Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-20-2012, 09:04 PM

More 1 Clement quotes in Clement of A:

Quote:

Now Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, while expounding the differences of those who are approved according to the Church, says expressly, "One may be a believer; one may be powerful in uttering knowledge; one may be wise in discriminating between words; one may be terrible in deeds." [Strom 1]

compare 1Clem 48:5

Quote:

Let a man be faithful, let him be able to expound a deep saying, let him be wise in the discernment of words, let him be strenuous in deeds, let him be pure. for so much the more ought he to be lowly in mind, in proportion as seemeth to be the greater; and he ought to seek the common advantage of all, and not his own. Let him that hath love in Christ fulfill the commandments of Christ. Who can declare the bond of the love of God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? The height, where unto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins

This is a repeated citation from the long section noted earlier in Book 4:

Quote:

through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through him our foolish and darkened mind springs up to the light. By Him the Sovereign Lord wished us to taste the knowledge that is immortal. These things, then, being clear to us, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order which the Sovereign Lord commanded us to perform at the appointed seasons.

Let the wise man, then, show his wisdom not in words only, but in good deeds. Let the humble not testify to himself, but allow testimony to be borne to him by another. Let not him who is pure in the flesh boast, knowing that it is another who furnishes him with continence. Ye see, brethren, that the more we are subjected to peril, the more knowledge are we counted worthy of.
The decorous tendency of our philanthropy, therefore, seeks the common good which conducts to the height which is unutterable. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, suffereth all things. Love joins us to God, does all things in concord. In love, all the chosen of God were perfected. Apart from love, nothing is well pleasing to God. Of its perfection there is no unfolding. Who is fit to be found in it, except those whom. God counts worthy?

Now all the generations from Adam to this day are gone. But they who have been perfected in love, through the grace of God, hold the place of the godly, who shall be manifested at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ. Love permits not to sin; but if it fall into any such case, by reason of the interference of the: adversary, in imitation of David, it will sing: "I will confess unto the Lord, and it will please Him above a young bullock that has horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad." For he says, "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me." "For the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit."

Of course it is difficult to explain why Clement of A cites the same text in different ways. Here is the original context of the last citation:

Quote:

For it is written in the Epistle to the Corinthians, "Through Jesus Christ our foolish and darkened mind springs up to the light. By Him the Sovereign Lord wished us to taste the knowledge that is immortal." And, showing more expressly the peculiar nature of knowledge, he added: "These things, then, being clear to us, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order which the Sovereign Lord commanded us to perform at the appointed seasons. Let the wise man, then, show his wisdom not in words only, but in good deeds. Let the humble not testify to himself, but allow testimony to be borne to him by another. Let not him who is pure in the flesh boast, knowing that it is another who furnishes him with continence. Ye see, brethren, that the more we are subjected to peril, the more knowledge are we counted worthy of."

Notice that the words "one may be terrible in deeds" don't appear in this citation - which is attributed to the generic 'the Epistle of the Corinthians' but are 'retained in Book 1:

Quote:

Now Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, while expounding the differences of those who are approved according to the Church, says expressly, "One may be a believer; one may be powerful in uttering knowledge; one may be wise in discriminating between words; one may be terrible in deeds."

This happens all the time in our one exemplar for the Stromata. I see the same passage of Paul cited in two different ways. I think the only explanation is a later addition. Notice that it appears at the end of a paragraph in Book 1:

Quote:

And now we must look also at this, that if ever those who know not how to do well, live well; for they have lighted on well-doing. Some, too, have aimed well at the word of truth through understanding. "But Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith." It is therefore of no advantage to them after the end of life, even if they do good works now, if they have not faith. Wherefore also the Scriptures were translated into the language of the Greeks, in order that they might never be able to allege the excuse of ignorance, inasmuch as they are able to hear also what we have in our hands, if they only wish. One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself. The guessing at truth is one thing, and truth itself is another. Resemblance is one thing, the thing itself is another. And the one results from learning and practice, the other from power and faith. For the teaching of piety is a gift, but faith is grace. "For by doing the will of God we know the will of God." "Open, then," says the Scripture, "the gates of righteousness; and I will enter in, and confess to the Lord." But the paths to righteousness (since God saves in many ways, for He is good) are many and various, and lead to the Lord's way and gate. And if you ask the royal and true entrance, you will hear, "This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in by it." While there are many gates open, that in righteousness is in Christ, by which all the blessed enter, and direct their steps in the sanctity of knowledge. Now Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, while expounding the differences of those who are approved according to the Church, says expressly, "One may be a believer; one may be powerful in uttering knowledge; one may be wise in discriminating between words; one may be terrible in deeds."

Chapter 8

But the art of sophistry, which the Greeks cultivated, is a fantastic power, which makes false opinions like true by means of words. For it produces rhetoric in order to persuasion, and disputation for wrangling.

This is how the additions are developed in the spurious longer versions of Ignatius.

Vorkosigan · 04-21-2012, 01:01 AM

Nice.

spin · 04-21-2012, 06:55 AM

In a book called Redrawing the Boundaries (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Equinox, 2007. ISBN: 978 1 84553 302 1) J.V.M. Sturdy examined the dates of various works starting with 1 Clement.

Of this work he noted that there is no evidence that Domitian persecuted christians, nor is there a figure in the tradition of the Roman church by the name of Clement at this time, no bishop of Rome by that name. He argues that in the Shepherd of Hermas there is mention of a Roman Clement who was significant in the church, who could thus be dated as in operation circa 130-150 CE. Sturdy notes that the first substantive allusions to 1 Clement are in the Letter of Polycarp which he also redates from the traditional 115 CE to very much later.

He also points out that 1 Clement "certainly knows Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and probably 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians (or Colossians), 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter and Acts... his allusive use of such an extensive cross-section of New Testament writers suggests that he writes at a time when there was a developing awareness of the importance of the New Testament books as a group.... It is a much more obvious conclusion that 1 Clement has been dated too early by scholars and that it better suits a date towards 130-140 CE." (pp.6-7)

His general redating:

Code:

 40 1 Thessalonians
 50 Authentic core of Galatians; Romans; 1 Corinthians;
     2 Corinthians; ?Philippians; ?Philemon
 70 Q?
 80 Mark; Colossians
100 Ephesians
110 Luke; 1 Peter; Hebrews
120 2 Thessalonians
130 Matthew; James; Acts; Jude; 1 Clement
140 John; Pastorals; Barnabas; Papias (up to 160)
150 Johannines; 2 Peter; Revelation; Didache; Hermas
160 John 21
180 Ignatian letters
200 Polycarp (perhaps as late as 250)

stephan huller · 04-21-2012, 08:10 AM

but the way he uses or channels paul points to something very early. i think the text known to Clement of A was apostolic. he calls him an apostle

spin · 04-21-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

but the way he uses or channels paul points to something very early. i think the text known to Clement of A was apostolic. he calls him an apostle

Earlier than 1 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians and Acts?

:eating_popcorn:

stephan huller · 04-21-2012, 08:40 AM

maybe. i think ephesians was two letters

Sheshbazzar · 04-21-2012, 08:51 AM

My argument is that these Epistles are all latter and were plagiarized from 1 Clement.
There would have been no need, and no justification for 1 Clement's comparatively crude composition if these other NT texts had already been in circulation and known to the church.
If they were, Clement is making an utter ass out of himself by crudely misquoting the texts and pretending that these are his own thoughts.

The received NT writings are far too well reworded, polished and organized to have been used as sources by Clement, the reverse however is entirely plausible. The church has always had a motive to present Clement as being a follower of the church traditions, and of these 'Apostolic' compositions, rather than a creative originator of such sayings as led to the creation of the NT writings. IE. Clement as an originator would give lie to the whole Christian 'history' rigmarole.

In my view, based entirely upon the internal evidence of 1 Clement (and no questionable 'church traditions') 1 Clement is the oldest of the NT writings and pretty much the seminal text used to create all that follows.
Not that Clement himself was not drawing on earlier sources, simply that those sources were NOT the fully composed and polished NT Gospels and Epistles that we are now familiar with.

jdl · 04-21-2012, 08:57 AM

That's really helpful, spin. I'll try to get a hold of that book.

Meanwhile, I came across this from Richard Carrier:

Quote:

a careful reading of 1 Clement actually supports Mythicism (I’ll demonstrate this in my next book)

Guess I'll add that one to my reading list.

Joseph

eta: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/...1#comment-8646

aa5874 · 04-21-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....In my view, based entirely upon the internal evidence of 1 Clement (and no questionable 'church traditions') 1 Clement is the oldest of the NT writings and pretty much the seminal text used to create all that follows.
Not that Clement himself was not drawing on earlier sources, simply that those sources were NOT the fully composed and polished NT Gospels and Epistles that we are now familiar with.

You have committed a serious error. You have based your opinion on the very same Anonymous letter that is being questioned.

It is the the very same INTERNAL evidence that is under scrutinity so it cannot be PRESUMED to be true WITHOUT credible external corroboration.

A proper inquiry must involve the use of multiple sources.

This is basic in any investigation or inquiry.

The evidence even from Apologetic sources Contradicts your position.

For hundreds of years it was NOT really known by apologetic sources when the supposed author called Clement was bishop of Rome.

The very same Anonymous letter which should have been an Historical marker for Clement was NOT used or was NOT known by Apologetic sources for hundreds of years.

If the Anonymous letter was known and circulated within the Church of Corinthians at around 95-97 CE then Clement could NOT have been the Bishop of Rome at c 67 as the RECORDS of the Roman Church stated based on Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics.

Remarkably, many Apologetic sources, do NOT place Clement as Bishop of Rome at c 95-97 CE--they place Clement as Bishop of Rome starting at c 67 CE and ending at around -90 CE if he was first or second.

1. Tertullian claimed Clemens was ordained by Peter.

2.Rufinus in Recognitions claimed Clement was ordained by Peter

3.Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was ordained second AFTER Linus NOT third after Anacletus.

4. Optatus of Milevis claimed Clement was ordained second AFTER Linus NOT third after Anacletus.

The anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome is a PERFECT example of the complete historical unreliability of apologetic sources.

To date an anonymous letter that is being questioned for its historical integrity and date of authorship by its own words without taken into consideration the statements of apologetic sources is not a sound methodology.

The evidence from apologetic sources suggests that Clement as bishop of Rome is an invention along with the so-called epistle of Clement.

Sheshbazzar · 04-21-2012, 12:47 PM

You reference Apologetic sources and Church RECORDS that even -you - repeatedly claim are unreliable and bogus.

My point is based strictly on the details of the '1 Clement' text. Not on all of that lying propaganda and church 'tradition's' that this text has been saddled with.

1 Clement does not accurately follow the received NT texts, as it would have if they had been available, known, and circulated within the church prior to 1 Clement's composition.
Stephan Huller likes to express this fact as 'Clement 'channels' Paul', rather than actually quotes Paul.
I find that explanation extremely deficient. Much of what is written in 1 Clement is presented as being original thoughts and ideas originating with the author, not as being selected quotations of earlier Pauline writings, even when the points being made would carry much more weight if attributed to 'Paul'.
(but if there were no 'Paul' that was well known....well, why would Clement give 'Paul' the credit for his words?)
As written in Clement these snippets simply do not measure up to the standards of writing and compositional skills that are displayed in our latter composed received NT texts.
This to me indicates that 'Clement' employed some oral traditions and earlier materials in his composition, but that he had no actual established and well known NT texts that he was referencing in the writing of his material.
The Epistles and Gospels that were finally accepted by the church, were composed latter drawing upon literary material gleaned from '1 Clement' and other sources.
A few 'bones' and the name 'Paul' were crudely tossed back into 1 Clement (interpolated) to make it appear that 'Paul' had been known at that earlier date.
The latter Church 'cooked' the content 1 Clement just like every other piece of writing they could get their grubby mits on.

As far a Clement being a bishop of Rome, I agree with you that it is a church invention. One that was necessary to carry on the Catholic charade of authority through 'Apostolic succession'. If 'Clement' was ever a 'bishop', it was over a congregation of perhaps half a dozen.

Church history is utterly hokey and wholly dependent upon latter 'traditions', it practically does not even exist in any real sense. As any shit that was made up about 'Apostles' prophets, martyr figures and miracles in the early church was swallowed down wholesale and presented as fact.
The catholic form of NT 'Christian' religion got the 'wheels' of its NT writings somewhere, and there is no evidence at all that it was in Judea of the first century CE.
My suggestion is that the document of 1 Clement represents an initial effort at combining these various sayings and stories into a cohesive form to use as an effective political and religious tool. 'Paul' and the NT writings as we now have them came latter.

.

04-21-2012, 06:55 AM	#83
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	In a book called Redrawing the Boundaries (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Equinox, 2007. ISBN: 978 1 84553 302 1) J.V.M. Sturdy examined the dates of various works starting with 1 Clement. Of this work he noted that there is no evidence that Domitian persecuted christians, nor is there a figure in the tradition of the Roman church by the name of Clement at this time, no bishop of Rome by that name. He argues that in the Shepherd of Hermas there is mention of a Roman Clement who was significant in the church, who could thus be dated as in operation circa 130-150 CE. Sturdy notes that the first substantive allusions to 1 Clement are in the Letter of Polycarp which he also redates from the traditional 115 CE to very much later. He also points out that 1 Clement "certainly knows Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and probably 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians (or Colossians), 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter and Acts... his allusive use of such an extensive cross-section of New Testament writers suggests that he writes at a time when there was a developing awareness of the importance of the New Testament books as a group.... It is a much more obvious conclusion that 1 Clement has been dated too early by scholars and that it better suits a date towards 130-140 CE." (pp.6-7) His general redating: Code: 40 1 Thessalonians 50 Authentic core of Galatians; Romans; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; ?Philippians; ?Philemon 70 Q? 80 Mark; Colossians 100 Ephesians 110 Luke; 1 Peter; Hebrews 120 2 Thessalonians 130 Matthew; James; Acts; Jude; 1 Clement 140 John; Pastorals; Barnabas; Papias (up to 160) 150 Johannines; 2 Peter; Revelation; Didache; Hermas 160 John 21 180 Ignatian letters 200 Polycarp (perhaps as late as 250)

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

04-21-2012, 01:01 AM	#82
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Nice.

04-21-2012, 08:10 AM	#84
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	but the way he uses or channels paul points to something very early. i think the text known to Clement of A was apostolic. he calls him an apostle

04-21-2012, 08:40 AM	#86
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	maybe. i think ephesians was two letters

04-21-2012, 08:51 AM	#87
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	My argument is that these Epistles are all latter and were plagiarized from 1 Clement. There would have been no need, and no justification for 1 Clement's comparatively crude composition if these other NT texts had already been in circulation and known to the church. If they were, Clement is making an utter ass out of himself by crudely misquoting the texts and pretending that these are his own thoughts. The received NT writings are far too well reworded, polished and organized to have been used as sources by Clement, the reverse however is entirely plausible. The church has always had a motive to present Clement as being a follower of the church traditions, and of these 'Apostolic' compositions, rather than a creative originator of such sayings as led to the creation of the NT writings. IE. Clement as an originator would give lie to the whole Christian 'history' rigmarole. In my view, based entirely upon the internal evidence of 1 Clement (and no questionable 'church traditions') 1 Clement is the oldest of the NT writings and pretty much the seminal text used to create all that follows. Not that Clement himself was not drawing on earlier sources, simply that those sources were NOT the fully composed and polished NT Gospels and Epistles that we are now familiar with.

04-21-2012, 12:47 PM	#90
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	You reference Apologetic sources and Church RECORDS that even -you - repeatedly claim are unreliable and bogus. My point is based strictly on the details of the '1 Clement' text. Not on all of that lying propaganda and church 'tradition's' that this text has been saddled with. 1 Clement does not accurately follow the received NT texts, as it would have if they had been available, known, and circulated within the church prior to 1 Clement's composition. Stephan Huller likes to express this fact as 'Clement 'channels' Paul', rather than actually quotes Paul. I find that explanation extremely deficient. Much of what is written in 1 Clement is presented as being original thoughts and ideas originating with the author, not as being selected quotations of earlier Pauline writings, even when the points being made would carry much more weight if attributed to 'Paul'. (but if there were no 'Paul' that was well known....well, why would Clement give 'Paul' the credit for his words?) As written in Clement these snippets simply do not measure up to the standards of writing and compositional skills that are displayed in our latter composed received NT texts. This to me indicates that 'Clement' employed some oral traditions and earlier materials in his composition, but that he had no actual established and well known NT texts that he was referencing in the writing of his material. The Epistles and Gospels that were finally accepted by the church, were composed latter drawing upon literary material gleaned from '1 Clement' and other sources. A few 'bones' and the name 'Paul' were crudely tossed back into 1 Clement (interpolated) to make it appear that 'Paul' had been known at that earlier date. The latter Church 'cooked' the content 1 Clement just like every other piece of writing they could get their grubby mits on. As far a Clement being a bishop of Rome, I agree with you that it is a church invention. One that was necessary to carry on the Catholic charade of authority through 'Apostolic succession'. If 'Clement' was ever a 'bishop', it was over a congregation of perhaps half a dozen. Church history is utterly hokey and wholly dependent upon latter 'traditions', it practically does not even exist in any real sense. As any shit that was made up about 'Apostles' prophets, martyr figures and miracles in the early church was swallowed down wholesale and presented as fact. The catholic form of NT 'Christian' religion got the 'wheels' of its NT writings somewhere, and there is no evidence at all that it was in Judea of the first century CE. My suggestion is that the document of 1 Clement represents an initial effort at combining these various sayings and stories into a cohesive form to use as an effective political and religious tool. 'Paul' and the NT writings as we now have them came latter. .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.