Clement of Alexandria’s List
Clement of Alexandria’s List
There is one other list—which is only considered a list when it is useful. It is another reference in Eusebius, that Clement of Alexandria (writing 190-203 AD, so right at the end of our timeframe here) “has not only treated extensively of the Divine Scripture, but … makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and of Jesus, the son of Sirach…”[1]
Here, we have a list of Scriptures that Clement used, which are disputed by others. In this case, we have Clement’s book, which you can read for yourself if you wish[2]—he does not use “disputed Scriptures” in the sense that Clement disputes them, nor does Clement refer to them as disputed.[3] He is using Scripture, as he sees it, and says so many times (see below for the citations themselves). In other words, it is Eusebius who notes them as disputed, which is (a) not Eusebius’ personal view (as noted above, he refers to Wisdom as Scripture many times) but (b) would, therefore, seem to indicate a dispute occurring with someone else.
Clement also does not assemble the list—Eusebius does. It is a list of only the items Eusebius knows to be disputed (Clement considered many other Books to be Scripture, but Eusebius did not see them as disputed; notably, Clement cited to other Apocrypha as Scripture, including at least Baruch, Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees, plus the aforementioned Wisdom and Sirach).
So, Eusebius layers his own views on top of Clement’s. In this case, we have Clement’s writing to see for ourselves, so it is clear to us what Eusebius is doing. Wisdom and Sirach were Scripture to Clement; Eusebius knew that but also knows that others (who?) dispute them (at least in Eusebius’ time, which is more than a century after Clement was writing). But note, also, that in other cases where we do not have the underlying writing, we must be careful not to assume that what Eusebius says about something is what the underlying Father’s writing itself actually said.
Lastly, when interpreting Melito’s reference to Wisdom, this list (if we call it that) or citation evidence (even if it does not qualify as a list) reinforces the claim that a reference to the Book of Wisdom in the second century would actually be fitting for a Christian canon list. That Clement’s “list” includes the Book of Wisdom is not in doubt any more than the Muratorian canon.
[1] Eusebius Church History, Book 6, Chapter 13, 4-6 (www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm).
[2] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0210.htm
[3] That I found, anyway. “Nevers” are scary, it only takes one such reference to prove me wrong, and Clement’s works are not short. Still, I did not find one.
