jakejonesiv

Hi Stephen,

Once the psuedononymous nature of 1 Clement is admitted, there is nothing to compel a first century date. 1 Clement can't used as a first century witness to Paul.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

My question to you, however, was whether 1 Clement was before or after Marcion in the 140s--not whether it belongs to the first century.

Stephen

andrewcriddle

a/ 1 Clement is not pseudononymous (ie falsely claiming to be by Clement) it is an anonymous epistle attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Clement.

b/ The apparent situation described in chapter 44 of 1 Clement where some contemporary church leaders are described as directly appointed by the apostles and some indirectly; has implications for the date.

On the normal dates for the apostles this seems to require a date somewhere between 70 and 110 CE.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Right.
HDetering dates the catholic redaction to about 180 CE.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. It is what Robert Price would term the "Second Coming of Paul" approach http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Rpcanon.html.

Paul was originally a preimenent apostle along with Peter. This would be in the first century if 1 Clement is genuine and dated correctly. Then Marcion, about 140 CE, abridged Paul's letters for heretical use, and such is the embarrasment that Paul is shunned by the Church fathers through the mid to late second century.

Paul is rehabiltated by Irenaeus about 180 CE and resumes his rightful place as part of the dynamic duo of Peter and Paul, essentially going full circle.

You have noted that Irenaeus knew Acts and the Pastorals which he used to counter the Marconites. Apparently these were not available to Justin, Tatian, Quadratus, Minucius Felix, Aristides, and Athenagoras, or else they would have defended Paul from the Marconites themselves.

An alternate solution suggest itself. These catholisizing works were written for the purpose of combatting Gnosticism and Marcionism, and date to the second half of the second century. The redaction of 1 Clement, the writing of the Ignatians, the catholic expansion of the more original marconite paulinics (Marcion abridged nothing) are all late creations to co-opt the "Aposlte of the Heretics", for the purpose of establishing the preimenence of the Roman church.

Thus Peter and Paul, legendary founders of the two factions, were imagined to have worked hand in glove to establish the church at Rome.

Jake Jones

rlogan

A couple of things. "Paul" states he never met Jesus. So whatever you are using Galatians for, it is not evidence for your first supposition. Even if Paul existed, he only claims to have met Jesus "spiritually".

I'm not sure what to do with your first supposition. It seems to me it is the assertion that there were people who followed someone who claimed divine inspiration. Well, of course. Plenty of them. But there were no disciples of the gospel Jesus. He did not exist.


I'm sorry - I do not know exactly what you want me to answer. I see these so-called letters as fabrications, with the ultimate purpose of consolidating power among groups that somehow evolved out of the mileu.

I need to read this piece. I'm still not home yet and haven't ordered it.


Sorry Julian. Don't know greek. Maybe you have a question about supercubs or something I could speak intelligently about.

jakejonesiv

It wasn't subtle at all to Irenaeus who was the first to assert that 1 Clement was based on apostolic authority.

The insistence that the creator (demiurge) was identical to the Father of Jesus Christ was indeed a direct attempted refutation of Marcionite and gnostic dualism.

Jake Jones

S.C.Carlson

Irenaeus's argument was an argument from silence: "since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things." There is no mention of the other god (or direct refutation of it) in 1 Clement.

I missed that reference, thanks. That word is found as one of many superlatives in an embedded prayer, and it does not describe a separate entity responsible for creation (which is what I had in mind) but rather a role. One of 1 Clement's sources, Hebrews, also applies the role of demiurge to God (Heb. 11:10).

Viewing it as a refutation of Marcionite dualism also begs the question about how innovative was Marcion about a separate creator god. Irenaeus thought it was much earlier than that, ascribing that view to Cerinthus and Cerdo, both predecessors of Marcion:

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. (AH 1.26.1)

Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent. (AH 1.27.1)

As we saw with Irenaeus's appeal to 1 Clement, the antiquity of a doctrine was important, so it is a significant concession that Irenaeus would admit that the concept of a separate creator was older than Marcion. (Cerinthus seems to have flourish when most scholars date 1 Clement.)

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

I suppose there are some similarities, but I'm more influenced by Peter Lampe.

"The redaction of 1 Clement"? Do you mean that there was an earlier form of 1 Clement?


That sounds a lot like more Irenaeus than 1 Clement. In 1 Clement, neither Peter nor Paul are founders of the church in Rome (in ch. 5, they are merely called "pillars of the Church" without geographical limitation). More telling, however, is the candid admission that Paul got in trouble because of internal problems in the church: "Because of of jealosy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the way to the prize for patient endurance." This gives so much ammunition to pro-Pauline Marcionites that it is hard for me believe that it written in the wake of Marcion's challenge to Roman orthodoxy.

Personally, I find the idea of a wholesale production of pro-Pauline fakes to co-opt the "Apostle of the Heretics" to be too clever by half. Fakes need to build on earlier texts widely accepted as genuine. For example, 3 Corinthians needs 1 Corinthians for its veneer of authenticity. The battle to define Paul in the mid-second century presupposes a general agreement that there was a Paul important enough to redefine. First Clement's view of Paul has something in it for both sides of the Marcionite conflict, and in fact represents more rawly the traditions about Paul that the mid-second century Christians were fighting each other over to define.

Stephen

Julian

I agree that Paul never met Jesus. I also find it probable that Jesus did not ever exist. My point was simply that for the pillars to claim that they were the disciples (or disciples of disciples) of Jesus would not have been all that remarkable in pre-gospel days. That was part of the reason why I asked the greek question. I forgot to look it up when I had the chance last night.
While I am ready to dismiss a historical Jesus, I am not quite willing to toss Paul on to the fire just yet. I am willing to sacrifice much of the text of the Pauline letters. Many of the forgeries are blatantly bad that they shine through even in a bad english translation. I can see why Detering can find them useful in his radical views. I just can't see Paul being used by Marcion and then revised by the orthodox. Why not just dump him with Marcion?

I need to do some more reading on this topic myself. Unfortunately, most of my time is spent on the synoptic problem these days.
I was just wondering if they are referred to as disciples or apostles or something else in the greek. It was my bad for not providing a translation.

And forget the supercub, I have seen your pictures of where you have to land. (Supercub is your plane, right?)

Julian