Toto

Moderator's request: please stick to issues and avoid emotionally provocative language.

Also, Baur != Bauer.

Thanks

Toto

PhilVaz

PhiloJay << "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you," can only refer to Mary >> (quoting 1 Peter 5:13)

She = Mary? Don't think so, and I'm Catholic. She = the believers or community or church in Rome. She who is in Babylon, means the believers in the church who are in Babylon, which according to the connection made both in the book of Revelation, and the early Fathers, means Rome. That's my understanding.

However, the Church and Mary were equated early on, Mary being a figure of the Church, since she was the first believer, the preeminant Christian, and gave "birth" to the Church in a sense, and gave Jesus to the world. Mary is a "type" of the Church, I'll give you that. But "She who is in Babylon," refers simply to the Christian believers who are in Babylon = Rome.

On the Babylon = Rome connection, all the scholars I've checked do equate the two as the most likely interpretation. I can dig up those books again, and re-examine and re-type their arguments, but the stuff is not at my fingertips.

On First Clement, I do have the 3-volume Jurgens set (mentioned by Peter Kirby in his list of sources) which contains excerpts and some commentary on First Clement, including notes on the original Greek. I can type a little bit of that here, this is Fr. William Jurgens translation of the Greek:

"But to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who through unwarrented jealousy suffered not one or two but many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due." (1 Clement to the Corinthians 5:1)

The Greek for "having thus given testimony" might also be translated (according to Jurgens) as "having thus endured martyrdom." So according to Clement (either 80 AD or 96 AD, see below) Peter died as a martyr in Rome.

Clement is definitely writing from Rome as he opens the letter: "the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Clement 1:1)

Jurgens disagrees with the later dating of this letter, and dates it to 80 AD, while St. Clement was bishop of Rome, as Peter's third successor following after Anencletus (also called Cletus), who succeeded Linus. So the bishops of Rome were Peter, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement. JND Kelly in his Oxford Dictionary of the Popes dates 1 Clement at 96 AD which as I understand is the more "standard" date. And yes, I understand that the "monarchical" or single bishop episcopate might not have been established in Rome yet, so we're talking about perhaps a leading "presbyter-elder" in Rome rather than a monarchical bishop.

For another view, that the Church always had monarchical bishops see this

Leaving aside the dating issues, it is a fact that every single document from the early Church that speaks to the subject says "Peter died in Rome" which is why I go with that. There is no document that I am aware of that says Peter died somewhere else, or leads us to question Peter's existence. Now if everything from the early Church (which I'll define as the first 300 years of Christianity, i.e. before Constantine and the persecution of Christians ended) is totally untrustworthy, then we really can't believe anything that is said. I understand that is the view of most in here, that of extreme skepticism. I take the documents at face value, unless there is good reason of forgery or untrustworthiness.

Also, I understand the authorship of the Ignatius epistles has long been established since at least the early 20th century. Jurgens mentions J.B. Lightfoot, Adolph von Harnack, Theodore Zahn, and F.X. Funk as establishing their authenticity. There are however other "pseudo-Ignatius" letters, but I'm talking about the established ones. Jurgens dates them to about 110 AD, others say 107 AD. Ignatius also implies Peter (and Paul) died in Rome in the Ignatius Letter to the Romans. The text is Ignatian written about 110 AD, not spurious.

That about covers it. Am I doing better now? :wave:

OK, I'll stick around. I've been lurking in creation-evolution for about 2 years anyway....I will get Doherty soon as I am very interested in the book after reading the reviews by Richard Carrier and J.P. Holding.

Phil P

Vorkosigan

rlogan, how would you read this paragraph:

• Consider, for example, the Easter dispute that was conjured up by Rome less than a century after 1 Clement, and which "was occasioned by an insignificant difference in cultic practice"[5] -- not that we judge it to be so minor by our standards, but it is evaluated by Irenaeus in just this way (in Eusebius EH 5.24.12 ff.). By the middle of the second century Rome had made an attempt to impose its will upon Asia, but held back from taking the final steps when the elderly Polycarp came to Rome in person. In 190 Victor, believing that Asia is isolated and regarding that fortress as easily assailable, advances with the heavy artillery of exclusion from church fellowship (EH 5.24.9). A little later we see Rome busy with measures designed to establish its influence in Egypt (see above, 55 f., 60). Then, in the middle of the third century, North Africa was the scene of a similarly motivated activity -- "the occasion appears to be even more insignificant and petty than in the case of the Easter disputes."[6]

and this one

• This development, however, touched a sensitive spot with reference to the interests of Rome. Now the community in the metropolis nearest to Rome -- indeed, that important body of Christians with which, in general, Rome had the closest communications -- was about to break away from Rome completely. But for Rome, this involved [[102]] the danger of total isolation, because the farther one traveled toward the East, the less Christianity conformed to Rome's approach. As far as we can tell, during the first century the Christian religion had developed in the world capital without any noticeable absorption of "gnostic" material; for even if the ascetic ideal which was so highly regarded by the "weak" of Rome (Rom. 14.1 ff.)[14] belongs to this category, that was and remained the way of life only of a minority. The course of events was gradually moving Corinth farther and farther from Rome, and when with the removal of the older generation of presbyters,[15] the gulf [106] threatened to become unbridgeable, Rome risked making the attempt to turn back the wheel -- an action that held all the more promise of success since there was a powerful minority in Corinth upon which Rome could rely because their religious and ecclesiastical aims, and in several cases their personal desires as well, were completely in line with the Roman efforts.

...both of which appear to me to link 1 Clem to the end of the first century? Bauer clearly believed, at least based on this chapter, that 1 Clem was a late first century text.

Bernard Muller argues here, I think, that 1 Clem dates from around 80.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Ya, Toto.


I realize you are speaking to the "authenticated" ones. That we have all of these other agreed-upon fraudulent ones, whether Pauline, Clementine, Ignatian and so forth, it begs the question of why we approach the whole lot of it with anything but a heavy dose of skepticism instead of a naiive faith that stems from a bizarre myth to begin with.

As to the "authenticated" ones, I have one really decisive consideration personally. How can we accept that Ignatius is going to be thrown to wild animals for his faith - even be on the way there in chains, in fact - and he is allowed to meet with churches and correspond to others? It just defies common sense that he's allowed to spread the faith at the same time he's being killed for it!

And what do we find in the letters? Hmf. Just what the Catholic Leviathan needs. Hail to the pope. The Dutch Radical School has a litany of inconsistencies and demonstration that the letters were conceived as a whole and presuppose on another in the order given by Eusebius. See Peter Kirby's website on the Radical critique.

Even these "authenticated" letters are, by accounts of the defenders themselves, riddled with interpolation. It reminds us that we are contending with deception as a rule, and not the exception. And again, they are not letters but liturgical screeds.

I suppose that brings us now into contention with Polycarp. The argument from best explanation begins with no Jesus. So no apostles as we are led to believe by the extant works. The whole early church business is a web weaved later. Polycarp stands or falls with Ignatius, and reference to Ignatius' letters is either interpolated or forged in entirety. It is not an isolated incident, but rather in keeping with the entire fabrication of early church history.

rlogan

Hi Vork.

This is what I was getting at. I put into bold what appears as just an assertion about relative positions of events and not any kind of deduction on dating based on evidence. That is, the Easter event is nothing causing a deduction about time of authorship.



We infer this Vork. But he makes no argument for it that I can see.

When I first read it I was pretty annoyed that I had to infer what he believed about dating instead of him just providing one. I suppose that had to do with our friend posing it as a defense of the 90's dating.



Will check it out. Chew on the Dutch Radical material there, Vork. They're pretty groovy.

Vorkosigan

Actually, according to 1 Clem, Peter gave testimony in Rome, at least that's what Jurgens writes. If you want to read a reference to martyrdom into it, you can, but the text may not be able to be pushed so far.

Phil, this is an extremely uncritical view. What enables you to establish that this letter was written in Rome? For example, 1 Pet says it was written in Rome, but scholarship puts it in Asia Minor. You should never accept a text's account of itself. That's basic to historical scholarship.

The Roman bishop tradition as it is presented in later tradition is an utter fiction back-projected into history. Lampe has a good discussion of the development in From Paul to Valentinus, a very conservative work. Lampe believes that the episcopate arose from a functionary whose job was a sort of "minister of foreign affairs" who coordinated shipments of aid and $$ to communities outside of Rome. Support for this is source from Hermas, as well as mentions of the way the "bishops" Soer, Anicetus, and Eleutherus are recorded as caring for foreign guests in Eusebius and elsewhere. "First, from the middle of the second century this presbyter entrusted with external affairs gains ever more "prominence" until at the latest with Victor (189-199) a powerful monarchos has developed. (p400)

Later on he notes that the list of bishops is purest bullshit. Eleutherus constitutes its last, 12th member. That's right, Phil, exactly 12 from Peter, and the sixth one is named -- you guessed it -- Sextus. Lampe writes: The list of Iranaeus (Haer 3.3.3) is with the highest probability a historical construction from the 180s, when the monarchical episcopate developed in Rome." (p406) The names he thinks were taken from the names of presbyters of tradition.

I doubt many scholars would accept this view. MOst scholars see the episcopate as evolving over time. Like Lampe, for instance.

They all date from far too late, though, which is why the tradition is widely questioned.

Well, I think that few scholars would agree that the evidence is good that Peter was martyred in Rome. It appears to be a tradition that exists from the middle of the second century on. The best evidence is not the written tradition, but the existence of a venerated object in Rome, venerated as Peter's tomb, from around that time. But that is still not very good evidence.

Interesting. Unless you stop taking them at face value, how can you develop "good reason" to think of forgery or untrustworthiness?

There are three different recensions. Why don't you go explore the link to them on Bernard Muller's website, and make up your own mind, rather than relying on declarations from writers of the 19th century? Harnack declared the short rescension authentic, but I can't ever recall seeing his argument on that. Perhaps you can summarize it here?

Great!

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

Therein lies the problem. My thesis is not what you're saying it is, so, since I'm still rather new in this forum (and unaccustomed with its standards of decorum) let me be more precise.

My thesis is not that 1 Clem was written in the 90s. My thesis is that your evidence -- "[t]he very fact the letter is from Rome, representing itself as authority and emphasizing the fraudulent line of succession from Jesus to apostles to appointed Church leaders" -- is not a sufficient basis to date 1 Clem in the second century despite 1 Clem's lack of a monarchial episcopate.
It is a methodological, not a substantive, critique (though with substantive implications).

Why it is not a sufficient basis for excluding 1 Clem from the 90s? Because Bauer in his chapter 5 shows how 1 Clem can be plausibly understood within that context. It's too long to summarize so I provided the link. Chapter 5 wasn't clear when Bauer actually dated 1 Clem, so I told you when he did date 1 Clem. Your wanting to go after Bauer for his dating 1 Clem in the 90s isn't relevant to my thesis that your "ample proof" doesn't manage to exclude the 90s.

Now you tell me that you're not interested in defending your "ample proof" because that's "quote mining" or in revisiting whether 1 Clem's lack of a monarchial episcopate dooms your second-century dating because that's "someone else's point." Well, I'm not interested in citing evidence for a red herring that isn't my thesis.

I'd love to get into a discussion about the Dutch Radical School because I have very serious questions about their methodology, especially on the issue of what constitutes evidence in radical criticism. I think their view is so strict that they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I have to warn you, though: I'm a lot more interested in method rather than in the specific results. The truth is what it is, but how we get there is what fascinates me. But I'm not that keen on discussing in a topic if it involves a lot of ad hominems about snobbery.

Steven Carr

The earliest definite mention I can find is Tertullian who claimed in the same sentence that John was unharmed after being plunged into boiling oil.

rlogan

I'm not interested in pages of tedious dissection of wordsmithing.



Vork -

Bernard Muller musters what he can for the 80's, and I have but one teenie weenie methodological concern.

The pseudo-letter of I Clement is phony. We are therefore not looking for what period best matches the fraudulent story. That is what Bernard is doing. That is what Bauer is doing. That method falls precisely into the trap laid by the perpetrators.

I do note that Bernard rejects the Ignatia as phonies, and consequently pushes their dating further into the 2nd century.

What we need to observe is the clear motivation set forth by the phony line of succession "history" and deduce this is the period of Catholicism arising. Sure, they wish to make it sound like it comes from the first century by pretending the anonymous authors are close in time to those appointed by the apostles. I have alluded to other items in the Dutch Radical Critique but I think the dam is pretty much burst with understanding the "letter" is phony.

I had mentioned before the scriptural misquotes of the perpetrator. Bernard has listed many of these, and they point to specific intent on buttressing this idea of obedience to central authority.

Notice how the whole thesis of appointed big shots is absent the names of those very big shots? Later in history those names (like Clement!) are supplied for us. Linus and the whole phony line of popes. The only names of succession in I Clement are Paul and Peter. Well - who did they appoint if it is so damned important to follow who they appointed?

I do not adhere to the wishful thinking in the gospel datings, so this affects my thinking here too.

S.C.Carlson

Bauer is a little more explicit at the end of chapter 4:

Chapter 5 gets into explaining how 1 Clem makes sense in that sort of context. Bauer takes a "big picture" approach: he shows how each piece fits into his historical schema, which he carefully builds one block at a time. So, to explain why Bauer puts 1 Clem here instead of there, it would be necessary to lay out the whole picture.

This dating has a lot going for it.

On external grounds, it is possible to place 1 Clem anywhere from the mid-60s to maybe the 130s. That's a pretty big range and getting more specific requires evaluating the clues internal to 1 Clem. I think that Lightfoot's reasons for putting 1 Clem in the 90s are pretty much bogus, however. I've been looking into what συμφοÏ?άς means at the very beginning (usually translated "calamities"). I'm not done going through how this word is used in other Greek texts yet, but it looks like "natural disasters" is the more likely meaning, not "persecutions." The Mt. Vesuvius eruption of 79, followed by a plagues and fires in Rome, looks like the best candidate for repeated natural disasters in that date range. This would mean that writer of 1 Clem would have us believe that he is writing around 81 or so. Whether he really did write around 81 or later in the date range pretending to be writing around 81 is the next issue, but 1 Clem's failure to recognizably quote or cite Matt or Luke makes it more difficult to explain the later in the range it is dated (an 81 date, on the other hand, would mean that 1 Clem predates Matt and Luke).

Finally, I read the references to Peter and Paul in 1 Clem 5 a bit differently than usual. 1 Clem didn't mention Peter and Paul to bolster its authority; rather it's more like: "Stop fighting among yourselves -- that's what got Peter and Paul into big trouble." This follows a list of examples of internecine jealosy (Cain & Abel, etc.). The implication is that Peter and Paul got killed because they got betrayed by other Christians out of jealosy. (Cf. Mark 13:12, "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death.")

The later 1 Clem is dated, the harder this kind of candor can be explained by appealing to second-century ecclesiastics fabricating their own history; surely they would have done a more sanitized job, as in the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul, both from the late second century. In the Acts of Peter, Peter was arrested and executed because a noblewoman who listened to him gave up sex with her non-Christian husband, and in the Acts of Paul, Paul got arrested and executed because he resurrected Nero's cup-bearer. 1 Clem's discussion on Peter and Paul looks nothing like the accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul that we see in the late second-century Acts.

Stephen Carlson, a wordsmith looking for a kill-file