1 Clement as the new Lachrymose Letter

Paul wrote a "Severe Letter", also called the Lachrymose Letter, to the church in Corinth; 2 Corinthians is its followup. This letter of tears, everyone knows, is not 1 Corinthians. Much ink has been spilled over whether it lies incorporated into 2 Corinthians or, if so, how. Weak Among The Weak proposed a reconstruction of this letter of tears - in outline, based upon seams in 2 Corinthians, rather than speculating that it is (somehow) misplaced into chs. 10-13 or wherever.

Key here is where 2 Corinthians speaks of Moses. The new Law is written ... on Paul's heart, as fragile as slate tablets.

More boldly this essay thought that the Testaments of the Patriarchs had recourse to the lost letter. Either that, or that Testamental author had found a pseudepigraphic reconstruction of something like WATW's; either will do for our purpose. Did anyone else use this?

This Letter would have to be early, since the reconstructed text isn't (as far as I know) ever directly cited as Pauline, in Patristics. Here is a database of Patristic quotation including 1-2 Corinthians; we might look for allusions to "2 Cor.2.2" which are inexact and actually in a Lachrymose context.

That database is large even if restricted to the first couple centuries. To narrow our search, one must ponder what sort of writing should resort to the Lachrymose Letter.

For (counter-)instance: Justin. Justin's most-famous works are two Apologies (to pagans) and one Dialogue (with a Jew). Famously these don't refer to Paul's work very much and never directly. Now, this absence is overblown but, never mind that. We care about the Corinthian correspondence in Justin's work. To that: Paul was here writing to his own church. Especially with the Lachrymose Letter we should hardly expect Justin to be airing out internal dirty laundry, to others.

More promising is a letter as went out from authorities to defective churches as had been following a similar path as Corinth had, in Paul's day. Oh lookie, we have exactly this from AD ~60: "1 Clement". To Corinth herself!

If WATW is right, then we need textual parallels like the Testaments had made. We seek allusions to Moses at Sinai when the golden calf is mooted. We are also looking for writings upon stone and/or hearts. 1 Clement does talk Moses lore; but its main focus is upon envy - when Israel denied Moses' right to kill that Egyptian, down to Dathan and Abiram (4:10-12). The calf is not noted...

...at first. 1 Clement will get to that later. To that end, the following excerpts are suggestive to me:

• 17:5 Moses was called faithful in all his house, and by his ministry God judged his people Israel by stripes and punishment.
• 43:1 Moses' sacred books
• 53:2-3 Moses!... thy people... have made unto themselves molten images. / The servant is bold towards the Lord: he asketh remission for the people, or demands otherwise that he himself should be destroyed together with them.

Moses is consistently the `obed-El for 1 Clement. 5:5-7 poses Paul as the model of patience over envy. 47:1f then cites 1 Corinthians at the envious ones.

So - 1 Clement 2:8, The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written on the breadth of your heart. That looks like Romans 2:14-15, or 2 Corinthians 3:1-3. Neither of these are exact. Romans 2:14-15 concerned the "nations" outside Torah who, to the extent they followed Torah precepts, must do that by instinct. Corinthian Christians by AD 60 knew better. 1 Clement 2:8 looks here like the Lachrymose Letter, which WATW poses as more-directly Paul's heart as a tablet on which the Law has been inscribed but which, like the stone tablets given to Moses, was capable of being broken. As sent to Corinth, Corinthian hearts should by now be like Paul's; 1 Clement moans they were like Paul's.

If 1 Clement be a witness to the Lachrymose Letter as WATW has it, we must still explain why 1 Clement doesn't cite it as directly as 1 Clement cites 1 Corinthians. I can pose possibilities. One is that WATW's reconstruction really was severe (and emo), more severe than Paul himself entirely endorsed, hence the need for 2 Corinthians. Also, anyone collecting the set could see that 2 Corinthians abrogated the Lachrymose Letter, thus not commending that medial letter to future direct quotation except in special occasions (like that of 1 Clement).

On the other hand: if 1 Clement alluded to the Lachrymose Letter, this explains why we don't see allusions to 2 Corinthians. Corinth is now in the grip of a generation as require a Lachrymose Letter of their own. Further, once Corinth had 1 Clement, as AD 170 bishop Dionysius reports they had (as by "Clement"!), those church elders were venerating 1 Clement. They had less need for Paul's letter anymore.