Clement does not quote Gospels

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

A certain Clement of Rome supposedly quotes from the Gospels at the turn of the century.

This is simply not supported by what we actually read in Clement's epistle, which shows :
* he makes a hundred or so citations to the OT by name, as 'scripture'
* he makes a hundred or so citations to the epistles of Paul which are wise 'writings' -

But
* the alleged Gospel quotes boil down to only TWO phrases which are merely SIMILAR to Jesus' words in the NT.

They introduced with the formulae like 'remember the words of Jesus ' - i.e. a Saying of Jesus from the Oral tradition.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel as writing.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel's name.
* There is no hint that these word's of Jesus were written.

The oft-repeated Christian claim that Clement quotes the Gospels is thus proven FALSE.

Iasion


A detailed analysis of the data can be found on my page.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ClementRome.html

The key pieces of evidence follow.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Church edition of this work used for this analysis can be found here:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm

There are a total of 261 footnotes in this work, on my page I list all the footnotes and detail all possible Gospel references - some references are relevant to both OT and NT and are given in both sections.


Possible Gospel (and Acts) references

There are FIVE POSSIBLE references or allusions to the Gospels, (and one to Acts), and 2 uses of the word "Gospel" in an informal way, Clement never directly mentions the formal Gospels and does not state or imply he is quoting scripture for the words of Jesus - rather he seems to be refering to the Sayings Tradition with forms such as "remember the words of the Lord" :

Ch. 13 : ... the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you ; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you. "
55 Comp. Matt. vi. 12-15, vii. 2; Luke vi. 36-38.

Mt 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors. 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 6:14 "For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 6:15 But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.

Lk 6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be poured into your lap. For the measure you use will be the measure you receive."

This is not a direct quote by Clement, but shows some similarity to the Gospel wording.


Ch. 15 : For saith in a certain place, "This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
59 Isa. xxix. 13; Matt. xv. 8; Mark vii. 6.

Mt 15:7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said, 15:8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me,

Mk 7:6 He said to them, "Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

This is a quote from Isaiah, also found in the Gospels.


Ch. 24 : The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved
102 Comp. Luke viii. 5.

Lk 8:5 “A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell along the path and was trampled on, and the birds of the sky devoured it. 8:6 Other seed fell on rock, and when it came up, it withered because it had no moisture. 8:7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and they grew up with it and choked it. "

This is not a direct quote by Clement, but shows loose similarities with the Gospel story.


Ch. 27 : When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away[quote]
111 Comp. Matt. xxiv. 35.

[quote]Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away

This is not a direct quote by Clement, but shows some similarity to the Gospel phrase.


Ch. 46 : Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, for he said, "Woe to that man, it were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones."
210 Comp. Matt. xviii. 6, xxvi. 24; Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.

Mt 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mt 26:24 The Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born.

Mk 9:42 If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.

Lk 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

This is not a direct quote by Clement, but shows definite similarity to the Gospels.



Ch. 2 : and were more willing to give than to receive.
c.f. 6 Acts xx. 35.

Acts 20:35 ... and remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

This small frgament is not a direct quote by Clement, but shows some similarity to Act, possibly from a common source, as Acts is probably later than the epistle.

Ch. 42 : The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ;

Ch. 47 : Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached.

Here, Clement apparently uses the term "the Gospel" in its simple meaning of good news (or teachings), but he specifically refers to an "epistle " of Paul.

[spl_cadet]

:snooze:
So what?

[ACFaith.Com]

03-12-2003 @ 03:28 AM
spl_cadet:

:snooze:
So what?

One of the securest methods for dating works like the gospels is based upon external attestation. I think Iason would argue there is not clear attestation until mid 2d? Not to speak for him of course. He can tell you why but I suspect from previous conversations that is the goal.

In addition to external attestion synoptic relations can be used and also the internal contents. For instance, Matthew had to be written after the latest historical event it mentions. So if Matthew and Luke have references to the temple destruction we must date them after this event. Further, it cannot be maintained that the authors supressed all knowledge of later events so some would push them back closer to the last datable event they mention. Some would argue that Luke shows no knowledge of Paul's death thus we must date it before it. Other scholars think Luke dates later and that this objection is explainable (e.g. Brown, Sanders, and pretty much everyone who dates Luke-Acts 80-90 ad).

Vinnie

[Etcetera]

Iasion:

Greetings.

I quite agree with you that 1 Clement does not demonstrably cite any written gospel. However, I disagree with your dating of the epistle to “the turn of the century.” I used to hold to that date, but was persuaded otherwise by Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century. Here are some of his reasons for dating 1 Clement to 70:

1. “In our own generation” best refers to the time at which the writer and readers are living:

1 Clement 5:1: 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.... [And he continues with Peter and Paul.]

Likewise, in 1 Clement 6 the “examples amongst ourselves” are best read as recent, not from thirty years before as a date in the reign of Domitian would require.

Along the same lines, if Clement and his readers had just passed through Domitian’s persecution (hence the usual turn-of-the-century dating), why did he refer only to examples from the time of Nero?

2. The “sudden and successive troubles and calamities which have befallen us” (1 Clement 1), those which have delayed the attention of the Roman church to the matters at Corinth, most aptly refer to the turmoil of 69 in Rome, nicely summarized as follows:

Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana 2: Galba was killed at Rome itself after grasping at the empire; Vitellius was killed after dreaming of empire; Otho, killed in lower Gaul, was not even buried with honor, but lies like a common man. And destiny flew through all this history in one year.

Tacitus, Histories 1.2: I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the east, and disaster in the west. There were disturbances in Illyricum; Gaul wavered in its allegiance; Britain was thoroughly subdued and immediately abandoned; the tribes of the Suevi and the Sarmatae rose in concert against us; the Dacians had the glory of inflicting as well as suffering defeat; the armies of Parthia were all but set in motion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero. Now too Italy was prostrated by disasters either entirely novel, or that recurred only after a long succession of ages; cities in Campania’s richest plains were swallowed up and overwhelmed; Rome was wasted by conflagrations, its oldest temples consumed, and the capitol itself fired by the hands of citizens. Sacred rites were profaned; there was profligacy in the highest ranks; the sea was crowded with exiles, and its rocks polluted with bloody deeds. In the capital there were yet worse horrors. Nobility, wealth, the refusal or the acceptance of office were grounds for accusation, and virtue ensured destruction. The rewards of the informers were no less odious than their crimes; for, while some seized on consulships and priestly offices as their share of the spoil, others on procuratorships and posts of more confidential authority, they robbed and ruined in every direction amid universal hatred and terror. Slaves were bribed to turn against their masters, and freedmen to betray their patrons; and those who had not an enemy were destroyed by friends.

3. The epistle refers, with respect to church organization, only to bishops and deacons, just as in Philippians 1:1. The epistles of Ignatius, written in circa 110, indicate a monarchical episcopate. If 1 Clement was written in 96 or thereabouts, then we have to imagine a lot of progression in those 14 years from the church order presumed in 1 Clement to that presumed in Ignatius. See Ignatius, Smyrneans 8; Trallians 2.3-4; Ephesians 3,4; Magnesians 3,6,7; Philadelphians 4.

4. Dionysius of Corinth says that the epistle was written “through Clement.” Clement must therefore be, not the bishop, but the mouthpiece of the church at Rome at the time. Compare Hermas, The Shepherd, third vision, chapter 4, in which Clement is linked with Grapte, a deaconess: “Clement will then send to the cities that are without, for to him this [charge] has been entrusted; and Grapte will admonish the widows and orphans. But you shall read [the words] unto this city before the presbyters, who preside over the church.” Clement was, therefore, at one time (the time of Hermas!) the correspondent of the Roman church. (Edmundson correspondingly dates The Shepherd earlier than usual, but that is another story.) After all, the epistle itself is anonymous, the first-person pronouns always plural. No reference at all to Clement being the bishop.

5. My personal favorite:

1 Clement 41: Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned.

1 Clement 23:5: Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall his will be accomplished, as the scripture also bears witness, saying: “Speedily will he come, and will not tarry,” and: “The Lord shall suddenly come to his temple, even the holy one whom you seek.”

Clement speaks of the temple as if still standing, the sacrifices as if still offered. Contrast the epistle of Barnabas:

Barnabas 16:4-5: For owing to the war [the temple] was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again. Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up....

Now that is the kind of temple reference that one might expect from a work written after 70, not the sacrificial business as usual of 1 Clement.

At any rate, a date of 70 for 1 Clement certainly changes the potential picture so far as the dates of the gospels are concerned.

Regards.

Etcetera.

[ACFaith.Com]

Hi, I am wondering what you would make of this response:

On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.

its found on early Christian writings under 1 Clement
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

This was also quoted from Welborn:

Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

Additionally it was said that chapter 5 refers to "Neronian persecution as something long past."

How do you or Edmundson explain these comments? I am interested :)

Vinnie

[Etcetera]

ACFaith:

Thank you for bringing these matters up. Most of these issues Edmundson does indeed address. The few that he does not address I shall take a stab at.

On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE.

I hold that the epistle to the Hebrews was written before 70 too. But let me quote from your source on Hebrews:

This argument, however, is inconclusive, since our author [of Hebrews] is not at all concerned with the Herodian temple. Rather, he deals with the desert tabernacle and argues exegetically from biblical data. Moreover, authors writing after 70 C.E., such as Josephus, Clement of Rome, and the compilers of the Mishnah, often refer to the temple as a present reality.

I agree that Hebrews is referring to the desert tabernacle. What is impressive about this particular epistle is its silence. It argues that Jesus Christ has superceded the sacrificial system, but does not mention the most impressive proof of that fact, namely that the temple has been destroyed anyway! Arguments from silence are not always reliable, of course, but this one is downright elegant.

As for Josephus, I presume that he is referring to the Antiquities, book 3, chapters 9 and 10. This passage begins:

Josephus, Antiquities, book 3, chapter 9, part 1: I will now, however, make mention of a few of our laws which belong to purifications and the like sacred offices, since I have accidentally come to this matter of sacrifices. These sacrifices were of two sorts; of those sorts one was offered for private persons, and the other for the people in general; and they are done in two different ways.

Josephus begins by describing the sacrifices in past tense, then switches over to the vivid present. This book of the Antiquities is concerned with the early period of the desert trek, so Josephus writes of the sacrifices from the perspective of the trekking Israelites. But that this is a literary device is clear from his starting off in past tense. No such device explains 1 Clement.

The Mishnah is an interesting case about which I do not know as much as I would like, but I do know that much of the work is a preservation of laws and traditions for the time when the temple would be restored. As such, it is written as if the traditions are still in full effect, consciously planning for the time when they would be in full effect. It is written, in other words, from the point of view of a future generation in contrast with Josephus’ past generation.

Moving on....

The reference to “our generation” is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn.

Perhaps. Yet to refer to “our generation” right after explicitly stating that one is going to provide the most recent [engista!]examples implies that one is speaking of contemporaries.

Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.

This is one of my reasons for preferring the early date. Clement promises to give the most recent examples of suffering heroes, yet lists only those from Nero’s persecution. Were there no examples at all from Domitian’s persecution to emulate?

The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness.

I would not claim that Clement was an actual eyewitness, standing there on the execution grounds taking notes. But I see no reason why his words in chapter 5 could not have been written about someone who was executed some five years before. If he is brief, it is because he is reminding, not narrating.

The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3).

I do not see where the second generation, or even the entire first generation, has passed. At least some have died, but it nowhere says that all or even most have died. Edmundson holds to a date in the mid-forties for the founding of the church in Rome, and we know without the help of any ecclesiastical tradition at all that there was a church there by the early fifties. Twenty to twenty-five years is plenty of time for a good number of elders (most of whom were probably just that, elders, aged men) to have passed away and been replaced by others.

The church at Rome is called “ancient” (47:6)....

Edmundson handles this one nicely. When Clement uses that word archaios in 47:6, he is answering to the word arche earlier in context:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you in the beginning [arche] of the gospel?

This sentence, of course, no more means that the church in Corinth was founded at the very beginning, about 30, than Philippians 4:15 means that the church in Philippi was founded in about 30. This language, when used by either Paul or Clement, simply means that Corinth and Philippi were among the first-fruits of the European mission.

As for archaios, then, it is the adjective derived from arche, and its basic meaning is “from the beginning.” By application, of course, since the beginning of most things happened a long time ago, it can mean very old, ancient, antique. But even in 96 to call a church started only half a century before “ancient” and mean very, very old is a stretch. Rather, archaios simply means “from the beginning” here. The church in Corinth is archaios because it was founded at the arche of the gospel.

...and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived “blamelessly” as Christians “from youth to old age” (63:3).

This is the best contender for a late date so far, especially since the actual wording of 63:3 implies that these men have lived in the church of Rome for the period in question, not just “as Christians.” The forty years from the beginning of Christianity to the destruction of Jerusalem would provide ample opportunity for someone to pass from youth to old age. As the text stands, however, we probably have only some 25 years for these men to have made that transition.

My answer at this point is that the ancients did not necessarily reckon youth and age quite like we do. For example:

Titus 2:2: Older men are to be temperate....

Titus 2:6: Likewise, urge the young men to be sensible....

We moderns might have mentioned middle-aged men somehow, but here only two groups are mentioned, young and old. It is as if someone who is no longer young must already be old. So it might well be possible for a person to pass from youth to old age in 25 years.

Paul in the early thirties is called a young man (Acts 7:58), and no later than the late fifties or early sixties he refers to himself as aged (Philemon 9).

There are some other considerations that do not entirely satisfy me yet on this issue of youth and age in 1 Clement 63:3, but this is my response for now.

Most contenders for a late date do not consider the matters of church organization, the absence of Domitianic examples, and Clement’s status within the church of Rome, and they generally skim over the matter of the temple all too quickly. Your source, it would seem, is no exception (granted, it is but a summary of others’ work).

I do like that website, Early Christian Writings, by the way. I have used it often.

I greatly appreciate your input, especially that last issue about youth and age, into which I will have to delve deeper.

Regards.

Etcetera.

[ACFaith.Com]

Thank you for your input. I find your comments to be intersting.

We moderns might have mentioned middle-aged men somehow, but here only two groups are mentioned, young and old. It is as if someone who is no longer young must already be old. So it might well be possible for a person to pass from youth to old age in 25 years.


For now I'll add to this: Life expectancy was probably significantly lower at the time so to go from young to old won't take as long as we might think. Women were typically married at 13 weren't they?

I'll do my best to comment more substantially later :)

Thanks again,
Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Is there anywhere one can find a comparison of the Greek texts of the NT and Clement?

Having these old time translations makes deciphering the argument from lexical data literally impossible and hopelessly impresionistic. Greek parallels would be much more telling. For that matter, IIRC, Clement studied under John, and John had a tendancy to use a single key theological word or phrase to ignite in the reader the entire OT story connected to that term or phrase. Why is it that Clement could not be doing the same thing? Remember, quoting during the Koine period was not verbatim, it was conceptual quoting (with the probable exception of Origen, who tried to quote verbatim).

[Etcetera]

Jaltus:

Greetings in his grace.

Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) has Lightfoot's entire Greek text of 1 Clement (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/lightfoot/pt1vol2/text1.html) with notes photocopied page by page.

I personally think that Clement may well have been aware of some written gospels, but do not think that the case is extremely strong. Hence my statement that Clement did not demonstrably quote from the gospels. But the jury may yet be out.

To actually compare the relevant passages between Clement and the gospels, you might try Glenn Miller's discussion of the parallels (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad2.html). Let me state right up front that I care neither for Miller's disorganized style nor his numerous logical inconsistencies, but he is thorough.

Some of Miller's parallels between Clement and the gospels and Acts are pretty good. I am not certain, however, that they are good enough to rule out oral tradition. Methodology is at stake. Sure, Clement could have been citing the New Testament loosely like he seems to cite the Old Testament. But how would we be able to tell? The citation formulae are absent for the New Testament stuff.

Miller does attempt to show that the phrasing of 1 Clement 13 constitutes an explicit citation to written apostolic material, but he appears to make a grammatical mistake in his analysis that may be, in my view, fatal to such a necessary understanding.

At any rate, 1 Clement 13:1 and 46:8 are the two passages most likely to depend on the written gospels. If those two passages do not convince, the others will probably not convince either. And, as I stated, the jury is still out for me.

...Clement studied under John....

You must be thinking of Polycarp.

In his name.

Etcetera.

[Peter Kirby]

Dear Etcetera:

Give that man a banana. :yipee:

I enjoyed reading your comments on the date of Clement and think they are probably correct. I have printed them out so that I can have them at hand when I revise the article at my leisure.

You are not the first to offer criticism of the 1 Clement page on a web discussion board! Vorkosigan also discussed the matter on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. It's always nice to have something confirmed from more than one source.

A few comments:

When I discussed the matter with Vorkosigan, I held out reasonable doubt based on the idea that someone may have forged 1 Clement so as to presume older age. However, I think that a strong objection to that idea is that the text itself does not claim a particular author but rather is the work of the "church at Rome." It can't be pseudonymous if it is anonymous. Is there anything else that could tell against the hypothesis of deception?

Since 1 Clement depends on Hebrews, a pre-70 date would be secured for both works if 1 Clement came before 70, as confirmed by the fact that both refer to the temple practice in the present. Personally I have never seen the citation from the Mishnah, so I can't really appeal to that as an analogue. The citation of Josephus is clearly different in nature, not least because Josephus does let the reader know that the Temple is no more.

A certain Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3). Assuming an identification, an earlier date for 1 Clement lends plausibility to an earlier date for the Shepherd of Hermas. It would simultaneously undercut the claim of the Muratorian Canon dating Hermas to the reign of Pius.

As it relates to this thread, a date of the gospels in the 60s or later would not be disturbed at all by the silence of a pre-70 First Clement.

As it relates to the larger Jesus Myth debate, does an early date for 1 Clement help or hurt? The suggestion that the Roman church was rather old in two different passages of 1 Clement would perhaps push a Christian movement there before the alleged time of Christ. There are alternative explanations for these two passages, which may temper this argument without taking out all the sting. Just as striking, there are two quotations from the words of "the Lord Jesus" (the only times in which "Jesus" appears without "Christ" in the letter) as well as the recommendation to store up the words of the Lord in the heart for remembrance. This would disconfirm the Doherty hypothesis that early Christians didn't believe Christ to be a human being.

Putting these two observations together, would it be too difficult to countenance the suggestion of Alvar Ellegard and others that the Jesus of the early Christians was a figure who lived earlier than usually presumed? That's something to chew on!

best,
Peter Kirby

[ACFaith.Com]

Putting these two observations together, would it be too difficult to countenance the suggestion of Alvar Ellegard and others that the Jesus of the early Christians was a figure who lived earlier than usually presumed? That's something to chew on!

How far back do they suggest?

There are a few different factors that can be used to date Jesus' life and they overlapp with questions of historicty:

The mythicist rejects these though so they don't help there:

Jesus had a brother named James known by Paul. Obviously if we accept this tradition it puts a limit on how far back we can push Jesus' birth.

If you think Jesus was baptized by JBap and was initially a follower of JBap their lives overlapp etc. etc. I forget but I think Vork may have disputed this once. Something about a manuscript of FJ plaing JBAP in a much differet time or something or my memory could just be whacked at the moment.

In what may be a trivial detail Luke suggests Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. He could of course be wrong.

Both GMatt and Luke place Jesus' birth towards to end of Herod's life.

Crucifixion under Pilate is accepted by most mainline scholars isn't it? There acceptance of the TF might have something to do with this but I don't think its the only reason. Pilate's term can be dated with a lot of accuracy (26-36 I think).

These cannot all be defended and some are stronger than others but they all give the same general time fame don't they? I really can't see Jesus being pushed back too far here.

Vinnie

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 05:30 PM
Etcetera:

This is one of my reasons for preferring the early date. Clement promises to give the most recent examples of suffering heroes, yet lists only those from Nero's persecution. Were there no examples at all from Domitian's persecution to emulate?



I can think of one excellent reason why 1 Clement does not mention a persecution under Domitian.

Do you have the names of any Christians persecuted under Domitian?

[Etcetera]

Steven Carr:

Do you have the names of any Christians persecuted under Domitian?

Well, church tradition has always said that Simeon bishop of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, Timothy, and a certain Nicodemus were killed under Domitian.

But if you are driving at the view that the Domitianic persecution was very limited in scope, perhaps even nonexistent, then I think that the date of 1 Clement would be pushed back to 70 for sure. For then the “sudden and successive troubles and calamities which have befallen” the Roman church would virtually have to refer to either the Neronic persecution or, better, the events of 69 in Rome.

Thanks for the observation.

Etcetera.

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 04:54 PM
Etcetera:




Well, church tradition has always said that Simeon bishop of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, Timothy, and a certain Nicodemus were killed under Domitian.



I'm not aware of these traditions. When are they attested? Don't kill yourself if that can't be answered straight away. I'm just curious, and would like to know more if the information is close to hand.

These people were not as famous as Paul and Peter, which may be a reason for not mentioning them.

As far as I know, a date before 70 AD is not ruled out for 1 Clement, so I am pretty agnostic on it, but lean towards a later date.

[Etcetera]

Peter Kirby:

Greetings!

If you are the Peter Kirby who runs Early Christian Writings, then I owe a debt of gratitude to you. It is so much easier, given the fact that I live somewhat out of range of major libraries, to look up the Greek text of, say, the Egerton gospel or Oxy 840 through your site than try to order it on inter-library loan. Kudos on a fine site!

It can't be pseudonymous if it is anonymous. Is there anything else that could tell against the hypothesis of deception?


Hmmm. I guess the first point always seemed so strong to me that I never really considered other evidence against deception. I shall have to think on it.

A certain Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3). Assuming an identification, an earlier date for 1 Clement lends plausibility to an earlier date for the Shepherd of Hermas.

Yes, Edmundson dates The Shepherd much earlier than usual.

It would simultaneously undercut the claim of the Muratorian Canon dating Hermas to the reign of Pius.

Edmundson points out that both the Muratorian Canon and the Liberian Catalogue probably confuse the title of the work (Liber Pastoris in Latin, "book of the shepherd") with the name of the author. Pastor was the brother of Pius I, according to tradition. Hence the (mistaken) chronological notices in those works, probably of Hippolytean origin, dating The Shepherd to the episcopate of Pius. Hermas, who speaks of his family situation (in vision 1.1, for instance), never mentions a brother Pius.

If I have to dismiss traditions out of hand as erroneous, I at least like to be able to point out the source of the error, and Edmundson provides that in this case.

I used to be a skeptic, into Wells for a while. I am certainly no mythicist now.

Many regards.

Etcetera.

Oh, and thanks for the banana....

:yipee:

:smile:

[Saint Polycarp]

Saint Clement quoted from the septuagent and he used lot's of scripture. In his letter the Corinthians telling them that they couldn't just depose those who were appointed as their shepards. It is interesting reading as he as representing the Church at Rome telling the Church at Corinth in no uncertain terms they had to do as he said and put their rightfull leaders back in place. He even sent representatives to make sure they did it.

[spl_cadet]

Yeah, Polycarp is here! The mass Catholic subversion is beginning!:yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

[Etcetera]

Steven Carr:

I have committed a grave error on those traditions. Relying on old and poorly taken notes is a bad idea. Those names came not from early church tradition but from Foxe's Book of Martyrs. My mistake entirely. And I should have written "Simeon bishop of Jerusalem" at any rate, not of Rome.

Domitian's persecution must have been the one with Flavia Domitilla and the descendants of David and all that. If you were implying that evidence for a persecution under Domitian is slim, you may well be correct.

Church tradition (and here I am going strictly on memory, not notes) does place the apostle John's boiling in oil during Domitian's time, does it not? I do not know offhand how early or late that tradition is, or even if I am remembering it correctly.

Anyway, sorry about the false lead.

These people were not as famous as Paul and Peter, which may be a reason for not mentioning them.

Ah, but how famous were the Danaids and Dircae? Clement mentions their suffering. He even mentions a "great multitude" of the (anonymous) elect who suffered.

Cheers. :cheers:

Etcetera.

[Iasion]

Greetings etcetera,

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply :)

I quite agree with you that 1 Clement does not demonstrably cite any written gospel. However, I disagree with your dating of the epistle to “the turn of the century.” I used to hold to that date, but was persuaded otherwise by Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century. Here are some of his reasons for dating 1 Clement to 70:

Indeed, I am coming around to the view that Clement may be early after all (currently reading Ellegard) - the arguments you raise are generally good ones.

However, consider that if Jesus was not historical, then the founding times could have been the 40s-50s, when Paul et al had visions of the Christ, allowing some leeway for Clement.

But,
I am becoming increasingly sceptical of much of the dating of the NT, so much is speculation based on tradition.


On the subject of the temple sacrifices being expressed in present tense, I find that unconvincing - when speaking of ritual and sacred matters an eternal present, or hoped-for future could easily apply.

Re the relationship with the stage of church development shown in the Ignatiana - I don't think this is a good argument. The Ignatiana is so suspect, so corrupt, so dang ODD, that I suspect ANY argument based on it nowadays (Ignatius turns up in just about EVERY theory as evidence - even Jesus as mushroom). I cannot believe the myth about Ignatius' journey at all.

In general, I tend to the view that the Ignatiana was forged in the 130s apparently to argue :
* that Jesus WAS really physical
* for increased power for the leaders


So,
I consider a date of 70 for Clement to be possible, even reasonable, it shows such a primitive form of the Jesys myth - merely a TINY number of sayings, NO events or actors.

Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings Peter et al,

Peter Kirby : I think that a strong objection to that idea is that the text itself does not claim a particular author but rather is the work of the "church at Rome." It can't be pseudonymous if it is anonymous. Is there anything else that could tell against the hypothesis of deception?

Hmmm..
Not sure I agree with that.
Firstly the author was known - "the church at Rome".

So,
I can imagine some minor presbyter in the East forging a document supposedly from the church in Rome in an attempt to lend it authority.
Saying its from the whole "church" might imply its from a council of elders e.g.

Perhaps he didn't KNOW any of the big names from Rome - perhaps he worried that if he named one, someone might say, "hang on, I heard of HIM him - he never wrote that".

Just a thought.

Iasion

[Etcetera]

Iasion:

Greetings.

On the subject of the temple sacrifices being expressed in present tense, I find that unconvincing - when speaking of ritual and sacred matters an eternal present, or hoped-for future could easily apply.

An historical example of this kind would help at this point. The usual example is Josephus, and I have explained that he definitely places the sacrifices in the past tense, despite his literary device which describes them in the present. So what of Clement?

The Ignatiana is so suspect, so corrupt, so dang ODD, that I suspect ANY argument based on it nowadays (Ignatius turns up in just about EVERY theory as evidence - even Jesus as mushroom). I cannot believe the myth about Ignatius' journey at all.

And just when I thought that a consensus (Ignatius at 110) had been reached amongst scholars of all persuasions!

:wink:

From the very liberal to the very conservative, I have not read an author that dismissed Lightfoot's conclusions on Ignatius so quickly.

Firstly the author was known - "the church at Rome". So, I can imagine some minor presbyter in the East forging a document supposedly from the church in Rome in an attempt to lend it authority. Saying its from the whole "church" might imply it's from a council of elders e.g.

That is a good point, and one on which I will do some more thinking. However, such a forgery would run counter to the usual method: Find a big name (Peter, James, and so on) and capitalize on it. The use of a church as such a big name seems a bit unusual. If 1 Clement were dated to 70, it would seem even odder, since the authoritative church in that period would seem to have been Jerusalem, not Rome.

Thanks for the counters.

Regards.

Etcetera.