Questions about Dating 1 Clement

[rgprice]

Late to this, but thanks Neil, your citations of Turmel are very helpful. I do wonder if he missed something though...

The witnesses we have questioned so far leave us free to place Clement in the middle of the second century, if we wish. Some of them even invite us strongly to do so. Irenaeus sounds a different note. He tells us (III, 3, that the church of Rome, founded and constituted by the apostles Peter and Paul, was governed after them by Linus, of whom Paul speaks in his epistles, then by Anacletus, then by Clement; that this Clement had seen the apostles, had lived with them, and that he used an imposing letter to calm the troubles which had arisen in the church of Corinth. A contemporary of the apostles Peter and Paul obviously could not prolong his life beyond the reign of Trajan. To place the letter of Clement in the middle of the second century, it is necessary first of all to discard the testimony of Irenaeus. Can we?

Indeed, but what if Irenaeus is correct, and Clement did know Peter and Paul? And also Clement is from the 2nd century...

[andrewcriddle]

I have a question for anyone who advocates the "conventional" dating of 1 Clement to the reign of Domitian (90s).

What specific evidence in the text can you cite in support of this view? I mean the most specific internal evidence.

Thanks!

(If this discussion goes anywhere, we can address external factors later on.)

As evidence for a date c. 100 CE plus or minus

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

implies that there are still church leaders around who were directly appointed by the apostles but they are being replaced by the next generation. (This argument assumes a broadly traditional dating for the apostles.)

Andrew Criddle

[Steven Avery]

Let's strike two stones with one bird.

The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2015)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=p9HYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT89

1 Clement 42:3-4
Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection [ ἀναστάσεως ] of our Lord Jesus [ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ] Christ, and full of faith in the word [ τῷ λόγῳ ] of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit they went out [ ἐξῆλθον ] proclaiming the good news [ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι ] that the kingdom of God was about to come . . . preaching [ κηρύσσοντες ] in the country and in the towns . . . (1 Clem. 42.3–4)

Mark 16:9, 14 –15, 19 –20
Having been raised [ ἀναστὰς ] . . . he appeared to the Eleven . . . and he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach [ κηρύξατε ] the gospel [ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ] to all creation . . . .” So then, after the Lord Jesus [ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ] had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And going out [ ἐξελθόντες ] they preached [ ἐκήρυξαν ] everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word [ τὸν λόγον ] through the accompanying signs. (Mark 16:9, 14 –15, 19 –20)

Much more can be written about other Gospel and Epistle allusions from Clement, as well as the authorship being before AD 70.

Here is Charles Taylor (1840-1908) writing of Clement of Rome and the Mark ending back in 1893.

The Expositor (1893)
SOME EARLY EVIDENCE FOR THE TWELVE VERSES ST. MARK XVI. 9-20.
p. 71-80
http://books.google.com/books?id=DKcQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80

[Irish1975]

Kirsopp Lake's edition of the Apostolic Fathers (Greek and English) for the Loeb CL is available here.

Very helpful.

[MrMacSon]

Kirsopp Lake's edition of the Apostolic Fathers (Greek and English) for the Loeb CL is available here.
Very helpful.

Yep, it is helpful

It has Cephas | Κηφᾶ in 1 Clement 47:3 (pp.90-91):

1_Clement_47.2-7_Loeb_Kirsopp.png (1.22 MiB) Viewed 957 times

[MrMacSon]

3. The Roberts-Donaldson text of chapter 5:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

What is being said here? About Peter, that he suffered martyrdom "through unrighteous envy." He was a righteous pillar [of something], and an illustrious apostle. But all we learn that Peter ever did was suffer, die, and go to heaven. So, we learn nothing specific about Peter. Even his martyrdom was not about any special faith in Jesus, but another case of envy (the special theme of this epistle).

Paul too suffered a lot, and he preached. Both in the East and West! He was a man of great faith, righteousness, and fame. He suffered a generic martyrdom under the hegemons, i.e. the rulers.

All of this is gauzy encomium, deliberately as vague as possible. And just a homily after all.

It's also used as 'evidence' of persecution in the time of Nero, so is used to support the notion that Nero persecuted Christians (which we only get otherwise from Tacitus Annals 15.44 and Suetonius' Nero 16, afaik)

4. One clue as to the author's occasional purpose for the letter is the accusation that "through your infatuation mindlessness, the name of the Lord is blasphemed." ... βλασφημιας επιφερεσθαι τω ονοματι κυριου δια την υμετεραν αφροσσυνην.

Is this also a theme from 1 Corinthians? Or what sort of deed would explain the charge of bringing "blasphemy upon the name of the Lord"? (Jesus, presumably, not YHWH). Is it just that they're doing immoral things while invoking what Clement also recognizes as the Lord's name? The sin of sedition hardly seems like something that would cause blasphemy upon the name. So there may be more to this situation than sedition alone.

[andrewcriddle]

3. The Roberts-Donaldson text of chapter 5:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

What is being said here? About Peter, that he suffered martyrdom "through unrighteous envy." He was a righteous pillar [of something], and an illustrious apostle. But all we learn that Peter ever did was suffer, die, and go to heaven. So, we learn nothing specific about Peter. Even his martyrdom was not about any special faith in Jesus, but another case of envy (the special theme of this epistle).

Paul too suffered a lot, and he preached. Both in the East and West! He was a man of great faith, righteousness, and fame. He suffered a generic martyrdom under the hegemons, i.e. the rulers.

All of this is gauzy encomium, deliberately as vague as possible. And just a homily after all.

It's also used as 'evidence' of persecution in the time of Nero, so is used to support the notion that Nero persecuted Christians (which we only get otherwise from Tacitus Annals 15.44 and Suetonius' Nero 16, afaik)

For Nero's persecution see also Ascension of Isaiah

AND now Hezekiah and Josab my son, these are the days of the completion of the world.

2. After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.

3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

Arthur Drews in "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" on the Neronian persecution:

• " .... there is the complete silence of profane writers and the vagueness of the Christian writers on the matter ; the latter only gradually come to make a definite statement of a general persecution of the Christians under Nero, whereas at first they make Nero put to death only Peter and Paul.
  
  The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century."
  
  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2

Seneca to Paul; Letter 12:


12. SENECA TO PAUL, greeting. Hail, my dearest Paul.

Think you that I am not in sadness and grief, that your innocent people are so often condemned to suffer And next, that the whole people thinks you so callous and so prone to crime, that you are supposed to be the authors of every misfortune in the city Yet let us bear it patiently and content ourselves with what fortune brings, until supreme happiness puts an end to our troubles. Former ages had to bear the Macedonian, Philip's son, and, after Darius, Dionysius, and our own times endured Gaius Caesar: to all of whom their will was law. The source of the many fires which Rome suffers plain. But if humble men could speak out what the reason is, and if it were possible to speak without risk in this dark time, all would be plain to all.

Christians and Jews are commonly executed as contrivers of the fire. Whoever the criminal is whose pleasure is that of a butcher, and who veils himself with a lie, he is reserved for his due season: and as the best of men is sacrificed, the one for the many, so he, vowed to death for all, will be burned with fire. A hundred and thirty-two houses and four blocks have been burnt in six days, the seventh brought a pause. I pray you may be well, brother. Given the 5th of the kalends of April; Frugi and Bassus consuls (64).

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... nd-seneca/

[schillingklaus]

Neither Clement nor Peter nor Paul exist outside patristic fiction and apologistoc propaganda. Suetonius and Tacitus are impious forgeries.

[Leucius Charinus]

Neither Clement nor Peter nor Paul exist outside patristic fiction and apologistoc propaganda. Suetonius and Tacitus are impious forgeries.

Clement may have been a Christianised hijacked Platonist like Ammonius, Origen, Anatolius and Christian forgeries of Porphyry. Peter especially became useful for Pontifex Maximus Damasus. Irenaeus - declared a "Doctor of Unity" in 2022 by the Pope - is part of the patristic fiction. I can't believe Carrier believes Clement and Paul don't live in Middle-Earth.