Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Nine: 'Another Scripture says. . .': Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 239-277.
Young notes that 2 Clement has many more sayings ascribed to Jesus than do the other Apostolic Fathers, with either nine or eleven. There is a corresponding multiplication of introductory formulas and possible sources (Young 2011, 239). This makes analysis more challenging.
In 2 Clement 2.4 the saying, "I did not come to call the upright, but sinners" is introduced as "another Scripture." With very little variation, Young finds this in allthe Synoptic Gospels, in Barnabas, and in Justin's 1st Apology (Young 2011, 240). Considering the introduction it seems clear to young that the author derived it from a written source, probably a canonical Gospel, though it may have existed in other places as well (Young 2011, 241).
2 Clement 3.2 describes Jesus as saying, "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Fahter" (Young 2011, 242). There are close parallels in Matthew 10 and Luke 12, and a partial parallel in Revelation 3:5. Young observes the parallels show differences in wording but not in meaning. Young observes that the agreement is greater with Matthew at a point where many scholars think Matthew redacted a traditional saying, thus suggesting that 2 Clement has borrowed from Matthew rather than an underlying tradition (Young 2011, 243).
2 Clement 4.2, 5 speaks of the need to actually practice righteousness so as to avoid being cast away by the Lord. Young finds partial parallels in a number of locations (Young 2011, 245). The possible sources of the ideas are not contiguous in nature, which suggests that we don't have the actual source which connected the ideas. The ideas are near each other in Matthew 7, but with different explanatory comments between them. This suggests that Matthew and 2 Clement used the same source but in different ways (Young 2011, 246).
2 Clement 5.2-4 describes a discussion between Jesus and Peter, in which Jesus tells the disciples to be sheep among wolves. Pter is uncomfortable with the possibility of being torn apart. Jesus points out that once dead there is no fear of further harm except at the hand of God (Young 2011, 248-249). Parts of the material are present, in Matthew 10, Luke 12, and Justin's Apology 19. However, 2 Clement contains a substantial segment which does not appear in any of the possible sources Young locates (Young 2011, 250). Young takes the material to have been found together as 2 Clement portrays it, but not as a literary unit in any sources known to us (Young 2011, 251).
2 Clement 6.1-2 speaks of not serving both God and riches. Parallels are in Matthew 6, Luke 16, and the ospel of Thomas 47 (Young 2011, 251). There are additional partial parallels to the latter portion of the quotation. Young considers that the parallels in Matthew 6 and Luke 16 are compelling in nature as such a large portion is present. However, he is unable to identify a source which would have likely provided the wording for Luke or Matthew (Young 2011, 253). The conditional structure, found in Matthew but not in Luke, suggests that 2 Clement drew on Matthew (Young 2011, 254).
2 Clement 8.5 describes the Lord advising faithfulness in small matters so as to be trusted in greater matters (Young 2011, 255). This has a clear parallel in Luke 16:10-12 and a partial parallel in Matthew 25:21, 23. Young considers the statement to be proverbial in nature, and that the version in Luke does not show any particular signs of Luke's redaction, so he hesitates to consider 2 Clement dependent on Luke. The material could easily have been derived from a source common to both (Young 2011, 255).
In 2 Clement 9.11 Jesus is quoted as saying, 'My brothers are those who do the will of my Father" (Young 2011, 257). Young finds paralles in all the Synoptics, in the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of Thomas, and in Clement of Alexandria. Much scholarship finds evidence of redaction in Matthew and Luke, with the influence suggesting 2 Clement presupposes those texts. However, Young holds out the possibility of dependence on a common source (Young 2011, 258). While the Synoptics mention a mother, 2 Clement does not. There is also no coupling of hearing and doing in 2 Clcment, found in the Synoptics.
2 Clement 12.2, 6 depicts the Lord describing the time for his kingdom to come as a time when a number of paradoxes occur (Young 2011, 261). Statements of this nature are never found in canonical material. There are, however, some similar statements Young finds in Clement of Alexandria and the Gospel of Thomas. Young considers the similarities to be slight enough that a literarly relationship is very unlikely. However, they may indicate a common source (Young 2011, 263). Young finds what he describes as "affinities" but not strong parallels. Young adduces another, similarly cryptic, statement from the Gospel of Thomas which speaks of trampling garments and shame, both ideas found in the passage of Clement of Alexandria (Young 2011, 264). There is some reason to think the Gospel of the Egyptians was a common source, but we don't have that text at present.
Finally, Young reviews 2 Clement 13.4, where "God says, 'It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you'" (Young 2011, 266). Matthew and Luke provide close prallels to the command to "love your enemies." The wording in 2 Clement is more similar to that used in luke. Young entertains the possibility that a finished Gospel according ot Luke could be indicated, but Young does not think it conclusive (Young 2011, 268).
Overall, Young finds among the sayings he has analyzed, one shows no canonical parallel, while six do not compel Young to assume a canonical dependence (Young 2011, 270). The other statements are relatively proverbial and not likely to presuppose a written source (Young 2011, 272).
Young moves to a discussion of sources behind 2 Clement, having concluded that they are not necessarily canonical Gospels (Young 2011, 274). The introductory statement to 2.4 makes it clear that the source is written. The other references are not specific. However, Young notes that an introductory statement using the past tense εἶπεν frequently suggests oral tradition, while the present tense λέγει suggests something written (Young 2011, 275). The formulae in 2 Clement are not consistent in this way, whichleaves Young with an open question. It is possible that 2 Clement used oral sources for Jesus traditions, and it is possible that he did not (Young 2011, 276).