Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 10-12-2011, 09:32 PM

Who was Clement?
As in 1 Clement.

Serious question, because the answer[s] are ambiguous.
And that's being generous.

That is one of the problems.
Not only do we have a major conservative respected credible authoritive scholar[s], FF Bruce for example, seeing things that aren't there [which is the point of my OP] but sometimes things that are there were put there by somebody else other than the purported author who is often given a name and a provenance created out of thin [or very nearly so] air.
And then the oft repeated orthodoxy gains a life and authority of its own far outweighing its credibility. It gains from repitition and unexamined assertion.

Toto · 10-12-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In 1 Clement, we have:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation... Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.

Would "under the prefects" best fit Rome?

What if it did? 1 Clement is dated between 80 and 140 CE by conventional scholarship.

Quote:

The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23).

Loisy argues for a mid-second century date.

In addition, I have seen some indication that this phrase is a textual variant, but I haven't tracked it down.

archibald · 10-13-2011, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The texts are the starting point, but accepting them at face value is not. There are people who claim that anyone claiming an interpolation has a heavy burden of proof. These people are just wrong.

In the context of this particular discussion, since no one is accepting the evidences at face value that comment is at best irrelevant and possibly yet another strawman.

I am merely noting that Tacitus, Suetonius, Romans, 2 Timothy and Acts are evidences in extant texts which suggest Christians in Rome at a certain time. I am asking what evidence there is that this was not the case, or that Paul was not writing to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I was referring to the content of Paul's epistle to the Romans. But yes, we only have copies of Tacitus because the Christian church preserved them, and monks copied them. This church does have a record of pious forgery. What is your objection to this?

It is one thing to agree (as any intelligent person would) that there was forgery. It is quite another to say, 'these are the particular set of unevidenced forgeries', especially when those citing them often (though not always) appear to have an agenda for smelling a certain type of forgery, namely those which (coincidentally) tend to hint at a prior position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Feel free to point out where you think I am mistaken. I might be.

I already did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And leave you free to post misinformation? This is not an option.

I would be grateful if you would point to misinformation on my part. Using my actual words, not your interpretation of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then please point out exactly what your objection is. I have read several of his books. I don't cite him as support for mythicism.

I never said that you cited him as support for mythicism. As for my point, such as it was, I have already explained.

archibald · 10-13-2011, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Quote:

Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22And having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

To me, this seems to be about Paul's supposed 'purpose in the spirit' to go to Jerusalem. Could Jerusalem not be the 'there'?

Also, how does your scenario fit with Romans saying that Paul had never visited, but had often wanted to visit, the place he was writing to (1.10 & 1.13)? Romans is normally dated after both Thessalonian letters, for a variety of reasons?

archibald · 10-13-2011, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Somewhere in a previous recent thread [which I cannot now find] someone cast doubt on the common understanding that Paul's epistle to the Romans was actually written to the Romans and that that title was a later addition by whoever.

At the time I was reminded about the discussion by FF Bruce in his 'Commentary on Romans' (or via: amazon.co.uk) Tyndale Press 1963, where he looks at the manuscript history of Romans and notes that:
-the references to Rome contained in the text at 1.7 and 1.15 are missing in some mss [he names them] and were not known to Origen nor Ambrosiaster thus suggesting that the epistle may not have been originally addressed to christians in Rome
-but he then states that the textual context ensures that Rome was intended as " .. no other place could stand in the place of 'Rome' ...because the context [1.8-15] refers to Rome and Rome only". Page 30.

Here is the portion of text [from the RSV] to which he refers, with the omitted references to Rome replaced by asterisks :

7] To all God's beloved *****, who are called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[8] First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
[9] For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,
[10] asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.
[11] For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,
[12] that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.
[13] I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
[14] I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:
[15] so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are ****.

I cannot see why he says that this must refer to Rome?

What am I missing?

I am unable to read that book online. The best link I found was here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vb7...page&q&f=false

which does preview page 30.

Where does Bruce state " .. no other place could stand in the place of 'Rome' ...because the context [1.8-15] refers to Rome and Rome only"?

It must be on a different page, or I am looking at the wrong book. Both editions appear to be 1985 and the chapter 'The text of Romans', does start on page 23 in each, and ends at page 30. Pages 27-28 are not in the preview.

I only ask, because while I agree that 'must' would not be warranted, Bruce's argument seems to be a bit more sophisticated than presented in your OP. And his reference here (which is not worded the way you quote it, unless as I say, you are quoting something else) is only part of a footnote dealing with a question about Marcion's version, and in particular T.W. Manson's assertion* that it was a community not hitherto visited by Paul. Nor does it appear that by 'context' he meant (or even said) only verses 1.8-15. Again, unless I am looking at the wrong edition of the book, or have missed that line.

*T. W. Manson's book is here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j...istles&f=false

The part Bruce refers to in the footnote (ie. regarding the place being somewhere Paul had not hitherto visited, etc, p229) also seems to be only part of a larger argument.

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I was referring to the content of Paul's epistle to the Romans. But yes, we only have copies of Tacitus because the Christian church preserved them, and monks copied them. This church does have a record of pious forgery. What is your objection to this?

It is one thing to agree (as any intelligent person would) that there was forgery. It is quite another to say, 'these are the particular set of unevidenced forgeries', especially when those citing them often (though not always) appear to have an agenda for smelling a certain type of forgery, namely those which (coincidentally) tend to hint at a prior position.

It is a two-edged sword, and we need to be equal minded about the the subject of pious forgery. It cannot be ruled out as an explanation for a great deal of christian literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Gibbon

Chapter 15:

The progress of the Christian religion,
and the sentiments, manners, numbers,
and condition of the primitive Christians.

A CANDID but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman empire. While that great body was invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to the period or to the limits of the Roman empire. After a revolution of thirteen or fourteen centuries, that religion is still professed by the nations of Europe, the most distinguished portion of human kind in arts and learning as well as in arms. By the industry and zeal of the Europeans it has been widely diffused to the most distant shores of Asia and Africa; and by the means of their colonies has been firmly established from Canada to Chili, in a world unknown to the ancients.

But this inquiry, however useful or entertaining, is attended with two peculiar difficulties. The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.

archibald · 10-13-2011, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is a two-edged sword, and we need to be equal minded about the the subject of pious forgery. It cannot be ruled out as an explanation for a great deal of christian literature.

If I had £1 for every time I had to clarify the wonkiness of this sort of statement, mm, I'd be on a beach in Thailand and not stuck here. :]

One more time.....if you find someone who is ruling it out, pull them up on it.

Littlejohn · 10-13-2011, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Toto wrote:

What if it did? 1 Clement is dated between 80 and 140 CE by conventional scholarship.
.

ALL that could be attributed to Clement 'ROMAN' does not go over 95-96 CE.

Clement did not have anything to do with the 'Catholic-Christian' cult, born in Rome about 45 years after his death. Clement had to do with the 'Jewish-Christian' church of Antioch (see Acts of the Apostles), of which was, probably, one of the its founders ...

Greetings,

Littlejohn

.

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is a two-edged sword, and we need to be equal minded about the the subject of pious forgery. It cannot be ruled out as an explanation for a great deal of christian literature.

If I had £1 for every time I had to clarify the wonkiness of this sort of statement, mm, I'd be on a beach in Thailand and not stuck here. :]

Sounds like you've missed your vocation, or your vacation, or both

Quote:

One more time.....if you find someone who is ruling it out, pull them up on it.

Do you happen to have the Pope's Mass-Marketing email address list?

Sloncha !

.

archibald · 10-13-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you happen to have the Pope's Mass-Marketing email address list?

Try here:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/

I believe Benny Joe himself stopped posting here after someone got him confused with Richard Pervo, for some inexplicable reason. :]

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

10-12-2011, 09:32 PM	#21
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Who was Clement? As in 1 Clement. Serious question, because the answer[s] are ambiguous. And that's being generous. That is one of the problems. Not only do we have a major conservative respected credible authoritive scholar[s], FF Bruce for example, seeing things that aren't there [which is the point of my OP] but sometimes things that are there were put there by somebody else other than the purported author who is often given a name and a provenance created out of thin [or very nearly so] air. And then the oft repeated orthodoxy gains a life and authority of its own far outweighing its credibility. It gains from repitition and unexamined assertion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.