Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-20-2005, 03:43 PM

I don't think that if you accept Ellegard's thesis, that you then would necessarily believe that Paul went to Rome, although you would not find a problem then with Paul writing to a well-established church in Rome in the mid-first century.

I think most Christians like to dismiss Ellegard as a mythicist and just a linguist anyway. Doherty reviews him favorably in general.

Quote:

In moving the date of 1 Clement up some three decades from the more usual placement around 96 CE, Ellegard has to overcome a few problems. He is right to point out the basic unreliability of Eusebius, on whom the more usual date is dependent; and his argument that chapter 41 refers, on the surface, to a temple cult which still conducts sacrifices and thus requires a pre-70 date, is compelling, while the ways commonly used to get around this point are not. This and other arguments he puts forward, however, do not change the fact that a pre-70 dating runs into difficulties on other scores. In 1 Clement 5, the writer speaks of Paul in a way which suggests an intervening passage of time since his death which is more than just a few years. In 47:2, Clement refers to the time of Paul as "the beginning of the gospel," meaning that the movement began with his work (not, we should note, with the work of Jesus), and this, too, may seem inconsistent as a reference to a phase under Paul which has virtually just ended. (K. Lake, in the Loeb Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, p.90-91, takes a different meaning from the Greek en archei tou euangeliou: "from the beginning of his (Paul's) preaching," which would get around the objection. This is not the most natural translation and is probably chosen by Lake to avoid Clement's difficult implication!)

Further, in Ellegard's dating, he must reinterpret the 'recent persecution' mentioned at the opening of 1 Clement, often taken to refer to one under Domitian, as a reference to the Neronian persecution after the great fire of Rome in 64, as mentioned in Tacitus. While there is a problem in regarding the latter persecution as a reliable, historically-based tradition (often used to cast doubt on Tacitus' Christ passage), the same problem exists in regard to a reputed persecution under Domitian. On balance, I would say that none of these objections is conclusive, and I would be willing to consider Ellegard's new placement of 1 Clement as feasible. (Another objection, that the term "ancient church of the Corinthians" in 47:6 would hardly be used for something only a couple of decades old, is not valid in the context of the no-historical Jesus paradigm, as we have no way of knowing how long before Paul came along such a church might have been in existence; certainly Paul did not found it. Ellegard rightly points out that the entire Christ movement could have been a going concern since the early decades of the century.) There is no clear sign of an historical Jesus in this Roman epistle, and several indications against it. (I may post an 'interim' 1 Clement article on this question in the near future.)

I think where Ellegard's theory falls down is that he relies on what was a standard view, that there was a Qumran "community" that could be identified as Essene, and that some conclusions could be drawn about them from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think this view is now admitted to be based on faulty data and analysis.

Toto · 08-20-2005, 04:03 PM

Jesus by Ellegard, reviews which sum up the conventional view:

From Library Journal

Quote:

Ellegard's conclusions can only be described as preposterous. Ellegard (formerly dean, Univ. of G?teburg, Sweden) is clearly familiar with some mainline biblical scholarship, but he always opts for the minority view and stretches it beyond reason. For example, he believes that the Gospels were written in the second century C.E. and traces the origin of Christianity to "a group of pious Jews called the Essenes" (the Dead Sea Scrolls group). Then, based on this highly questionable and twisted "evidence," he leaps to several unjustified conclusions: that Jesus lived long before he was supposed to have and that his disciples had only "ecstatic visions" of him and never knew him in the flesh. The Gospel writers, he suggests, then mistook their visions for real events and created fictitious accounts of Jesus' life.

. . .

Ellegard's work would only be useful as an example of the false conclusions that result when questionable opinion is stretched beyond reasonable limits.
-David Bourquin, California State Univ., San Bernardino

Peter Kirby · 08-20-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think only Ellegard tries to date 1 Clement that early

That is incorrect.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 08-20-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

That is incorrect.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Then I thought wrong. Who else dates Clement I that early? How do they deal with Doherty's list of problems that creates - Clement's reference to Paul as a long gone figure?

Peter Kirby · 08-20-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then I thought wrong. Who else dates Clement I that early?

Edmundson, for example, in The Church in Rome in the First Century, gives 1 Clement a dating before AD 70.

Quote:

How do they deal with Doherty's list of problems that creates - Clement's reference to Paul as a long gone figure?

1 Clement does not say that Paul was a "long gone figure." 1 Clement 5:1 says, "But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation." Notwithstanding that Doherty might interpret "nearest to our time" and "our generation" differently so as to avoid difficulties with his own dating, where does Doherty demonstrate a reference to Paul as a "long gone figure"? I just read 1 Clem 5 a couple times and find no such implication at all.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 08-20-2005, 05:54 PM

Bourquin liked Freke and Gandy....
See library journal Review of tJM

Toto · 08-20-2005, 07:06 PM

Don't blame Doherty. "Long gone" was my phrase. Doherty says ". . . 1 Clement 5, the writer speaks of Paul in a way which suggests an intervening passage of time since his death which is more than just a few years."

I assume that Doherty means this:

Quote:

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.

Clement writes this after discussing Moses, Miriam, Aaron, and David.

Dating 1 Clement to 60 CE would make it virtually contemporaneous with or even before(!) the usual dating of Paul's death, which is not the feeling that you get from that passage, with its very general view of the story of Paul's life as seen from a certain distance, even if it is labeled as in the current generation. (I have to admit that the feeling I get from that passage is that some later editor may have at least improved upon it.)

And I don't think that Doherty is committed to a date for 1 Clement - I think that he is reporting the reasons others date 1 Clement a bit later, and he indicates that he is willing to accept an earlier dating.

I don't know which way this cuts as far as mythicism, and in any case Doherty is not the one who is arguing that Paul was not in Rome. Jay Raskin originally raised the idea, and I am examining it here (without being fully committed to it.)

And I notice that Clement never places Paul in Rome - just that he taught in the east and the west. I don't think that 1 Clement is clear evidence of anything in particular, whenever the letter was written.

I came upon this intriguing bit:

Minutes, Religious Studies

Quote:

* A bit on the biography of Paul: The general consensus is that Paul was beheaded in the period 64-68, a time frame that is sometimes pushed as late as possible in order to include Paul's possible travels to Spain and the circumstances alluded to in the pastoral epistles. We are not certain that Paul actually ever arrived in Spain (Romans 15.24 tells of his plans to go to Spain). The strong tradition that Paul was beheaded may provide a clue as to Paul's legal status, since a Roman citizen would not have been crucified. Paul was convicted of a capital crime, perhaps related to the fire in Rome (although Christian sources tend to be silent about this connection) that was utilized by Nero as a reason to attack the Christians according to the 2nd century Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. The Acts of Paul, for example, gives other reasons for Nero attacking Paul and the Christians.

* Johannes Munck wrote a book in the late 1950s in German, translated Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. To Munck, Paul understands himself as sort of a supplementary messiah, a special missionary to the Gentiles proclaiming the gospel message. Once Paul has reached (at least representatively) the ends of the (Roman) earth, the "times of the Gentiles" would be fulfilled and the expected end would come. Thus it was crucial for Paul to travel at least to Rome, if not to Spain. The earliest relevant evidence for how far Paul actually went comes from an ambiguous pasage in 1 Clement 5, which states that Paul reached "the limits of the west" and then was killed/martyred. This may imply that Paul did reach Spain, or simply that he reached what was considered to be the most important western location, Rome. A passage in the Acts of Peter indicates that Paul leaves for Spain upon receiving a vision in a prison in Rome. It is in the same vision that Paul is told that he will be "perfected" in Rome under Nero, therefore, Paul must return to Rome and be killed there after he goes to Spain. The information regarding Paul wanting and actually going to Spain is indicative of the divided opinion that exists as late as the 4rd century with Eusebius, who does not mention the Spain tradition.

Tabor writes:

Quote:

Paul understands his special role as apostle to the Gentiles as the key to the final events of the End. He presents his understanding of this eschatological plan in Rom. 9-11 and 15:7-33. God has not rejected his people Israel, even though, at the present time, only a few have joined the Messianic movement (11:1-5). This is in keeping with God’s inscrutable ways. Through their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, salvation is now being offered to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous (11:11-12). It is all part of the secret plan of God, now revealed by Paul.

. . .

Paul understands that there is a certain select group of Gentiles that God has chosen and is calling to make up a new Israelite community (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3). His preaching in the major cities of the empire, both east and west, is the means by which they are gathered together and prepared for their role in God’s plan. When his work is completed he expects Israel as a whole to come to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

Paul develops this understanding of his Gentile mission through an interpretation of prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible, particularly sections of deutero-Isaiah. This is a major factor in understanding the dynamics of Paul’s apostolic consciousness--he literally finds himself and his apostolic mission in these texts of sacred Scripture. Isa. 49:1-6 (LXX) is perhaps the single most significant text.

. . .

Paul directly quotes this chapter in 2 Cor. 6:2. He alludes to it in Gal. 1:15 when speaking of his call before his birth, and again in Phil. 2:16 when he contemplates the final outcome of his work. In Rom. 15:21, where he defends his special mission to the Gentiles, he quotes from Isa. 52:15, a closely related section of deutero-Isaiah. More significant than these allusions or direct quotations is the way in which Paul’s general understanding of his role corresponds to the thematic thought-world of such texts. He, like the Hebrew prophets, is called by God at a crucial moment of history. . . . .

Peter Kirby · 08-20-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Don't blame Doherty. "Long gone" was my phrase. Doherty says ". . . 1 Clement 5, the writer speaks of Paul in a way which suggests an intervening passage of time since his death which is more than just a few years."

I assume that Doherty means this:

Clement writes this after discussing Moses, Miriam, Aaron, and David.

Dating 1 Clement to 60 CE would make it virtually contemporaneous with or even before(!) the usual dating of Paul's death, which is not the feeling that you get from that passage, with its very general view of the story of Paul's life as seen from a certain distance, even if it is labeled as in the current generation. (I have to admit that the feeling I get from that passage is that some later editor may have at least improved upon it.)

Of what probative value are such feelings? The implication suggested is not there.

Quote:

And I don't think that Doherty is committed to a date for 1 Clement - I think that he is reporting the reasons others date 1 Clement a bit later, and he indicates that he is willing to accept an earlier dating.

Okay.

Quote:

I don't know which way this cuts as far as mythicism, and in any case Doherty is not the one who is arguing that Paul was not in Rome. Jay Raskin originally raised the idea, and I am examining it here (without being fully committed to it.)

Jay Raskin is the kind of fellow who would have fun writing a tract disproving the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. Not sure that the fact that he suggested an idea is in any way meaningful.

Quote:

And I notice that Clement never places Paul in Rome - just that he taught in the east and the west. I don't think that 1 Clement is clear evidence of anything in particular, whenever the letter was written.

Sure it's clear that Paul traveled to the extreme west. Which at the very least means the extent of the city of Rome (cf. Acts 1 'to the ends of the earth'), and possibly as far as Spain.

Quote:

I came upon this intriguing bit:

I read your quotes with interest.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle · 08-21-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

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.

Hang on! This states Paul was stoned, not beheaded! The comment that he is placed in a pantheon of prophets is also significant! What is this seven times stuff?

What external evidence is there for when Paul's writing were written? Are they placed post 30 because of the assumed date of Christ's mission?

If we are proposing a theory that discards an HJ, what effect does that have on all dates of everything? What is this about travelling all over the place to meet the needs of the Messiah? Why then no mention of North and South, Britain, Scandinavia and Africa, all mentioned, or is this again mystic speak to do with sun rises and sun sets that has later become geographically and historically fixed in Spain, Rome and after an alleged HJ?

Toto · 08-21-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

. . .

What external evidence is there for when Paul's writing were written? Are they placed post 30 because of the assumed date of Christ's mission?

There is no good external evidence. They are dated by fitting them into the chronology of Acts, based on references to a few historical figures there.

Quote:

If we are proposing a theory that discards an HJ, what effect does that have on all dates of everything?

It does make things rather imprecise, doesn't it? If Ellegard is correct and we ignore Acts, Paul could have been much earlier. Or later.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-20-2005, 05:54 PM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bourquin liked Freke and Gandy.... See library journal Review of tJM

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.