yalla

From the book that I am currently reading, on the subject of the date and authorship of the epistle 1 Clement:

"....the Roman prophet Hermas...relates that he is bidden to write "2 little books and send one to Clement...[who] must send it to the cities abroad for that is his duty" [Hermas Vis.II.4:3]....The date of this vision is late first century and it doubtless" refers to our Clement, among whose duties was that of acting as a kind of foreign secretary for the church.
"Early Christian Fathers" Vol 1 Ed. C. C. Richardson London SCM p.36
Hmmm.
When I check the date for Hermas I find, among other guesses :
from ECW:
-a preferred date would be 140CE
-sometime in the 2nd century
-...about 140CE
-author unknown
from Cath. Encycl.:
-first or second century
-"not easy to decide whether..the entire work is ficticious in both form and setting"
-"Perhaps the most probable view is that the historical data in the book are fictitious; the author was really the brother of Pope Pius, and wrote during his brother's pontificate."

There is lots more but the consensus, if any, seems to be that Hermas was written about 140CE.

So, if that date be accepted for the moment and we relate it to the statement from the Vision that Clement is written about in the present tense and is therefore alive c140 CE, does this give a date for the epistle 1 Clement [presuming that a Clement is the author] as about 140 CE instead of the preferred orthodox date of late first century?
cheers
yalla

Ben C Smith

Not unless Clement lived only that one year. I am certain quite a few people were young men late in century I and still alive in 140.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

BTW, on the other thread you wrote:

I then asked:

This may be a good thread to respond to that inquiry on.

Ben.

yalla

Gidday Ben,
I took this, from the Catholic Encycl., as an indication that the age overlap is possible, but not probable.
"The statement that Hermas wrote during his brother's pontificate may similarly be an inference from the fact that it was in a list of popes, against the name of Pius, that the writer found the information that Hermas was that pope's brother. He may have been an elder brother of the pope, who was probably an old man in 140. Hence it is quite possible that Hermas might have been past thirty when Clement died, at the time of his first and second visions. But because this is possible, it does not follow that it is very probable."
Possibly, if you try to preserve the orthodox dating of 1 Clem as pre-2c then an old Clement and a younger Hermas may co-exist around 140 CE, but its stretching the lifespans and on the outer range of probabilities don't you think?
Particularly when you consider that the date of 140CE for Hermas is mainly based on the dates for his purported brother Pius' papacy which start at 140 and continue for a decade or so.
Its possible, given Hermas is referring to the live Clem who wrote 1 Clem, that the chronology can fit the orthodox desire for I Clement as c96CE.
It would make Clement about 70-90 years old in 140-155CE.
Not probable.
And it would counter the main argument for dating Clem pre-2C based on the reference to troubles as referring to the imperial persecution of Domitian.


But notice in my OP cite here how the author takes the present tense reference of Hermas to Clement as therefore denoting the writing of Hermas in the first century to be contemporary with Clement.

And yes I was referring to 2 Clement in the other thread.
cheers
yalla

Ben C Smith

Personally, I think dating Hermas to the episcopacy of Pius may well be a mistake based on the Latin title of the book, liber pastoris. More information available in my post on the Muratorian canon on the Thoughts on Antiquity weblog.

I do not regard the dating of 1 Clement by the alleged Domitianic persecution as very secure.

I have always been fond of the dovetailing of certain details between Hermas and the attribution of 1 Clement to Clement:

1. 1 Clement does not mention Clement, least of all as author. Rather, it purports to be written by the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.
2. Hermas implies that Clement is some sort of agent of correspondence (with other cities) for the church of Rome.
3. Dionysius does not say that 1 Clement was written by Clement; he says that it was written through Clement. This word choice seems to make Clement an agent in some way, not the actual author of the epistle (compare Martyrdom of Polycarp 20.1 and 1 Peter 5.12).

The picture that appears to come together from our earliest evidence, then, is that 1 Clement was an official production of the church of Rome as a whole, but that Clement was in some way responsible for getting it or sending it to Corinth.

Would you explain, then, how 2 Clement is a forgery?

Ben.

yalla

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5095513]-"Although known as 2 Clement, this document is in actuality an anonymous homily of the mid-second century."
-"Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:"
"
-It is first mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxvii), who considered it spurious, as being unknown to the ancients;"
-"It is, therefore, an anonymous sermon by an unknown author."
-" But it is now generally regarded. as one of the many writings which have been falsely ascribed to Clement."

On the basis of comments such as the above culled from the usual sources [ECW, CE etc].
Are you objecting to my use of the word 'forgery'?

Ben C Smith

Yes. A misattribution is not the same as a forgery.

Ben.

yalla

Fair enough, spuriously asigned by whomever for whatever purposes is not the same as forgery, I accept your criticism as valid. Sloppy of me.

But [trying to recover lost ground] it still shows that all is not what it seems to be, or presented to be, in the world of patristic writings and so we should be sceptical of the claims for such as regards dates, purported authors, facts or opinions contained in such.
Which was my point in the other thread that such data is shadowy at best and used [as I outlined] to reinforce desired outcomes.
The author of my book uses Hermas to date 1 Clem to the first century.
But the author, dating and validity of the historical data of Hermas is probably, can I say, shonky?
So citing such, even as you have when distinguishing by and through, is treading heavily on quicksand, if trying to establish something else eg the dating of I Whoever.
Note that either way, by or through, we are dealing with a work that the Cath. Encyc. suggests "Perhaps the most probable view is that the historical data in the book are fictitious".
So I wouldn't assert [I don't think you do] that the author of I Clem was Clem, that it was written in the first century, that Hermas was written etc.....
cheers
yalla

Ben C Smith

I do not think the author was Clement as such. But I do think somebody named Clement of Rome had a hand in getting it to the Corinthians.

I am undecided on the exact date of 1 Clement. But I do not tend to see the claim that Peter and Paul were of basically the same generation as the writing of the epistle as some sort of device. I tend to take it seriously.

Another issue for me is 1 Clement 41.2-3:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore said ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes. They therefore who do any thing contrary to the seemly ordinance of his will receive death as the penalty.

A date before 70 has been suggested on the basis of this and other data; is Clement aware that the offerings are no longer being made? Maybe, maybe not.

My possible range for 1 Clement is about 69 to 140.

Not decided on the date of the Shepherd, either.

Ben.

dog-on

The period of 140 through 170 seems to have been quite productive for the world of Christian lit...