truthofchrist12

I'm sorry, how exactly are you dating the First Epistle of Clement so late? First of all it refers to the "repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us", which many scholars equate it to the reign of Dormitian ca. 96 C.E. Then there is the little fact that Clement is listed as being the fourth bishop (ca. 90-100 C.E.) of Rome by what are considered to be the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome. Then in ch. 44 it mentions that the ministers/bishops initially appointed by the apostles over the church of Rome were dead, and also that many of the original presbyters have passed away also. All of this supports a late first century date for this epistle. Where in god's name are you coming up with 140 C.E.?

truthofchrist12

Exactly.

truthofchrist12

Is anyone here still prepared to argue in favor of the German's thesis, or have you pretty much all conceded that it's speculative crap?

rlogan

Hi Julian

Yes, it does follow. By definition there can be no disciples if there is no Jesus.

If you advance the argument that some character, who we refer to for purposes of discussion as "Paul", met with persons who falsely claimed to be disciples of Jesus, then you still have some real problems.

A person who claims to be a disciple of a fictitious personage of such incredible feats has to be a pretty damned good con man. Because he will have not one shred of evidence or witnesses to 2,000 pigs drowning, persons rising from the dead, feeding of thousands of people with a couple of twinkies, and so forth.

I marvel at how these fantastic claims can be taken so casuallly, as if not a whit of demonstration were actually necessary.

It is far easier to fabricate past history because there is no proof necessary. So I favor the idea that "disciples" are an invented past and that we begin with at least twice-removed persona. Not Jesus. Not disciples. But people who fabricated both.

I would have to agree. Personally, I think it was fabricated earlier. But an alternative is that competing branches of developing religion were melded in the 2d cent.

jakejonesiv

There are some very good reasons for doubting the authenticity of 1 Clement. The attributed author was Clement, allegely the Pope from 88-97 CE. A letter from a first century Pope? One of the twelve apocryphal popes leading up to Irenaeus' time? Caution is required here!

If Clement of Rome supposedly had knowledge of the "St. Paul" before the end of the first century, how could church fathers have no such knowledge over half a century later? Did they just forget? I don't think so, because the one thing Paul is not is forgettable.

Paul is not mentioned by name by Justin, Tatian, Quadratus, Minucius Felix, Aristides, and Athenagoras. Paul is unknown in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, ermas, Hegesippus, II Clement. Do you have an explanation for this truthofchrst12? Maybe the devil did it. :devil1:

The reliance upon the Apostles, espcially apostolic succession, and the harmonius joining togther of Peter and Paul indicate a later stage of Christian development (e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses 3:3:2) than was to be found in the first century. 1 Clemente 5:3-5. Textual studies have shown that in the Paulinics only the catholicizing passage Gal. 2:7-8 mention a so-called "Peter". All other mentions of Peter are textual corruptions from the original Cephas. To see these two shadowy figures (Peter and Paul) described as working together as the mightiest of Apostles is a strong indication that we have a catholic writer affiliated with the Roman church building the myth of harmonious church origins and apostolic succession.

In 1 Clemente 42:1-5, the author argues for apostolic succession down to the level of bishop and deacon. This is identical to the argument for the priority of the church at Rome in the middle of the second century. Note the high regard of the Roman church (1 Clement 63:3) compared to the troubled Corinth church, in need of instruction from the superior church. This places the Christian redaction of 1 Clement squarely in the mid 2nd century period (or a bit later) when the church of Rome was creating its own myth of utopian origins to attain preeminence among the churches.

1 Clement is too long for the letter it pretends to be, in response to matters that required immediate intervention. It rambles on for 65 chapters and the only connecting theme is to establish the authority of the church of Rome. The original author was a stupfyingly boring blowhard.

According to Dr. Deterring, the original document appears to a text from the Hellenistic synagogue, that has received a thin Christian veneer. Passages referring to Paul can easily be omitted from the context without leaving noticeable breaks of meaning.

Jake Jones

S.C.Carlson

Do you date 1 Clement to be written before or after Marcion (140s)?

Stephen

jakejonesiv

Nope, not at all. The following is a brief summary and quotes of
1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism by Hermann Detering, Berlin
Translated by Frans-Joris Fabri

http://www.radikalkritik.de/Clem_eng.pdf


A careful analysis of the Ignatian letters reveals contradictions, internal tensions, and historical improbabilities. The letter of Ignatius to Polycarp has only the outward and artificial form of a true letter. The seven letters attributed to Ignatius were conceived from the start as a collection, individual parts of a whole. Each letter presupposes the previous letter in the order given by Eusebius. [Eusebius, HE, Book III, Chapter XXXVI. Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp.] If one falls they all fall.

The scenerio that is presupposed in the letters is fictitious.
Ignatius the martyr is condemned to death (Eph 12:1 f., Rom. 5:1), but it is still uncertain whether he is going to die. But he designates himself as Theophoros and Christophoros, terminology used for a martyr after his death. Thus it is likely that the letters were written at a later time and attributed to the legendary martyr using titles attributed to him after his death.

The journey of Ignatius to Rome is copied from the Pauline travels narrative in Acts. He is in chains but is still able to visit the churches and write letters to them. In the intoductions to the so called letters, he finds it necessary to remind his presumed readers that they are located in Asia. This is an indication that the the intended readers were not the fictive recepients of the letters, but a later audience that needed a geography lesson.

See the full article for more.

Jake Jones

Julian

But these are all gospel claims. The pillars would not need to claim any of these events as they were probably much later inventions. All the pillars would have to say was that they traipsied around the country side with some guy babbling about being the son of god. There was no lack of those characters in the 1st century. I think that it is quite clear from Galatians that the pillars make no fantastic claims regarding Jesus or Paul would surely have related them to us.

I guess that I am not comfortable dismissing Galatian which, to my mind along with 1st Thessalonians, are the strongest and most believable Paul material, despite some obvious later tampering.
But Paul believes that they are special, if hypocritical, and consults them even though he represents a different christian trajectory. They didn't invent a Jesus, he must have already been there. Somehow they got themselves inserted as important people. Did they know a historic so-called messiah named Jesus (of whom there were quite a few)? Or did they simply one day declare that, yeah, they were there. Sure.

Hard to say for sure. What is your explanation?

BTW, I don't have a koine version handy. Does Paul refer to the Jerusalem group as μαθετες? αποστολοι?

Julian

jakejonesiv

Quite possibly after. 1 Clement by repeatedly emphasizing the creator's connection to Jesus Christ seems to be arguing against the Marconite demiurge. 1 Clemente 20:6, 11; 24:1; 26:1; 30:3; 32:2, 4; 33:1f; 35:3; 38:2f; 46:6; 49:6; 59:2; 61:1.

Jake Jones

S.C.Carlson

If it's an argument against the Marcionite demiurge, it would have to be very subtle, because there is no mention of the demiurge per se or explicit acknowledgement of the controversy.

To me, 1 Clement's appeal to the authority of Paul and his letter to the Corinthians in its bid to promote apostolic succession would have been unlikely for a catholic Roman to be doing in the immediate wake of Marcion. Its opponents would be those claiming Paul's mantle and his sole legitimacy. Right after the 140s, 1 Clement would not be intervening on the side (even fictively) that Paul appointed in Corinth, using a letter in which Paul was fighting Cephas. It would have been a dangerous concession to make to Marcionites. After Marcion, I'd expect it to be more likely see Paul's being ignored rather than lionized, and that's what we see with Justin, Tatian, etc. Sure, Irenaeus appealed to Paul, but Irenaeus also knew Acts and the Pastorals. These pro-Pauline texts outside the Marcionite canon contain ammunition Irenaeus could use to counter the Marcionites without having to give up on Paul.

As for the attribution of 1 Clement to an apocryphal pope, the text itself makes no claim that it written by Clement or any other putative Roman bishop. The claim of authorship to Clement is merely in the title, which, like many such extra-textual elements, was added by a later editor. While the attribution to Clement may be as late as the last half of the second century along the lines of the reasons you give, the otherwise anonymous nature of the body of the text suggests a period of time in which the actual identity of the Roman leadership to its audience was less important. In my opinion, that would be before Rome adopted the model of the monarchical episcopate (in the mid-to-late second century).