jakejonesiv

1 Clement only cites one Pauline epistle, and that is 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. This is evidence that 1 Corinthians was the first Pauline epistle.

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.

But if 1Clement is used as an anchor to date Paul, what is the date of 1 Clement?

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 most scholars have agreed that such-and-such a Clement never wrote the"epistle." With that you lose you 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.

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. 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


The other mention of Paul in 1 Clement is a historically improbable description of his journeys.
"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, like a kid trying to bluff his way through an assignment he had not read, 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. (This has been retrojected into Romans 15:28. The original version of Romans ended after chapter 14).

Whatever the case, we are clearly not dealing with historical facts.

Best,
Jake

Vinnie

May show dependence on Romans as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zgM...age&q=&f=false

[mod note: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Andrew F. Gregory, Christopher Mark Tuckett]

I am thinking of ordering that book. I think its 40 at amazon used....still a bit pricey but the scope of it makes it worth it...

Tsk tsk tsk :-P

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

The epistle to the Romans is not quoted or mentioned explicitly in 1 Clement. Only 1 Corinthians is explicitly known, and this is true in the Iganatian epistles also.

Similar statements to the passage cited in 1Clem 31:1-4:1 which "seems to be an allusion to a Pauline argument in the epistle to the Romans," can be found in non-Pauline writings, and is insufficient to establish dependance. It is difficult to imagine someone familiar with the epistle to the Romans to use the phrase "being justified by works" 30:3. Surely he would have found a different way to get his point across.

The doxology, which is a natural ending to the epistle, is found at various places in the manuscript tradition, at the ends of chapters 14, 15 (Chester Beatty) and 16. This suggests that the epistle variously ended in each of these three places in its textual history. The best explanation for this is that additonal material was added to the end at least twice. I am skeptical of arguments that Paul wrote the epistle as we seee it today, it then fragmented, and then came back together again in the canonical version. There is a geographical basis for the appearance of the last two chapters, first appearing around Alexandria, and slowing spreading to the West.

The Vulgate codicies Amiatinus chapter summaries (breues) correpond to 14:1-23 followed by the doxology, indicating the letter ended after chapter 14. Also, Vulgate mss. 1648, 1792, 2089. According to Rufinus, Marcion's version of Romans ends after chapter 14. Tertullian's as well. AM 5:13 states that 14:10 comes at the end, the concluding section (clausia) of the letter. Evidently, Cyprian's copy lacked it also, or at least 16:17 which would have suited his purpose in the Book of Testimonies.

Best,
Jake

P.S. Why were you tsking?

rlogan

I am not sure what this means. What he means by "parties".


party on Wayne...

Vinnie

The work sitting in front of you is only one form of dependence. I am aware of three criteria for determining dependence. How do you determine dependence?

rlogan

Some determine it according to whatever makes the HJ look good.

be on the lookout for that.

Report suspicious posts.

jakejonesiv

The author of 1Clement was refering to 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 where the Corinthians had divisions among themselves, some claiming to follow Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas, and others Christ. Each group would be partisan, or a party. The party of Christ was making the most trouble.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

Why the slow walk? If I am wrong I will admit it and we can move on. I wish you would present the case for whatever kind of dependance you thinks fits best. I am always interested in what you have to write. :notworthy:

Best,
Jake

Ben C Smith

We should all be skeptical of such a hypothesis. But who holds it?

I agree with Gamble. Paul wrote all 16 chapters, and one stream of the textual tradition was shortened, while the other remained long.

Is that not a better target for your arguments than a scenario which fails the middle term test on sight?

Ben.

Vinnie

Slow walk is because I am on my iPhone at work. :wave: