The Evangelists in Clement’s Hypotyposes
Excerpts from Clement of Alexandria’s lost Hypotyposes recounting the scribal activities of the evangelists Mark, Luke, and John puzzlingly differ despite overlapping in content. Actually, what little Clement said of the writing of Mark’s Gospel and of Hebrews is preserved in the Adumbrations, while Eusebius of Caesarea knew the Hypotyposes only through an intermediary given to embellishing paraphrase; furthermore, the claim by John of Scythopolis that Clement ascribed the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason to Luke arose from a misplaced note on Hebrews. An additional point in the Hypotyposes is hypothesized ascribing the compilation of the Pauline corpus to Luke.
INTRODUCTION
The lost Hypotyposes (Outlines) of Clement of Alexandria made several remarks on the literary activities of the Evangelists, which are of value especially in light of their very early date (ca. 200) and their potential to illuminate the origins of certain New Testament books.1 Pertinent excerpts have been handed down principally in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 315)—hereafter, the HE—but also in the scholia by John of Scythopolis (ca. 540) on the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus and in the Adumbrations translated from part of Clement’s work into Latin under Cassiodorus in the mid-sixth century. Yet these excerpts are puzzling in several respects, leaving what Clement actually wrote in doubt.
Clement’s account of the writing of Mark’s Gospel is apparently given in three passages—one from the Adumbrations and two from the HE— [End Page 353] agreeing in outline but differing in both wording and detail. Did the Hypotyposes really tell the story three times, or do some of these passages misrepresent what Clement really said? Again, Clement’s report that Hebrews was composed by Paul and translated by Luke occurs in both the Adumbrations and the HE, yet the latter is more detailed. Did Clement again repeat himself? Furthermore, the way that Eusebius cites the Hypotyposes, compared to other sources such as Clement’s Stromata, is also odd, as we shall see. Finally, John of Scythopolis, after noting that the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason was written by Ariston of Pella, thus quite reasonably implying a mid-second-century date, perplexingly adds that the sixth book of Clement’s Hypotyposes ascribes the Dialogue to Luke; of course, despite this oddly specific claim, it is implausible on several grounds that Clement said such a thing.
A simple and reasonable hypothesis accounts for all of these difficulties: the Adumbrations accurately preserves what little the Hypotyposes really said on the writing of Mark’s Gospel and of Hebrews, a single sentence altogether, while both Eusebius and John of Scythopolis, lacking first-hand knowledge of the Hypotyposes, were led astray by intermediaries making use of this same sentence. Accordingly, Eusebius’s source not only retold the stories paraphrastically but also expanded them with seemingly reasonable inferences, while John, reading another source that noted Luke’s authorship of Hebrews, erroneously transferred the clause to the Dialogue. The likelihood of this hypothesis will be established by examining each of the three witnesses in turn.
THE ADUMBRATIONS
Our surest starting point is not the earlier sources—as will become increasingly evident—but the one intending a faithful and continuous translation of a section of Clement’s work, spanning four of the Catholic Epistles.2 In the Adumbrations,3 at 1 Pet 5.13 (“… sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark,”),4 the Latin gives a single sentence:
Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many [End Page 354] testimonies of Christ, when asked by them to let them have a written record of the things which had been said, wrote the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Mark, from the things said by Peter; just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.5
If indeed translated directly from the Hypotyposes, the Adumbrations carries great weight. This fact, attested explicitly in the earliest manuscript, has not been seriously doubted since Zahn,6 except by the work’s most recent editor, observing especially the problems raised by a comparison with the HE.7 If these inconsistencies, however, are simply due to Eusebius’s reliance upon an intermediary, as will be demonstrated shortly, there remain no other objections compelling enough to warrant such doubt.
Another issue occasionally raised is that, as Cassiodorus himself acknowledges, certain potentially offensive material in Clement’s original text has been expurgated from the Adumbrations.8 Could the above [End Page 355] passage’s divergence from the HE be a result of such tampering? In light of the realities of the sixth century, hardly anyone would imagine so.9 Anecdotes of church history already well-known from the HE were hardly the sort of insidious error that Cassiodorus had in mind; the real danger, rather, was obviously any hint of Origenism.10
So, if the above passage is in fact what the Hypotyposes said,11 may this work have returned elsewhere to recount the same points in greater detail? In light of the nature of the passage, this in itself seems unlikely.12 If Clement had already told the story of Mark earlier in commentary on Mark’s Gospel, for example, there would be no point in explaining again about the knights; the anecdote only comes up now to explain why Peter is so prominently mentioning Mark, and Luke’s writings, recording the words and deeds of Paul, are adduced merely as a parallel, as if already common knowledge.13 Furthermore, if the corresponding passages in the HE were simply due to Clement repeating himself, Eusebius would not have hesitated to include also the passage witnessed by the Adumbrations, thereby quoting Clement repeatedly—just as he does Irenaeus, for example.14 Rather, all that the Hypotyposes truly recorded on the origins of Mark’s Gospel and of Hebrews has come down to us in this single passage.15
These claims, in fact, are simple and plausible. Apart from the role of the [End Page 356] knights, the point about Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s preaching is the same one witnessed much earlier by both Papias and Justin; indeed, nothing is inconsistent with Papias’s lost Exegesis of Dominical Oracles (ca. 100) being Clement’s ultimate source.16 When Clement acknowledges Hebrews as a composition by Paul, yet somehow translated by Luke, the former point is also implicit in the contemporary inclusion of Hebrews among Paul’s collected letters,17 while the latter leaves plenty of room for interpretation.
Now, when the very brief point in John of Scythopolis on the writing of Luke is compared to Eusebius’s excerpts on the writing of Mark, two conspicuous points of agreement emerge, further supporting their derivation from a common passage and further illuminating what is not clear from the Adumbrations itself. Firstly, in both cases the Greek uses ἀναγράψαι—meaning more to record rather than to compose—in reporting Clement’s claims on what each evangelist did.18 This suggests that the parallel he meant to draw—and his reason for pointing out Hebrews rather than Luke’s Gospel—was that just as Mark recorded Peter’s oral preaching, Luke recorded Hebrews from a speech delivered by Paul in his audience’s language. Even if so, it is a separate question whether or not this origin of Hebrews has a basis in historical reality, though just that has been recently argued on other grounds.19 [End Page 357]
Secondly, for their respective accounts, both Eusebius and John cite the sixth book of the Hypotyposes.20 The fact that both authors, even though speaking of different evangelists, draw from the same book further supports their drawing specifically from the very passage, witnessed by the Adumbrations, discussing both evangelists together. If so, the Adumbrations—or at least the section on 1 Pet with which it opens—is translated from the sixth book of the Hypotyposes,21 in contrast to longstanding speculation favoring the seventh or eighth.22 Let us see how this fits with the other data.
If the Hypotyposes indeed proceeded mainly as a book-by-book commentary, at least in this vicinity, the scriptures covered in each book of the work can be somewhat worked out from the twenty-one extant citations of specific books of the Hypotyposes, spanning books 4–8.23 In practice, Clement’s desultory yet succinct style often leaves his primary exegetical target uncertain24—who would have guessed, for example, that Luke’s authorship of Hebrews was mentioned at 1 Pet 5.13? From Pseudo-Oecumenius, who provides over half the extant citations, it is at least evident that 1–2 Cor were treated in book 4, Gal in book 5, and 1–2 Tim in book 7. From book 7 the HE also quotes a pair of points on the two Jameses, presumably at Jas 1.1, but interestingly Jas is not among the Catholic Epistles covered by the Adumbrations. Books 5, 6, and 8 are also cited for a few additional excerpts of uncertain context. None of the fragments, apart from the aforementioned on Mark and Luke, correspond to anything in the Adumbrations. From all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the Hypotyposes treated the Pauline Epistles to congregations in books 4–6 and then the Catholic Epistles in books 6–7, before turning [End Page 358] in book 7 to the remaining Pauline Epistles,25 while the Adumbrations covered only the Catholic Epistles up to the end of book 6, thus leaving out at least Jas in book 7.
In any case, nothing precludes assignment of the above-quoted passage to the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, the essential point with which subsequent analysis is concerned.
JOHN OF SCYTHOPOLIS
It is only in recent times that the contributions of John of Scythopolis in annotating the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus have been disentangled from those of Maximus Confessor and presented on their own.26 This now affords a clearer picture of John’s use of sources, which nevertheless has received little attention.27 For the present study, it is essential to establish, firstly, that John’s citation of the Hypotyposes on the writing of Luke is at second hand, and secondly, how John has consequently misreported what Clement originally said.
While frequently citing early sources, “it is fairly clear that John is picking up many of his citations at second hand,” as his editors observe.28 From Eusebius’s HE, the only one of John’s intermediaries extant, he manifestly has appropriated citations of Philo, Irenaeus, and one of Clement’s minor works.29 For John’s three remaining citations of Clement, we thus have every reason to suspect another intermediary, and this suspicion will further grow in certainty upon examination of their contexts. [End Page 359]
John first cites Clement’s Pedagogue—his sole use of the work—alongside an otherwise-unknown point from Papias’s Exegesis:
… Or yet another option: because he calls those practicing a blameless way of life in accordance with God’s commandments “children,” as also Papias indicated in the first book of the Exegesis of Dominical [Oracles], and as did Clement of Alexandria in his Pedagogue.30
Now, it is amply clear that Papias’s work was not known to John at first hand. Though regarding Papias as a contemporary of the Areopagite and thus of great relevance, John makes only one other citation of Papias,31 which is manifestly derived from Irenaeus32 and has even misinterpreted Irenaeus as ascribing to Papias what actually comes from “the elders.”33 Furthermore, since the title of Papias’s work is not given in Irenaeus, John has supplied it in the latter scholium by copying it from his own earlier scholium, quoted above, as evident from their common omission of the last word of the title,34 which would hardly have been necessary if the Exegesis itself were at hand. So, if the present passage relies on an intermediary for what it says of Papias, then in light of how the views of Papias and Clement are connected, the whole must be ascribed to the same source.
Has such an intermediary also supplied John’s two citations of Clement’s Hypotyposes? This is of course inherently more likely than the alternative, that John knew at first hand only this one work of Clement’s.35 Furthermore, in the latter case, it may be wondered whether, in light of [End Page 360] Photius’s scorn for the Hypotyposes,36 the like-minded John would then have appealed to it.
While one scholium simply cites the fifth book of the Hypotyposes as speaking of the “seven premier angels,”37 a point again attested nowhere else, the other citation of the work occurs in a passage—explaining how God is known through “unknowing” or “darkness”—so remarkable that it must here be quoted in full:
It is necessary to know that in Exodus where it is written that Moses entered into the darkness where God was [Ex 20.21], the Hebrew text has araphel. The Septuagint renders araphel as “darkness,” as do Aquila and Theodotion. Symmachus, however, translates araphel as “fog.” The Hebrew says that araphel is the name of the firmament into which Moses went, for they speak of seven firmaments, which they also call heavens. They also give names to them which we need not mention now. And I also read “seven heavens” in the writing by Ariston of Pella, The Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, which Clement of Alexandria in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes states St. Luke recorded (ἀναγράψαι).38
This has evidently been taken over in its entirety from an earlier source. While the progression of thought suggests unity of the passage, by the end it has strayed surprisingly far from anything pertinent to knowledge of God, as if plucked from another context. Without parallel in John’s writings, an extraordinary knowledge of several early matters is displayed: besides the Hypotyposes, the various scriptural translations are obviously from Origen’s Hexapla (ca. 240), and the Dialogue was already circulating by the late second century;39 furthermore, there are very few if any other occurrences of the name Ariston of Pella independent of the HE.40 An author of the third or fourth century might easily enough have firsthand knowledge of all these—and even of Papias’s Exegesis—in contrast to John in the sixth century. While the convenient proximity of Pella to [End Page 361] Scythopolis has been adduced to explain how John, uniquely among the extant sources, knows the Dialogue’s authorship by Ariston of Pella,41 I would suggest rather that finding an extremely rare citation of someone from his neighboring city impelled John to continue following his source, despite its increasing digression from the topic at hand, precisely as far as he did.
It is not presently necessary to identify John’s source, but it is worthwhile to very briefly observe the likelihood that the same source also has been extensively used in Anastasius of Sinai’s Hexaemeron (ca. 700). The context of John’s citations of Clement is consistent with a hexaemeral topic: his point citing the Pedagogue alludes to Adam and Eve before the Fall,42 his passage citing Hypotyposes 6 discusses the “darkness,” the “firmaments,” and the “seven heavens,” and he cites Hypotyposes 5 on the “seven premier angels,” whom Clement himself elsewhere links with the seven heavens and the seven days of the week.43 Between John and Anastasius, the pattern of citations displays striking similarities, too: Anastasius twice cites Papias—two of the extremely rare Papian citations independent of the HE44—in both cases alongside Clement,45 as we have seen John do; Anastasius also cites Clement—the unspecified work presumably being [End Page 362] the Hypotyposes where commenting on Genesis46—alongside a hexaplaric reading,47 which he is unlikely to have known directly48—again like John.
Now, the final sentence of the above-quoted passage, taken at face value, reports two seemingly divergent accounts of the authorship of the Dialogue. The problems are widely recognized: with Ariston’s authorship already stated as fact, the addition of an alternate claim, especially within what is already a digression, seems unmotivated; on the other hand, despite the oddly specific citation, it is hardly plausible that Clement actually identified Luke as the Dialogue’s author, especially in light of its patently non-Lucan character and the silence of Origen (having certainly read the Hypotyposes) on its authorship.49 The most widely accepted solution, however far-fetched, has been a textual emendation so that Clement identified the Dialogue’s Jason with the Jason in Acts 17, written of course by Luke.50 There is, however, a simpler and much more plausible solution, which is of special interest to the present study.
The “seven heavens” in the above passage’s original context would naturally lead to discussion of Heb 4.14.51 When beginning to appeal to Hebrews for the first time, the writer must have noted its authorship by [End Page 363] Luke according to Clement. If this appeared as a marginal note, it could easily have been misunderstood as applying instead to the Dialogue. Another possibility is the loss of a line between the sentence on the Dialogue and a subsequent one on Hebrews, or even of several lines, perhaps first discussing the views of Clement, who himself speaks of the seven heavens.52 In any case, John’s sentence is best explained by a misplacement of a clause originally citing the Hypotyposes on Luke’s authorship of Hebrews.53
But why would John’s source bring up the authorship of Hebrews at such a point? It would be especially apropos for an author embroiled in the third-century controversy on the matter—a date consistent with citing no one later than Origen. Origen’s discussion of the authorship of Hebrews observes its ascription to Clement of Rome by “some”—clearly referring to speculation by Hippolytus, also called Gaius of Rome in the HE,54 who regarded the epistle as non-Pauline—and to Luke by “others”—clearly referring to Clement of Alexandria.55 (Eusebius himself later weighs in, with Origen’s comments plainly in mind, in favor of a hybrid theory: Clement of Rome as Paul’s translator.56) Especially in proximity to thirdcentury Rome, the doubts raised by Hippolytus—which persisted there down to Eusebius’s own day57—would necessitate such a citation of Clement’s Hypotyposes when appealing to Hebrews as a scriptural authority. [End Page 364] While we of course cannot be sure of the author’s motive, it is hard to imagine a more satisfactory alternative.
Finally, it should be noted that the present conclusion—that John’s source cited the sixth book of the Hypotyposes on Luke’s authorship of Hebrews (independently of the HE, where no book number is specified for the point)—is consistent with the conclusion argued above—that the previously-quoted passage of the Adumbrations, containing the same point, is also from the sixth book—with each further strengthening the other.
EUSEBIUS
Eusebius’s HE is the earliest extant writing to cite the Hypotyposes explicitly, providing a cursory description and ten excerpts.58 Yet his first-hand knowledge of it, long presumed, has recently been called into question.59 If Eusebius has in fact obtained his excerpts through an intermediary, as John of Scythopolis did, they may consequently have drifted much further from the original, so it is essential to ascertain whether this is so.
Firstly, Eusebius’s own words have been adduced:60 of Clement’s Stromata, he writes, “the entire eight books are preserved among us,” speaking as if they are in his possession, while the same sentence goes on to say merely, “and of equal number with these are his books entitled Hypotyposes.”61 This may be a tacit acknowledgement of knowing the latter only indirectly; on the other hand, it may be simply for stylistic reasons, especially in light of how the HE speaks of other books on which Eusebius likely never laid eyes.62 [End Page 365]
More compelling is a comparison of Eusebius’s citations of Clement’s lost Hypotyposes to those of Clement’s extant Stromata. The HE cites the Stromata five times, besides providing its full title in the survey of Clement’s works, in every instance giving not only a book number but also a direct quotation, apart from one serving simply to date the work.63 This is consistent with the HE’s treatment of other works undoubtedly known to Eusebius at first hand, such as those of Josephus and Irenaeus.64 Still more tellingly, Eusebius quotes directly from the Stromata at length several times in a later work, his Preparation for the Gospel.65 On the other hand, he makes no further use of the Hypotyposes outside his history, within which it is cited ten times.66 Half of these are manifestly in indirect speech, and it is not at all clear whether the remainder are quotations or free paraphrases.67 While the omission of book numbers is perhaps understandable within the survey of Clement’s numerous works in HE 6.13–14, the exceptional absence of a book number in HE 5.11.2—reporting that the Hypotyposes names Pantaenus as Clement’s teacher, just before quoting from the first book of the Stromata—shows that this point has simply been copied from the survey and that the latter is not entirely Eusebius’s own. It must be concluded, in short, that Eusebius knows the Stromata directly but the Hypotyposes and likely a number of Clement’s other works only indirectly.
While nothing quite like the previously-quoted passage of the Adumbrations is given by Eusebius—a somewhat surprising omission if knowing the Hypotyposes at first hand—he does return three times to points paralleled in it, in each instance not only paraphrasing but expanding. Firstly, in his survey of Clement’s Hypotyposes in HE 6.14, he writes:
And he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke, after carefully translating it, published it for the Greeks, and that for this reason the same complexion is found in the expression of this Epistle and the Acts; but that [End Page 366] “Paul an Apostle” was naturally not prefixed. For, he says, when writing to Hebrews who had taken a prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he wisely did not repel them at the beginning by placing his name.68
The substance is Clement’s—even his distinctively adducing Acts but not Luke’s Gospel69—yet much more has been inferred under the assumption that Luke translated not from the spoken word but from a written epistle. A reasonable motive for Paul’s anonymity has even been imputed, which Eusebius, after relaying everything else in indirect speech, has apparently read in direct speech and mistaken for Clement’s words.
Next, after giving another of Clement’s remarks on Hebrews “further down” (ὑποβάς), the HE turns to what the Hypotyposes says of the writing of the Gospels:
But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders about the order of the Gospels in this manner: He said that those of the Gospels having the genealogies were written before [or, published openly] (προγεγράφθαι), but that Mark had this dispensation: that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly and proclaiming the gospel by the Spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record (ἀναγράψαι) what was spoken; but that after composing the Gospel, he shared it with those who wanted it; that, after finding out, Peter neither exhortatively restrained nor encouraged him; but that John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed in the Gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement.70
It is especially remarkable that Eusebius, so fond of direct quotations—which he provides for the ostensibly parallel accounts of the Four Gospels in Irenaeus and Origen71—has rendered this entire passage in indirect speech. Indeed, it has been observed to read less like a coherent discourse on the topic and more like something stitched together from Clement’s separate anecdotes on Mark and John.72 This makes a great deal more [End Page 367] sense upon recognizing that Eusebius has followed an intermediary that collected Clement’s few scattered remarks on the origins of the Gospels and recounted them already in indirect speech, which Eusebius then felt free to further refine.
The brief account of John the Evangelist may rest on no more than Clement’s assertions that John knew the other gospels and was urged to write his own—the latter being so gratuitous in the present context that it undoubtedly comes from Clement.73 Both points recur in HE 3.24.5–13, a passage vaguely citing “a record preserves” (κατέχει λόγος) and “they say” (φασὶ)74 on the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and John and evidently following a source responding to Origen.75 Yet even if that source in turn has used the Hypotyposes, no further conclusions on the latter’s content can be drawn; in light of the silence of the above-quoted passage, the Hypotyposes most likely said nothing of substance on the composition of Matthew’s Gospel, and everything besides the point that John was urged to write can be inferred from Origen’s extant writings.76 [End Page 368] Again, even if Clement is also the ultimate source for several points on John’s life in subsequent authors,77 they need not be traced to the Hypotyposes specifically—another of Clement’s works says much more of John’s activities,78 for example—and any further exploration of the issue would require a separate study.
The above-quoted passage has often been cited in the debate on the Synoptic Problem as attesting Marcan posteriority, by taking προγεγράφθαι in its sense of written before.79 In fact, Eusebius himself may well have this meaning in mind,80 whereas his source, finding nothing of substance in the Hypotyposes on the origins of Matthew and Luke, actually began by explaining how, in contrast to these openly published (προγεγράφθαι) gospels, Mark’s circulation was initially private. To this was adjoined Clement’s account of John’s Gospel, said to have been written in awareness of, and therefore after, the Synoptics. Reading all this together, Eusebius then took it for Clement’s narrative of the sequential order of composition of the Four Gospels and reframed it accordingly.
Just as HE 6.14 retells the origin of Hebrews as recorded a bit more simply in the Adumbrations and appends the apostle Paul’s imputed motive, so it retells the origin of Mark’s Gospel as recorded a bit more simply in the Adumbrations and appends the apostle Peter’s presumed reaction (to which we return shortly) in light of the seemingly private and unauthorized character of the Gospel’s initial distribution. Now, the HE elsewhere gives much the same account of Mark’s Gospel yet again in different words, but this time describing a much more enthusiastic reaction from Peter:81
So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with entreaties [End Page 369] of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose Gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way they became the cause of the written Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved the writing for use in the churches. Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes—and the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias also confirms him—as well as Peter mentioning Mark in his First Epistle. Indeed, they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” [1 Pet 5.13].82
Though now using direct speech, Eusebius does not claim to be quoting Clement verbatim and clearly is not, with a style quite unlike the other verbatim Hypotyposes fragments. In fact, the very points introduced with “they say” (φασι)—Peter’s Spirit-led discovery and approval of Mark’s Gospel and his reference to Rome as “Babylon”—have all the character of inferences added by Eusebius’s unattributed source.83 The additional citation of Papias, on the other hand, appears to be a clumsy addition by Eusebius himself, from what little he knows of his work;84 once again, the conspicuous absence of a book number—right after specifying the sixth book of the Hypotyposes—betrays Eusebius’s reliance upon the survey of Papias’s writing in HE 3.39, in turn appropriated (with the insertion of Eusebius’s own opinions) from some earlier source.85 Otherwise, the present [End Page 370] passage presents the same essential data in the Adumbrations freely paraphrased and expanded with reasonable inferences in accord with the same presumptions underlying HE 6.14. Eusebius likely assumed that Clement had simply recounted the origin of Mark’s Gospel on two distinct occasions, the latter in the context of the Four Gospels together, unaware of working with two paraphrases of the same underlying text. The present passage also reveals its original context within the Hypotyposes as the sixth book, with the final citation of 1 Pet 5.13 strongly suggesting that very verse specifically; again, this is entirely consistent with derivation from the passage witnessed by the Adumbrations.
Now, what is most perplexing about Eusebius’s two versions of the story of Mark according to the Hypotyposes is Peter’s reaction upon discovering what Mark had done. In the Adumbrations, nothing whatsoever is said of this. The HE, on the other hand, gives two strikingly different—some would even say conflicting—conclusions to the story: in HE 2.15, Peter “was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved the writing for use in the churches,” while in HE 6.14, he was much more neutral toward Mark’s distribution of the new Gospel and “neither exhortatively restrained nor encouraged him.” How can all this be explained?
Since the Adumbrations has the knights entreating Mark rather than Peter, anyone bearing in mind parallels such as those famously recounted by Galen86 would therefore imagine that Mark, rather than acting at Peter’s behest (“as Peter led him,” as Origen has it87), had surreptitiously transcribed Peter’s preaching and leaked the work. But with such an origin, how did it then come to be counted among the canonical Four Gospels as an inspired apostolic writing? This would necessarily have been brought about by the Holy Spirit through ratification by Peter, necessarily preceded by his discovering what Mark had done. This much fully explains HE 2.15, which has bridged the gap between Mark’s deed and his Gospel’s ultimate status through these entirely reasonable inferences. [End Page 371]
Later on, surveying Clement’s writings, HE 6.14 can follow the version of the Adumbrations somewhat more closely, yet the noteworthy thing to be pointed out there is how, according to Clement, Mark’s Gospel arose not through Peter’s initiative but through the audience’s entreaties to Mark. But wouldn’t Peter, a reader might wonder, then become outraged, denounce Mark and his Gospel, and put a stop to the unauthorized publication? Saying that Peter did not restrain Mark serves as an assurance to the contrary.
What is most out of place—and quite at odds with the scene in HE 2.15—is the strange addendum that Peter also did not encourage Mark. While reconciling the two accounts is not impossible, it would be surprising to find a single author in a single work—whether Clement in his Hypotyposes or our hypothetical intermediary—recounting his own understanding of the course of events so divergently on such a crucial point.88 The likeliest explanation is that Eusebius, having entirely missed his source’s central point about the Gospel’s origin, as we have seen, has once again misunderstood what he has read, so that in simplifying its indirect discourse he has subtly shifted its import. Since the HE employs the repetitive phrasing, “after finding out, Peter neither exhortatively (προτρεπτικῶς) restrained nor encouraged (προτρέψασθαι) him,” perhaps Eusebius’s source originally read something like, “after finding out, Peter did not exhortatively restrain him, though having not encouraged him”—meaning that although Peter had not told Mark to record and distribute the Gospel, when he later found out, he did not then (as might be expected) tell Mark to stop—a fitting parallel making much better sense in context.
So, all the matter on Peter’s reaction and even on his discovery of Mark’s already-written Gospel—all devoid of specific detail—is attributable to narrative expansion by the intermediary between Eusebius and the Hypotyposes. In both HE 2.15 and HE 6.14, the remainder of each story about Mark agrees so closely in substance with the Adumbrations that the common origin of all three in a single passage of the Hypotyposes has by now become hard to deny.
Finally, what can be gathered—in likelihood rather than certainty, of [End Page 372] course—about Eusebius’s source and its relation to that used by John of Scythopolis? The remarkable affinities at least suggest common authorship. Both sources have not only cited the Hypotyposes but have taken a special interest in its testimony on the origin of Hebrews. If John’s source also provided his citations of both Papias and Ariston of Pella, as argued above, Eusebius’s citations of these obscure figures,89 apparently at second hand,90 may well originate from the same author. Furthermore, the chronology also fits, with John’s source writing later than Origen in the mid-third century and Eusebius’s being read already in the early fourth. On the other hand, the two sources appear to be distinct works on different topics: John’s on the Hexaemeron (as argued above) and Eusebius’s on church history. While Eusebius’s culling of excerpts pertinent to church history hardly demonstrates the nature of his sources—witness his cherry-picking from Irenaeus’s theological work, for example—the fact that his intermediary has done precisely this for the Hypotyposes—a scriptural commentary likely offering little more on church history than the HE already collects—shows how closely the intermediary’s focus must have matched the HE’s; furthermore, we can begin to see something of what this source was like if, as argued above, the survey of Clement’s writings in HE 6.13–14 was largely appropriated from it. If this unattributed source by an older contemporary also underlies the HE’s report regarding Hebrews, “Even to this day among the Romans some do not consider it to belong to the Apostle,”91 this may shed light on the source’s provenance. Of course, if Eusebius—despite the HE’s claims to have no predecessors in its endeavor92—has indeed made unattributed use of anything like an existing church history, his debt to it may easily be a large one. Whether this is so and what other traces the earlier author may have left elsewhere are fascinating questions that the present study will leave unexplored. [End Page 373]
As Eusebius’s beloved master Pamphilus has already been conjectured as his unnamed source on the Hypotyposes,93 I would at least briefly suggest a more likely alternative: Pamphilus’s own teacher, Pierius of Alexandria.94 After distinguishing himself in the late third century in Alexandria, where Clement’s many works would of course be influential, Pierius resettled in Rome in the early fourth, where Hippolytus’s legacy on the question of Hebrews would make Clement’s testimony all the more pertinent; finally, this renowned author’s writings—none of which are extant—were surely procured by his student Pamphilus for the library of Caesarea and were thereby known to Eusebius. In any case, the identity of the author who informed Eusebius and John of Scythopolis is not so important as his role in transmitting several excerpts of the Hypotyposes—and likely other early patristic writings—for which he deserves our gratitude.
Luke J. Stevens is an independent scholar living in Santa Clara, California
APPENDIX. PAUL’S GOSPEL
In investigating what the Hypotyposes recorded on the Evangelists, we have so far examined its tangential references to the writing by Mark and John of their respective Gospels and by Luke of Acts and the Greek text of Hebrews. To this list, one further point should perhaps be added, which, though hypothetical, holds considerable explanatory power, accounting not only for certain perplexing remarks in Origen and Eusebius but also for Clement’s own claim on the origin of Hebrews.
Firstly, in reference to 2 Tim 2.2, the seventh book of the Hypotyposes is quoted by Pseudo-Oecumenius as follows:
“Through many witnesses”—that is, the Law and the Prophets. For the Apostle made them witnesses of his own proclamation.95
The present proposal is that the Hypotyposes next proceeded to comment on 2 Tim 2.8 with a complementary exegesis—with Paul, in Clement’s view, after looking first to the Old Testament, now turning to the New—in words that bewildered subsequent readers, saying something roughly like this:
“According to my gospel”—that is, the written proclamation of the Apostle himself. For Luke published the so-called gospel throughout all the churches.96
While this hypothetical comment fits neatly in context and accords with the style of the Hypotyposes, no direct evidence ascribes to Clement any such remark; rather, its vestiges are found without attribution in readers of the Hypotyposes. The nearest parallel occurs in the HE:
And they say that actually to the Gospel of Luke Paul habitually referred whenever, as if writing of some gospel of his own, he said, “according to my gospel.”97
As we have seen that Eusebius knew the Hypotyposes only through an intermediary, tracing the present passage to the Hypotyposes requires first ascertaining that Eusebius is here following an unnamed source. This is evident not only from “they say” (φασὶν),98 but also from the context. Immediately preceding this passage, the HE recounts Luke’s writing of his Gospel and of Acts in a sentence so unwieldy that it has been called “virtually untranslatable,”99 betraying its appropriation from a more bombastic source. Furthermore, the same sentence begins by calling Luke an Antiochene, a point inferred from the Western text of Acts 11.28,100 and more such leaps occur in the preceding sentence, making Timothy a bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete,101 with only a vague citation of “it is recounted” (ἱστορεῖται); such rash inferences, as we have seen, are characteristic not of Eusebius himself but of the intermediary through which he knew the Hypotyposes. It is therefore quite plausible (though by no means proven) that the above-quoted text reflects one reader’s understanding of what the Hypotyposes said.
Additionally, why is the specific phrase “according to my gospel” conspicuously addressed here? This is easily explained by Eusebius’s source following the Hypotyposes, which habitually introduces a comment with the phrase of scripture to which it pertains. Although Paul’s letters frequently use the word gospel, the entire phrase occurs only three times,102 of which the one most likely in mind is at 2 Tim 2.8, the same epistle in which Paul goes on to say, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim 4.11).
The absence of this hypothetical datum from the survey of the Hypotyposes in HE 6.14 is also unsurprising. There was no need to appeal to Clement’s authority for what already seemed evident from scripture itself, that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke by drawing from the testimony of the apostles and was closely associated with Paul. Whereas the survey could note with interest Clement’s anecdotes on how Mark and John came to write their Gospels, what little Clement hypothetically said of Luke’s Gospel included nothing on the circumstances of its composition and merely pointed out where Paul had seemingly referred to it.
A stark contrast to this passage of the HE occurs in Origen’s Commentary on John (ca. 230), which begins by considering thoughtfully and at length the various meanings of gospel, which might refer, for example, to all of sacred scripture, to the New Testament, to any of the Four Gospels, or even simply to the good news.103 At one point, he specifically considers what Paul’s “according to my gospel” referred to:
Now it is possible to introduce evidence from Paul’s words on our point that the whole New Testament is the gospel when he writes somewhere, “according to my gospel.” For among Paul’s writings we do not have a book called a “gospel” in the usual sense, but everything which he preached and said was the gospel. And the things which he preached and said he also wrote. What he wrote, therefore, was “gospel.” But if the writings of Paul were gospel, it is consistent with that to say that Peter’s writings also were gospel ….104
Origen’s impetus for singling out this phrase was apparently not the Hypotyposes but its citation by the Marcionites, who adduced it as affirmation of a single written gospel rather than the fourfold gospel, as he observes a bit later in the same work.105 He here comes very close to identifying “Paul’s gospel” as the Pauline corpus—a point to which we return momentarily—but by this time its contents had been so thoroughly subsumed into the New Testament106 that he could hardly imagine Paul’s collected letters as a distinct publication any more than Peter’s.
It is puzzling, then, to find Origen in subsequent works firmly identifying one of Paul’s references to “the gospel” with the Gospel of Luke—somewhat as the HE later asserts—yet only in the particular instance of 2 Cor 8.18 (literally, “And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches”).107 Origen has not merely observed that the unnamed brother was well-known for proclaiming the good news and guessed that he was Luke, but rather has deduced the brother’s identity from first identifying the “gospel” with Luke’s Gospel. This is evident, firstly, from Origen’s account of the Four Gospels, in which the Gospel of Luke is explicitly described as “praised by Paul”:
As learned by tradition about the four gospels, which alone are undisputed in the church of God under heaven, that first written was Matthew, once publican but later apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters; but second, Mark, who composed as Peter led him, whom he avowed as a son in the catholic epistle, saying as follows: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark” [1 Pet 5.13]; and third, Luke, who has composed for those from the gentiles the gospel praised by Paul; after all of them, John.108
The connection of Mark’s Gospel to 1 Pet 5.13—though anyone could spontaneously make it109—is made in the Hypotyposes, which Origen certainly knew.110 This weakly suggests that what he says of Luke is inferred from the same work, especially since these two points are precisely those where Origen has departed from the outline of Irenaeus.111 Now, how was Luke’s Gospel “praised by Paul”? Origen elsewhere explains:
Hence also he is deservedly praised by the Apostle, when he says, “whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” [2 Cor 8.18]. For this is said of no other; only of Luke is the expression handed down.112
Origen apparently understood “throughout all the churches” as applying not to the brother’s praise but to the gospel, leaving the praise to be from Paul. The term Gospel throughout All the Churches, then, must have been one that Origen recognized from some trusted antecedent as uniquely designating the Gospel of Luke. It was only on this basis that he could make such an extraordinary and implausible leap.
Now, despite some serious differences, both Origen and Eusebius make the remarkable assertion that at some point when Paul wrote “gospel” he was referring to Luke’s Gospel, which suggests that two distinct interpretations have arisen from struggling with a common source. We have seen reasons for suspecting the Hypotyposes as this common source, and the proposed reconstruction shows how this very result could come about. Here it is once again:
“According to my gospel”—that is, the written proclamation of the Apostle himself. For Luke published the so-called gospel throughout all the churches.
Origen, aware that Paul’s “according to my gospel” did not refer directly to Luke’s Gospel—though they might reasonably enough be exegetically linked—still found plausible Clement’s apparent claim that the latter was known as the Gospel throughout All the Churches, a term found in Paul’s writings. The HE’s source, on the other hand, discerned that Clement indeed meant to identify the “gospel” that Luke published to all the churches with the one to which Paul referred in “according to my gospel,” and, perhaps finding further encouragement in Irenaeus,113 naturally took both to be the Gospel of Luke.
While Clement’s readers quite reasonably understood this hypothesized comment as referring to the Gospel of Luke, its original meaning much more plausibly referred to the Pauline corpus—i.e., that Luke compiled and published the collection of Paul’s epistles, which Paul, in Clement’s view, was already anticipating in 2 Timothy. If so, the context in which Clement learned of Luke’s authorship of Hebrews then becomes easy to envision. It was not some stray bit of trivia, but came to him—perhaps ultimately from Papias’s Exegesis—within an explanation of the origin of the Pauline corpus: Luke compiled the thirteen letters written by Paul, to which he added his own translation of Paul’s address to the Hebrews, and published the collection as a literary unit. Once again, it is a separate question whether such a claim had a basis in historical reality, though on other grounds just that has already been argued.114
Footnotes
1. The literature is surveyed in Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, “The Place of the Hypotyposeis in the Clementine Corpus: An Apology for ‘The Other Clement of Alexandria,’” JECS 17 (2009): 313–35, at 315n4. The Hypotyposes itself is closely studied in Jana Plátová, “Klement Alexandrijský—Hypotyposeis: První křest’anský komentář Písma” (PhD diss., Masarykova Univerzita, 2007).
2. In order: 1 Pet, Jude, 1 John, and 2 John.
3. Recently edited and studied in Davide Dainese, Clemente Alessandrino: Adombrazioni, Letture cristiane del primo millennio 51 (Milan: Paoline, 2014).
4. Biblical translations are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. Although the verse is not quoted in the Adumbrations, the remark’s target is clear from its position and content.
5. GCS 17:206; translation adapted from Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 131.
6. Theodor Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur (Erlangen: Deichert, 1884), 3:133–38 (though Zahn was more concerned with establishing Clement’s authorship than the work’s specific relationship to the Hypotyposes). The conclusion is endorsed by the authoritative editions of Hypotyposes fragments—Otto Stählin, Ludwig Früchtel, and Ursula Treu, eds., Clemens Alexandrinus, 2nd ed., GCS 17 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1970), 3:xviii–xx, 203–215; Jana Plátová, ed., Klement Alexandrijský, Exegetické zlomky: Eclogae propheticae, Hypotyposes, Knihovna raně křest’anské tradice 16 (Prague: OIKOYMENH, 2014), 10–12, 140–83—and by many others, including Jean Ruwet, “Clément d’Alexandrie: Canon des écritures et apocryphes,” Biblica 29 (1948): 77–99, at 98; Alain Le Boulluec, “Extraits d’oeuvres de Clément d’Alexandrie: La transmission et le sens de leurs titres,” in Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques, ed. Jean-Claude Fredouille, Collection des études Augustiniennes, Série antiquité 152 (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1997), 287–300, at 297–98; Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses, Supplements to VC 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 6, 90–91; Giuliano Chiapparini, “‘Nuovi’ frammenti delle Ipotiposi di Clemente Alessandrino: Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae propheticae e il resto del cosiddetto libro VIII degli Stromati,” Aevum 90 (2016): 205–38, at 223–24.
7. Dainese, Clemente Alessandrino: Adombrazioni, 37–43, 160–63; the same argument is revised in Davide Dainese, “Clement’s Exegesis of 1 John in the Adumbrationes,” in Clement’s Biblical Exegesis, eds. Veronika Černušková, Judith L. Kovacs, and Jana Plátová, Supplements to VC 139 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 292–324, at 293–301. While upholding Clement’s authorship, Dainese regards the Adumbrations as a distinct writing, perhaps preparatory material for Clement’s other works.
8. Cass. Div. litt. 1.8.4 (Wolfgang Bürsgens, ed., Cassiodor: Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum, Fontes Christiani 39 [Freiburg: Herder, 2003], 1:160).
9. A recent one who does is Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 431–32.
10. See Adolf Knauber, “Die patrologische Schätzung des Clemens von Alexandrien bis zu seinem neuerlichen Bekanntwerden durch die ersten Druckeditionen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, eds. Patrick Granfield and Josef Andreas Jungmann (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), 289–308, at 292.
11. The analysis will henceforth insist upon only this point. For present purposes, though little doubt now remains, it does not actually matter whether or not the Adumbrations is from Cassiodorus (disputed in Denis-Nicolas Le Nourry, Apparatus ad bibliothecam maximam veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum [Paris: Anisson, 1703], 3:1318–20 = PG 9:1465–69; but sufficiently established in Zahn, Forschungen, 3:133–36), nor whether it translates a corresponding continuous section of the Hypotyposes or merely collects excerpts from it into a sort of catena (as briefly suggested in Brooke Foss Westcott, “Clement of Alexandria,” eds. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: Murray, 1877], 564; but denied in Zahn, Forschungen, 3:136).
12. See Dainese, Clemente Alessandrino: Adombrazioni, 40–41, 162–63n45; Dainese, “Clement’s Exegesis,” 299.
13. Cf. Clem. Str. 5.12.82.4 (GCS 52:381), where Luke is acknowledged in passing as the author of Acts.
14. Eus. HE 3.23.3–4 (GCS NF 6/1:234–36), quoting Iren. Haer. 2.22.5 and 3.3.4 on John’s survival into the reign of Trajan.
15. As summarily recognized in John Chapman, “L’auteur du canon Muratorien,” Revue Bénédictine 21 (1904): 240–64, at 252, but assuming Eusebius’s direct dependence and making no attempt to account for the discrepancies.
16. Papias, apud Eus. HE 3.39.14–15 (GCS NF 6/1:290); Just. Dial. 106.3 (Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone, Patristische Texte und Studien 47 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997], 252). It is of course unknown whether Papias also said anything of the knights in Rome before the HE’s quotation begins, though his “as I said” (ὡς ἔφην) seems to refer back to something further (as pointed out in Adrien Delclaux, “Deux témoignages de Papias sur la composition de Marc?,” NTS 27 [1981]: 401–11, at 407). It is also difficult to ascertain whether Clement’s knowledge of the Exegesis, if any, was at first or second hand. Clement’s Letter to Theodore, if authentic, may further illuminate his understanding of the origin of Mark’s Gospel, though it is not directly relevant to the present study.
17. See Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.235 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 140–44. Clement himself quotes Hebrews as the words of Paul, e.g., in Str. 6.8.62 (GCS 52:463).
18. Eus. HE 6.14.6 (GCS NF 6/2:550); Jo. Scyth. Schol. myst. 421.1 (PG 4:421c = GCS 17:199). On ἀναγράψαι, see Harry Tolley, “Clement of Alexandria’s Reference to Luke the Evangelist as Author of Jason and Papiscus,” JTS 63 (2012): 523–32, at 524n4.
19. Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker, “The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship,” in Paul and His Social Relations, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land, Pauline Studies 7 (Boston: Brill, 2013), 143–84, though assuming Paul spoke in Greek. In a similar vein, for the view that Mark transcribed Peter’s preaching practically verbatim, see Bernard Orchard, “The Making and Publication of Mark’s Gospel: An Historical Investigation,” Annales theologici 7 (1993): 369–93.
20. Eus. HE 2.15.2 (GCS NF 6/1:140); Jo. Scyth. Schol. myst. 421.1 (PG 4:421c = GCS 17:199).
21. As pointed out in Chapman, “L’auteur du canon Muratorien,” 252, which has gone largely unnoticed.
22. For book 8, Christian Carl Josias von Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena (London: Longmans, 1854), 1:164, 325; for book 7, Zahn, Forschungen, 3:156; and book 7 is still maintained in Jana Plátová, “Bemerkungen zu den Hypotyposen-Fragmenten des Clemens Alexandrinus,” SP 46 (2010): 181–88, at 184.
23. GCS 17:195–201 collects nearly all of these citations, but for the complete collection, accompanied by Czech translation, see Plátová, Exegetické zlomky, 115–85. A handy tabulation is presented in Plátová, “Hypotyposen-Fragmenten,” 184. Earlier attempts to thus reconstruct the arrangement of the Hypotyposes—necessarily presuming its focus on one biblical book at a time, as in the Adumbrations—include Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 1:163–64; Zahn, Forschungen, 3:147–56; Chapman, “L’auteur du canon Muratorien,” 251–56. On the overall plan of the Hypotyposes, now see Chiapparini, “‘Nuovi’ frammenti,” 219–24.
24. As observed in Zahn, Forschungen, 3:147; Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, 89–91. Plátová, “Klement Alexandrijský—Hypotyposeis,” 35–92, explores the possible contexts for each fragment.
25. Such a split of the Pauline Corpus (as pointed out in Zahn, Forschungen, 3:150; Chapman, “L’auteur du canon Muratorien,” 251, 255–56) would be further encouraged by its conception, prevalent in Clement’s age, as Paul writing to seven churches just like John in his Apocalypse, leaving the private epistles and Hebrews for separate consideration; see Nils Alstrup Dahl, “The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church,” in Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text- and Edition-Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes, eds. David Hellholm, Vemund Blomkvist, and Tord Fornberg, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.131 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 165–78, at 165–68.
26. Paul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), hereafter abbreviated JSDC. References below to the scholia indicate the column and entry in PG 4 along with the page of JSDC affirming John’s authorship and providing an English translation.
27. Principally, JSDC 54–58.
28. JSDC 58.
29. See JSDC 55–56, 58. In particular: Schol. epp. Dion. Ar. 573.7 (JSDC 262–63) from HE 3.23 for Irenaeus and for Clement’s Q.d.s.; 536.5 (JSDC 254) from HE 4.14 for Irenaeus and hence Polycarp; 528.1 (JSDC 250) from HE 2.17 for Philo; perhaps also Schol. c.h. 113.10 (JSDC 168) from HE 4.16 for Justin.
30. Jo. Scyth. Schol. c.h. 48.7 (JSDC 154, translation slightly modified). The passage is studied in Enrico Norelli, Papia di Hierapolis: Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: i frammenti, Letture cristiane del primo millennio 36 (Milan: Paoline, 2005), 412–17.
31. Jo. Scyth. Schol. e.h. 176.4 (JSDC 182), also studied in Norelli, Papia, 418–21.
32. JSDC 58; Norelli, Papia, 420–21. Cf. Iren. Haer. 5.33.3–4 (SC 153:414–20). Furthermore, though it is not essential to the present line of argument, John appears to also lack first-hand knowledge of Irenaeus (making his knowledge of Papias, in this instance, at third hand), relying here on yet another intermediary, which may also underlie the immediately preceding scholium (Schol. e.h. 176.3 [JSDC 181–82]) as well as Schol. c.h. 65.6, 76.7, Schol. e.h. 172.11, 173.8, Schol. d.n. 312.1, 337.5, and Schol. epp. Dion. Ar. 545.8 (respectively, JSDC 159, 163, 180, 181, 218, 225, 257).
33. Norelli, Papia, 194–99, upholds the distinction; see also Richard Bauckham, “Did Papias Write History or Exegesis?,” JTS 65 (2014): 463–88, at 473–74.
34. The full title is attested in Eus. HE 3.39.1 (GCS NF 6/1:284). Norelli, Papia, 420, attributes the omission to homoioteleuton; on the other hand, a differently abridged title occurs in two other closely related texts (Norelli, Papia, 364, 434).
35. It must be born in mind, however, that second-hand citations—presently, John’s citations of Clement’s other works—do not per se exclude first-hand knowledge of the cited works (see Jørgen Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background, Hermes Einzelschriften 40 [Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978], 18–19), though here the lack of it is strongly suggested in the absence of any potentially first-hand usages.
36. Phot. Cod. 109 (René Henry, ed., Photius: Bibliothèque [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1959–1977], 2:79–81), calls it “blasphemous.” See Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of “Heresy” from Photius’ Bibliotheca, Supplements to VC 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 16–18.
37. Jo. Scyth. Schol. d.n. 225.3 (JSDC 198), now critically edited in Beate Regina Suchla, ed., Corpus Dionysiacum IV/1: Ioannis Scythopolitani prologus et scholia in Dionysii Areopagitae librum De divinis nominibus cum additamentis interpretum aliorum, Patristische Texte und Studien 62 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 187.
38. Jo. Scyth. Schol. m.t. 421.1 (JSDC 244–45 = GCS 17:199, with the translation modified in accordance with Tolley, “Clement’s Reference to Luke,” 524).
39. Harry Tolley, “Ariston of Pella: An Investigation of His Works, Name and Toponym” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009), 87–90.
40. See Tolley, “Ariston of Pella,” 127–89.
41. Tolley, “Ariston of Pella,” 116–17, 122. The puzzle is that the exceptional silence on the Dialogue’s authorship among its several earlier readers indicates that it circulated anonymously; see Giorgio Otranto, “La Disputa tra Giasone e Papisco sul Cristo falsamente attribuita ad Aristone di Pella,” VetC 33 (1996): 337–51, at 341–42.
42. Norelli, Papia, 414–17.
43. Clem. Ecl. 51–52 (GCS 17:151); Str. 6.16.142–43 (GCS 52:504). On the seven premier angels in Clement’s angelology and cosmology, see Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, 31–83; Michel Cambe, Avenir solaire et angélique des justes: Le Psaume 19 (18) commenté par Clément d’Alexandrie, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 10 (Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg, 2009), 39–68 (for this reference I thank an anonymous reviewer); Monika Recinová, “Clement’s Angelological Doctrines: Between Jewish Models and Philosophic-Religious Streams of Late Antiquity,” in The Seventh Book of the Stromateis, eds. Matyáš Havrda, Vít Hušek, and Jana Plátová, Supplements to VC 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 93–111, at 101–3. A hexaemeral context also befits one of John’s citations of Africanus’s lost Chronographies (ca. 221), in Schol. epp. Dion. Ar. 532.4 (JSDC 252), on God as the cause of humans, and perhaps even the other, in 541.5 (JSDC 256), on the sun’s darkening during the Passion, which is also linked to the Hexaemeron in Anast. S. Hex. 4.457–60 (OCA 278:118).
44. See Norelli, Papia, 28, for the tally.
45. Anast. S. Hex. 1.321–25 (OCA 278:18), 7B.469–77 (OCA 278:256). In each case, the list of authorities, obviously originating in defense of Origen, is also noteworthy. It is also interesting that Hex. 7A.167–83 (OCA 278:212) cites Clement alongside Irenaeus and Justin when quoting an otherwise unknown passage of the latter.
46. See Plátová, “Klement Alexandrijský—Hypotyposeis,” 11–13, 130–31.
47. Anast. S. Hex. 9.817–21 (OCA 278:348). Other hexaplaric readings occur at Hex. 8.72–78, 9.312–15, 9.765–66, 10.304–6, 11.10–13, 12.108–12, and 12.366–71 (respectively, OCA 278:278–80, 322, 346, 368–70, 396, 464–66, 478–80). See Clement A. Kuehn, “Anastasius of Sinai: Biblical Scholar,” ByzZ 103 (2010): 55–81, at 71–78.
48. See Kuehn, “Anastasius: Biblical Scholar,” 75, 78. The patristic transmission of hexaplaric readings in general requires much further study, as observed in Reinhart Ceulemans, “Apollinaris of Laodicea in the Catenae as a Source of Hexaplaric Readings,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 15 (2011): 431–49, at 444–46.
49. Tolley, “Clement’s Reference to Luke,” after helpfully surveying the prior literature, nevertheless concludes that indeed Clement did so. Or. Cels. 4.52 (SC 136:318–20) discusses the Dialogue without naming its author, which Otranto, “Disputa,” 342, takes to show his ignorance. The Dialogue is also ascribed to Luke in a recently discovered homily of Sophronius of Jerusalem (ca. 635), but in obvious dependence on John’s scholia, which Sophronius knew well; see François Bovon and John M. Duffy, “A New Greek Fragment from Ariston of Pella’s Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus,” HTR 105 (2012): 457–65, which also observes the non-Lucan character of the quoted fragment.
50. See Tolley, “Clement’s Reference to Luke,” 525–30. The hypothesis is also defended in Salvatore Borzì, “Sull’attribuzione della Disputa fra Giasone e Papisco ad Aristone di Pella,” VetC 41 (2004): 347–54.
51. “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.” On the relation of the two, see Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.331 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 114–18.
52. Clem. Str. 4.25.159.2 (GCS 52:318). On the seven heavens, see also Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 59–93. On Clement’s view in particular, see Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, 31–51.
53. Surprisingly, I find in the literature no hint of this seemingly obvious solution besides a succinct marginal note (“Confused with Ep. Hebs?”) in Robert A. Kraft, “The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and Their Sources” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1961), 84, according to the author’s online transcript.
54. 54 Eus. HE 6.20.3 (GCS NF 6/2:566). Gaius was long ago identified as Hippolytus in Joseph Barber Lightfoot, “Caius or Hippolytus?,” The Journal of Philology 1 (1868): 98–112, only for the conclusion to be abandoned due to reasons now recognized as specious; see T. Scott Manor, Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus, Supplements to VC 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 52–119. For the views of Hippolytus on the authorship of Hebrews, see Steph. G. apud Phot. Cod. 232 (Henry 5:79); Phot. Cod. 121 (Henry 2:96); Dionysius Bar Ṣalībī, Apoc. pr. (on which see Jonathan J. Armstrong, “Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori,” VC 62 [2008]: 1–34, at 14–15).
55. Or. Hom. in Heb. apud Eus. HE 6.25.11–14 (GCS NF 6/2:578–80).
56. Eus. HE 3.38.2–3 (GCS NF 6/1:284).
57. Eus. HE 6.20.3 (GCS NF 6/2:566).
58. Eus. HE 1.12.2, 2.1.3–4, 2.9.2–3, 2.15, 5.11.2, 6.13.2, 6.14.1–7 (respectively, GCS NF 6/1:82, 104, 124, 138–40, 452; 6/2:546, 548–50).
59. Marco Rizzi, “The End of Stromateis VII and Clement’s Literary Project,” in The Seventh Book of the Stromateis, eds. Matyáš Havrda, Vít Hušek, and Jana Plátová, Supplements to VC 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 299–311, at 309, in passing; Dainese, “Clement’s Exegesis,” 298–300, more strongly challenging it; Chiapparini, “‘Nuovi’ frammenti,” 233, deducing Eusebius’s ignorance of at least the first three books.
60. Dainese, “Clement’s Exegesis,” 298.
61. Eus. HE 6.13.1–2 (GCS NF 6/2:546; trans. FC 29:24).
62. The latter point is complicated by uncertainty over which of Eusebius’s other sources, many no longer extant, he knew at first hand, a question awaiting much further study. See, for example, Berndt Gustafsson, “Eusebius’ Principles in Handling His Sources, as Found in His Church History, Books I–VII,” SP 4 (1961): 429–41, at 430–33; Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 10 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), 151–61. Nevertheless, Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements to VC 67 (Boston: Brill, 2003), 45–63, after considering the issue in admirable depth, prefers to regard virtually all of the HE’s citations as first-hand, though without offering compelling reasons.
63. Eus. HE 3.29–30, 5.11, 6.6, 6.13.1 (respectively, GCS NF 6/1:260–62, 452–54; 6/2:534, 546).
64. Gustafsson, “Eusebius’ Principles,” 431–32.
65. Eus. P.e. 9.6, 10.2, 10.6, 10.12, 13.13 (respectively, GCS 43/1:493, 558–61, 578–81, 601–6; 43/2:197–228), the last being especially lengthy. The same work also demonstrates direct knowledge of Clement’s Exhortation. See Carriker, Library of Eusebius, 135, 196–98.
67. See also Gustafsson, “Eusebius’ Principles,” 431, 433–35.
68. Eus. HE 6.14.2–3 (GCS NF 6/2:550; trans. FC 29:26).
69. In contrast, e.g., to Or. Hom. in Heb. apud Eus. HE 6.25.14 (GCS NF 6/2:580).
70. Eus. HE 6.14.5–7 (GCS NF 6/2:550); translation adapted from Stephen C. Carlson, “Clement of Alexandria on the ‘Order’ of the Gospels,” NTS 47 (2001): 118–25.
71. Eus. HE 5.8.2–4 (GCS NF 6/1:442–44) on Irenaeus and 6.25.4–6 (GCS NF 6/2:576) on Origen.
72. Denis Farkasfalvy, “The Presbyters’ Witness on the Order of the Gospels as Reported by Clement of Alexandria,” CBQ 54 (1992): 260–70, at 262–63; see also William R. Farmer, “The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. William R. Farmer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 3–15, at 8–9.
73. The Latin author Victorinus of Poetovio (ca. 260), unknown to Eusebius, also records that John was compelled to write, in particular by the other bishops (Apoc. 11.1 [CSEL 49:96]; similarly in the Muratorian Fragment), not in dependence on Clement, but rather with both authors likely deriving the point ultimately from Papias; see Armstrong, “Victorinus,” 5–8.
74. The same pair of formulae is likewise employed in several other passages of the HE, including 1.12 (GCS NF 6/1:80–82), wherein Clement’s Hypotyposes is cited, and 5.10 (GCS NF 6/1:450–52), on Clement’s master Pantaenus, just before turning to Clement himself; on this phenomenon, see especially Koji Toyota, “The Authenticity of Eusebius’ Sources: A Study of the Two Formulae in Historia Ecclesiastica,” Journal of Classical Studies
The same pair of formulae is likewise employed in several other passages of the HE, including 1.12 (GCS NF 6/1:80–82), wherein Clement’s Hypotyposes is cited, and 5.10 (GCS NF 6/1:450–52), on Clement’s master Pantaenus, just before turning to Clement himself; on this phenomenon, see especially Koji Toyota, “The Authenticity of Eusebius’ Sources: A Study of the Two Formulae in Historia Ecclesiastica,” Journal of Classical Studies
75. GCS NF 6/1:246–48. See Manor, “Papias, Origen, and Eusebius.” Manor does not explore the possibility of an intermediary, but since “a record preserves” that both evangelists wrote out of necessity, with the motive in each case manifestly inferred from the deed, and for John that necessity was to record what the Synoptics had omitted—the essential point with which Origen (Jo. 10.10–17 [GCS 10:172–75]) is refuted—both the argument and the entire passage must be ascribed to Eusebius’s unnamed source.
76. Or. Hom. 1 in Lc. (GCS 49:230, fr. 9 = SC 87:466, fr. 4); Or. Comm. in Mt. 1 apud Eus. HE 6.25.4–6 (GCS NF 6/2:576). On the other hand, Origen’s sources may just as well have been in view: the latter clearly follows Iren. Haer. 3.1.1 (SC 211:22–24), while the former has perhaps drawn from Clement’s lost work (as suggested in Manor, Epiphanius’ Alogi, 178).
77. E.g., Or. Comm. in Mt. 16.6 (GCS 40:486); Or. Hom. 1 in Lc. (GCS 49:230, fr. 9 = SC 87:466, fr. 4); Eus., D.e. 3.5.65 (GCS 23:122); Hier. Gal. 6.10 (CCL 77A:218). The early records on John are surveyed in R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, Studies on Personalities of the New Testament (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 140–301.
78. Clem. Q.d.s. 42 (GCS 17:187–91). Eus. HE 3.23.5–19 (GCS NF 6/1:238–44), quotes the story in full.
79. E.g., Orchard and Riley, Order of the Synoptics, 163–67.
80. See Carlson, “Clement on the ‘Order,’” 124–25; Farkasfalvy, “Presbyters’ Witness,” 262.
81. Norelli, Papia, 219, has already suggested that this elaboration is due not to Eusebius himself but to an intermediary.
82. Eus. HE 2.15 (GCS NF 6/1:140); translation adapted from Orchard and Riley, Order of the Synoptics, 166.
83. It is inevitably asked what source Eusebius here intends to indicate with φασι: is he drawing further from Clement and/or Papias, is he supplementing Clement with other unnamed sources (whether written or oral), or is he deliberately non-specific? If indeed Eusebius is following an intermediary that has inserted such statements, he may have mistaken them for Clement’s; on the other hand, if he is unsure of their underlying source, an expression like φασι can serve as an apt hedge. Interestingly, the present passage is immediately followed by Mark’s activity in Alexandria (HE 2.16 [GCS NF 6/1:140]), also introduced by φασιν, and then by Philo of Alexandria’s meeting Peter in Rome (HE 2.17.1 [GCS NF 6/1:142]), introduced with λόγος ἔχει (“record holds”); on these formulae, see note 74 above. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Birth of the Rome-Alexandria Connection: The Early Sources on Mark and Philo, and the Petrine Tradition,” The Studia Philonica Annual 23 (2011): 69–95, attributes all these accounts to a common source, argued to be Clement’s Hypotyposes, though I would suggest instead the hypothesized intermediary.
84. Norelli, Papia, 208–21, concludes that the passage draws nothing from Papias beyond what is presented in Eus. HE 3.39.15–17 (GCS NF 6/1:290–92).
85. Eusebius’s exclusively second-hand knowledge of Papias’s Exegesis, though sufficiently evident in my view, has yet to be seriously investigated. The conclusion is briefly argued in Gustafsson, “Eusebius’ Principles,” 431–32 (implausibly proposing the Hypotyposes itself as the intermediary), and parenthetically suggested on other grounds in William R. Schoedel, “Papias,” ANRW II.27.1 (1993): 235–70, at 241; on the other hand, Carriker, Library of Eusebius, 62–63, 244, observes the weakness of Gustafsson’s argument without offering counter-evidence. In any case, the point is not essential to the present argument.
86. See Richard Bauckham, “Is There Patristic Counter-Evidence? A Response to Margaret Mitchell,” in The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, ed. Edward W. Klink, Library of New Testament Studies 353 (London: Clark, 2010), 68–110, at 72–78.
87. Or. Comm. in Mt. 1 apud Eus. HE 6.25.5 (GCS NF 6/2:576).
88. It is much less surprising that Eusebius himself includes the passage in HE 6.14—which seemingly conflicts with both Peter’s enthusiastic reaction and the sequential order of the Gospels (see note 71 above)—as Eusebius is simply relaying what he believes to be Clement’s account, and Eusebius’s work shows an unprecedented level of tolerance toward disagreement in his citations; on the latter point, see especially Justin Otto Barber, “Citation Methodologies in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica and Other Ancient Historiography” (PhD diss., University of Denver, 2015), 92–164.
89. Eus. HE 3.39 (GCS NF 6/1:284–92) on Papias, besides the above-quoted passage, and 4.6.3 (GCS NF 6/1:308) on Ariston. On their obscurity, see notes 44 and 40 above, respectively. The scope of what is drawn from Ariston is unspecified but may extend as far back as HE 4.5 (GCS NF 6/1:304–6), where the topic is introduced with λόγος κατέχει and φασὶν, on which see note 74 above.
90. On Papias, see note 85 above. The HE’s egregious treatment of Ariston is observed in Tolley, “Ariston of Pella,” 150; Carriker, Library of Eusebius, 193, accordingly acknowledges the possibility of an intermediary in this case.
91. Eus. HE 6.20.3 (GCS NF 6/2:566; trans. FC 29:41).
92. Eus. HE 1.1.3–5 (GCS NF 6/1:6–8). Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 38–41, cautions that this should be taken with a grain of salt. Thomas Halton, “Hegesippus in Eusebius,” SP 17 (1982): 688–93, even sees Hegesippus’s Hypomnemata (ca. 175) as just such a predecessor.
93. Rizzi, “End of Stromateis VII,” 309.
94. For what little is known of Pierius, see Lewis B. Radford, Three Teachers of Alexandria: Theognostus, Pierius, and Peter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908), 44–57; for subsequent discoveries, see Jean Gascou, “Pourquoi Eusèbe ne mentionne-t-il pas le martyre de Piérios?,” Antiquité tardive 22 (2014): 79–82.
95. PG 119:209d = GCS 17:201, my translation. The passage is studied in Plátová, “Klement Alexandrijský—Hypotyposeis,” 50–51. It is also among several appropriated from Clement without attribution by Theophylact (ad loc.; PG 125:101b), as observed in Ludwig Früchtel, “Neue Textzeugnisse zu Clemens Alexandrinus,” ZNW 36 (1937): 81–90, at 86.
96. The corresponding Greek for this hypothetical text would be: “Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου”—τουτέστι τό ἔγγραφον κήρυγμα τοῦ ἀποστόλου αὐτοῦ. Λουκᾶς γὰρ ἐξέδωκε τὸ λεγόμενον εὐαγγέλιόν διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.
97. Eus. HE 3.4.7 (GCS NF 6/1:194), my translation.
99. Rupert Annand, “Papias and the Four Gospels,” Scottish Journal of Theology 9 (1956): 46–62, at 51–52.
100. See August Strobel, “Lukas der Antiochener,” ZNW 49 (1958): 131–34.
101. Cf. 1 Tim 1.3; Tit 1.5–7.
102. The other two are Rom 2.16 and 16.25.
103. Or. Jo. 1.14–89 (SC 120bis:62–102). The passage is discussed in Khaled Anatolios, “Christ, Scripture, and the Christian Story of Meaning in Origen,” Gregorianum 78 (1997): 55–77, at 62–69.
104. Or. Jo. 1.25–26 (SC 120bis:70; trans. FC 80:38–39). See also Comm. in Rom. 1.3.5 (SC 532:170) and 2.10.1 (SC 532:354; trans. FC 103:134–35), the latter reading: “according to Paul’s gospel, i.e., according to what Paul is declaring through Jesus Christ.”
105. Or. Jo. 5.7 (SC 120bis:390–92). Similarly, Adam. Dial. 1.6 (GCS 4:12–13). See Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Deichert, 1899), 2:171.
106. On Origen’s New Testament canon, which happens to be the earliest extant, see Michael J. Kruger, “Origen’s List of New Testament Books in Homiliae Josuam 7.1: A Fresh Look,” in Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism: Essays in Honor of Larry Hurtado, eds. Chris Keith and Dieter T. Roth, Library of New Testament Studies 528 (London: Clark, 2015), 99–117.
107. Συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ μετ’ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀδελφὸν οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. Besides the KJV, which reads as here, most translations obscure this literal sense, whose importance will come out below.
108. Or. Comm. in Mt. 1 apud Eus. HE 6.25.4–6 (GCS NF 6/2:576); trans. Carlson, “Clement on the ‘Order,’” 120.
109. Yet it is instructive, by contrast, to observe that the Evangelist was not identified with the Mark mentioned in Col 4.10 until ca. 300 in Adam. Dial. 1.5 (GCS 4:10–11), then as merely a tendentious inference (as likewise counting Mark among the seventy-two disciples contradicts Papias apud Eus. HE 3.39.15 [GCS NF 6/1:290]), nor with the Mark in Phlm 1.24 until Jerome, Phil. 24 (CCL 77C:104), then in explicit speculation.
110. Papias also made use of 1 Pet (Eus. HE 3.39.17 [GCS NF 6/1:292]), most likely in this same way, but Origen did not know Papias’s work: one for whom a martyr’s death was so dear would not have written as Origen does in Comm. in Mt. 16.6 (GCS 40:486) unless ignorant of book 2 of the Exegesis (for the pertinent fragment of which see Norelli, Papia, 364–83, 434–41).
111. Cf. Iren. Haer. 3.1.1 (SC 211:22–24), which, stripped of its geographical references, is followed paraphrastically by Origen, as is especially evident from the assertion that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.
112. Or. Hom. 1 in Luc. 6 (GCS 49:9), my translation.
113. Iren. Haer. 3.1.1 (SC 211:22–24; trans. Orchard and Riley, Order of the Synoptics, 161–62) makes the point that while Matthew published his own Gospel, the proclamation of Peter and Paul was preserved in writing by their respective followers Mark and Luke (“And Luke too, Paul’s follower, set down in a book the gospel preached by him.”), yet by taking the parallel further than Irenaeus likely intended, Luke could even be seen as doing for Paul roughly what Mark reportedly did for Peter. Luke’s relation to Paul is further examined in Haer. 3.14.1 (SC 211:258–62).
114. With Hebrews set aside, Luke’s role is advocated, after an indispensable survey of the literature on the origin of the Pauline corpus, in Stanley E. Porter, “When and How Was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 95–127; Stanley E. Porter, “Paul and the Process of Canonization,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, eds. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 173–202. Earlier proponents of Luke’s involvement in some way include C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: Black, 1966), 264–65; Lewis Foster, “The Earliest Collection of Paul’s Epistles,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 10 (1967): 44–55; E. Randolph Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 151–166, at 163.
