Sunday, May 27, 2007

Letter on Clement and Scripture

A----

Thank you for your last letter: I will try to respond to it in the next week or two. Also, D--- sent me his paper which, even though he said he doubts now whether the views expressed are really in Clement, I am nonetheless eager to read.

But I'm writing because I had some further thoughts on Clement, and you may, perhaps, find something of interest in them.

I have often heard the argument made by Catholic apologists - and I have made it myself - that without the Church we would not know which books constitute the canon of Scripture. Now there may be many senses in which this is true. For instance, had the Christians in the early Church not faithfully copied of the original manuscripts - what a thought! - we would not have them in our Bible. We are therefore dependent upon the early Christian church for our manuscripts and, in that sense, for our Scripture. And there may be many other senses too in which that statement is true. Yet, in the sense I intended it, it was a false argument.

The way I meant it (which may not be what other apologists have meant) was that when a third- or fourth-century Christian came to the various genuine and spurious writings of the previous two centuries, he or she did not have any evidence - from the content alone - which was inspired and which not; but rather, they had to rely on the authority of the church to make the judgment. Yet this is false for two reasons: first literally, because from content alone there is strong evidence (even if not always conclusive), and second circumstantially, because no one has ever been or could ever be in that situation.

One thing that struck me about Clement's letter is how different it was from Scripture. Although in the early Church the canon of Scripture was, as I understand it, somewhat hazy around the edges, nevertheless the difference between the letters of the apostles and this letter of Clement is remarkable. First, Clement does not speak with the confidence of an inspired writer. (At one point Paul even makes a point of saying that he has no command from the Lord.) Instead, Clement relies not only heavily but deliberately on the authority of the Old and New Testament by quoting, paraphrasing, or alluding to the sacred writings. And not even those New Testament writers who do quote from the Old Testament do so at such length or with such frequency. Second, he accepts the existence, apparently held widely at that time, of the Arabian phoenix. While I would love to see the phoenix in Scripture, and an apostle vouch for its existence, alas! the Holy Spirit had more important things to say. And third, Clement is (for whatever reason) not as condense and brief in his epistle as the inspired writers were in theirs. In fact, the editors of the book I have note this in their introduction - which on principle I always read after I've read the text. They write:

There does indeed appear a great difference between it and the inspired writings in many respects, such as the fanciful use sometimes made of the Old Testament statements, the fabulous stories which are accepted by its author, and the general diffuseness and feebleness of style by which it is distinguished.
Although I find their dismissal of Clement's allegorical interpretation unnecessary (see the postscript below), they are right on in their last critique. Clement's "general diffuseness and feebleness of style" often makes him difficult to read straight through.

So it seems to me that a Christian of the third or fourth century could have formed a plausible judgment, based only on a comparison of the works, about which works were genuine and which spurious. Eusebius (c.325) does not even mention it as disputed, although he does say it was it is "long and wonderful" and was "read aloud to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own" (3.16). Furthermore, he rejects the gnostic gospels because of their content, saying "nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics" (3.25).

Moreover, the whole situation is absurd. This hypothetical Christian who makes judgments only on textual comparisons never existed. Decisions and judgments always have a wider context, both historical and spiritual. Eusebius gives as a reason for rejecting the Acts of Peter and the Gospel of Peter that "neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony" (3.25).

Let it be known: I hereby withdraw my earlier sense of that argument. For no matter how you listen - and this is the most important point - you will not hear the voice of our Shepherd sing in Clement's letter as it does so beautifully in St. John's epistles. Yet, if you listen closely, you can hear what is unquestionably His echo.

Pax, etc.

P.S. Also interesting is what the editors refer to as the "fanciful use sometimes made of the Old Testament statements". One passage in particular which the editors no doubt had in mind are Clement's remarks on Rahab. He says:
Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all those who believe and hope in God. You see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman. ( 1.12)
What is interesting is the presence of an allegorical interpretation within the early Church. Although I hesitate to affirm any use ever made of the allegorical mode, I do think it has a place next to the other modes of interpretation: the literal, the tropological, and the anagogical. I think that some passages have all four layers of meaning and, provided that all are grounded on the literal, such exegesis can be illuminating.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Hi Ben. If I am understanding you correctly, there is more of an element of the analysis of a documents "content" as to whether it was inspired or not. If this is the case, then I agree, it is not because the Church decided which books were canonical necessarily, but some books were just plain heretical in their content. The comparison of Clement and the epistles is made well. Too bad the Arabian phoenix were not a real thing. What an analogy. I hope I have understood what you are saying.