Lo saqué de aquí. Porque después ni encuentro las cosas entre tantos PDFs
https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/SOCTHEOL186/%CE%91%CE%A0%CE%9F%CE%A3%CE%A4%CE%9F%CE%9B%CE%99%CE%9A%CE%9F%CE%99%20%CE%A0%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%95%CE%A1%CE%95%CE%A3/The_New_Testament_and_the_Apostolic_Fathers__2_Volume_Set%5B1%5D.pdf
En la pág. 454.
INTRODUCTION
In an article published in 1992, I traced the use of the Gospel of Matthew in second-century Christian literature from the Apostolic Fathers through Irenaeus.1 Such a study, I maintained, is central to an understanding of the origin and development of the church’s fourfold gospel canon. Then, in 1998, in a Festschrift in honour of Joseph B. Tyson, I examined the use of the Gospel of Luke in writers from the middle of the second century, speciWcally Marcion, Justin Martyr, and Tatian, all three of whom clearly knew, used, and substantially reworked the Gospel of Luke.2 In that article, I argued that it was clearly in Rome that the process of canonization began, with Marcion (who created a new edition of Luke as his one gospel), with Justin (who harmonized texts or perhaps created a full-blown harmony of Matthew and Luke as his one gospel, for reading, along with the ‘writings of the prophets’, in Christian worship services in Rome), and with Tatian (who wrote the Diatessaron, a harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as his one gospel). Marcion, Justin, and Tatian apparently all agreed that there could be only one gospel. They disagreed, however, on the nature and the content of that single gospel. Inasmuch as Marcion, Justin, and Tatian all took steps in the process of creating a single gospel to serve as the core of what would later become a New Testament canon, even if unwittingly so, it is important to look more closely at the decades between the initial composition of the gospels and the decisions to identify one or more gospels as authoritative. The period of the Apostolic Fathers was undoubtedly crucial, as it seemingly laid the foundation for these striking mid-second-century developments. It is, consequently, imperative once again to revisit the question of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. In what follows I examine the knowledge and use of the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers. This study is but an overview, a prolegomenon, a contribution to a foundation for future and more detailed studies of the early use of all four of what later became the canonical gospels. By focusing on only one text later included in the New Testament—namely, Luke—it complements both my own earlier work on the use of the third canonical gospel in the period after that of the Apostolic Fathers and the discussions of possible references to all the writings later included in the New Testament that are collected together in the companion volume to this work. As in my previous studies on gospel tradition in the second century, I use as my points of departure the foundational studies of E´ douard Massaux3 and Helmut Koester,4 together with Andrew Gregory’s recent study of the reception of Luke and Acts in the period before Irenaeus.5
II. METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS
In my 1992 article, I indicated that there are methodological concerns that complicate any study of the use of gospel tradition in the second century. First, there are enormous diYculties involved in reconstructing the textual histories of both Luke and the Apostolic Fathers, especially during the Wrst century(ies) of their transmission. Such diYculties make it virtually impossible to know to what extent the third-century archetypes of our best manuscript families conform either to the autograph of Luke or to the text(s) of Luke that were available to writers in the early second century. Neither, of course, do we have the autographs of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers Second, to the extent possible, we must attempt to determine the dates and the places of composition of the Apostolic Fathers in whose writings we hope to identify possible citations of or allusions to Luke. And third, scholars must continue to try to establish and reWne the criteria that serve to determine what constitutes ‘use’ of the Gospel of Luke by these early Christian writers. I will address brieXy each of these methodological issues.
1. The Textual Histories of Luke and of the Apostolic Fathers
In a study of the text of the synoptic gospels in the second century, Helmut Koester observed that for the period before the third century, ‘we have no manuscript evidence at all, and text types can be identiWed only by that evidence that comes from those who used Gospels’, such as the Apostolic Fathers and early Christian apologists.6 Koester further indicated that ‘a text, not protected by canonical status, but used in liturgy, apologetics, polemics, homiletics, and instruction of catechumens is most likely to be copied frequently and is thus subject to frequent modiWcations and alterations’.7 Koester also observed that: All of that evidence . . . points to the fact that the text of the Synoptic Gospels was very unstable during the Wrst and second centuries. . . . With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each Gospel. The harmonizations of these two Gospels demonstrates that their text was not sacrosanct and that alterations could be expected, even if they were not always as radical as in the case of Marcion’s revision of Luke, the Secret Gospel’s revision of Mark, and Justin’s construction of a harmony.8 New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual tradition which were Wxed ca. 200 CE—how many archetypes for each gospel?—are (almost) identical with the autographs. This cannot be conWrmed by any external evidence. On the contrary, whatever evidence there is indicates that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred during the Wrst hundred years of the transmission.9
The issues raised by Koester make it abundantly clear that we cannot simply assume that our best reconstruction of the text of Luke, the text which we must compare to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, is the same as the autograph of Luke or the same as the text or texts of Luke that were available to and used by our second-century writers. To compound the problem, manuscript evidence for the Apostolic Fathers is scant, often late, and sometimes in a language other than the original Greek.10 We can, therefore, never be conWdent that we are comparing the texts that demand comparison. SpeciWcally, we can never be sure that we are comparing the autograph of Luke or the text(s) of Luke available to the Apostolic Fathers with the autograph of each of the Apostolic Fathers. We must resign ourselves instead to comparing later witnesses to such texts, with all of the hazards that such comparisons involve.
2. The Dates and Places of Composition of the Relevant Documents
Establishing the dates and places of composition of New Testament and extracanonical Christian writings is exceedingly diYcult. Some writings are easier to date and place than others. SpeciWc internal and/or external evidence may make the task less diYcult, but sometimes there is little or no such evidence, or the signiWcance of the evidence is equivocal and disputed by equally reputable scholars. Yet, in order to study the use of the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers, we must endeavour within the limits of historical reason to place the relevant documents in their historical and geographical contexts.11
According to Franc¸ois Bovon, the Gospel of Luke is usually dated ‘between 80 and 90 CE, after the death of Peter and Paul, and deWnitely after the fall of Jerusalem’.12 The place of composition is more diYcult to Wx. Bovon places it in Macedonia (Philippi), an area apparently familiar to the author of Luke– Acts, with Rome as the next best alternative.13 Raymond Brown agrees with the early church tradition that Luke ‘was written in and to an area of Greece’, and that ‘the best date would seem to be 85, give or take Wve to ten years’.14 Joseph Fitzmyer dates the composition of Luke c.80–5, and maintains that ‘As for the place of composition of the Lucan Gospel, it is really anyone’s guess. The only thing that seems certain is that it was not written in Palestine. Ancient tradition about the place of composition varies greatly: Achaia, Boetia, Rome. Modern attempts to localize the composition elsewhere are mere guesses.’15 Helmut Koester locates the place of composition as ‘somewhere in the geographical realm of . . . Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome’, and argues that ‘the time of the gospel’s writing . . . cannot have been any later than ca. 125’.16 It is evident that the second century was critical for the formation of the fourfold gospel canon. The canon at the beginning of that century was the scriptures that the church had inherited from Judaism (the Old Testament); but by the end of the second century the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, largely through the eVorts of Irenaeus, began to achieve a status equal to that of the Jewish scriptures.17 To trace developments over that critical century, we need to know, whenever possible, which documents were written when and where. The status and the use of the gospels were, of course, not the same throughout the second century, and were certainly not the same in every region of the Christian world. What were regarded in Rome by 150 CE as authoritative writings were not necessarily the same as what were so regarded in Alexandria, or Ephesus, or Antioch. The virtually universal agreement of the various regions of the Christian world regarding the fourfold gospel canon came late in the second or more probably early in the third century. To understand the regional issues and to trace their development, we must endeavour to determine whether a particular text was written in Rome, or Ephesus, or Antioch, and when and for what purpose it was written. Without such information, the picture is incomplete. In this regard, scholarly arguments tend at times to be circular. With writings that are less easy to identify by date and/or place of composition, scholars are sometimes tempted to make material Wt where it best suits an already working hypothesis. In so doing, however, we must then avoid using that new information as evidence to conWrm the hypothesis. Stated simply, we must avoid circular reasoning entirely, or at least recognize such reasoning for what it is and for what it is not.
3. Criteria that Constitute ‘Use’
In looking for evidence of the ‘use’ of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers, scholars must develop and reWne the criteria required to determine that it is, in fact, Luke that has been used and not some non-Lucan pre-synoptic oral or written tradition that simply resembles Luke.18 In that regard I have identiWed three criteria for detecting what might constitute knowledge or use of one or more of the gospels in second-century Christian literature.19 First, the criterion of accessibility asks whether an author could have had physical access to the document or documents in question. In that regard the dates and places of composition of the respective documents are of foremost importance. I submit that this criterion is a sine qua non in considering the question of use. Second, the criterion of textual distinctiveness implies that it is essential to identify and distinguish speciWc redactional characteristics of a prospective source and then to look for clear evidence of the presence of those redactional characteristics in our second-century writings.20 This criterion is critical to the analysis of every passage in question; but, as we shall see, it is generally the most diYcult criterion to apply to the passages in question. Third, the criterion of rate of recurrence asks how often there appear to be parallels between the texts in question. Numerous parallels indicate more probable knowledge and/or use of a source, whereas a single isolated allusion may signify something other than knowledge or use of a known written source. The fact that there may be only one passage in which a writer appears to cite one of the gospels does not disqualify the possibility that the gospel itself was the actual source of a citation or allusion. Nevertheless, more instances of possible use obviously strengthen the case. Only by employing such criteria rigorously and in concert can we conclude that we have good evidence for the use of Luke by an Apostolic Father. Alternatively, obviously non-Lucan material mixed with what may seem like Lucan tradition should alert us to the possible use of a source other than the gospel itself, perhaps a post-synoptic harmony of Luke and one or more other gospels. In his 1986 preface to the reprint of E´ douard Massaux’s The InXuence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, Franz Neirynck notes that since its appearance in 1950 ‘Massaux’s book was destined to become one of the classical works on the acceptance of New Testament writings in primitive Christianity’.21 Neirynck remarks that ‘Massaux’s basic thesis of the inXuence of the canonical gospels and of the preponderance of Matthew found a formidable opponent in the book of Helmut Koester, Synoptische U¨ berlieferung bei den apostolischen Va¨tern’,22 which was written without knowledge of Massaux’s work. These two studies are in sharp conXict with respect to their interpretation of the evidence regarding gospel tradition, particularly Matthean tradition, in the Apostolic Fathers. When it comes to Wnding citations of or allusions to the synoptic gospels in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Massaux is a maximalist, Koester a minimalist. In this time of renewed interest in the use of gospel tradition in the second century, the contributions of Koester and Massaux are still invaluable, not only for their very diVerent assessments of the same evidence, but also for their exhaustive collection of relevant texts.23 The studies of Koester and Massaux, therefore, serve once again as the focus of this study, although I will draw other relevant secondary sources into the discussion as appropriate, most especially Andrew Gregory’s recent comprehensive monograph.24 The studies of Massaux and Koester are very diVerent, not only in their conclusions, especially with respect to the Gospel of Matthew, but even more signiWcantly in their approach to the evidence, which is to say in their methodology. Massaux’s study was Wrst published in Belgium more than Wfty years ago at a time when Roman Catholic scholarship outside Germany had taken little note of form criticism, and before the emergence of redaction criticism. Accordingly, Massaux predictably explains virtually all similarities between the gospels and second-century Christian writings as evidence of direct literary dependence on the gospels themselves. More speciWcally, Massaux assumes that the Apostolic Fathers not only knew, but also frequently quoted from, the Gospel of Matthew. Oral tradition is not an option for Massaux. Since the publication of Koester’s Synoptische U¨ berlieferung, however, many scholars maintain with Koester that, in citing dominical sayings, Christian writers in the Wrst half of the second century borrowed either from oral tradition or from a pre-synoptic collection, such as has been postulated by those scholars who claim the existence of the so-called Q source. This position nuances the work of Massaux, who simply did not ask with suYcient rigour whether the second-century writings reXect a tradition that has clear and characteristic redactional features of the gospel for which he argues literary dependence.25
I I I. LUKE AND THE APOSTOL IC FATHERS
Before embarking on our journey through the Apostolic Fathers, it is essential to state at the outset that there is no possible way in the pages allotted to this paper to examine and analyse in detail each and every possible citation of or allusion to the Gospel of Luke. Rather, I intend in the pages that follow to make brief reference to the studies of Massaux, Koester, Gregory, and others in those instances in which they substantially agree in their understanding of the evidence. I will present details of evidence only in those few instances when Massaux, Koester, or Gregory concludes that one of the Apostolic Fathers knew or actually used the Gospel of Luke.26 In addition, at the end of the sections on each of the Apostolic Fathers, I will provide with regard to the Gospel of Luke the information from Biblia Patristica, which purports to be totally inclusive, of all possible Lucan citations and allusions in the Apostolic Fathers. 1 Clement 1 Clement was written to the church at Rome probably between 90 and 100. Koester dates it to 96–7.27 This letter is possibly our oldest extra-canonical Christian writing and pre-dates several canonical books. Assuming that Luke was written in the mid to late 80s, 1 Clement may have been written just a few years later. Already in 1832 Karl August Credner rejected the view that 1 Clement made use of the synoptic gospels and maintained that the author was dependent rather on oral tradition.28 So too Massaux maintains that ‘No text of Lk. seems to have exercised a deWnite literary inXuence on 1 Clement’.29 Massaux notes that there are a few passages in 1 Clement in which some scholars Wnd possible reminiscences of Luke; however, Massaux himself Wnds no evidence of literary dependence on Luke. Yet, he obviously equivocates when he states that ‘No text of Clement . . . seems to have been under the literary inXuence of the Gospel of Lk. or of the Acts of the Apostles. But it could be said that the similarity of vocabulary comes from a certain familiarity of Clement with these writings.’30 Koester is conWdent that 1 Clement never used any of the written gospels. The only authority that 1 Clement recognized apart from the Old Testament (the only scripture known to the earliest Christian communities) was ‘What the Lord said’.31 According to Koester, the author of 1 Clement knew none of our synoptic gospels.32 Gregory concurs that the few passages in which possible parallels between Luke and 1 Clement have been noted ‘provide no strong evidence for the reception of Luke’.33 Indeed, if Luke was written about 85 (or even later) somewhere in Greece, and if 1 Clement was written in Rome just a few years later (or at about the same time), we should not be surprised if the author of 1 Clement was unfamiliar with the Lucan gospel (the criterion of accessibility). The author of 1 Clement might conceivably have been familiar with the Gospel of Mark, assuming that Mark was written in Rome two to three decades earlier than 1 Clement, but that issue is beyond the scope of this paper. Although the case for 1 Clement’s use of Luke is exceedingly weak based on all three criteria (accessibility, textual distinctiveness, and rate of recurrence), Biblia Patristica, nevertheless, lists six citations or allusions to Luke in 1 Clement:
1 Clement Luke
13. 2 6. 31
13. 2 6. 37–8
24. 5 8. 5
7. 7 11. 32
46. 8 17. 1–2
23. 4 21. 29–33
Didache
Massaux dates the Didache after 150 CE based on what he mistakenly assumes is Didache’s use of the ‘Two Ways’ tradition in The Epistle of Barnabas.34 Although Koester also proposed a relatively late date for the Didache in his Synoptische U¨ berlieferung,35 in his Introduction Koester places the writing in Syria toward the end of the Wrst century.36 In his recent commentary on the Didache, Kurt Niederwimmer locates the place of composition probably in ‘Syria or the borderland between Syria and Palestine’, and states that ‘In sum, the date of the Didache is a matter of judgment. An origin around 110 or 120 C.E. remains hypothetical, but there are as yet no compelling reasons to dismiss this hypothesis.’37 Massaux maintains that ‘Other than those passages in the Wrst section [InXuence, iii. 144 –76] in which I pointed out a literary inXuence [viz., Did. 1. 4d // Luke 6. 29b and Did. 1. 5a // Luke 6.30], the third gospel seems to have exerted no literary inXuence on any other text of the Teaching’.38 In these few instances, Massaux at best picks up a word here and a word there to prove use of Luke. SpeciWcally, with regard to Did. 1. 4d, Massaux gives preference to Luke 6. 29b over Matt. 5. 40 because ‘contrary to Mt., the Didache mentions the cloak (ƒ %Ø) in the Wrst part of the sentence, and the tunic (ØHÆ) in the second, thus following the order of Luke. Moreover, Mt. uses the verb ºÆ %ø, whereas the Didache and Lk. use the word ÆNæø.’39 With regard to Did. 1. 5a, Massaux states that ‘the text is even closer to Lk. 6:30 than to Mt. 5:42. In fact, only Lk. has, like the Didache, the adjective %Ø in the Wrst part of the sentence, and I Æ&Ø in the second part, as opposed to I æÆfi in Mt.’40
With regard to the question of the Didache’s knowledge of our synoptic gospels, Koester maintains that if the author of the Didache knew the synoptic gospels, he certainly did not use them. Rather the material in the Didache stems from the same oral traditions from which the compilers of the synoptic gospels drew their material.41 Regarding Did. 1. 4d and 1. 5a, the two passages in which Massaux observed a literary inXuence from Luke, Niederwimmer, in agreement with Koester, states that ‘Verse 4d is again close to Luke (6:29b)’, and that ‘v. 5a is more strongly reminiscent of the Synoptic tradition (and particularly Lk. 6:30)’.42 Nevertheless, Niederwimmer concludes: ‘For the whole pericope it is again easy to suppose that we have before us an oral tradition parallel to that of the synoptics, or (better) the use of the same apocryphal sayings collection that was already suggested for [Didache]1:3b–5a.’43 Hagner examines eleven sayings of Jesus in the Didache and concludes that ‘Although 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 phenomenon can be readily explained as the result of dependence upon oral tradition.’44 Christopher Tuckett maintains that the Didache may have drawn material from Luke in Did. 16. 1 (// Luke 12. 35, 40) and in Did. 1. 3–2. 1 (// Luke 6. 27–8, 32–5),45 although, Gregory maintains, there may be other explanations.46 Indeed, if Luke was written about 85 (or even later, as several scholars, including Koester47 and Gregory,48 seem to argue), somewhere in Greece (which is by no means certain), and if the Didache was written in Syria just a few years later (which is also not certain), then we should not be surprised that the author of the Didache was likely unfamiliar with Luke (the criterion of accessibility). The author of the Didache would more likely have been familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, assuming Matthew was written in Syria a few years earlier, but that issue too is beyond the scope of this paper. Clearly the application of the criterion of accessibility depends on too many variables in the case of the Didachist’s knowledge and use of the Gospel of Luke. Yet, as in the case of 1 Clement and based on at least two criteria (textual distinctiveness and rate of recurrence), and possibly on all three, there is no convincing evidence that the author of the Didache either knew or used Luke. Nevertheless, Biblia Patristica lists seven citations or allusions to Luke in the Didache:
Didache Luke
1. 3 6. 27–33
1. 4 6. 29
1. 4 6. 30
1. 7 6. 31
13. 1+ 10. 7
8. 2 11. 2–4
16. 1 12. 35
Ignatius of Antioch
The writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, include letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. They were written between 110 and 117, when Ignatius was being taken to Rome as a prisoner. One passage, Smyrn. 3. 2, dominates the debate among scholars as to whether Ignatius knew and used the Gospel of Luke. Massaux maintains that a comparison of Smyrn. 3. 2 and Luke 24. 39 initially suggests a literary dependence.49 However, Origen connects these words to the Doctrina Petri;50 Eusebius says that he does not know the source of Ignatius’ text;51 and Jerome states that the passage in Ignatius is drawn from the Gospel of the Hebrews.52 In the end, Massaux concludes that the tradition of these Church Fathers makes literary dependence on Luke doubtful.53
The larger context of this verse in Smyrn. 3. 1–3 concerns Ignatius’ discussion of the reality of Christ’s passion and resurrection. In his commentary on Ignatius, William Schoedel maintains that the tradition in Smyrn. 3. 254 ‘is closely related to Luke 24. 39 (‘‘see my hands and my feet that it is I; handle me and see that a spirit does not have Xesh and bones as you have’’). Yet, Ignatius is probably not simply presenting a loose version of the Lukan text since further evidence for dependence on Luke is virtually absent in Ignatius’55—the criterion of rate of recurrence. Koester’s analysis of Ignatius leads him to conclude that there is no citation drawn decidedly from the synoptic gospels;56 he is unequivocal in stating that use of the synoptic gospels by Ignatius is out of the question. What little evidence has been advanced is unconvincing.57 Hagner also cites the similarities between Smyrn. 3. 2 and Luke 24. 39, and between Pol. 2. 1 and Luke 6. 32; however, he summarizes his observations by saying that ‘in every instance it is impossible to deny the possibility that oral tradition rather than dependence upon the Gospels may explain the words’.58 Gregory concurs that ‘there is no compelling reason to suggest that Ignatius drew on Luke, and there are strong, if not compelling, reasons that he may not have done’.59 As in the case of 1 Clement and Didache, and using the same criteria, there is no convincing evidence that Ignatius either knew or used the Gospel of Luke. If Ignatius of Antioch knew any of our canonical gospels, he would likely have known and used the Gospel of Matthew, if, indeed, Matthew was written in Antioch, or elsewhere in Syria. Biblia Patristica lists the following Wve citations or allusions to Luke in Ignatius:
Ignatius Luke
Eph. 11. 1 3. 7
Poly. 2. 1 6. 32
Eph. 14. 2 6. 44
Eph. 6. 1 12. 42
Smyrn. 3. 2 24. 39
Polycarp of Smyrna
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at the time of Ignatius’ martyrdom, left a document (not well preserved) known as his Letter to the Philippians. It is the view of Percy Harrison that Polycarp’s letter, as we know it, is actually two diVerent letters that were addressed to the church at Philippi at very diVerent times. The earlier of the two writings consisted of chapter 13, and possibly chapter 14, and served as a cover letter from Polycarp to accompany the letters of Ignatius that the church at Philippi had requested of him. This early letter can be dated to 110–17. Phil. 1–12, on the other hand, reXects a totally diVerent situation, and was probably written toward the end of Hadrian’s reign (which extended from 117 to 138), two or more decades later than the Wrst letter.60 Harrison’s thesis may provide an important key to the question of Polycarp’s knowledge and use of the Gospel of Luke. In examining the relationship between Polycarp and Luke, Massaux states: ‘No passage in the letter of Polycarp bears a trace of a deWnite literary dependence on the Gospel of Mk. or Lk.’61 Unlike Massaux, however, Koester Wnds contact between Polycarp and Luke (Phil. 2. 3a // Luke 6. 38) in the single word IØ æ ŁÆØ, a word that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.62 Koester speciWcally cites Harrison in claiming that Polycarp, at Phil. 2. 3a, is familiar with 1 Clem. 13. 14, as well as with the gospels of Matthew and Luke.63 Koester concludes that if his understanding and analysis of this text is correct, then Polycarp must have known the Gospel of Luke.64 In his Introduction, looking at a diVerent passage in 1 Clement, Koester again notes that Polycarp ‘corrects the quotations of sayings of Jesus in 1 Clem. 13:2 according to the text that had been established by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Phil. 2:3); a knowledge of the text of those gospels is also shown elsewhere (Phil. 7:2)’.65 Gregory Wnds no ‘decisive element for Polycarp’s knowledge and use of Luke’.66 The question of the use of Luke in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians is simpliWed somewhat by Harrison’s thesis, because it is not in the earlier letter of 110–17 that we Wnd possible use of Matthew, Luke, and 1 Clement. Rather, if there is knowledge and use of these writings, it appears in the second letter from 135 or later. These results conWrm our conclusions about the other early Apostolic Fathers: that they reXect no knowledge of Luke or, for that matter, any of the canonical gospels. If there is a reference to Luke in Polycarp, it comes in the later letter written approximately twenty years after Polycarp’s original letter. Even then the case for the use of Luke in the letter from 135 or later is not convincing. Koester’s argument hangs largely on the single word IØ æ ŁÆØ in the six-word sequence K fit æfiø æE IØ æ ŁÆØ # E (the absence of ªaæ in Philippians is, of course, inconsequential).67 The striking diVerences in the rest of the texts of Phil. 2. 3a and Luke 6. 38 make it diYcult to conclude that there is, indeed, clear evidence of Polycarp’s use of Luke:
(comparación en griego que no vale la pena poner, porque no se copian los caracteres. página 469).
Polycarp’s second letter clearly meets the criterion of accessibility. It is not entirely clear, however, that it meets the criterion of textual distinctiveness, because the only textual distinctiveness between Polycarp and Luke (as opposed to Matthew) lies in the preWx IØ before the verb æ ŁÆØ. The total dissimilarity of the material immediately preceding the saying in the texts of Polycarp and Luke makes one wonder whether it is the Gospel of Luke that Polycarp was using rather than an oral saying that happened, perhaps coincidentally, to match the Lucan version.68 In addition, it is clear that Polycarp does not meet the criterion of rate of recurrence with regard to use of Luke, as this is the only passage in which there is, perhaps, distinctive verbal agreement between them. But how much importance should be assigned to that criterion alone? I conclude that the evidence for Polycarp’s use of Luke (in either the earlier or the later letter, assuming Harrison’s thesis) is decidedly ‘underwhelming’.
Biblia Patristica lists the following citations or allusions to the Gospel of Luke in Polycarp:
Polycarp Luke 2. 3 6. 20 12. 3 6. 27 2. 3 6. 36–8 7. 2 11. 4 2. 1 11. 50–1 7. 2 22. 46
The Epistle of Barnabas
It is particularly diYcult to establish the date and place of composition of The Epistle of Barnabas. Suggestions range from c. 100 to 132–5; however, the truth of the matter is that we know virtually nothing about the author of Barnabas or its place and date of composition.69 Massaux states that ‘neither the Gospel of Mk. nor the Gospel of Lk. seems to have exercised a literary inXuence on the Epistle of Barnabas’.70 Koester observes that although use of Matthew, Luke, and an apocryphal gospel has sometimes been argued, generally judgement is either withheld or denied, or else use of the Gospel of Matthew alone is argued.71 According to Koster, all that can be said for certain is that Barnabas and the synoptic gospels both used the same oral tradition.72 If gospels were in circulation during the time of Barnabas, Koester maintains, they were apparently of little or no interest to the author. In fact, the failure of Barnabas to use the gospels may possibly be because the epistle was written close to the turn of the Wrst century rather than later.73 Barnabas fails on all three criteria. Biblia Patristica lists the following citations or allusions to the Gospel of Luke in Barnabas:
Barnabas Luke 14. 9 4. 18–19 5.9 5. 32 6. 13 13. 30 12. 11 20. 44 15. 5 21. 25–7
The Shepherd of Hermas
According to the reference in the Muratorian Canon, the Shepherd of Hermas was written in Rome toward the middle of the second century.74 Massaux maintains that the Gospel of Luke does not seem to have aVorded much inspiration to the Shepherd.75 He claims that there may be a slight reminiscence of Luke in Mand. 9. 8 just after he states that ‘as for the Gospel of Lk., Hermas seems to have drawn very little from it’.76 Koester conWrms the absence of any clear references to synoptic tradition in the Shepherd. He notes that although external evidence requires a date of composition no later than the middle of the second century, it is impossible to establish a more exact dating.77 He observes that at best the Shepherd contains material that agrees only very faintly with passages in the synoptic gospels. There is not a single passage that reXects clear use of synoptic material.78 Koester argues that the Shepherd’s failure to quote from early Christian writings does not necessary mean that the author did not know them, because the Shepherd also does not quote from the Old Testament.79 Although Koester is technically correct, the lack of citations or allusions to any of the gospels may be because the Shepherd was written earlier, rather than later, in the second century. It meets none of the criteria to establish knowledge or use of the Gospel of Luke.80 Nevertheless, Biblia Patristica lists two citations or allusions to the Gospel of Luke in the Shepherd of Hermas:
Hermas Luke
98. 1 (Sim. 9. 21. 1–4) 8. 13
6. 8 (Vis. 2. 2. 8) 12. 9
2 Clement
2 Clement was written sometime between 120 and 160. It is generally located in Rome because of its association with 1 Clement; however, Koester suggests Egypt before the middle of the second century.81 With respect to 2 Clement’s knowledge and use of Luke, Massaux states: ‘The author of 2 Clement certainly knew the Gospel of Lk. He does not refer to it explicitly, he does not quote from it word for word, but he is at times very close to it, demonstrating clearly that he is inspired by it. Yet, the texts are few where the literary dependence on the third gospel is certain; in most instances, the dependence is very probable and does not exclude the hypothesis of the use of an apocryphal source.’82 Koester’s conclusions with respect to 2 Clement’s use of Luke and the other synoptic gospels are more detailed than Massaux’s and reXect a better appreciation of the role of oral tradition in the early church: (1) many of the logia of Jesus cited in 2 Clement display a form that they could have had in the oral tradition before being taken over into our written gospels; (2) several citations reXect a revisional reworking of the Gospel of Luke (2 Clem. 6. 1; 13. 4a; and possibly 8. 5); (3) several citations reXect revisional reworking of the Gospel of Matthew (2 Clem. 2. 4; 3. 2; 6. 2); (4) in many citations in 2 Clement parallel passages in Matthew and Luke have clearly been harmonized and bear striking similarities to harmonizations of Matthew and Luke found in the writings of Pseudo-Clement and Justin Martyr (2 Clem. 9. 11; 4. 2, 5; 5. 2– 4); (5) other departures from or variations of the texts of Matthew or Luke go back to the author of 2 Clement; (6) there is, in addition, clear evidence of the use of extracanonical apocryphal tradition (2 Clem. 12. 2, 6). Koester concludes that the author of 2 Clement did not use the gospels of Matthew and Luke directly. Rather, he used a written collection of sayings of Jesus that was similar to the collection known to us in the Oxyrhynchus papyri. The speciWc collection known to the author of 2 Clement was based on the gospels of Matthew and Luke and contained, in addition, apocryphal material as well as further development of synoptic sayings. The collection known to the author of 2 Clement was probably designated as a collection of sayings of the Lord ‘from the Gospel’.83 Koester makes much the same claim in his Introduction: There is clear evidence that 2 Clement cannot have been written at the earliest period of Christianity. The sayings of Jesus that are quoted in the writing presuppose the NT gospels of Matthew and Luke; they were probably drawn from a harmonizing collection of sayings which was composed on the basis of these two gospels. 2 Clem. 8:5 refers to the written ‘gospel’ as a well-established entity (though it is not necessary to understand the reference to the ‘apostles,’ 2 Clem. 14:2, as a reference to writings under apostolic authority).84 On the basis of Koester’s detailed analysis of the evidence, I would argue that the similarity of the gospel harmonies available to 2 Clement and Justin Martyr make Rome a likely place of origin for the letter.85 Gregory is particularly guarded in his conclusions regarding 2 Clement’s knowledge and reception of Luke. He Wnds possible Lucan redaction in 2 Clem. 9. 11 in one of its three sayings, implying possible use of Matt. 12. 49–50 and Luke 8. 21 or of a post-synoptic harmony of these two gospels. In addition, Gregory observes that 2 Clem. 2. 7 may paraphrase Luke 19.10, although he states that this is by no means certain. In summary, Gregory Wnds little evidence to support 2 Clement’s use of Luke.86
The evidence indicates that 2 Clement likely meets all three criteria: accessibility, rate of recurrence, and textual distinctiveness. Yet, it is likely that 2 Clement did not use Luke itself, but instead used a post-synoptic harmony that combined elements of Matthew and Luke and, in at least two instances (2 Clem. 12. 2, 6) extra-canonical apocryphal tradition. Biblia Patristica lists the following citations or allusions to the Gospel of Luke in 2 Clement:
2 Clement Luke
17. 7 3.
17 2. 4 5. 32 13. 4 6. 32 13. 4 6. 35 9. 11 8. 21 6. 2 9. 25 5. 2 10. 3 3. 4 10. 27 5. 4 12. 4–5 3. 2 12. 8 4. 5 13. 27 8. 5 16. 10–12 6. 1 16. 13 2. 7 19. 10 8. 5 19. 17
14. 1 19. 46
11. 2 21. 29–33
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This study of the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers reveals little diVerence between the positions of E´ douard Massaux, Helmut Koester, and Andrew Gregory. When I examined the use of the Gospel of Matthew in the Apostolic Fathers in my 1992 study, I found Massaux and Koester in sharp disagreement. Whereas Massaux found substantial use of Matthew by the Apostolic Fathers, Koester found very little use of Matthew.
The diVerence of opinion between Massaux and Koester is minimal on the question of the use of the Gospel of Luke: both Wnd little use of Luke by the Apostolic Fathers. Andrew Gregory concurs in this assessment.
It is only as we approach the Apostolic Fathers toward the middle of the second century, specifically 2 Clement, and possibly the later writing included in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, that there may be evidence of use of Luke (see table 3.1). Even then, it is not entirely clear that it is Luke itself that was actually used.
In the course of this paper I have attempted to trace the use of the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers. SpeciWcally, I have looked at seven writers or writings covering the period from the end of the Wrst century to the middle of the second century.87
Among these writings, there appears to have been little or no use of the Gospel of Luke per se, but rather use of pre-synoptic oral and/or written tradition. This literature from the Wrst half of the second century reXects use not of the synoptic gospels but of the same tradition that underlies 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.
Exceptions to the use of pre-synoptic tradition among the Apostolic Fathers appear possibly in the latter portion of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, probably written in Smyrna after 135, and more clearly in 2 Clement, probably written in Rome toward the middle of the second century.
Polycarp’s second letter may reXect use of the Gospel of Luke, but even that is not entirely clear, and I very much doubt it. However, 2 Clement unmistakably reXects knowledge and use of Luke or, more accurately, use of a post-Lucan harmony of material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, combined perhaps with extra-canonical apocryphal tradition.
Quite obviously, none of the Apostolic Fathers had an understanding of the Gospel of Luke as sacred scripture. Such an understanding of Luke, or of any of the gospels, as Scripture likely occurred Wrst with Marcion, who was active in Rome in the mid-second century. In fact, it was Marcion, Justin Martyr, and Tatian who apparently set the stage and laid the foundation for the initial formation of the Christian canon a half-century later.88
Other second-century Christian writings, mostly later than the Apostolic Fathers, reXect knowledge and use of Luke. Writings from the second half of the second century reXect circumstances in which writers continued to modify Luke freely, often making signiWcant alterations and changes to the text of the gospel, sometimes harmonizing it with Matthew and/or other gospels.89 There is nothing in the literature before Irenaeus to suggest that Church Fathers in the second century might have felt obligated to preserve the Gospel of Luke in its original form.
Although my primary focus in this paper has been the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers, this study has, I believe, important implications for an understanding of the development of the New Testament canon and serious ramiWcations for textual criticism and for the study of the synoptic problem.90
What does this study tell us about the status of the Gospel of Luke during the Wrst half of the second century? Can we reasonably assume that there were Christian scribes who faithfully copied the autographs of the Gospel of Luke and the other gospels at a time when many, apparently most, second-century Christian writers obviously treated these same texts quite freely? What are the long-term implications of this study for textual criticism and for proposed solutions to the synoptic problem?91 Obviously, I cannot address these questions here, but I have uncovered a number of concerns that clearly need further consideration and deliberation in light of my Wndings.
I mentioned at the outset that this study is but a Wrst step, an overview, a prolegomenon to the question of the Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers. By focusing on one text later included in the New Testament, it complements the rigorous and systematic re-examination of possible references to all the writings later included in the New Testament that are collected together in the companion volume to this work. Those studies conWrm and illustrate the need to give critical attention to questions of method, and the need for scholars to continue to work diligently to develop and reWne criteria to determine what constitutes the use of one or more of the gospels.
Edouard Massaux, Helmut Koester, Wolf-Dietrich Ko¨hler, Andrew Gregory, and others have made a good start in their respective monographs, and each has built on the foundational and lasting work of the committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology whose results were published 100 years ago. Yet fresh insights and fresh discoveries may continue to call for rigorous reassessments of gospel traditions in all of the Apostolic Fathers, and beyond that narrow corpus to all of the Christian writings of the second century.