andrewcriddle

The confusion is basically about the period between the apostles and Clement, it is probably not relevant to the succession from Clement to Eleutherus.

Andrew Criddle

(As you said: this thread is about dating Paul not Clement. Apologies if I've drifted off topic.)

aa5874

Your statement is wholly absurd. Any change in the time period or order of Clement AFFECTS the time period and order of the Bishops Before and AFTER Clement.

For example, Rufinus claimed Clement was Third bishop but at c 68 CE WHILE placing Linus as bishop perhaps as early as 58 CE.

There is total confusion regarding the Bishops of Rome even though it is claimed that the Records of the Roman Church were used.

Surely, it could NOT be that there were records of Clement as bishop of Rome.

Clement was specifically fabricated to historicise the Jesus cult in the 1st century.

The fraudulent writings of the Church whether wholly or in part have already been exposed.

1. The writings attributed to Ignatius.

2. The writings attributed to Clement.

3. Writings attributed to Polycarp.

4. Writings attributed to Irenaeus.

5. Writings attributed to Tertullian.

Now, where are your sources for early Pauline letters?? You can't find any???

Sheshbazzar

I did not intend to suggest that the story was anything other than a complete fiction.
What I am saying is that by the context, the author of the story intended that the centurion character's statement in Mark 15:39 be understood by his readers as a expression disgust and of contempt.
Not the apparent respectful admiration that it is imbued to it by the translation appearing within our English language Bibles.

The actual senses being more like; 'Ha! some son of god this character was!'
perhaps followed up by a big gob of spit.

The centurion character is NOT at all impressed by what he has seen.

aa5874

Well, it does NOT say 'Ha! some son of god this character was!'
perhaps followed up by a big gob of spit.

It says Truly this man was the Son of God.

If the author wanted to say Truly this man was the Son of God what would he write??

I can only deal with what is written NOT what I imagine could have been.

Sheshbazzar

Of course that is what it says in the English.

But our English translation does not convey the tone of voice nor emotive intent of the saying.

But if you really must buy into the Christian understanding of the saying, and insist that this Roman centurian (character) was just totally awe-stuck by the sight of a gibberish babbling, beaten and bloody crucified Jew 'Son of God' draw his last breath, then no one can prevent you.

Just wanted our readers to be aware that there is another take on the intent of the exact same words; Ἀληθῶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ

With this I will end my observation on the matter, it is up to others to individually decide what they will believe was intended.

jakejonesiv

Voices from the clouds? There is no evidence that voices from the clouds implied anything since voices from the clouds only exist in your delusion.
However, Roman centurians did indeed exist. Not this particular one, surely you understand fiction, but any Roman centurian would react in a typical way to a Jew dying of crucifixion. And that would be contempt. That would be the context in which the gospel was written and read.
AA, you should thank Sheshbazzar for giving you a good insight.

jakejonesiv

Andrew,
You never need apologize about anything you write in a thread I started. I always value your input.
Jake

Sheshbazzar

I formerly mentioned that interpretation of the centurian's statement in Mark 15:39 was a matter of its context.

What are the odds that this same Roman centurian (character or real), would have been present to have heard, or understood the voice in Mark 1:11 ?

Or the voice in Mark 9:7-9 ?



.

jakejonesiv

Walter Schmithals, once a student of R.Bultmann and teacher of Dr. H.Detering died on March 26, 2009 in Berlin. In his final essay, he joined sides with those who denied the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles. His article was published posthumously “Zu Ignatius von Antiochien,“ in ZAC 13 (2009) 181–203. (Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity). I was lucky enough to have Dr. Detering forward to me a pre-publication draft.

The obvious purpose of the Corpus Ignatianum is to establish the monepiscopate in the Roman church. This belies the traditional date.

Walter Schmithals dated the Corpus Ignatianum during the reign of Mark Aurel (161-180 AD). Schmithals arrived at the conclusion of a late date following the work of R. Joly, R.M. Hübner, and T. Lechne. Among other criteria, he arrived at the conclusion of inauthenticity based on terminology and a dependence on Noetus of Smyrna.

This effectively removes Ignatius as a pre-Marcionite witness to the PE. However, Schmithals work does not deal with the interpolations and thus falls short of Joseph Turmel (aka Henri Delafosse). See Turmel revivivus - Die Ignatianen als marcionitische Psuedepigrapha von Hermann Detering, Berlin 2007.

Roger Parvis has also made a very distinctive contribution to the subject. He argues that the Ignatian epistles are the product of Apelles, Marcion's erstwhile student. Roger Parvis, _A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings_

Here is a review I made of Roger's book a few years ago, hidden to not interrupt the flow of this message.

N/A
The traditional dating of 1 Clement is also entirely suspicious. Now, one does not have to date it as late as 160 CE to remove the objection that the proto-orthodox had the Pauline epistles before Marcion. A date in the late 130's or 140's would suffice for that.

The dating of 1 Clement is usually based on 1Clem 1:1, "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us." This is then assumed, by circular reasoning, to be an allusion to the alleged persecution of Christians in Rome under at the end of the reign of Domitian in 95 or 96 CE. The evidence for such a persecution is tenuous at best, and may have never happened. But the question must be asked, “Why Domitian? Why not some other persecution under another emperor such as Trajan?” The reason is quite simple and quite circular, Domitian is chosen because he was the Emperor when by Catholic Church reckoning, Saint Clement, was supposed to be the Bishop of Rome! But we know that this Clement never wrote the “epistle.” With that you lose your dating anchor.

But the discussion of which emperor and which persecutions are really a tempest in a teapot. No persecutions are mentioned in 1:1, only “misfortunes and hindrances” which are apologetic formula for personal or domestic hindrances.

The internal indications are that a long time, generations, have passed since the founding of the Roman church, 23:3, 44:2-3, 47:6, 63:3. It could as easily be dated to 50 years—or more—after the traditional date, which as we have seen is based on Christian Apologetics with a capital A.

The last time we discussed this, Andrew Criddle responded with a reliance on Lightfoot Clement of Rome But this does not address the point of the text pretending to be something it isn't, a cast back to an earlier age.

Please note that 1 Clement is a sermon from the Diaspora synagogue that has been redacted by a proto-catholic Christian editor. It is way too long to be the letter it pretends to be. No actual occasional letter of this era is this long. If anyone thinks it is, then please name one for comparison.

There are other indications that the document is not what ir pretends to be, and I will direct the interested reader to _1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism_

1 Clement and the Pauline Epistles

1 Clement only cites one Pauline epistle, and that is 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight." 1 Clem 47:1-4.

The other mention of Paul in 1 Clement is a historically improbable description of his journeys. Robert Price has commented that it sounds like a high school student trying to bluff his way through an assignment he had not read.

“By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.” 1Clem 5:5-6.

That Paul was in bonds seven times is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament epistles or Acts. The rest is so vague, we can only guess what the redactor means. I would not imagine that a Roman writer (if indeed this was written in Rome) would think of Rome as the “farthest bounds of the west.” For such a person Rome would be the center. Perhaps the closest we can come is the Muratorian fragment that alleges that Paul went to Spain, and the redactor of 1 Clement thought Paul was assumed into heaven from there. Whatever the case, we are clearly not dealing with historical facts.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Do the Greek words convey a tone of voice or emotive content?? Please, what you say does not make much sense. It is the author who must convey his intent to the readers not the translation from Greek to English or any other language.

I cannot invent my own story or my own intent.

You must read what is written not what you imagine.

Again, what would the author have written if he wanted to say Truly this man was the Son of God??

I do not really understand why you would imagine that there was some other intent.

I simply cannot accept what you imagine.

You are reading things into the passage that are not there.