2:726.
Index of Modern Authors
Wright, N. T. 10, 20, 234
Wright, Stephen I. 6
Yates, Frances A. 90
Zahn, Theodor 39, 113, 156, 286
Zangenberg, Jürgen K. 37, 210
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
Some of this re-envisaging has been taking place over the past three
decades, spurred on especially by the publication in 1983 of Werner Kel-
bers groundbreaking work entitled
The Oral and the Written Gospel: The
Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing
Paul, and Q
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. In his introduction to a
Festschrift
in Kelbers honor,
R. A. Horsley gives credit to Kelber as the
first to recognize that the Gospels were com-
posed and received in a world dominated by
oral communication,Ž and goes on to state
that Kelber has also patiently explained th
e implications to other scholars still stub-
bornly faithful to the typographical assumptions
of the modern western study of sacred
textsŽ (Horsley, introduction to
Performing the Gospel
[ed. Horsley, Draper, and Foley],
viii).
J. D. G. Dunn, Q
as Oral Tradition,Ž in
The Written Gospel [FS for Graham
Stanton]
(ed. M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005), 45…69; R. A. Horsley with J. A. Draper,
Parables,Ž in
Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn for His
70th Birthday
(ed. B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson, and Douglas C. Mohrmann; LNTS
414; London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2009).
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
scholars, who conducted studies that ev
entually encompassed traditions in
over one hundred languages. These st
udies both furthered the work of
Parry and Lord, and also provided a co
rrective to it on several fronts, the
Given that the present monograph is chiefly concerned not with the work of Parry
and Lord itself, but with that of the scholars
that built upon the found
ation they laid, this
is not the place to take up criticisms of Parry and Lord in detail. For this see discussions
in Foley,
Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research
, 11…77 (the latter volume also contains
an annotated bibliography of over 1800 books and articles related to the field pioneered
by Parry and Lord, pp. 81…680); idem,
Theory of Oral Composition
, 57…93; idem, Oral
Tradition and Its ImplicationsŽ; Adam Parry, Introduction to M. Parry,
Making
; Russo,
FormulaŽ; M. Sale, The Oral-Formulaic Theory Today,Ž in
Speaking Volumes
Watson), 53…80.
Foley, Oral TheoryŽ; idem, Tradition-DependentŽ; idem,
Oral-Formulaic Theory
and Research
; idem,
Theory of Oral Composition
; idem,
Immanent Art
; idem,
Traditional Art
; idem, Whats In a SignŽ; idem,
How to Read
; also his edited volumes:
idem, ed.,
Oral Traditional Literature
; idem, ed.,
Oral Tradition in Literature
; idem, ed.,
Comparative Research
; idem, ed.,
Teaching
Goody and Watt, ConsequencesŽ; Goody,
Domestication
; idem,
Logic
; idem,
terface
Havelock,
; idem,
Literate Revolution
; idem,
Muse
Ong,
Presence
; idem,
Interfaces
; idem,
Orality and Literacy
. Additional authors,
as well as other works by the above-named au
thors, will be referenced in the footnotes
that follow.
Ong,
Orality and Literacy
, 37…77. See also the discussion of Ongs summary by
Lord, Characteristics.Ž
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
In sum, from our discussion so far
we may conclude that Clement of
Alexandria, Ps.-Macarius and the
were not the source for the
sayings of Jesus in Poly.
. 2.3. We may also conclude that there is in-
sufficient evidence to indicate that Poly.
. 2.3 and any of these three
other writings together bear witne
ss to a non-extant document that was
their common source.
We will now consider the relationship between the sayings in Poly-
and their parallels in
1 Clement
. The evidence that
Polycarp knew
1 Clement
is fairly conclusive,
but this need not imply
that Polycarp is dependent on Clement for the Jesus tradition under consid-
eration. On the contrary, in what follows we will argue that a number of
indications make clear that Polycar
p derived this Jesus tradition from
elsewhere (not only saying V
that is not paralleled in
1 Clement
sayings I…IV that closely parallel sayings in
In order to fa-
we reproduce in full the sayings in
synopsis in chapter 3, following the Cl
ementine order and the designation a…
h used there, and adding the identifiers I…V for the Philippian sayings. Close
or exact parallels are underlined:
1 Clem.
 \t! 
III) Pol.
 \t! 
1 Clem.
\t!%
&\f\t
II) Pol.
Phil
. 2.3:
\t%
\f\t
1 Clem.
\n\t\t!\t\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
13.2:
\n\t!\n\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
\n\t
!\n\t
\b\b
I) Pol.
. 2.3:
\f\t
\t!\f\t
f)
1 Clem.
\n(\b\b!\n
(\b\b\t\f\t
g)
1 Clem.
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
IV) Pol.
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
h) No par. in
1 Clem
V) Pol.
\t!\t\f\t\t\t(\t
\t\t\t\f\t!\t)
\t\b\n
!\t\b\t\r\b\t \t
As can be seen from this synopsis, the
See Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.1:149…52, whose conclusions have been ac-
cepted by a majority of scholars since his time; also Lona,
Erste Clemensbrief
Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:52; 2.3:325, n. 17; Berding,
Polycarp
8.5 Conclusions
ry dependence when enc
ountering similarity be-
tween two written sources. If one approaches the issue, however, from a
perspective that seeks to be true to
the ancient context of the sources by
giving preference to orality over scribality, other explanations come to the
fore. If Polycarp was clearly depe
ndent upon a written gospel in other
places, this might call for a change in perspective, but Polycarps knowl-
edge and use of the Gospels remains an open question.
8.5 Conclusions
It is very probable that the sayings cons
idered in this chapter were part of
rculated among the churches. Though there is no
way to be certain of their oral-trad
cient in orality there would have been no need to depend on written
sources for such brief sayings (especi
ally those in proverbial form).
The main contribution of two of these sayings,
. 9.5 and Ign.
3.2a, to the present work is in illustrating the socially identified tendency
of oral tradition. In the case of
. 9.5, the saying Do not give what is
holy to the dogsŽ is applied in the early church to a situation … exclusion
from participation in the Eucharist … di
fferent, though related, to the situa-
tion in which Jesus first used it. This need not imply that the proverb
ceased to be applied according to its earlier meaning (there is no evidence
for or against this use), but it gained a wider meaning when applied to a
new situation.
The passage in Ignatius
Letter to the Smyrneans
(3.2a), Reach out,
touch me and see that I am not a bodiless demon,Ž also illustrates the reap-
plication of a saying to a new situation. While in the form and in the set-
ting in which it was originally spoke
reassurance to troubled disciples, it
was soon taken up in Luke to serve a
polemical function in defense of the reality of Jesus resurrection, and in
the form we find it in Ignatius it has been enlisted for a specifically anti-
docetic polemic. That for anti-docetic purposes the wording of the saying
was slightly modified, without compromising its basic meaning, also illus-
trates the variability within stability that is characteristic of the ongoing
life of oral tradition. This variability
is one of the ways oral tradition re-
mains aliveŽ and able to function within a community in the many ways
that it is needed.
See ch. 5 above;
the confident statements to
the contrary in Jefford with
Harder and Amezaga,
Reading
, 81; Massaux,
, 2:27…33, 51. More appropriate
are the guarded statements, e.g., of Hagner,
Clement of Rome
, 279…80; idem, Sayings,Ž
Bibliography
1990. Repr. pages 89…143 in idem,
The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition
. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001.
…. If We Do Not Cut the Parables out of Their Frames.Ž
New Testament Studies
(1991): 321…35.
…. Illuminating the Kingdom:
Narrative Meshalim in
the Synoptic Gospels.Ž Pages 266…
309 in
Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition.
Edited by H. Wansbrough. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition
and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Juda-
ism and Early Christianity.
Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Acta Seminarii Neotesta-
mentici Upsaliensis 22. Lund: Gleerup/Copenhagen: Munksgaard,
1961. Repr. as
idem,
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Trad
ition and Written Transmission in Rab-
binic Judaism and Early Christianity
, with
Tradition and Interpretation in Early
Christianity
. Biblical Resource Series. With a foreword by Jacob Neusner. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans/Livonia: Dove, 1998.
The Mighty Acts of Jesus According to Matthew
. Scripta Minora 1978…79 5. Lund:
Gleerup, 1979.
…. The Narrative Meshalim in the Old Test
ament Books and in the Synoptic Gospels.Ž
Pages 289…304 in
To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Jo-
seph A. Fitzmyer
. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York:
Crossroad, 1989.
…. Oral Tradition (New Te
stament).Ž
Pages 498…501 in
A Dictionary of Biblical Inter-
1.6 Definition of Oral Jesus TraditionŽ
study from written sources, what is important is not the context in which
they are
, but the context in which they
ted
prior to being set to writing.
In the case of the Jesus tradition one
cannot exclude the possible use of
written notes, but these would have
served more as aids to memorization than as repositories of the tradition.
(3) That the Jesus material is traditionŽ implies an element of continu-
ity involving repeated instances of
performance of the oral discourse over
time, by various traditionists, and in a
On the nuances of defining oral vs. litera
te discourse and transcription vs. compo-
sition, see E. J. Bakker, How Oral is Oral Composition?,Ž in
Signs of Orality
kay), 30…31.
Henige, Oral What,Ž 233.
Cf. E. Tonkin,
Narrating our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History
(CSOLC 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 87. Jan Vansinas defini-
tion is closer to my own in this respect, in
that his criterion is beyond the present gen-
erationŽ (
Oral Tradition
, 27). S. Byrskogs definition becomes too broad when he states
that The observation of an eyewitness become
s, in a sense, tradition as soon as it is
communicated from one person to anotherŽ
(Eyewitness Testimony and Oral Tradition,Ž
42 [on pp. 42…43 he qualifies this statement somewhat], and see the similar statement in
ibid., The Eyewitnesses as Interpreters of
the Past: Reflections on Richard Bauckhams,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
6 [2008], 159, where he also speaks of an interaction
and even fusion of oral history and oral trad
itionŽ [p. 160]); this is
to confuse traditionŽ
with testimonyŽ (see point 5 that follows). There is a similar problem with Byrskogs
statement, It even happens that a teacher deliberately formulates sayings to serve as tra-
ditions from the beginning. In su
ch cases, a tradition is at hand as soon as a saying is re-
ceived by the first pupil(s) in accord
ance with the teachers intentionŽ (
Jesus the Only
Teacher
, 20; see the similar statement in his T
he Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,Ž
, 2.1477); this is to confuse traditio
nŽ with teaching.Ž The teacher may
intend
that it become tradition, but it remains only a teaching until it has been
accorded
status of tradition by taking on, as it were, a life of its own separate from the teacher via
repeated transmission; i.e., if the pupil(s) to whom Byrskog refers do(es) not preserve
and pass on the teaching, then simply having received it from the teacher does not make
it tradition, even if that was the teachers intention.
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
tian group to which the author belong
ter (also applicable to the subsequent chapters) is to begin to demonstrate
On the terms oralityŽ and scribalityŽ an
d the method followed to identify markers
of orality within written texts see the discussion on meth
od in ch. 3 above.
Synopsis adapted with modifications from Hagner,
Clement of Rome
For ease of reference, I have adapte
d the following list of MSS witnesses for
1 Clement
with their abbrevia
tions from Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1:30: Greek: A =
Alexandrinus (5
c.; lacks 57.7…63.4); H = Hierosolymitanus (1056 CE). Versions: L =
Latin, an 11
c. MS, ed. by G. Morin (possibly representing a 2
c. trans.); S =
Syriac, MS of the NT dated 1169 CE that includes
and
2 Clement
after the Pastoral
Epistles, ed. by R. Bensly (possibly representing an 8
c. trans.); C = 4
c. Coptic MS in
Berlin, ed. by C. Schmidt (lacks 34.6…42.2); C
= highly fragmentary 5
c. (?) Coptic MS
from Strasbourg, also containing portions of James and John, ed. by F. Rösch (1…26.2).
H reads
 \t
, rather than
 
(as in A); see K. Bihlmeyer,
Die Apostolischen
Väter: Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe
(3rd ed.; SAQ 2.1.1; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1970), 42; A. Jaubert,
Clément de Rome: Épître aux Corinthiens
(SC 167; Paris:
Cerf, 1971), 122 n.; J. B. Lightfoot,
The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Poly-
carp: Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations
(2nd ed.;
2 parts in 5 vols.; London:
Macmillan, 1889…90), 1.2:52. L reads
ut perveniatis ad
misericordiam
(see Hagner,
Clement of Rome
H reads
in place of
(as in A); see Bihlmeyer,
Apostolischen Väter
, 42;
Jaubert,
Clément de Rome
, 122; Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1.2:52.
C and C
\t\n
after
\n\t\t
, (as found in A), and L adds
aliis
; see
Bihlmeyer,
Apostolischen Väter
, 42 and Jaubert,
Clément de Rome
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
Koester, apparently working on the basi
s of a critical text that did not include
at Mk 9:42, has Mt adding
\t\n\f
to the text he inherited from Mk (
Synoptische
Überlieferung
, 18). As mentioned on p. 178 above, the
\t\n\f
in Mk 9:42 remains a con-
tested reading, but it probably should be includ
ed in the Markan text not only because of
the strong external support, but also because of the dynamics of Matthean dependence
upon Mk: Mt follows Mk almost verbatim up to
this point in the sa
ying, so one can logi-
cally infer that this verbatim
dependence also includes the
\t\n\f
. This argument is not
intended to be conclusive, but when considered in light of the external support, for this
writer it is persuasive.
If Q 17:1…2 is treated as a written source, then the assumption is that Luke would
be more likely than Matthew to preserve the order found in Q, since this is a Lukan char-
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
Now in the first place we have not this word
in the four Gospels that have been handed
down to us, but in the Go
spel of the Egyptians.
Jesus said to them, When you make the two into one
, and when you make the inner like
the outer and the ou
ter like the inner
, and the upper like the lower, and when you make
male and female into a single one, so that
the male will not be male nor the female be
female
, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place
of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]
$\t\n\n\t\n\t
\n!9\t\r\b\t \t\t)#
!
'\b\t!
\t
'9\n
'\b
\t'
\b\f\n \t\n'
\b' 
\f\t%\b\t
 \b\t\r\b\t \t

\n\f
Clement of Alexandria,
\f\n\n1 \f\n\b\b\t\t)''%\t\n#
!\n\t\b(\n'\f\b\t!
\t!
\t'
\f\n \t\n''
' 
\f"\t\n\f\t\n
\f\t\b\t \t\t
\n'(\f
&58\t\t\n
(translation from the Coptic)
\t)\b\n\t\n#!
\t\b
\t\t\b'\b\n'9
\t
'9\n'\b
\t'\n\t\t!\t\b'\b
\t
\t\n!\t!'\b
\t\b&'\b
 
\t\b& 
!
\t\b% \f\n\t% \f\t(
\t\t(\t\n\t\t\n
\t\t\t\n
\t\b \b\b\t\n
\r\b\t \t
The similarities between
exandria and the
suggest that they are somehow related,
thought it is highly unlikely that any
of the texts depends directly upon the
others. In what follows we will point out both the similarities and the dif-
ferences between the texts, bringing in an additional text from
bear on the discussion. We will see that while the sources for the Jesus tra-
Trans. is ed. by R. McL. Wilson, from W. Schneemelcher, The Gospel of the
Egyptians,Ž in
New Testament Apocrypha
(ed. Schneemelcher), 1:211.
Trans. is from M. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas with the Greek Gospel of Tho-
mas,Ž in
The Nag Hammadi Scriptures
: The International Edition
(ed. M. Meyer; New
York: Harper One, 2007), 142…43.
Logion 22 is only extant in Coptic; this
Greek retranslation is
by the Berliner Ar-
beitskreis für Koptisch-Gnostis
che Schriften, in Aland,
Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum
526. As already mentioned in other footnotes, the Arbeitskreis worked under the assump-
tion of a Greek
Vorlage
for
Thomas
, but N. Perrin has developed a convincing argument
in favor of a Syriac original (see n. 38 on pp. 251…52 above), that will be presupposed in
the discussion that follows.
Bibliography
Sanders, E. P.
The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition.
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
divergent approaches taken by Massau
x and Koester. Following a detailed
analysis of the strengths and weakness
es of both of these approaches, and
source, Not only is it impossible to demonstrate knowledge of a text unless it is used,
but also the inability of subsequent scholarshi
p to demonstrate the use of one text in an-
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
Mt 5:43…45, 39b…42; 7:12; Lk 6:27…38
5:46…48; 7:1…2
!\n\b\t\t
\n\f,\f\n
\t\n!\t! \t
 \t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\t\n 
[5:39b…42]
 !\b\t\n\b
\t,\t\t\n&\t\b

9\t\b\t
*\b+
\t
\b\t
\b-&\t' 
#(\t' 
& \t\b\t\t\t\t
\t'\n
\t(\t
\b
\b
\t\f\t
'%\n&\t
\t\f\t
\t(\t
\f \b&\n
\t!\b\t\n\b\b\t\f\t \t!
!\f 
&\t\t\b
\t\t\t\b
\t
 
\b\t\b\b\t\t

\t'\n\b
\b%&\n 
\f
[7:12]
:"!\b
5\t\n
 \t!\t\b\t
\f\t\t'\t
 \t!\t\b\t\f\t\t'\t
!\n\t\f\t\n\t\t\t\n
#\t\t\t\n
\f\t\n 
)\n\b\t
\f\n\t\t%\t 
[5:46…48]
\b
\n\n\f\n
\n\n\f\n
\t\f\t\b'(;
\t\f\t(\t\n\b\t;
\t
\t\f \t\n\n
\t\b\t;
\n\b\t 
\t\b\b\b
\t*+\t
\n %\n\f\f
\n\t\n\f\n
\t\t\b\b\t\t;
\t\f\t(\t\n\b\t;
\t\t\t\b\t
;\t\t
\f \t\t\b\t
\t\t\b) \t,
\r\t\t\f\t(\t\n*\b\t+;
\t\f \t\f
 \t\n\t,\b\t
\t! \r\b\t\t'\b 
 \n(\n\f
\t\t\t
\t\t,\f \t,\n#
\t'\b\t\f\t\b\n\f \n
\t'\b\b\t\t-\t\b
!\t\n(\b\n\b\t
\t\n(\t\b\n\t\n
'\b\b"\f\t\n \t\t
0\t\b\t\t\f\n
\n\f
\t\n\n*
\t+\f
 \t\n\b\t
\t\t\f\b\t
[7:1…2]
6\t
\t!\f\t
#
5\t\f\t
\t\f\t
)&\t\f\t\t\t\b\b
\t\f\t,
\t\f\t\b 
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
are best explained as arising from their shared historical and cultural mi-
lieu.
Approaching the documents from the perspective of this growing
consensus clarifies a number of issues:
Firstly, that the two documents are not related at the literary level
would explain why there are no clear-cut cases of Matthean redactional
features in the
Kloppenborg, Use of the Synoptics,Ž 106; see especially van de Sandt and
Flusser,
Didache
, and the introductions to van de Sandt, ed.,
Matthew and the Didache
(by H. van de Sandt, 1…9) and van de Sandt and Zangenberg, eds.,
Matthew, James, and
Didache
(by H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, 1…9). Tho
ugh the studies in the two
edited volumes just mentioned arrive at varied
conclusions, they ar
e all valuable in illus-
trating the array of issues that go into ma
king a determination regarding the relationship
Fragment 1.1b…5 (Iren. Adv. Haer. 5.33.3…4)
cording to this second reading Irenaeus
ƒ gives a written account,Ž should be unde
rstood in light of v. 1 to mean,
not only did they [the elders] witne
ss the fact, but also Papias has con-
signed their testimony to writing.Ž
Though it is not conclusive, a consid-
dentified eldersŽ are also from Papias (
Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem
und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus
[TU 46; Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1930],
Chapman, Papias,Ž 57; followed by Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 94;
idem, Papias [
ANRW
See esp. Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 94…96; also D. E. Aune, Prole-
gomena to the Study of Oral Trad
ition in the Hellenistic World,Ž in
Jesus and the Oral
(ed. Wansbrough), 82; C. E. Hill, Papias of Hierapolis,Ž
ExpTim
117.8 (2006):
309…15; repr. in
Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
(ed. Foster), 42…51 (p. 49, citations
here and below are to the repr
int); G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on
the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1…36; 81…108
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001),
Nickelsburg dates it to the mid-third century (
, 7); M. A. Knibb dates it to
Index of Modern Authors
McArthur, Harvey K. 125
McGrath, James F. 99
McKnight, Edgar V. 11
McNamara, Martin 115…16
Meier, John P. 106, 193, 279
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
Some of this impact is already being felt, as exemplified by the presi-
dential address delivered
GRLH 400; New York: Garland, 1985), together with its updates by various authors in
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
the Apostolic Fathers … the twin foci of this study … were at home in this
context. To understand these texts and
the tradition they contain one must
view them in terms of the ongoing interplay between orality and literacy
that characterized their wider milieu.
3.3 Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in a Written Medium
The approach to Jesus tradition adopted
here arises directly from the above
considerations regarding the interplay between orality and literacy in late
Western antiquity. This approach focuses on the dynamics surrounding
why oral traditions were preserved, how they were retained and transmitted
(i.e., their acquisition by a traditionist as well as their performance), the
elements of which they were composed, and the impact of their perform-
In sum, this approach has to do with how oral
tradition
in antiquity.
scholarship that goes back to the pioneering work of Milman Parry, as con-
tinued by Albert Lord.
Focusing initially on the Homeric epics, and test-
pels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
precise date of Ignatius
martyrdom is not known, but one can at least date
Scholars almost unanimously date Ignatius martyrdom to the reign of Trajan
(A.D. 98…117), as chronicled by Eusebius (
Hist. Eccl.
8.4 Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians, 7.2c
narratives of the Lords Supper and of
the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus
within the proclamation of the early church guaranteed their wide dissemi-
nation, and it is very probable that
along with them the Gethsemane ac-
count also became widely known.
It follows that Polycarps knowledge
Bibliography
Finnegan, Ruth.
Literacy and Orality: Studies in
the Technology of Communication
. Ox-
ford: Blackwell, 1988.
Oral Literature in Africa.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1970.
1.6 Definition of Oral Jesus TraditionŽ
ings, which also has its place,
but only to explain the centrality of ex-
plicit sayings to this study.
Part of the power of referring
implicitly
to a Jesus tradition that was held in com-
mon would have been the creation of an ins
ider language,Ž enabling the ability to com-
municate to other members of the Christian community through veiled allusions and
implied connections to which an outsider would remain oblivious (see J. D. G. Dunn,
Jesus Tradition in Paul,Ž in
Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of
Current Research
[ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans; NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994], 155…
78, here pp. 176…78; repr. in
The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G.
Christology
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 169…89, here pp. 187…89;
idem,
Jesus Remembered
The sheer number of possible implicit allusi
ons to Jesus sayings in the Apostolic
Fathers is also a factor to be taken into consideration, as covering them thoroughly would
call for a separate study of each book. A number of studies have been conducted on the
use of the NT as a whole by an individual early Christian writer, such as P. Hartog,
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
handled the tradition received in this way in the same manner they handled
oral tradition in general: in short, keeping its central elements stable while
treating non-essentials
oralizing the written tradition, which would have made it virtually indis-
tinguishable in its use from tradition that had never been committed to
writing.
It may be possible in certain cases, however, to recognize this
re-oralized tradition
to the extent that it contains features from the
redactional work of an evangelist. Here one faces all of the problems in-
herent in determining conclusively th
at the presence of any given feature
in a text
the redactional work of an evangelist, as noted in the previous
This process is referred to by J. P. Meier as follows, our canonical Gospels not
only come from ongoing oral tradition but al
so generate ongoing oral tradition. ƒ Inevi-
tably they contaminated and modified the
oral tradition that existed before and along-
side themselvesŽ (J. P. Meier,
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
Mt 26:24a:

\f\t\n
\t
\n\t\t
Lk 22:22a:
!\t
\t\n

\t\b\f\t
2. Mk 14:21b:
\t&&\t&\t)\t\n\t\t
Mt 26:24b:
\t&&\t&\t)\t\n\t\t
Lk 22:22b:
 \t
&&\t&\t)
\t\t
3. Mk 14:21c:
 
&\t'\n\t\n
 
"&\t
4. Mt 18:7a…b:
/\t&\b\f&\b #
 \t
\b 
Lk 17:1b:
\b\t
\b 
5. Matt 18:7c:
 \t
&&\t)
\b '(\t
Lk 17:1c:
 \t
\t)
'(\t
6. Mk 9:42a:
\n\b \t\b&!\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
Mt 18:6a:
\n
\b \t\b&!\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
Luke 17:2c:
\b \t\b
\f\t
7. Mk 9:42b:
 \b\t&
\t\t\t
\f \n\t\n\t( 
Matt 18:6b:
\b\f%\t

\f\b&\f \n\t\n\t( 
Lk 17:2a:
\b\t \t
 \t\n\f
\t\n\t\t\t
\t( 
8. Mk 9:42c:
\t\n \b\b
Matt 18:6c:
\t\b&& \t
\n \b\b
Lk 17:2b:
'\t\t
\t\n \b\b
From the above it is fairly clear th
at Matthew and Luke have followed a
common source other than Mark for the
material in their woe-saying(s) in
parts 4…5. In the opinion of a majority of scholars this source was Q,
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
the idea these phrases contain is truly Matthean.
In contrast, outside of
Matthew the phrase
\n\f
is found four times in Luke, and …
significantly … two of these occurrences are found in the double tradition
(material shared by Matthew a
nd Luke not derived from Mark).
Since

\n\f
is not uncommon in the sources shared by Matthew and Luke,
and the more uniquely
Matthean qualifier
\t\n
is not reflected
2 Clement
, one may tentatively surmise that the similarities between
. 9.11 and Mt 12:50 arose not from literary dependence between
The non-canonical parallels to
ces. Some scholars who hold that
2 Clement
depends on a harmony of Matth
ew and Luke make a similar
case for Clement of Alexandria, the
Gospel of the Ebionites
and the
: they point to redactional prints from the evangelists in these
above, and on this basis argue that
they also depend on a harmony of the Gospels.
As argued above, how-
ever, the so-called redactional printsŽ may have originated not with the
evangelists but from shared sources, and one could argue that the same is
cal parallels. In addition, the theory
ve from a harmony of Matthew and
Luke does not explain all of the elements in the parallels, such as the men-
\t %\t
in the
Gospel of the Ebionites
, found in the Synoptic
parallels only in Mark, and
Clement of Alexandrias
\t\b \f\t
without parallel in any of the othe
tently in all the non-canonical writin
gs under consideration (including
2 Clement
), with but slight variations in the
Gospel of the Ebionites
\t\n \f\n\f
\t\t\n
 \f\n\f
). This line, which is the core of the saying un-
ily retain this basic form in the context of oral
transmission, so that one need not
argue for literary dependence upon the
Gospels to explain its presence in these writings.
In short, the source behind
Though we tentatively conc
lude that there is insufficient reason to hold
that it is dependent on a gospels harmony
, this does not resolve the issue of
Not to suggest that the idea
originated
with Matthew … its common attestation in
rabbinic writings would suggest otherwise; see Allen,
Matthew
, 44; Luz,
Matthew 1…7
315…16 and nn. 67…68. Matthew uses the phrase Father in heavenŽ or heavenly FatherŽ
in 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14, 26, 32; 7:11,
21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19,
35; 23:9.
Lk 2:49; 10:22 (//Mt 11:27); 22:29 (cf. Mt 19:28//Lk 22:28…30); 24:49; see also
15:17. It is found 16 times in
Matthew (see Davi
es and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:79).
Donfried,
Second Clement
, 73; Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 147…48;
Bibliography
. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper and John Miles Foley. Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 2006.
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
On Koesters redactional criterion, see th
e discussion of his work in sec. 2.3.2
above.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
Prayer found in his source to
In light of these
considerations, it becomes clear that
Mt 6:14 is not Matthews redactional
conclusion, together with the lack of any other
Matthean parallel to Lk 6:37c, raises the possibility that Matthew did not
know the saying in its Lukan form, or at least did not encounter it as a hy-
This would remain true even if, or especi
ally if, Mark in this
verse is echoing the
Lords Prayer (as suggested by J. Marcus,
Mark 8…16: A New Translation with Introduc-
tion and Commentary
[AYB 27A; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009],
787. Assuming that Matthew used Marks Gospel, he would naturally recognize the allu-
sion and associate his own section on the Prayer with this section in Mark. This assumes
that the Lords Prayer was widely used in
the liturgy, as will be
argued in ch. 7 below
regarding the Prayer in the
Didache
As held, e.g., by J. Lambrecht,
The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Ex-
hortation
(GNS 14; Wilmington: Glazier, 1985), 178…79; idem, 
Eh bien,Ž
174, 209; J.
D. Crossan,
In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus
(San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1983), 180; and see further the survey of opinion in Kloppenborg,
Q Parallels
So A. Harnack,
New Testament Studies,
The Sayings of Jesus: The Second
Source of St, Matthew and St. Luke
(trans. J. R. Wilkinson; CTL; New York: G. P. Put-
nams Sons/London: Williams & Norgate, 1908), 8…10; Strecker,
Sermon on the Mount
143; and see further the survey of opinion in Kloppenborg,
Q Parallels
, 34. In addition to
the considerations alr
eady noted, Mt 7:2a contains no
typically Matthean vocabulary to
suggest that it is a Matthean creation (see Luz,
Matthew 1…7
, 349) and Matthew did not
need to add 7:2a as an explanatory elaboration relating Mt 7:1 to Mt 7:2b, since in an-
cient Judaism the language of measuringŽ (7:2b) was commonly related to the language
of judgingŽ (7:1) in dealing with the esch
atological judgment (see Davies and Allison
Matthew
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
(a) When Tuckett sets out to show that the relationship between the
and Matthew is one of literary dependence, the results of his inves-
Cf. Rordorf, Does the Didache,Ž 395…96.
See, Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 117 n. 4; Draper, First-Fruits,Ž 224…
25; idem, Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an Irrevocable Parting of the Ways
with Judaism?,Ž in
Matthew and the Didache
(ed. Van de Sandt), 217…41 (Draper con-
cludes that the
Didache
witnesses to an earlier stage of
development in the separation
between Christianity and Juda
ism than witnessed to by Ma
tthew); idem, Jesus Tradi-
tion,Ž 75 n. 15 (where Draper brings up this possibility specifically as an objection
Appendix
The Fragments of Papias
Any treatment of appeals to Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers would
The fragments are numbered following Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2:92…119.
Index of Modern Authors
Frend, W. H. C. 98
Froehlich, Karlfried 220, 221, 222
Funk, Franciscus Xaverius
Gamble, Harry 74, 75, 80
Garrow, Alan J. P. 36, 208…9
Gebhart, O. 113
Gerhardsson, Birger 11, 15…23, 30, 32,
Gieseler, Johann 1
Chapter 1: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity
Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 83; W. Baird,
History of New Testament Research
From Deism to Tübingen
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 296…7.
A different trajectory, anticipating and includ
ing the form-critical view of oral tradi-
tion as fragmentary and open to constant innovation and invention on the part of the early
church, runs through Friedrich Schleiermacher (
1768…1834), David Friedrich Strauss
(1808…1874), Julius Wellhausen (1844…1918),
William Wrede (
1859…1906), Hermann
Gunkel (
1862…1932), Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1891…1956), Martin Dibelius (1883…1947),
and Rudolf Bultmann (1884…1976); see Schleiermacher,
Luke: A Critical Study
(trans. C.
Thrilwall; SST 13; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993), 7…15; Strauss, Hermann Samuel
Reimarus and His Apology,Ž in
Reimarus: Fragments
(ed. Talbert), 44…57; idem,
The
Life of Jesus Critically Examined
(ed. P. C. Hodgson; trans.
G. Eliot; LJS; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974), 58, 73…4, 82…6, 467. On the importance of Wrede, Wellhausen, Schmidt,
and Gunkel for the form-critical perspective see R. Bultmann, The New Approach to the
Synoptic Problem,Ž in
Existence and Faith
(selected and trans. S. M. Ogden; Cleveland:
World, 1960), 35…40, who gives a brief history of the scholarship that led to the devel-
opment of his own approach. See also P. C. Hodgson, Introduction and editorial note in
Strauss,
Life of Jesus
, xvii…xviii, 786 (n. 74); Kümmel,
, 84, 282, 328; Baird,
tory
, 1:215…17; idem,
History of New Testament Research,
From Jonathan Ed-
wards to Rudolf Bultmann
M. Parrys publications have
been conveniently collected in
The Making of Ho-
meric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry
(ed. A. Parry; Oxford: Clarendon,
1971). Parrys work, which was cut short by his early accidental death in 1935 at the age
of 33 (see A. Parry, Introduction to ibid., ix…x) was carried on by his assistant, Albert
Lord. The most important works of the latter for the present monograph include
The
Singer of Tales
(HSCL 24; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960); The
Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature,Ž in
The Relationships Among the Gospels: An
Interdisciplinary Dialogue
(ed. W. O. Walker, Jr.; TUMSR 5; San Antonio: Trinity Uni-
Markers of Orality: Oral Indicators in an Oral Medium.Ž
See J. M. Foley, The Oral Theory in Context,Ž in
Oral Traditional Literature
Foley), 27…122; idem, Tra
dition-Dependent and -Independent Features in Oral Litera-
ture: A Comparative View of the Formula,Ž in
Oral Traditional Literature
(ed. Foley),
262…81; idem,
The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology
(Bloomington
3.2 Orality and Literacy in the Ancient Mediterranean World
Orality had a large role in (a) the pro
cess of the production of texts, (b) the
manner in which they were read, and (c) the manner in which the majority
of the population experienced te
xts. To explain briefly:
a) The common practice for the composition of written texts in Western
antiquity was for the authors to
speak them out loud
, either to themselves if
writing in their own hand, or in order to dictate them to a scribe.
texts contained, then, not silent thoug
material that had been vocalized prior to becoming written.
b) Similarly, most written materials did not function as silent texts. The
custom prevalent in late Western antiquity was to
vocalize
texts, i.e. read
them out aloud, even when read to oneself.
In this light, texts served as
P. J. Achtemeier notes that, while there are many examples of authors writing in
their own hand, the more usual practice was to dictate to a scribe (
15); see also Park,
Marks Memory Resources
, 46…49; Rhoads, Biblical Performance
Criticism,
Jaffee,
Torah in the Mouth
, 17…18; Park,
Marks Memory Resources
, 55…58;
Rhoads, Biblical Performance Criticism,Ž 159…60; Thomas,
Literacy and Orality
93; idem,
Oral Tradition
, 2, and literature cited in n.
2; W. B. Sedgwick, Reading and
Writing in Classical Antiquity,Ž
ContRev
135 (1990): 90…91. Achtemeier pressed the
(lack of) evidence a little
too far in arguing that reading aloud was the
exclusive
in Western antiquity: Reading was therefore oral performance
whenever
it occurred and
in whatever circumstances. La
te antiquity knew nothing of the silent, solitary readerŽ
,Ž 17, emphasis in the
original). According to
Achtemeier the wonder-
ment caused by Bishop Ambroses silent reading, as narrated by Augustine (
Confessions
6.3) shows that even in the fourth century this was unique (ibid., 15…17). In a 1992 article
M. Slusser basically accepted Achtemeiers main contention of the exclusivity of the
practice of reading aloud, but sought to correct him by arguing that the earliest known
reference to silent reading in Western antiquity
is found in the catecheses of Cyril of Je-
rusalem (ca. A.D. 350), where women are instructed to pray and read in silence, appar-
ently in obedience to Pauls injunctio
n in 1 Cor 14:34 (Cyril of Jerusalem,
Procatechesis
14; see M. Slusser, Readi
ng Silently in Antiquity,Ž
111 [1992]: 499). F. D.
Gilliards 1993 article, however, successfully challenged the notion that reading aloud
was an
exclusive
practice in Western antiquity, showi
ng that silent reading was not so
rare as Achtemeier would have it. He had no wish, however, to challenge the view that
reading aloud was the
predominant
practice (More Silent Reading in Antiquity:
Non
Omne Verbum Sonabat
112 [1993]: 689…94, and see also
literature cited there).
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
and his preferred reading of Poly.
. 1.1 that implies that Ignatius
had visited the Philippians some twenty years earlier.
All that remains of Harrisons argu
187…227, esp. 225…27. Certain scholars who have followed Harrisons conflation theory
also argue for Polycarps use of Mt and Lk, and it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the
presupposition of a later dating has influenced their decision regarding this use; see, e.g.,
Introduction to the NT
, 2:308…9, who in dependence upon Harrison dates Poly-
carps
Philippians
after the year 130Ž; idem, Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,Ž
73 (1980): 105…30 (repr. pages 3…23 in idem,
Jesus to the Gospels
, 3…23), 109 n. 13 in
original, 6 n. 13 in repr.: A.D. 140Ž; Cameron,
Sayings Traditions
, 113 (originally a
dissertation written under Koester and others).
Harrison,
Polycarp
, 132, 160, 163…65, 316; against this view see Hartog,
Polycarp
152…53; Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 38; idem, Polycarp and Ignatius,Ž
Harrison,
Polycarp
, 155…62. Against this view see esp. W. R. Schoedel, Poly-
carps Witness to Ignatius of Antioch,Ž
41 (1987): 1…10, and also idem,
Polycarp,
Martyrdom, Papias
, 9, 40; Barnard, Problem of Polycarp,Ž 33; Cadoux, Review, 268;
Holmes, Polycarp and the WritingsŽ 187 n. 3.
J. Pearson,
Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii
(Cambridge: Hayes, 1672), 2.72; repr.
Ss. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera
, 2nd ed. (Antwerp: Huguetaro-
num, 1698). Zahn s
uggested that the original Greek read
\t\t
=\t
\t\t\f
\b
(see Schoedel, Polycarp and Ignatius,Ž 278
n. 21); Lightfoot suggested either
\t\n\b
\t\n\f
Apostolic Fathers
2.1:578), but favored
\t\n\b
, since in the opening of this epistle ...
\t\n\b
is translated in the same way qui cum eo sunt, and thus has been wrongly ren-
dered as a presentŽ (ibid
, 2.3:349); see Lightfoots full discussion in ibid
, 2.1:588…89 =
idem,
Essays
, 111…13, where he notes other instances in which the Latin translator of
Phil.
has provided a temporal translation of a-temporal Greek verbs.
8.4 Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians, 7.2c
Trans. is that of Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
Noted, though not necessarily argued, by Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers
, 2.3:336;
further argued by Koester (
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 114…15), and Massaux (
2:31…32); followed by Schoedel (
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 26) and Paulsen (
tius und Polykarp
This impact is viewed in two ways: (1
) Polycarp is dependent upon the saying in
the passion narrative, but modified its wording under the influence of the Lords Prayer,
and since the only Gospel that contains both the parallels in the passion narrative and the
parallels in the Lords Pray
er is Matthew, Polycarp must
be dependent upon Matthew;
see, e.g., Massaux,
, 2:31…32. (2) In W. Schoedels words, The connection of
the petition from the Lords Prayer with the sa
ying about the spirit and the flesh in [Poly.
Phil.
7.2] is anticipated alread
y in the Gospels (Mark. 14:38; Matt. 26:41). Since this
connection appears secondary, it is reasonable to suppose that Polycarp derived it from
the written GospelsŽ (Schoedel,
Polycarp, Martyrdom, Papias
, 26, who cites Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
Bibliography
…. On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel
Byrskog.Ž
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
26 (2004): 473…87.
…. Q
as Oral Tradition.Ž Pages 45…69 in
The Written Gospel [Festschrift for Graham
Stanton].
Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2005.
…. Reappreciating the Oral Jesus Tradition.Ž
1.5 Parameters
it is more difficult to justify using this implicit material in the same way.
Sources other than Jesus tradition c
ould account for such a saying, in
which case its inclusion in a study of
Jesus tradition would negatively af-
fect the studys results.
For example, the saying in
\n\t \t
 \t \t\t \t\f
is not explicitly identified as a
saying of Jesus, though it finds a parallel in Mt 22:14:
 \t
 \t \t\t \t
I am indebted for this formulation of th
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
cal Gospels loosely and from memory.Ž
While some of the passages
that have been viewed in this way
are best understood as reflecting the
variability within stability that is characteristic of oral tradition, others are
better viewed as originating from the re-oralization of the written Gos-
It is fairly certain that oral traditions of Jesus sayings continued to
co-exist with the written Gospels or other written collections of Jesus tradi-
second century (at least until the time
See, e.g.,
NTAF
, 76…81 on Ignatius (read in light of their comments in ibid., 64
and 79, Ignatius always quotes from memoryŽ and the indications on the whole favour
the hypothesis that he used our Greek Matthew
in something like its
present shapeŽ); 84
on Poly.
. (The quotations have the appearance of having been made from memory ;
Uro for my awareness of this conflict in te
rminology regarding secondary oralityŽ; see
Thomas
and Oral,Ž 10, n. 11). On reoralizationŽ/re-oralizationŽ see S. Davis, The
Reoralization of
The
Lady of the Lake
,Ž in
(Re)Oralisierung
(ed. H. L. Tristram; Script
Oralia; Tübingen: Gunter
Narr, 1996), 335…60; C. Collins,
Reading the Written Image:
Verbal Play, Interpretation, and the Roots of Iconophobia
(University Park, Pa.: Penn-
sylvania State University Pr
ess, 1991), 159; M. Barnes, Oral Tradition and Hellenistic
Epic: New Directions in Apollonius of Rhodes,Ž
18 (2003): 57; J. S. Kloppenborg,
Variation in the Reproduction of the
Double Tradition and an Oral Q?,Ž
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
26:24, following Mk 14:21) shows significant
similarity to
while differing with it regarding the
Mk 9:42:
 \b\t
\t\t\t\f \n\t\n
\t( 
Matt 18:6:
\b\f%\t
\f\b&\f \n\t\n
\t( 
1 Cl.
\t
\t\b
\t\t\n \b\b
Mk 9:42:
\r\r \t\t\n \b\b
Matt 18:6:
\t\b
&& \t
\n \b\b
1 Clem.
!
 \f\t\b-\t
Mark 9:42:
\t\n\b \t\b&!\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
Matt 18:6:
\b \t\b&!\f\t\t\b\t\n\f
As with the saying in Mark, the Matthean and Clementine forms are so
similar in meaning that they probably go back to the same saying in the his-
tory of the tradition. As noted, Matthew follows Mark to a considerable ex-
tent, and is no closer to
1 Clement
than to Mark when it differs from the
latter, but for one notable exception: Matthew reads
\t\b&
in place
\r\r \t
1 Clement
\t\b\t
. We
will address this further below, when discussing the possible presence of
redactional material from the Evangelists in
46.8.
1 Clem.
\t
&&\t
Mk 14:21:
\t
&&\t
&\t)\t\n\t\t
Mt 26:24:
&&\t
&\t)\t\n\t\t
1 Clem.
46.8:
 "&\t
! \f\b \t\b\t
Mk 14:21:
 
&\t
'\n\t\n
Mt 26:24:
 "&\t
1 Clem.
46.8a:
\t&&
 "&\t
! \f\b
\t\b\t
Mt 18:7b…c:
 \t\b
 \t&
&\t)\b
'(\t
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
unlike in
2 Clement
, in Luke these two are separated by the intervening
 \n\t
). A majority of scholars is of
the opinion that these elements in
. 9.11 originated in the redac-
tional work of the evangelists, which implies that
2 Clement
the finished gospels of Matthew and Luke.
It is also possible, however, that
ClementŽ is dependent upon a source
held in common with Matthew and Luke and that influenced the evangel-
ists redaction of Mark … in which case
2 Clement
the finished form of the Gospels. That this is the case is suggested by two
main considerations: First, by the abse
nce of any sisterŽ or motherŽ lan-
guage in
2 Clement
. If this language was found in
source held in common by Matthew, Luke and
2 Clement
, then it is simple
enough to explain its presence or ab
sence in the latter three documents:
Matthew follows Mark in mentioning
both motherŽ and sister,Ž Luke
follows Mark to a certain extent in
mentioning motherŽ but … as in his
sisterŽ would have been implied any-
how in the inclusive
 %\t
nor sisterŽ because they were not in
his source. Otherwise one would have
to explain why, if ClementŽ is fo
llowing both Matthew and Luke, or a
he does not use the motherŽ and/or
sisterŽ language shared at least partially by both evangelists.
Secondly, that ClementŽ is not
w and Luke is
suggested by the absence in
2 Clement
of key redactional features of the
evangelists. In relation to Luke, while
. 9.11 shares the phrase
 %\t\f)\t\t\b\t\t
with Lk 8:21, it does
not share Lukes pairing of hear
ing and doing the word of God,
 
\n\t\t\n
, instead speaking of those who do the
will of my fatherŽ (
\t\n \f\n\f
). The pairing of
hearing and doing the word of God is
uniquely important in Lukes con-
text, as he has made it
the controlling thought for all of 8:4…21 in the way
he has rearranged and
In 8:4…15 Jesus gives
and explains the parable of the sower
Donfried,
Second Clement
, 73; Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
, 147…48;
Köhler,
Rezeption
, 137…39 (very possibleŽ); Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung
, 79;
Massaux,
Bibliography
zum Neuen Testament 18. Die Apostolischen Väter 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
Peabody, Berkley.
The Winged Word: A Study in the
Technique of Ancient Greek Oral
Composition as Seen Principally through Hesiods Works and Days.
Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1975.
Pearson, J.
Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii.
Cambridge: Hayes, 1672. Repr.
Ss. Patrum
qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera
. 2nd ed. Antwerp: Huguetaronum, 1698.
Penfield, J.
Communicating with Quotes: The Igbo Case.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood,
Perrin, Nicholas.
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
writing under consideration; and the de
gree of divergence of all of these
m the text of Matthew.
Köhler then details
how these interdependent criteria are to be applied so as to determine the
level of probability that any given passage is dependent on Matthew.
In
e specific passages he has considered,
and each writing in which they are found as a whole, according to the de-
gree to which they show evidence of a reception of Matthew. This he does
according to the following six categories: (1) probable, (2) possible to
improbable, and (6) reception of Matthew is excluded.
What of the place of oral tradition in
Köhlers study? In comparing the
work of Köhler to that of Massaux, William Schoedel finds an important
shift of emphasis in the work of the former, in that he is more open than
Massaux … at least in theory … to the possibility that the Apostolic Fathers
may have used oral tradition rather than written sources.
It is question-
immerhin doch, daß ab der Zeit Justins ge
nerell mit der Kenntnis des Mt gerechnet
werden kann; vor Justin ist für alle Schriften/Verfasser Mt-Kenntnis und -Benutzung
zumindest möglich;
nie war die Aufnahme vorsynop
tischer mündlicher Tradition
wahrscheinlich zu machen
found it necessary to appeal to oral tradition as a source puts
Köhler squarely within Massauxs camp. This is clear to Köhler himself:
specifically relating his findings to th
e positions of Massaux and Koester,
Ibid., 12…13.
Ibid., 13…14.
Ibid., 539…71; 1) Wahrscheinlich, 2) möglich bis wahrscheinlich, 3) möglich, aber
nicht zwingend, 4) möglich, aber nicht naheliegend, 5) unwahrscheinlich, and 6)
auszuschließen (for these categories see ibid
Schoedel, Review of Massaux and Köhler, 563. Köhler does allow in theory that
the sources of Jesus tradition that fed into Ma
tthews gospel continued to circulate after
the latter became a finished product, and may have been the source for Matthean-like
tradition in other Christian writers (
Rezeption
, 14…15). But he also sets himself up to opt
for a dependence on Matthew rather than on Matthews sources when he adds to the de-
velopment of his criteria that even documents in close proximity both geographically and
in time to Matthew quite possibly depend on
Matthew rather than Matthews sources; cf.
the comments in Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
Köhler,
Rezeption
, 525; emphasis added.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
Lk 6:37b…38b. Elsewhere in Matthew we
find only one parallel to the four
non-underlined sayings in Lk 6:37b, c
and 38a, b: the saying in Mt 6:14
that is similar in meaning to Lk 6:37c:
Lk 6:37c Mt 6:14
 $%\t\n
\t\n\f
\t \b\b#%\b\t\t\f\t\f\t\n
Despite the similarity of these tw
o sayings, upon closer inspection one
must conclude that Matthews sour
As suggested, e.g., by A. Plummer,
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
Overall, Tuckett concludes that the parallels between the
the Synoptics, including material with
parallels in the single, double, and
triple tradition, are best explained if the
gospels of Matthew and Luke.Ž
13:33, 35; Mt 24:42, 44; Lk 12:35 in ibid., 108…10) these are rather scattered in the tradi-
tion, and thus do not constitute true triple tradition.Ž
Ibid., 128.
10.3 Impact upon Larger Issues
10.3 Impact upon Larger Issues
The discussion in the preceding chapters has raised a number of questions
that, although tangential to the topic
at hand, are of great importance:
What, then, of the canonical Gospels?
What was the role of the gospel
texts in the communities represented by the Apostolic Fathers? Why did
the Apostolic Fathers not cite the Gospels directly? What implications does
their use of oral tradition have for
a four-gospel canon? How reliable was
the oral gospel tradition used by the evangelists if it functioned in the
manner here described?
One answer to these questions brings
us back to the heart of the present
work: people within predominantly oral cultures engaged texts in a certain
way. If Clement, when wishing to ma
ke a point about what Jesus taught
regarding gentleness and patience (
tion of sayings he knew from oral trad
ition, this does not necessarily say
anything about his access,
for example, to a written Gospel of Matthew. If
he had such access, is it likely that he would have unrolled a scroll of Mat-
With the
Didache
it is different, in that as a repository of a large amount of (mostly
implicit) Jesus tradition its relationship to the
tradition is similar to that of the Gospels.
Position was taken in ch. 7 above with those who cons
ider that the
Didache
and Matthew
arose out of a closely related milieu, and that
they were both informed by the same oral
tradition.
Index of Modern Authors
Achtemeier, Paul J. 7, 79, 81, 170, 215
Aland, Kurt 251, 257, 262
Albright, William Foxwell 115, 184
3.2 Orality and Literacy in the Ancient Mediterranean World
The above rates of literacy are not gi
ven for the purpose of dwelling on the
low attainment of literacy in these societies, but in order to draw attention
to the high rate of orality. Even with the presence of a limited degree of
literacy, these societies continued to function as oral societies, in which the
spoken word was given preference over the written.
This requires some
explanation.
From a strictly technol
ogical viewpoint, the pr
esence of the technology
of writing within a society did not imply its use in any given specific con-
text.
This informs our understanding of the well-known statement by Papias, that he
preferred a living and abiding voiceŽ over
what came out of booksŽ (in Eusebius,
, 3.39.4). Oral communication was
considered in some ways as
more reliable
what was written. For a full discussion see Byrskog,
Story as History
, 109…16. Of impor-
tance in the wider discussion of
literacy and orality
in antiquity is also ones definition of
literacyŽ; e.g., if one defines literacy not in
modern terms, but as an oral-written mas-
tery of a body of textsŽ reserved for a social elite (Carr,
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
theory proposed in 1936 by P. N. Harrison in his work
Polycarps Two
Epistles to the Philippians
The focus of Harrisons argument is the ap-
Harrison was not the first to challenge this
reading of the evidence in Polycarp, but
he merits special attention here, as he has exerted more influence that any other scholar
upon Polycarp studies over the last century.
Harrison bases his argument upon the previous work of Johannes Dallaeus,
8.3 Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans, 3.2a
argument against his opponents in
Based on these considera-
Ignatius is not paraphras-
ing Luke in his own words, but rath
er he and Luke both rely on a common
tradition.
For Schoedels full argument see his
Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the
Bibliography
Dragas, George D. Apostolic
Constitutions.Ž
Pages 92…93 in
Encyclopedia of Early
Christianity.
1.5 Parameters
discipled by somebody who had known,
dating for the Apostolic Fathers
carries implications for the Jesus tradition they contain. This was a time of
transition prior to the closing of the New Testament canon,
ing the widespread appeal to the ca
nonical Gospels that will characterize
Christian literature after Irenaeus.
It is also a time in which the oral tradi-
tion that informed the Gospels (and other writings) was still in use among
the churches.
This is, in part, why the Apostolic Fathers were chosen as
the focus of the present work that has oral Jesus tradition as its subject
matter.
Didache Created?: Insights into the Social
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
tion of tradition (meaning that not all or
al traditions are preserved, but only
those that remain socially relevant and acceptable) could be taken to imply
that the tradition is subservient to the community. But, as addressed al-
ready in chapter 1 above, traditions
are not only shaped but also
communities.
In the case of Jesus tradition, the authority of the Lord to
whom it was attributed gave it power
to transform social contexts and
shape them after the expectations of
its message. One thus must allow for
the possibility that the Jesus tradition would not have been passively pre-
served only by those whose social loca
tion caused it to ring true to them,
but would shape a community after itself
of the tradition), in light of its authority.
All of these issues will be addressed as the discussion of individual
passages unfolds in the chapters that
follow. While the above issues are
offered for consideration as pertaining
to the whole of the Jesus tradition to
be examined, others will also arise that are more pertinent to a particular
passage under considerati
d in that context.
3.5 Giving Scribality a Fair Hearing ... in Light of Orality
The choice to focus upon oral tradition as
providing the best answer to the
question of the sources of the Jesus tr
adition in most of the Apostolic Fa-
thers does not imply that other possibilities will be ignored. There are other
viable ways to explain the variability within stability that is the hallmark of
oral transmission, and this study will seek to give a fair hearing to earlier
theories regarding the dependence of
the Apostolic Fathers upon the writ-
ten Gospels.
The theoretical approach that will be given preference in this regard is
the redactional criterion de
veloped by Koester and
See above sections 1.6 (sub-titled Definition of Oral TraditionŽ) and 3.3.10 (So-
cially IdentifiedŽ), and further Schwartz Christian Origins,Ž 45…46; Kelber, Works of
Memory,Ž 234; Olick, Products, Processes, and Practices,Ž 13.
Cf. Kelbers critique of G. Theissen in
Oral and Written
6.2 The Relationship of 1 Clem. 46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
6.2 The Relationship of
1 Clem.
46.8 to its Gospel Parallels
In turning to consider the possibility
that Clement of Rome depended upon
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
no Lukan parallel, which makes it very unlikely that ClementŽ is citing
Lukan tradition.
This third point is strengthened by the observation that
part of the saying in Luke 16:10
\t (\t\b&'\t\n\t &'\t\n\b\t
In sum, it is
almost certain that
8.5 is not a direct quotation from Luke, and it is
also highly unlikely that it presuppos
es the finished form of Luke.
The words that introduce the saying in
. 8.5 are potentially rele-
\t\t\n& \t&
(For the Lord says in the gospelŽ). What the specification
&
 \t&
might imply, however, is not
clear. During this period the
meaning of the term
 \t
was fairly ambiguous: it could mean (a) in
general terms either the good newsŽ proclaimed by Jesus or the oral proc-
lamation about Jesus in the early church,
or (b) beginning in this period
and more common in later decades, sp
ecifically the four written narratives
about Jesus life that b
It is not possible to
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963], 508, and he is cited and followed by Don-
fried,
Second Clement
Bibliography
Neil, William.
The Acts of the Apostles.
New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans/London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981.
…. The Criticism and Theological
Use of the Bible
1700…1950.Ž Pages 238…93 in
The
Cambridge History of the Bible,
The West from the Reformation to the Pre-
sent Day.
Edited by S. L. Greenslade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Neill, Stephen, and Tom Wright.
The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861…1986.
2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Neirynck, Frans. Preface to the Reprint.Ž Pages xi…xix in vol. 1 and xiii…xxi in vols. 2
and 3 of
The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before
Saint Irenaeus
, by Édouard Massaux. Translated by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne
Hecht. Edited and with
an introduction and addenda by Arthur J. Bellinzoni. New
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
spective that has been greatly influen
ced by the work of B. Gerhardsson,
views the oral transmission of Jesus sayings as a fairly stable process.
Accordingly, these two scholars differ considerably in their assessment of
how the oral tradition of Jesus saying
s in the Apostolic Fathers might be
of use to the historian. For Koester, these sayings are of very little value in
determining what Jesus might have actually said, but are still valuable for
the historian: he argues that by identifying their
Sitz im Leben
within the
words of Jesus
[from the catechism represented in
1 Clem
. 13.2 and from others like it] …
with various degrees of success. But that is a question which the early church did not
ask
. For the early church, it was important to
possess a canon of virtues authorized by
being spoken by the risen LordŽ (pp. 61…62; emphasis added). Koester gives a similar
example from
. 1.3: while Jesus taught Love your enemies,Ž this was changed to
read what we find in the
Didache
: Pray for your enemies.Ž Though Polycarp in
comes closeŽ to quoting Jesus teaching as
found in Mt 5:44 (Love your enemies and
pray for those who persecute youŽ), he does not do so. Koester surmises, Only those
sentences that are useful for his practical
advice on prayer are repeated. This clearly
shows how Jesus radicalization of the commandment of loving ones enemies was ren-
dered innocuous by being transformed into an admonition for prayerŽ (ibid., 62). Noting
. 1.3 continues, ...and fast for your persecutors,Ž Koester concludes, No paral-
lel exists to this command in
the texts of the canonical Gospels. The need to enforce the
rules of fasting in addition to those for prayer produced a new formulation by analogy to
a traditional saying of JesusŽ (ibid., 63). Though Koesters argument is not implausible,
one must wonder why one is held to the form of one saying as found in the Gospels: Je-
sus probably taught about ones relationship to
ones enemies on more than one occasion,
and may have spoken about praying and fasting for ones enemies and persecutors in so
many words. Oral tradition can accommodate similar sayings of Jesus uttered on separate
occasions. The assumption that only the Matthean
form contains material that finds its
Sitz im Leben
in Jesus own proclamation seems to go
against the very point of Koesters
article under examination. Koester also argues that the church adopted Jewish rules ac-
cording to its needs and transfor
med them into sayings of JesusŽ (ibid., 66, see also ibid.,
64…65) … yet Jesus
as a Jewish teacher
almost certainly adopted and ta
ught Jewish rules.
Esp. as developed in Gerhardsson,
Memory
; idem,
Tradition
; and the essays re-
printed in idem,
Reliability
. For a brief overview of Gerhardssons work see sec. 1.4.2
above.
See Hagner, Sayings,Ž 249…59; idem,
Clement of Rome
, 303…4, fuller treatment in
ibid., 303…12; idem, foreword to Gerhardsson,
Reliability
, vii…xvi, esp. pp. x…xvi.
Koester, Extracanonical,Ž esp. pp. 74…76.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
the sayings in Q 6:36…38.
While the first of these cases has no material
bearing on the present argument,
the second is of crucial importance, in
Another two items that catch the eye are explainable in terms of Matthean redac-
tion: (a) As already noted, Matthew has tran
splanted the Golden Rule from its place in
the SP (Q 6:31) to a later place in the SM. Following the pattern of the parallels, one
would expect to find this saying in the range of Mt 5:42…46. By removing the Golden
Rule from its Q context of love of enemie
s and placing it in its pr
esent context in Mt
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
tion, the texts of the prayer do not
provide enough information upon which
to base a decision. It would be impos
sible within the parameters of this
study, however, to compare all of the implicit Jesus tradition that has been
identified in the
to its Matthean and other Synoptic parallels.
In
lieu of that approach, the bulk of the discussion that follows will take the
form of an interaction with one of th
topic of the Jesus tradition in the
. In the process of interacting
with the premises and conclusions of
literature on the topic, we will offer our own perspective on the sources of
the Jesus tradition in the
, including the Lords Prayer.
Jefford lists 32 different texts in the
Didache
with parallels in the Synoptics plus
one with a parallel to the
Jesus saying in Acts 20:35 (
Sayings of Jesus
10.2 Characteristics of Oral Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers
these, four closely interrelated characteristics are consistently true of the
oral Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers examined above:
portant in passing
on tradition within predominantly oral
cultures, because knowledge that is
not continually recycled orally is lost. While new performances of the tra-
dition will include new elements, originality in this process does not con-
sist in inventing new materials, but in adapting the tradition to new
situations.
In the Apostolic Fathers prior to
2 Clement
, i.e. in those whose use of
tain or very likely, we did not find
any sayings that departed in meaning from their parallels in the pre-
synoptic tradition (as far as this
: in the preceding chapters we have often
referred to variability within stability as one of the hallmarks of the reten-
on: without stability, it would not be
ility, it would not be oral.Ž
The variability is present in
. 2.3, in the
tions, verb forms and tenses, and synony
as well as in the order of words and sayings. Variability greatly decreases
with the Lords Prayer in
. 8.2, in keeping with the greater tenacity of
oral liturgical tradition. Similarly, variability greatly decreases in short
proverbial sayings such as those found in
9.5 and Poly.
to a lesser extent in Ign.
Variability, however, is balanced out by the overarching stability of the
nt (Conservative or TraditionalistŽ),
this stability finds expression in a consistent meaning within the variability
of form.
: the integrity of a tradition in an oral
context depends on the traditionists ab
ility to accurately recall it, requir-
In addition to the characteristics of orality
that will be our focus below, we also
noted in analyzing
1 Clem.
46.8 that it provides an example of the
redundancy
that char-
acterizes oral tradition: in conflating two sayings, the phrases
! \f
\b \t\b\t
and
! \f\t\b-\t
Index of Ancient Sources
5. Rabbinic Literature
Mekilta
Ex. 13:19 116
Ex. 13:21 116
Ex. 14:25 116
Ex. 15:3 116
Ex. 15:5 116
Ex. 15:8 116
Ex. 17:14 116
Mishnah
m. Temurah
Tosefta
t. So
t. Temurah
Babylonian Talmud
b. Bekorot
b. —abbat
b. Sanhedrin
b. Temurah
Palestinian Talmud
y. Ketubbot
er —eni
2.53c 227
Targumic Literature
Targum Isaiah
27:8 116
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Gen 38:26
6. Other Greco-Roman and Jewish Writings
2 Baruch
29:5 287…88,
10:4…11:2 288
10:19 287…88,
38:2 188,
2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse)
41:2 193
44:5 116
4 Ezra
7:28 288
8:3
9:15 27
10:57 27
13:24 288
Josephus
Antiquitates judaicae
4.209-11 75
Abbreviations
XIV
FSC Faith and Scholarship Colloquie
s (Trinity Press International)
FTMT Fortress Texts in Modern Theology (Fortress)
GBSNTS Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series (Fortress)
GFB Garland Folklore Bibliographies
GRLH Garland Reference
Library of the Humanities
HHM Harvard Historical Monographs (Harvard University Press)
HJ Historisches Jahrbuch
HSHJ Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus
. Ed. Tom Holmén and
Stanley E. Porter. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011
HTCNT Herders Theological Commentary on the New Testament
JGGPÖ Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in

The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy
JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
KTAH Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge)
LBS Linguistic Biblical Studies (Brill)
LJS Lives of Jesus Series (Fortress)
LkR Lukan Redaction
LTT Library of Theological Translations (James Clarke)
MattR Matthean Redaction
MnS Supplements to
Mnemosyne (Brill)
NAl Nueva Alianza (Ediciones Sígueme)
NC Narrative Commentaries (Trinity Press International)
NGC New German Critique
NGS New Gospel Studies (Mercer)
NLH New Literary History
NTAF The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers
. By a Committee of the
3.2 Orality and Literacy in the Ancient Mediterranean World
literacy during this period would have been much lower, probably not
much higher than 3%.
On the above see Bar-Ilan, Illiteracy in Is
rael,Ž 46…61, esp. 56; generally corroborated
by Hezser,
Jewish Literacy
, who, however, leaves open th
e possibility that the literacy
rate might have been slightly higher than 3% (p. 496); see also Jaffee,
Torah in the
Mouth
, 15…16, 22. Synagogues would have been important centers of education in this
period (see Riesner,
Jesus als Lehrer
, 123…53), but
education
need not imply
literacy
A. Millard posits a higher level of literacy
in Palestine than do
Bar-Ilan and Hezser,
but his evidence is questionable at best (
Reading and Writing
, 154…58). For example,
A History of Early Christian Texts
(New Haven and London:
Yale University Press,
Chapter 5: Jesus Tradition in
Polycarp, Philippians, 2.3
I) Pol.
\f\t
\t!\f\t
1 Clem.
13.2:
\n\t
!\n\t
\b\b
Mt 7:1:
\f\t
\t!\f\t
Mt 7:2a:
)&\t\f\t\t
\t
\b\b
Lk 6:37a:

\t\f\t
\t\f\t
Lk 6:37b:

\t\f\t,\t\f\t\b
Cl.
Strom
\n\t
!\n\t
\b\b
Didasc
)&\t\f\t\t
\t
\b\b

\t\n\t,\t\b\b\b
II) Pol.
\t%\b\t\f\t
1 Clem.
\t!%
&\f\t
Mt 6:14:
$%

\t\n\t\n
%
\b\t\t\f\t
\f
\f\t\n
Mk 11:25:
\t'\t'(
\t!\t
\f\t\n
\t\n
&\f\t

\f\f
Lk 6:37c:
 \t
 \b\b
Didasc

\t%\b\t\f\t
Ps.Mac.

\t%\b\t\f\t
III) Pol.
 
\t! 
1 Clem.
13.2:
 
\t! 
Mt 5:7:
\f\n!\t\t 
\b\t
Lk 6:36:

\t\b\t\t\f\n\n*\t+\f
\t\t\f\b\t
Lk 6:37c:
 \t \b\b
Cl
Strom
. 2.91.2:
 
%\b\t\t\n\t! 
IV) Pol.
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
g)
1 Clem.
)&\f&\f\t
&\f\b\t\f\t
Mt 7:2b
:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
Mk 4:24c:
)&\f&\f\t
\f\b\t\f\t
\t\b\b\t\f\t
Luke 6:38c:
\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
Cl.
Strom
. 2.91.2:
&)\f&\f\t
\t\f\b\t\f\t
V) Pol.
Phil
. 2.3:
\t!\t
\f\t\t\t(\t
\f\t
!\t\t\b\n
Mt 5:3:
\f\t\t\t(\t
&\f\t
Mt 5:10:
\t
\f\t
!\t\t\b\n
Lk 6:20b:
\f\t\t\t(\t
Pol.
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t
Mt 5:3:
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t

Mt 5:10:
!\t
\b\t\r\b\t \t

Lk 6:20b:
!\t
\f\b\t\r\b\t \t
8.3 Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans, 3.2a
tradition that circulated in the closely related communities of Matthew and
the Didachist. From there Matthew incorporated it, along with other M ma-
terial, into his gospel, and from there also the Didachist incorporated it into
his manual (that the Didachist used it in isolation from any other material
in the Jesus tradition is probably due to
the sayings proverbial nature). If
this hypothesis is correct, the saying
provides an example (when compared
to Matthew 7:6) of the ability of oral
tradition to retain short proverb-like
sayings verbatim. It also illustrates how oral tradition could be applied to
new situations, as a saying spoken by Jesus prior to the institution of the
Eucharist was later applied to a Eucharistic setting.
8.3 Ignatius,
\t\f\t\t\f\t\b\f
Lk 24:39:

- %\b\f\t\t'!\t
\f\b\t\b'(\t\n\f\t'(
This is the only explicit appeal to Jesus tradition in Ignatius. In seeking to
ascertain its source, two main lead
s … both equally unfruitful … suggest
themselves: (a) what ancient writers have to say in this regard, and (b) de-
pendence upon the Gospel of Luke.
(a) In
, 16, Jerome identifies the source of Ignatius
Gospel according to the Hebrews
Based on a number of problems with Jeromes claim, however, it
becomes clear that he is relying not
on his own reading of Ignatius or of
See P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, Jewish-Christian Gospels,Ž in
New Testament
Apocrypha
(ed. W. Schneemelcher; Cambridge: James Clarke/Louisville: Westminster/
Bibliography
Davis, Sioned. The Reoralization of
The
Lady of the Lake
.Ž Pages 335…360 in
(Re)Oralisierung.
Edited by Hildegard L. Tristram. ScriptOralia. Tübingen: Gunter
DeConick, April D. The Gospel of Thomas.Ž
Expository Times
118 (2007): 469…79.
Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and its Growth.
Library of New Testament Studies 286. Early Christianity in Context. New York:
T&T Clark International, 2005.
Deeks, David G. Papias Revisited.Ž
Expository Times
88 (1976…77): 296…301, 324…29.
Dehandschutter, Boudewijn. The Epistle of Polycarp.Ž Pages 117…33 in
The Apostolic
Fathers: An Introduction
. Edited by Wilhelm Pratscher. Waco, Tex.: Baylor Univer-
sity Press, 2010.
…. Ignatian Epistles.Ž Pages 406…407 in vol. 6 of
Religion Past and Present: Encyclope-
dia of Theology and Religion.
Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd
Janowski and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill,
…. The New Testament and the
Martyrdom of Polycarp
.Ž Pages 395…405 in
Trajectories
through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers.
Edited by Andrew Gregory
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
pure literary societies was an oversimplification.
Yet, as will be covered
in more depth in chapter 3 below, evidence shows that literacy among Jews
in Israel in the first century
might have been slightly higher than
3%, and mostly limited to the scribal elite.
One can therefore speak of
Jewish society in first-century Palestine as predominantly oral.
In addi-
tion, there is nothing in the Gospels
to indicate that Jesus chose his disci-
ples from the literate 3% minority, and many indications to the contrary.
Gerhardssons model is c
fully literate, and ceases to be so if
their literacy is questioned. In sum,
popular movements within predominantly
See R. Finnegan,
Literacy and Orality: Studies in
of Communica-
tion
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), 62; J. M. Foley, The Bards Audience Is Always More
Than a Fiction,Ž in
Time, Memory, and the Verbal Arts: Essays on the Thought of Walter
(ed. D. L. Weeks and J. Hoogestraa
t; Selinsgrove: Susque
hanna University
Press/London: Associated University Presses, 1998), 95…96; idem,
Homers Traditional
Art
, 3; idem, Whats In a Sign,Ž 3; R. Thomas,
Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece
(KTAH; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 4.
See sec. 3.2 below, entitled Orality and Literacy in the An
cient Mediterranean
World,Ž and M. Bar-Ilan, Illiter
acy in the Land of Israel in
the First Centuries C.E,Ž in
Essays in the Social Scientific St
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
insight into the overall flexibility within stability that characterized the
oral transmission of these narrative traditions within early Christianity.
Based on their community use and setting, one may locate different
types of oral traditions within early Christianity along two related con-
tinua, the first a scale of formalŽ to
In general terms, the more formal th
The line of thinking for what follows arose from my reading of K. Baileys In-
formal,Ž 34…54, and Middle Eastern,Ž 363…67 (cf. the comments in Bauckham,
Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses
, 271…73; idem, Transmission of the Gospel Traditions,Ž 381).
Though weaknesses have been identified in Baileys work (see T. J. Weeden, Kenneth
Baileys Theory of Oral Tradition: A Theory Contested by Its Evidence,Ž
7 [2009]:
3…43, and the reply by J. D. G. D
unn, Kenneth Baileys Theory of Oral Tradition: Cri-
tiquing Theodore Weedens Critique,Ž
7 [2009]: 44…62), the basic idea that tradi-
tions transmitted in different contexts, for di
fferent purposes, were also preserved with
varying degrees of stability, matches the evid
ence examined in
the remainder of the pre-
sent work. Baileys use of distinct categorie
s for classifying the reliability of traditions,
however, remains problematic, which is why I
have used continua in the present work.
While one may with some confidence assign certa
6.1 Introduction
1 Cl.
\t
&&\t
Mk 14:21b:
\t
&&\t
&\t)\t\n\t\t
Mt 26:24b:
&&\t
&\t)\t\n\t\t
Lk 22:22b:
 \t
&&\t
&\t)\t\t
Mt 18:7b…c:
 \t\b 
 \t
&
&\t)\b '(\t
Lk 17:1b…c:
\b\t\b \f \t

 \t
\t)'(\t
Str
\t
&&\t
%\b\t\t\n#
1 Cl.
 "&\t! \f\b \t\b\t
Mk 14:21c:
 
&\t
Mt 26:24c:
 "&\t
Str.
 "&\t
\f! \f\b \t\b\t
1 Cl.
\t"&\t\t\f 
Mk 9:42b:
 \b\t&
\f \t\t\t\t\f 
\n\t\n
\t( 
Mt 18:6b:

\b\f%\t
&\t!\f\b&\f 
\n\t\n
\t( 
Lk 17:2a:

\b\t \t
\t\n\t\t\t
\t( 
Str
\t"&\t\t\f 
1 Cl.
\t\t\b\t
\t\n \b\b
Mk 9:42b:
\t\n \b\b
Mt 18:6b:
\t\b
&& \t
\n \b\b
Lk 17:2a:
'\t\t
\t\n \b\b
Str
\t\t\b\t
\t\n
 \b\b
1 Clem.
46.8f:
! \f\t\b-\t
Mk 9:42a:
\t\n\b \t\b&!
\f\t
\t\b\t\n\f
Mt 18:6a:
@/\n\b \t\b&!
\f\t
\t\b\t\n\f
Lk 17:2b:
\b \t\b&
\f\t!
Str
! \f\t\b-\t
Textual notes:
1 Cl.
 "&\t! \f
\b \t\b\t
: here we follow Ehrman, Funk as revised by Bihlmeyer, Holmes, Jaubert,
and Lightfoot in reading

, supported by A, against the
\f
and Clem. Alex.; see Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1:118; Bihlmeyer,
Apostolischen Väter
Text here (and in remainder of synopsis under similar notations) is that of Clem.
Stom
. 3.18.107; the full reference did not fit within the width of the synopsis.
Greek text of Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis
iii taken from PG 8:1209c. Other
partial parallels to the saying(s) of Jesus in
1 Clem.
46.8 appear in Christian literature
that is either too late or too clearly depend
ent upon the Gospels to include in our treat-
ment here; for a discussion see Hagner,
Clement of Rome
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
the first gospel to Matthews redaction of Mark.
It is likely that Clement
of Alexandria and Justin Martyr provi
ence of the Matthean form of the saying in the early church, as they also

In light of the above consid-
erations, it is possible that
6.2, while not citing Matthew directly,
It is also possible, however,
that the

2 Clement
s sources. The entire saying in
which would lend itself to fairly stable
transmission within the oral tradi-
tion, and this may be how it became av
nt.Ž We will re-
serve judgment on this issue until we have examined the other sayings.
2 Clement
\t\t\n& \t&#$\t
\f\t\b\f\t\n
\f\t\b\t; \f\t!\t\t\b\n (\t\b&\t &\t\b\n\b\t 
Bibliography
McGrath, James F. Written Islands in an Oral Stream: Gospel and Oral Traditions.Ž
Pages 3…12 in
Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn
for His 70th Birthday
. Edited by B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson and Douglas C.
Mohrmann. Library of New Testament Studies 414. London and New York: T&T
Clark International, 2009.
McIver, Robert K., and Marie Carroll. Exper
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
scholars has provided the starting point
for many studies, which while add-
ing various nuances, have
essentially sought to s
these two basic views.
2.4 Furthering Koesters Conclusi
ons: Donald A. Hagner (1985)
In an important article
published in 1985, Donald A. Hagner gives as his
purpose to examine the extent to wh
ich the Apostolic Fathers drew upon
the written Gospels or the gospel tradition, the way in which such material
is utilized, and the esteem in which it is held.Ž
Like Koester, Hagner
stresses the importance of taking oral
tradition into account in explaining
the particular shape the Jesus tradition is given in the Apostolic Fathers.
Also like Koester, he recognizes th
e importance of specialized elements
within the introductory formulas (where
these are found) in pointing to an
While clarifying that the Apostolic Fathers probably drew on a multi-
plicity of sources, both written and oral,
Hagner finds stronger evidence
for dependence on oral tradition than on the written Gospels in
1 Clement
(13.2; 46.8), Polycarps
Epistle to the Philippians
Hagner, Sayings,Ž 233…34. As
its title indicates (Sayings of Jesus in the Apos-
tolic Fathers and Justin Martyr
Ž), in this article Hagner al
so deals with the Jesus tradi-
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
Chapter 7: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache
sent chapter, and an isolated saying in 9.5, to be treated later in chapter 8.
We turn, then, to examine the Lords Prayer in
. 8.2, beginning with
our customary text and synopsis.
Didache
\f\b(\b\n\t\t\t \n
 \b\t\n& \t&
!\b(\b#
:\f&&
\t\b'\f\b
 \r\b\t \t\b
 \f\b\n
'\f\t\b\t\n\f\t\b\f
\t'%\n\f\t%\t \f\n\t
\f\t\n%\t\f\t\n%\t \t\n\f
\t\n\t\b\f \b\t
\f\n#
!\t\b\b\t\f\t\n\t
9\t\n\n\t\n

\f
\b(\b
\n\t\t\t
Mt 6:5:

5\t!\b(\b
'\b\b\n
\t\t\t
 \n \b\t\n
& \t&!
\b(\b
Mt 6:9:

!
\n"\b(\b
\f\t\n
Lk 11:2:
!\b(\b
 
:\f
&
&\t\b'\f\b
Mt 6:9:
:\f
\t\n
\t\n\t\b'\f\b
Lk 11:2:
:
\t\b'\f\b
 \r\b\t \t\b
\f\b\n
Mt 6:10:
 \r\b\t \t\b
\f\b\n
Lk 11:2:
 \r\b\t \t\b
'\f\t\b\t\n\f\t\b\f
Mt 6:11:
'\f\t\b\t\n\f\t\b\f
Lk 11:3:
'\f\t\b\t
\t\f\t
\f
\t'%\n\f\t
%\t 
\f
Mt 6:12a:
\t'%\n\f\t
\f
Lk 11:4:
\t'%\n\f\t
\n\f\t\n\f
\n\t\f\t\n%
\t\n%\t \t\n\f
Mt 6:12b:
\f
\t\n%\t \t\n\f
Lk 11:4:
\t%\t
\t%\t
\t\f
\t\f\t\b&\n\f\n
\t\n\t\b\f \b
\t\f\n
Mt 6:13:

\t\f\t\b&\n\f\n
\t\n\t\b\f \b
\t\f\n
Lk 11:4:
\t\f\t\b&\n\f\n\t\n\t\b\f


10.1 Oral-Traditional Sources
in the Apostolic Fathers
ety of early Christian documents with parallels to these sayings, both ca-
nonical and non-canonical; and (3) the va
See comments in sec. 6.3 above, and further Beaton, How Matthew Writes,Ž 116;
Mattila, Question Too Ofte
n Neglected,Ž 202, 213…17.
Index of Ancient Sources
Ignatius of Antioch
Ephesians
40, 43
Magnesians
Polycarp
Intro. 153
Romans
Smyrneans
Intro. 153
49, 61
3.2
Trallians
Papias (Fragments)
(Ehrman, LCL)
1.5
3.39.15…16 59, 141
Polycarp to the Philippians
2.3
66, 101, 107…8, 109…
7.2
9
13
4. Other Early Christian Literature
Apocalypse of Paul
Apocryphon of James
Apostolic Constitutions
4.2
Augustine
Confessions
Clement of Alexandria
Table of Contents
XII
2 Clement
2 Clement
2 Clement
12.2, 6
2 Clement
9.3 Assessing the Evidence from the Jesus Sayings in
2 Clement
9.4 The Sources of Jesus Tradition in
2 Clement
: Written or Oral?
10.1 Oral-Traditional Sources in the Apostolic Fathers
10.2 Characteristics of Oral Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers
10.3 Impact upon Larger Issues ƒ.ƒ.ƒ.ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ283
Appendix: The Fragments of Papias
Fragment 1.1b…5 (Iren.
Fragment 13.2 (George Hamartolos,
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects
3.1 Orality in Oral-Derived Texts
transmitted, but also in terms of a certain meter, catch phrases, etc.), it
would be natural for one familiar with that tradition to incorporate the dis-
tinctive characteristics of said language into a written composition (to the
right of continuum b in the above
graph) in order to elicit a response
from the reader similar to what was expected of what was up to then exclu-
sively a listening audience.
This is further complicated, in terms of trac-
ing the oral or written origins of any
given material, by the fact that the
See Foley, Bards Audience,Ž 93…94. This is a central point in D. M. Carr,
Writ-
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
sayings in 13.2 from this block of trad
ition. In addition, it argued that per-
haps this block of tradition, rather th
an Q, was also the source for the par-
allel sayings in Luke. Internally, the conclusion that
from oral tradition is based upon indicat
ors of orally-con
such as the stylized form of the sayings, their rhythmic pattern, and their
rhyming endings (described above as
a very uniform string of sound-alike
maxims that are very similar in meaningŽ), all of which indicates that a
posed on the material. The introduc-
tory words that preface
\f\f\f\t \t
\b\n  \b
) also support the conclusion that they derived from
oral tradition.
That the sayings of Jesus in
13.2 are oral tradition set in writ-
ing makes them the suitable object of
study in seeking to understand both
the characteristics of oral tradition
and how it might ha
Christian antiquity. The transmission of oral tradition is not characterized
by verbatim similarity, as is the case of literary dependence between texts,
but by variability within stability. By focusing upon the variability, one
can identify how oral tradition was shaped in any given performance to
address specific needs within a community, thus maintaining its relevance,
or how a traditionist might have applied mnemonic techniques to a tradi-
tion (with the implied freedom to chance its wording and/or structure) in
order to facilitate its r
ecall and performance. The flexibility of the tradition
allows for a traditionist to emphasize certain elements and leave out others,
making explicit in certain performances elements that in others might re-
main implicit. By focusing on the stability one can ascertain the continuity
in transmission implied by the word tradition.Ž In certain cases this conti-
nuity finds expression at the level of meaning, while the tradition is
letely different wording.
The overall goal for this chapter, as
begin to demonstrate that the presuppos
8.2 Didache 9.5
will be followed by any relevant conclusions, and these conclusions will be
gathered and summarized at the end of the chapter.
8.2
Didache
9.5
\t\t\t'
\t\n#6!\t\t\n\b\t
For also the Lord has said about this, D
o not give what is holy to the dogs.Ž
Did.
9.5:
6!\t\t\n\b\t
Mt 7:6:
6!\t\t\n\b\t
Some have argued that the
is dependent on Matthew for this say-
ing,
but there is no compelling evidence to support such a contention. In
light of the wider discussion of Jesus tradition in the
in the previ-
ous chapter, it is more likely that Matthew and the Didachist depended
Though the saying is worded almost exactly alike in Matthew as in the
(Matthew reads
in place of the
), it is the
type of proverbial saying
E.g., Massaux,
, 3:156.
See ch. 7 above, esp. literature cited in nn. 28 and 29 on p. 210.
Bibliography
Texts from the Greco-Roman Era.
Edited by James H. Charlesworth with Mark Hard-
ing and Mark Kiley. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994.
Chase, Frederic H.
The Lords Prayer in the Early Church.
Texts and Studies: Contribu-
tions to Biblical and Patristic Literature
3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Chilton, Bruce. Apostolic
Constitutions.Ž
Pages 37…38 in
Religious and
Philosophical Writings in
Late Antiquity: Pagan, Judaic, Christian.
Editors in Chief
Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck.
Consulting Editor William Scott Green. Lei-
den: Brill, 2007.
Clabeaux, John. The Eucharistic Prayers from
Didache
9 and 10.Ž Pages 260…266 in
Prayer from Alexander to Cons
tantine: A Critical Anthology.
Edited by Mark Kiley,
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
from the recollection of the hearer(s).
The exception would be a case in
which a speaker repeats the same lines
over and over with no variation, so
as to drum them into the head of the hearer(s). Gerhardssons model pic-
tures Jesus as doing precisely this,
but also precisely this is being called
into question here (among other things) due to the lack of evidence for this
kind of activity among Jesus followers, either in the Gospels or in other
early Christian sources.
(3) A third problem with Gerhardssons model is that, even though it
has been instrumental in drawing scholarly attention to issues related to
oral transmission of tradition, it requi
res too high a level of literacy from
This is where the present study departs
most fundamentally from Gerhardsson.
Given both the evanescent nature
idence for Jesus making the disciples
learn his teaching by rote memorizati
ples simply could not have done the
things Gerhardsson describes without
For further discussion of this character
istic of oral tradition see secs. 3.3.5 and
3.3.10 below.
See Gerhardsson,
Memory
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
roughly five centuries after the ha
ppenings that are its subject matter.
In
contrast, the period of transmission of the Jesus tradition prior to reaching
the earliest Apostolic Fathers was only five-plus decades (possibly much
less if, e.g., one dates the
in the mid-first century
See the similar remarks in Bauckham, Transmission of the Gospel Traditions,Ž
381. On historical memory in the
Iliad
see Kullmann, Historical Memory.Ž
As noted above (n. 87 on pp. 24…25), there are scholars who argue for a mid-first-
century date for the
Didache
, such as Robinson,
Redating
, 322…27, esp. 327; Milavec,
Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life
, xii…xiii; idem, When, Why and for Whom.Ž
This is true of the Apostolic Father
s in general unless one were to date
5.4 Assessing Where We Stand
fulŽ (Lk 6:35c…36). In place of the Golden Rule … do to others as you would
have them do to you … the Lukan Jesus se
been done to you by the One Perfect Role Model.
rm from which to make an obser-
vation about Jesus tradition in genera
l: one cannot afford to be dogmatic
when speaking of the meaning of isolated sayings (such as the Jesus say-
ings in the Apostolic Fathers), since one does not have access to the wider
context of the tradition that might lead to a more informed opinion. The
Gospels, as large repositories of tr
adition, contain sufficient information
for one to be able to nuance one saying
of Jesus with another in its wider
context. For example, th
e difference in meaning
In the following verse, Lk 6:37, three sayi
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
2 Clem
& \t\t\f\f
\b\f%\f\t\b\t
Mt 6:24c:
\b
& \t\t\f\f
Lk 16:13c:
\b
& \t\t\f\f
2 Clem
\t
'% \n
\t\n
Mt 16:26:
\t
\b\t'\n
Mk 8:36:
\t
\t'\b\t
Lk 9:25:
\t
\t\t'\n\b\n
Cl.
Str.
\t
'% \n
Jus.
\t
\t\t'\n
2 Clem
\b\f! \b&-(
,\f\t
Mt 16:26:
\b\f! \b&-(
,\f\t
Mk 8:36:
\b\f! 
\t,\f\t
-(
;
Lk 9:25:
\b\f! 

\b\n,\f\t
Cl.
Str.
\b\f
\b
%\b\t-(
 \b&\n;
Jus.
\b\f! \b&-(
 \b&;
A basic problem confronting the interpreter here is to decide where the
cited words of Jesus end and the word
s of ClementŽ begin. Given that
6.1c is worded in the firs
t person plural … If we [
\f\t\n
] wish to serve as
slaves of both God and wealth, it is of no gain to us [
\f\t
]Ž … and is con-
structed quite differently than its gospel parallels, some scholars consider
that this phrase is ClementsŽ explanatory interjection rather than part of
his citation of Jesus words.
On this premise the explicit appeal to Jesus
tradition would be limited to
6.1a…b and 6.2. It is probably best, however,
to consider the entire passage as a cita
tion of Jesus words. The presence of
a verbatim correspondence not just to
/\t\n\t\n
\t\b\t\t\t\n \t
& \t
\t\f\f&
) in the
of the two gospel parallels (Mt 6:24a,c//Lk
chance. It stands to reason that if
Bibliography
Loofs, F.
Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen
Quellen bei Irenaeus.
Texte und Untersuchungen 46. Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1
Lord, Albert B. Characteristics of Orality.Ž
Oral Tradition
2.1 [Festschrift for Walter J.
Ong] (1987): 54…72.
…. The Gospels as Oral Trad
itional Literature
.Ž Pages 33…91 in
The Relationships
Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue.
Edited by William O. Walker, Jr.
Trinity University Monograph Series in Re
ligion 5. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity Uni-
versity Press, 1978.
…. Memory, Fixity, and Genre in Or
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
Fathers were dir
ectly dependent upon
often to the use of oral tradition.
Cf. C. F. D. Moule, Review of Koester
Synoptische Überlieferung
n.s. 9
(1958): 369.
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
argument that most concerns us by
showing, based upon a number of struc-
tural and other formal resemblances,
that a relationship existed between
Not only does the content [of
1 Clem.
13.2] overlap with portions of Q 6:27…36, 37…38,
but there are formal resemblances. The pairing of the first two commands (both have an
imperative +
) recalls the pairing of imperatives in Q 6:27…30 and 37…38. The string
of four similar sentences (3…6, all with
) is analogous to the groups of four in
the very same Q texts. That the fina
l unit, with its introductory dative (
)&\f&
), breaks
the parallelism of the preceding commands puts one in mind of Q 6:38, which similarly
breaks the parallelism of its passage … and with
the very same saying, that about getting
back the measure one gives.
Allison then proceeds to marshal significant evidence that suggests that
prior to its incorporation into Q, th
lated as an independent, cohesive block of tradition, to which
is a witness.
His argument rests not only upon the noted resemblances
removes any misunderstanding of the sense of
\t
(to sentence,Ž to judge,Ž to con-
demnŽ ƒ )Ž in the saying that precedes it (6:37a). Likewise he holds that Verse 37c
[Forgive, and you will be forgiv
enŽ] is a further instruction from Luke that restates the
preceding prohibition in the positive,Ž and further, Verse 38a is symmetrical to v. 37c,
and takes up a pressing Lukan concern: generosityŽ while Lk 6:38b is a Lukan inser-
tion.Ž He concludes that Luke has thus interfered rather strongly with his source [Q],
and has created an artful small compositio
n: two negative imperatives, two positive im-
peratives, a promise, and a statementŽ (
Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
[ed. H. Koester; trans. C. M. Thomas; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
2002], 241…42). Why all of this should be Lukan interference with his sources and not
pre-Lukan material is not sufficiently explaine
d. If material contains indicators of pre-
Lukan or non-Lukan origin (as is argued here), it is just as reasonable to assume that
Luke included this material from his sources because it matched his concerns, than that
he created it based on his concerns. Fitzmyer, also without supporting his opinion in any
way, holds that in Lk 6:37bc, 38a, Luke has fashioned a few verses of his ownŽ (Fitz-
myer,
Luke I…IX
, 627, 628, 641, quote from p. 628).
Allison,
Jesus Tradition
, 85; for Allisons full discussion see ibid
Allison,
Jesus Tradition
Allison notes the parallels between Ro
m 2:1 and Q 6:37; Rom 12:14 and Q 6:28;
Rom 12:17 and Q 6:27…36; Rom 12:21 and Q 6:27…36; 1 Cor 4:12 and Q 6:28; 1 Thess
4:12 and Q 6:27…36 (
Jesus Tradition
Allison points out parallels between Poly.
. 2.2…3 and Q 6:27…30, 36…38 (
Jesus
Tradition
Allison points out parallels between
1:3…5 and Q 6:27…30, 32…36 as well as
Mt 5:39, 41…42, 44…48 (
Jesus Tradition
, 89…90). For Allisons full di
scussion of all these
parallels see ibid., 80…92. In an
other publication Allison draws out the thematic unity of
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
sidering the gospel parallels in the present chapter. For example, when intermingling oral
tradition from the double tradition (Mt 18:6…7
//Lk 17:1…2) with material now contained
in Mk 9:42, Matthew and Luke approached
their material in oral modeŽ (to borrow a
phrase from Dunn, Q
as Oral,Ž 50): they treated the te
xt of Mark with some liberty, so
that the resulting text of Matth
ew and Luke reflect the variab
ility within stability that one
would expect from oral rather than wr
itten tradition (cf. the comments in Carr,
Writing
9.5 Conclusions
tact with a written Matthew and Luke. This would provide an example of
re-oralization, or of tradition that has been committed to writing re-
entering the stream of oral tradition, a dynamic quite at home in a culture
in which written documents still held a subsidiary role within orality.
Given that the Jesus tradition in
2 Clement
defies classification in terms
of sources, it is difficult to assign it a place within the argument developed
in the present work. Since it is not clear that the sayings in
2 Clement
rived from oral tradition, they can contribute little of substance to a discus-
sion of the use of oral tradition in Christian antiquity. There is little use in
noting that certain sayings
have been at home in an oral context be-
2, 5; 6.1…2; 8.5; 9.11; 13.4) or be-
cause (when compared to their parallels) they evince the variability within
stability characteristic of oral tradition, including differences in adverbs,
pronouns and prepositions, verb forms,
and the use of synonymous rather
than identical terms (3.2; 4.2, 5; 6.1…2; 8.5; 9.11; 12. 2, 6; 13.4). If nothing
else, however, the discussion in this chapter has served to determine
On re-oralization see sec. 3.5 above, esp. n. 123 on p. 104; Schröter also notes this
possibility regarding Jesus tradition in
2 Clement
in Jesus and the Canon,Ž 112…13. That
the written Matthew has impacted the oral trad
ition that continues to
be in use in the
early Christian community is a better expl
anation for the form of the saying in
2 Clem
3.2 than the theory
that ClementŽ is citing Matthew loosely from memory (an option
suggested by Tuckett in Gregory and Tuckett, 
2 Clement
and the Writings,Ž 258).
Index of Ancient Sources
3. Apostolic Fathers
1 Clement
1.1…6.4 149, 282
43, 141
13.1…2 40, 41, 43, 46, 48,
46.7…8 29, 40, 41, 46, 48,
99, 278, 280, 281…82
2 Clement
2.4
3.2
4.2
4.5
252…53, 271
Table of Contents
2.7 Coming Full Circle (2005)
3.1 Orality in Oral-Derived Texts
oralŽ in the most basic sense of the term.
Every portion of Jesus tradition
that will be discussed in this study is found in a
written
(a) Conception of a discourse: oral
literate
(b) Conception of its writing: transcription
composition
In this graph continuum a
 relates to the origin
We have already dealt briefly with this
issue in sec. 1.3 abov
e, under the subtitle
Problems.Ž
E. J. Bakker,
Chapter 4: Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c…2
nic structure as reflected in
13.2. The material was reworked while
and you
can expect
Ž or as you do
be done to you.Ž It was also stan-
dardized to facilitate recollection, the first two sayings in the form of an
imperative with a
\t!
clause, the remaining sayings in the basic form of
!\n
comparisons (with small variations).
In this process, just as
the saying that in Luke was given the form because you have experienced
[from God], do
Ž (Lk 6:36; mentioned above)
mention of Gods kindness became the
source for saying f, also in conformity to this overall pattern. This re-
working of the material by the traditionist reflects the process by which
traditional material was retained and transmitted: it relied on mnemotech-
nic devices that enabled the faithful passing down of essential meaning,
while allowing for flexibility in format.
The above is not the only possible ex
planation for the shape in which
we find this material in
1 Clement
and Luke. It is a
explanation,
swer to a question that we have not
yet raised: i.e., why there is no appare
nt parallel to saying f in Lk 6:31…
to all of the other sayings in
13.2. Certainly there is no compelling reason why every saying
represented in both contexts, but one
may be excused for looking for the
remaining parallel if all of the others are present. The answer of course is
that there is no readily apparent pa
rallel to saying f in Lk 6:31…38 only
because it is not explicit, but implicit,
if the above argument be accepted.
If the hypothesis being offered here
is correct, then saying f did not
originate in the creativity of the early church (a common form-critical view
regarding the origin of Jesus tradition).
Rather it arose from the very na-
ture of the tradition as dynamic, combining fluid and fixed elements in the
memory and performance of the traditionist(s). Tradition was shaped dif-
ferently not only upon appropriation by
See Hagner,
Clement of Rome
The opposite may also have been the case: the traditionists responsible for the ma-
terial that became available to Luke may have
reworked the sayings so that an explicit
parallel to saying f dr
opped out; the above is offered, however, as a plausible scenario
of how this particular tradition may have been handled while in oral form.
See the discussion of form
criticism in sec. 1.4.1 above.
7.4 Conclusion
Bibliography
…. The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer.Ž Pages 275…320 in idem,
New Testa-
ment Essays.
Garden City: Image Books/Doubleday, 1968.
Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier.
Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of
Catholic Christianity.
New York: Paulist, 1983.
Bruce, F. F.
The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commen-
tary.
3rd rev. and enl. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester: Apollos, 1990.
Tradition Old and New.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
Bultmann, Rudolf.
History and Eschatology
. Edinburgh: Edinbur
gh University Press,
The History of the Synoptic Tradition.
Translated by John Marsh. Rev. ed. New York
and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1968.
Jesus and the Word
. Translated by L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero. New York: Scrib-
ners Sons, 1934.
…. The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem.Ž
The Journal of Religion
6 (1926): 337…
362. Repr. pages 35…54 in
Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf
Bultmann
. Selected, translated, and introduced by Schubert M. Ogden. Cleveland:
World, 1960.
…. The Study of the Synoptic Gospels.Ž Pages 5…76 in
Form Criticism: Two Essays on
New Testament Research
, by Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin. Translated by Fre-
derick C. Grant. New York: Harper Torchbooks/Harper & Row, 1962.
Butler, B. C. The Literary Relations of Didache, Ch. XVI.Ž
Journal of Theological Stud-
n.s. 11 (1960): 265…83.
…. The Two Ways in the Didache.Ž
Journal of Theological Studies
n.s. 12 (1961): 27…
Byrskog, Samuel. The Eyewitnesses as Interp
reters of the Past: Reflections on Richard
Bauckham's,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Journal for the Study of the Historical Je-
sus
6 (2008): 157…68.
…. Introduction to
Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Practices.
Edited by
Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009.
Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, An-
cient Judaism and the Matthean Community.
Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament
Series 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994.
…. A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition: Reflections on James D. G. Dunn's
Jesus
.Ž Pages 59…78 in
Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D.
G. Dunns
Jesus Remembered. Edited by Robert B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas.
Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010. Revision of article that appeared in
Journal
for the Study of the New Testament
26 (2004): 459…71.
…. A New Quest for the
Sitz im Leben
: Social Memory, the Jesus Tradition and the Gos-
pel of Matthew.Ž
New Testament Studies
52 (2006): 319…36.
…. Review of R. Bultmann,
History of the Synoptic Tradition
Journal of Biblical Litera-
ture
122 (2003): 549…55.
Story as History … History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Repr. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic, 2002.
…. The Transmission of the Jesu
s Tradition.Ž Pages 1465…94 in vol. 2 of
Handbook for
the Study of the Historical Jesus
. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. 4
vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
…. When Eyewitness Testimony and Oral Tradition Become Written Text.Ž
k Exe-
1.4 An Alternative to Form Criticism and the Rabbinic Model
ing.
In this light, the ministry of the wordŽ to which the apostles were
devoted according to Acts 6:4 should
be understood not as the traditioning
activity that Gerhardsson portrays, but as their preaching activity.
While
it is sensible to hold that the apostles were important among the tradition-
ists of the early Christian movement, there is nothing in the sources to
suggest that the traditioning activity centered exclusively (or even primar-
ily) on them; one should not discount
York: Doubleday, 1998), 349; B. Witherington, III,
The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-
Chapter 3: Orality and Oral Tradition
as to transport them into the present, and re-forming these words of the
past so as to make them address present circumstances.Ž
Communication in an oral context tends
to refer outside itself rather than
be self-contained. So, e.g., the syllogism is out of place in oral cultures,
since the solution to the problem it poses is to be sought in the logical out-
working of the premises it contains.
In contrast, the riddle is at home in
oral cultures, in that a person will draw on elements outside of the riddle
perience of the world) in order to
solve it.
Kelber, Generative Force of Memory,Ž 21; see also Kirk, Memory Theory,Ž 816…
20. In social memory studies, memory is not a database but a process (Olick and Rob-
bins, Social Memory Studies,Ž 122), not a passive collection of material to be objec-
tively accessed but a process of encoding information, storing information, and
strategically retrieving informationŽ with soc
ial, psychological, and historical influences
at each pointŽ (M. Schudson, Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,Ž in
ory Distortion
[ed. D. Schachter; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995],
348, cited in Le Donne,
Historiographical Jesus
, 50); on some of the overlap in this re-
5.4 Assessing Where We Stand
familiarity with
1 Clement
as a whole). Instead he appealed to a similar but
different block of oral tradition, to
additional saying
also from the tradition. In all probability he used oral traditional material
1 Clement
because he knew it by memory, as tradi-
tion that was in living use within his own community. It is thus not likely
that he was attempting to provide any
kind of corrective for the sayings in
1 Clement
5.4 Assessing Where We Stand
Having examined a number of aspects of
13.2 and Poly.
and their parallels in detail, and before
moving on to consider our next pas-
sage from the Apostolic Fathers, we pause to consider what might be
learned from our work with these passages.
Clearly in dealing with this type of material one works in the realm of
hypotheses and probabilities, not in the realm of certainty. However, the
suggestions made above regarding the
tween
1 Clement
, Polycarps
and the written Gospels fit well
the process of writing in antiquity.
The mental picture we may find easy to conjure up, of Polycarp sitting at
1 Clement
, Matthew and Luke open before him as
he writes, though
, more likely represents an anachronism derived
from our literate worldview.
This picture is certainly not impossible, but
it is very improbable. It is more likely that, in a culture in which orality
was still highly valued, orally transmitted material would have been freely
We saw in our previous chapter that
this is very likely the case with
1 Clement
, and given what we have seen
y true of Polycarps
That Poly.
. 3.2 was derived from oral tradition is suggested by ex-
ternal considerations such as the l
In the unlikely event that he was correcting the sayings found in
1 Clement
, it may
be an instance of the respect in antiquity
… in Papias well-known words … for a living
and abiding voiceŽ over what came out of booksŽ (Papias, in Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl.
See Beaton, How Matthew Writes,Ž 116; S. L. Mattila, A Question Too Often
Neglected,Ž
41 (1995): 202, 213…17.
Cf. Jaubert,
Clément de Rome
Chapter 9: Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement
that this is how ClementŽ found it

Pace
Bibliography
…. The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century.Ž Pages 19…37 in
Traditions in the Second Century: Orig
ins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission.
ited by William L. Petersen. Christianity
and Judaism in Antiquity 3. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1989. Repr. pages 39…53 in idem,
From Jesus to the
Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context
. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
…. Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?Ž
Journal of Biblical Literature
113 (1994): 293…
Chapter 2: History of Scholarship on Jes
us Tradition in the
Apostolic Fathers
. 23.3…4 on the Gospels and the OT
no choice but to admit that this is an apocryphal writing.Ž
The above results stem directly
Ibid., 1:28; for other occasions in wh
ich Massaux clearly considers apocryphal
writings as a possible source, see his treatment of Ign.
Smyrn
. 3.2 (1:98…99; mentions
ancient witnesses but does not come to a conclusion);
2 Clem
. 9.11 (2:9…10, literarily
dependent on the gospels of Mt. and Lk.Ž);
2 Clem
. 11.2…3 (2:11; This passage can be
considered only as a reference to an apocryphonŽ);
2 Clem.
4.5 (2:12…13; dependent on
an apocryphon at least in part);
2 Clem
. 5:2…4 (2:13…14: an apocryphal source, the author
of which may have used Mt and Lk);
2 Clem
. 8.5 (2:14…15: possibly a combination of an
apocryphal source with Lk).
Ibid., 1:xxi…xxii, quote taken from p. xxi. Massaux clarified, however, that These
literary contacts do not exhaust the literary influence of the gospel;
one can expect, with-
out properly so-called literary contact, the us
e of typically Matthean
vocabulary, themes,
and ideas (ibid
1:xxii). Unfortunately Massauxs discu
ssion of his method in this work
was very brief, limited to the two pages already cited.
Neirynck, Preface to the Reprint,Ž 1:xix.
Neirynck, Preface to the Reprint,Ž 1:xix; cf. Gregory,
Reception of Luke and Acts
4.4 Tracing the Sources of the Tradition in 1 Clement 13.2
parallels to the sayings in
13.2, one to saying b in Mk 11:25 and
one to saying g in 4:24. These sayings are located quite far apart from
each other in their Markan context,
a distance of 318 verses. Though in
part an argument from silence, since Mark contains just two parallels to the
Clementine sayings that are separated widely from each other in the gos-
pel, one can conclude not only that
the tradition that stands behind Mark
apparently did not contain most
of the sayings collected in
but also that the two it
contain were not in close relationship with each
It is thus likely that
at which informed Marks gospel.
The parallels to
13.2 in Matthew and Luke
are contained within
material that according to current majority opinion derived from Q, spe-
cifically the Q-sermon that was largely incorporated by the evangelists into
23, 27…49; Mt 5:1…7:29; Lk 6:20…49). In Matthew the sayings are found at
distribution … note especially the dis-
rst saying in 5:7 from the last in 7:12
… is commonly considered to have
resulted from the manner in which the
evangelist used his Q material. It is wi
dely held that in Q the sayings under
consideration were arranged much clos
er to their present configuration in
Luke than to what we find in Matthew.
In Luke the sayings are found at 6:31, 36, 37a, b, 38a…b, c, only six
verses separating the first parallel from the last. What is more, if one sets
aside Lk 6:31, not only are all of the parallels to
consecutive verses (Lk 6:36…38), but ther
e is also no intervening material
This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the context preceding Mk
11:25 has to do with Jesus teaching on the exercise of faith in prayer, while the maxim
in 4:24 relates to the way in which one hears
and responds to Jesus parables (on the lat-
ter see R. T. France,
The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text
[NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 211). Thus in Mark the sayings are separate not just
with regard to textual placement but also with regard to content.
That Luke rather than Matthew reflects the original order of Q for the verses under
consideration has been established by V. Taylor, The Order of Q,Ž
n.s. 4 (1953):
27…31; idem, The Original Order of Q,Ž in
New Testament Essays
(Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 98…104.
The material in v. 38b, A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, over-
flowing, they will pour into your lap,Ž is an
expansion upon, and thus part of the saying
in v. 38a, so it does not constitute separate ma
terial that intervenes
between the parallels
to
1 Clem.
Chapter 6: Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.7b…8
original ties to the past in order to reflect the values of the present.
can be seen in that the original refere
nt of the warning of Jesus as found in
Mk 14:21 and Mt 26:24 (cf. Lk 22:22)
, specifically the one who was to
, has been replaced in the conflated saying in
46.8 with a general referent to any who would
cause the Lords chosen to
The saying has thus been appr
opriated to serve the ongoing life
of the church, rather than continuing
to reflect a (perhaps now less rele-
vant) specific situation in the past.
1 Clement
46.8 provides an example of the
that charac-
terizes oral tradition.
Though some material was left out in conflating the
two sayings, the phrases
! \f\b \t\b\t
!
 \f\t\b-\t
See sec. 3.3.10 above, under th
e subtitle Socially Identified.Ž
It is possible that a traditionist found justification for this generalized application
of Jesus words as found in
1 Clem.
46.8a…b in the second of the conflated sayings,
1 Clem
9.4 The Sources of Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement: Written or Oral?
\t\n\n\t\n
\t\n!9\t\r\b\t \t
For when the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom
would come, he saidŽ
%\b\t
he saysŽ
\t\n
God saysŽ
In previous chapters we adopted a di
stinction made by H. Koester and oth-
See above, pp. 140…43, 166, 171…72, 235…36, and Koester,
Synoptische Über-
lieferung
, 4…6, esp. 5; idem,
, 18, 66; Cameron,
Sayings Traditions
, 92…93. Don-
frieds arguments to the contrary in relation to
2 Clement
Second Clement
, 81 and n. 4)
involve a misreading of Koester. Donfried hold
s that Koester is wrong in stating that the
Apostolic Fathers do not use
in reference to written texts, and gives
Barn.
5.5;
6.12; 10.1, 11;
1 Clem
. 10.4 as examples of such use. Each and every one of the texts
Donfried gives as examples, however, supports rather than undermines Koesters argu-
ment: Koester had made clear
that within OT citations
Clement may use the aorist
but only for quoting
a speaker
within the passage he is citing (
Synoptische Über-
lieferung
, 4…6, esp. 5), and even gives one of the passages cited by Donfried,
1 Clem
10.4, as an example. (Koester does not treat the passages from
Barnabas
that Donfried
cites in that context,
as he is dealing with
1 Clement
Index of Ancient Sources
6:37…38 61, 122, 124, 128…
6:38
6:39…49 175
6:46 245…46
7:1…2 126
7:3…5 126
7:12 126
7:16…20 126
7:21 126
7:24…26 126
7:24…27 126
8:4…15 258
8:4…21 258…59
8:11 259
8:15 259
8:18 259
8:21 257…59,
9:25 252…53
10:3 249…51
10:7 205
10:18 59
10:22 260
10:26 76
10:26…27 205
11:1…2 220
11:2 202
11:2…4 101, 223
11:3 202
11:4
11:13 259
12:4 249…51
12:5 249…51
12:8 242,
12:8…9 116
12:35
12:51…53 5
13:27 245,
14:27…27 5
15:17 260
16:1…8 255
16:10 255…56
16:11 255
16:12 255
16:13 251…53
17:1
17:1…2 183…86, 187…88,
17:2
17:3…4 5
17:3…6 184
18:4 189
18:24 40
22:22
22:28…30 260
22:29 260
24:6 140
24:36…43 57, 59
24:39 229…30,
24:49 260
6:20…23 121, 137, 186
6:27
6:27…30 123, 127, 167
6:27…35 137, 186
6:27…36 123, 124, 167
6:27…38 123…24, 138…39,
6:27…49 121
6:28
6:29 127
6:30 127
6:31
6:32 269,
6:32…36 123, 167
6:35…37 139
6:36 137
6:36…38 122…39, 167, 279
6:36…45 186
6:37
6:37…38 123, 124, 137
6:38
6:38…42 137
6:39 126
6:40 126
6:44…45 126
6:46…49 186
9:57…60 186
9:61…62 186
10:2…11 186

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 18118356
    Размер файла: 2 MB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий