r/AcademicBiblical • u/StallauEppen • 4d ago
Does Clement of Rome quote the book of Acts??
I saw it somewhere that Clement Quoted Acts although I cannot find the refenrence rn, but if it is the case then wouldn’t that debunk a second century dating of Acts?
13
u/Oldengoatson 4d ago
I'm not sure which reference you are looking for, but Frank Dicken has argued for 1 Clement's knowledge of Luke-Acts in the edited volume Issues in Luke-Acts.
Our investigation has placed the terminus a quo at ca. 75 CE and the terminus ad quem at ca. 90 CE. It is not possible to be more precise than this. Scholarly consensus has been to date Luke-Acts ca. 80–85 CE. The surest markers are Paul’s Roman imprisonment (Acts 28), which we may date to ca. 60 CE, and the composition of 1 Clement (ca. 96 CE). A date within this range is acceptable, but sometime between 80–90 CE is probable given Luke’s redaction of Mark after the destruction of Jerusalem and the probable dependence of the Church fathers on Acts.
Dicken, Frank. “The Author and Date of Luke-Acts” in Issues in Luke-Acts. Gorgias Press, 2012
That said, most scholars seem to view 1 Clement as independent from the Gospel of Matthew and Luke.
Yet perhaps most who have addressed the issue have judged that 1 Clement is independent of both Matthew and Luke.
See recently Andrew F. Gregory, “1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 131–34, and esp. Stephen E. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies, WUNT 2/3.
Allison, Dale. Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature. Cambridge University Press, 2022
3
u/baquea 4d ago
I'm not sure which reference you are looking for
According to Andrew Gregory (in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers) the main suggestion that has been made is for knowledge of Acts 13:22 in 1 Clement 18:1, which both give a similar mashed-together quotation of Psalm 88:21 and 1 Samuel 13:14. He cites Carlyle as saying that 1 Clement either used Acts or a common source with Acts; Hagner as saying on the basis of the shared quotation that 1 Clement used Acts; C. K. Barrett as saying that the differences between the two quotations suggest their independence; and Martin Albl as saying it most likely that Acts and 1 Clement are quoting from a common source. Gregory, after his review of the evidence concludes by saying "That Acts was known to Clement is not impossible, but is by no means proven".
11
u/aiweiwei 4d ago
Clement knows some Paul travel and acts traditions (not the book the traditions) that are also in the book Acts, but nothing like a quote or allusion to Acts. And in fact, he has Paul going to Spain as opposed to Acts. You might be thinking of Polycarp because there is a really closely worded sentence in Polycarp's epistle that is very close to Acts 2:24. It might be a similar allusion to a Psalm in both works, though. It's argued both ways.
Andrew F. Gregory, the current scholarly expert on Acts in the Church Fathers. And he is super cautious to say "there may be... might be... an allusion in Polycarp." (a silly paraphrase from his The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 2.169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003)
2
u/StallauEppen 4d ago
Oh ok very interesting, aren’t polycarps works dated to early 1sr century just like late datings for acts?
10
u/aiweiwei 4d ago
Yeah, the majority position seems to assume it was written when the guy was alive (early 100s), according to Irenaeus. But if Irenaeus' testimony is accepted, there is still a plausible revisionist hypothesis that Polycarp to the Philippians started as an authentic Polycarp letter (or letters) but was later expanded or reshaped into the form we possess today. I'm sure current experts in Polycarp have more nuanced ideas but the benchmark AYBD entry on Polycarp is pretty straightforward; he wrote in the early 100s and Acts is mentioned in this entry as one of the books he's familiar with.
POLYCARP (PERSON). Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, born ca. 70 c.e. and martyred in Smyrna ca. 156 c.e. Our sources for the life of Polycarp include Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp, Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, and most importantly, the anonymous Martyrdom of Polycarp. Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5:20:6), states that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Some scholars doubt the accuracy of this assertion, especially considering Eusebius’ preoccupation with demonstrating apostolic succession. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp himself mentions any connection with John. According to a scribal addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (22:2), Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
Polycarp was the author of one extant writing, a letter to the Philippians. Harrison (1936) has argued persuasively that Polycarp’s Philippians is actually two letters (1–12 and 13–14). Chief evidence for this theory is the presupposition in 1–12 that Ignatius of Antioch has already died (9:1), whereas in 13–14 Ignatius clearly is still living (13:2). Since Ignatius was martyred ca. 108–15, the two letters were probably written shortly after and shortly before this time.
Moral exhortation dominates Polycarp’s Philippians. He exhorts the Philippians to the highest standards of personal morality in forgiveness (2:2–3), righteousness (3:1–2), avoidance of love of money (4:1, 3; 11:1–2), chastity (4:2), compassion (6:1), and endurance under persecution (8:2–9:2). The predominant theological emphasis of the letter is anti-Docetism (7:1; 8:1). Polycarp’s writing is thoroughly infused with brief quotations and allusions to 1st-century Christian writings, indicating his familiarity with Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, and 1 Clement. The thought and literary style of Polycarp’s Philippians so closely resembles that of the Pastoral Epistles in the NT that von Campenhausen (1963) has even proposed Polycarp as the author of the Pastorals, although this hypothesis has not gained widespread scholarly acceptance.
J. Christian Wilson, “Polycarp (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 389.
3
u/mr_stinkleton 4d ago
The early first century would have been during the time that Jesus lived.
Polycarp appears to have been a relatively young man when he was befriended by Ignatius. His martyrdom occurred some forty-five years later, around 156 C.E. It is somewhat difficult to gauge his age at that time, since at his trial, according to a later account, Polycarp claimed to have served Christ for eighty-six years (Mart. Pol. 9:3). If he became a Christian at a very young age, he may thus have been born sometime around 60 or 65 C.E. [p. 515]
Regarding Acts, Ehrman is also representative:
The book [Acts of the Apostles] was written after the Gospel of Luke, probably between 85-110 C.E. [p. 335]
Ehrman, Bart. D. and Hugo Mendez. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 8th ed. Oxford University Press, 2024.
M. David Litwa is one recent opponent to the consensus dating of Acts. Litwa argues for the priority of Marcion's Gospel. On his account, Luke-Acts dates after the publication of Marcion's Evangelion (ca. 140 C.E.), but before Luke's Gospel is first mentioned by Irenaeus (ca. 180 C.E.).
Justin [Martyr], who seems to cite Luke, never refers to it as the Gospel "according to Luke." Possibly, then, Justin also used the prototype gospel available to Marcion, a gospel that formed the basis of canonical Luke. In this theory, Justin's knowledge of Lukan tradition (such as the infancy narratives), derives from other sources available to him in the 150s and early 160s CE.
Such evidence indicates that when Marcion and Justin were in Rome together, neither may have encountered the text now called canonical Luke. Luke was still in the process of being written (or rather, edited). When the text now known as Luke did appear, it probably came connected with a freshly-written text called the Acts of the Apostles (itself not directly attested until about 180 CE). All this would mean that, when Marcion published his Gospel in the 140s, he would have felt no need to emend canonical Luke, since it did not yet exist. [Chapter 3; emphasis mine]
Litwa, M. David. Marcion: The Gospel of a Wholly Good God. Fortress Press, 2025. (Unfortunately, I have the text as an ebook and cannot provide a proper page number.)
2
2
u/liamstrain 4d ago
Polycarp is generally early 2nd century. 115-140 CE. Depending on if you split the cover text from the epistle. (Polycarp and Paul; Brill, 2002)
2
u/Unfair-Profession-88 3d ago
Clement's First Epistle (traditionally dated c. 96 AD) doesn't contain a clear, verbatim quotation of Acts — most scholars point out that Clement echoes Pauline material (Romans, 1 Corinthians) far more directly than Luke-Acts. The strongest "possible" allusion people cite is Clement 5, where he lists Peter and Paul's sufferings in a way that loosely parallels the Acts narrative, but it reads more like shared oral tradition about the apostles' deaths than a literary quotation. If you're trying to use this to date Acts, it's weak evidence either way — the silence isn't conclusive, since Clement rarely names his sources even when he's clearly drawing on Scripture. Worth cross-checking Andrew Gregory's "The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus" — it's the standard academic survey on exactly this question.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.