jakejonesiv

Good points. Jerome On Matthew 24.15 wrote:
"So when you see the standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation: or to the statue of the mounted Hadrian, which stands to this very day on the site of the Holy of Holies."

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)."

spamandham

...and here I thought I was being so clever. Ol' Jerome beat me to the punch 1700 years ago.

Vinnie

Hey Ben, in browsing through 1 Clement the other day I noted 2 references to the temple, which leaves me very confuzzled....

Chapter 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. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed."

The curious thing is that 1 Clement is often dated ca. 95 c.e. but Kirby's site, wisely following the lead of the ABD opens it up from 80-140. Does this reference seem to indicate the temple is still standing? The author also references the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as "in our own generation".

The other reference occurs here:

Chapter 23 "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, for whom you look."

This one to me, if Clement dates to ca 100 looks like more apocalyptic language of a new temple or what not. The first reference has me a little bit confused though.

From the ABD on dating Clement:

"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."

What do you make of these references to the temple?

Vinnie

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie I noted 2 references to the temple, which leaves me very confuzzled....The curious thing is that 1 Clement is often dated ca. 95 c.e. but Kirby's site, wisely following the lead of the ABD opens it up from 80-140. Does this reference seem to indicate the temple is still standing? The author also references the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as "in our own generation". The other reference occurs here: Chapter 23 "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, for whom you look." This one to me, if Clement dates to ca 100 looks like more apocalyptic language of a new temple or what not. The first reference has me a little bit confused though. What do you make of these references to the temple?

Good point, Vinnie, simple answer. That the letter looks clearly to have been written before 70 AD. and some of the references have been misinterpreted, e.g. Domitian being the persecution.

Peter Kirby discusses this view :

Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40).

Note that Ellegård (1919-2008) was a bit of a mythicist so that may be why he made the Kirby scholarship for pre-70 AD. Continuing, it seems to be a fairly sensible view, mentioned in many places.

From the Kevin Edgecombe blog in 2006, Kevin makes some excellent analysis points, fairly obvious yet little-stated.

Full First Clement
http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=170
The timing of the letter is an interesting subject. Although I’d always remained an agnostic on whether the letter was written sometime before 70 AD or around 96 AD, I am no longer. Throughout the letter, there is a logical consistency in the usage of verb tenses, quite modern, probably in keeping with a Roman familiarity with the usage of tenses in classical Latin (comparing, say, Caesar or Cicero with Tertullian or Jerome and you’ll see the difference; the latter were affected by the somewhat looser particularity of tenses represented in Greek as opposed to Latin, which English usage follows to a large degree, as well). This aspect plays a role in understanding the timing of the letter when, in 41.2, sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple are described in the present tense. This is really the clincher, rather than being equivocal, as the references to “elders” in both Corinth and Rome are, and the reference late in the letter, at 63.3, describing some who’d been believer “from youth to old age” — “old age” being relative, the period covered by such aging could be a mere twenty to thirty years. Very importantly, while we do know about a very intense persecution of Christians in Rome during Nero’s reign, we’re finding that there isn’t much evidence at all for persecution of Christians in Rome or abroad during the reign of Domitian. It is a general persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Domitian which has been the lynchpin for a late date for First Clement. Anyhow, I seem to be in quite good company in preferring the earlier date. As Mike Aquilina noted, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is of the same opinion (see particularly note 27), as was John A. T. Robinson.

We may want to see the Ratzinger view similar to that of Ellegård (1919-2008) - a sample of the stopped clock syndrome at work.

We have this note also from the letters in the blog.

George Edmundson was the first to show a convincing case for dating 1 Clement in the early months of 70; and in his view, this was about the same time that St.John was arrested and sent to Patmos. I think there is much to commend Edmundson’s view. (Bob - Nov 2006)

A final example, Gary Demar comes from a different perspective and adds the scholarship of T. J. Herron to Robertson and Edmundson above.

A "Shred of Evidence" from 1 Clement
http://www.charlescoty.com/user/Shre...ry%20Demar.pdf
... The letter is commonly dated around A.D. 96, but there is good reason to date it earlier. George Edmundson, in his Bampton Lectures for 1913, writes "that the probable date of the epistle is the early months of 70 A.D." The strongest argument for an early A.D. 70 date is that Clement states that temple sacrifices were still being offered in Jerusalem. This means the temple, which was destroyed in late A.D. 70, was still standing when Clement wrote his letter .... T. J. Herron, at the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford , "challenged the traditional date of 95–96, which has been based almost entirely on the testimony of Eusebius. . . . Clement’s use of the present tenses in chapters 40–41 is taken by Herron to signify that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Clement wrote." ...

Shalom,
Seven Avery

Vinnie

So lets suppose 1 Clement did write ust before 70c.e.

1) The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2),

2) A second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3).

3) The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6);

4) The emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3).

5) Neronian persecutions are a thing of the past (ch. 5-6)

See following quote:

I am not aware of anyone who argues against the unity of the work so I am a bit confused right now....

Vinnie

Vinnie

I'm actually contemplating later forgery....though I suppose the author could be as inept as a forger...

Vinnie

Note the mature and fruitful age.

I would need to look more deeply at the word ancient but if new churches were popping up close to 70 c.e. then a church started ca 50 c.e. by Paul cannot be considered ancient. Is there any evidence Corinthians existed ca. 40 or earlier?

Its not even worth quoting the rest. If the temple references cannot be explained an impasse will have been reached, IMHO.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

I wrote about the dating of 1 Clement in another thread:
I think you are on to something about dating texts based on supposed reference to the temple in Jerusalem. In the case of 1 Clement, this would give an impossibly early date.

But rather than look earlier, please consider to look latter. The rebuilt temple was considered a fait accompli of the fulfilment of messianic expectation. The end of Jewish nationalism was not in the war of ca. 70 CE. The hopes for a restored Jewish state (and Temple) lasted until the defeat of Bar Kochba (Simon ben Kosiba) ca. 136 CE. Coins issued under bar Kochba showed the Temple with the Messianic star on the roof and the Ark of the Covenant inside

http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/bar_kochba_coin1.jpg

Another image here, but long download.

See Wars between the Jews and Romans: Simon ben Kosiba (130-136 CE)

It is possible, but by no means certain, that Bar Kochba attempted to rebuild the Temple, and that Hadrian destoyed it. (There is supposed to be a reference to this in Chronicon Paschale, but I haven't had a chance to run it down yet.While this is an intruging possibility, it is by no means necessary to the argument)

I think many scholars have been dating using the events of ca. 70 CE when they should be dating to events around 135 CE.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

Vinnie

Actually most scholars date Clement to the 90s not to 70. I look to the period of 90-110 because it fits with all the data. Speculation that it might be during the Bar Kochba revolt 1) has no evidence in its favor and 2) does not jibe with internal considerations.

The reference to the temple can occur early or late it seems (see 2 Thess and Revelations). Likewise, the persecution mentioned in the beginning is rhetoric and can no longer serve as evidence for the dating of the work. There are two good methods of affixing the date to me:

Dependence by Polycarp in 120-130 and that some of those appointed by the apostles are still alive which necessitates a date before 110. If, as according to the tradition, we surmise that the apostles appointed 30 year old leaders in 50 c.e. some can scarcely still be alive past 110. The letter itself does not allow itself to be pushed too far past the turn of the century. In lieu of the traditions suggesting a later date (e.g. Corinth being an ancient church, et al.) it seems 90--110 is the best possible range. If both of those references are demonstrated to be incorrect I would open up m range to 90-140.

Against this stands only the reference to the temple, though since its given in the present tends it confuses me. I wonder if sacrifices were still offered on the "temple rubble" after 70 c.e.?

aa5874

When other data is taken into consideration it is very unlikely that 1st Clement was written in the 1st century since the characters called Paul and Peter were fictitious characters. Peter was a fictious character, who WITNESSED the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension in the Jesus stories found in the Gospels.

Peter witnessed and was a participant in fiction.

Peter must have been or was most likely to be fiction.

Paul was fabricated as a post ascension character who PERSONALLY met the fiction character PETER and was with the fiction in Jerualem and Rome.

Paul must have been or was most likely a fiction character, he was a participant in fictitious events.

Now, if Clement had written about these characters, Peter and Paul , at around 90 CE, it would be known by historians of the day and people living in Rome that Clement was a fiction writer.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about any post ascension activities of Peter and Paul.


The events found in Chapter 5 of Clement are very likely false.

1st Clement 5 It was most unlikely that Peter and Paul, if they were really Jews, would NOT have worshipped another Jew, called Jesus, as a God and claim that Jesus existed before the world began and that Jesus created the world.

1st Clement appears to have been written well after the writings of Justin Martyr of after 150 CE and has in it no history with respect to Peter and Paul but mere propaganda for the compilation of Church History.