dog-on

In another thread, I posed a question that, rightfully it was suggested, belonged in a new thread.

I would like to keep this discussion to 1 Clement, if possible.

According to Roger Pierce, from his site 'Tertullian.org':


I am, at first, interested in how we arrive at the date of 95-96AD.

So, to start.

What is the actual evidence for Christian persecution, under Domitian?

Roger Pearse

Just to make clear: this is a reference to this page, concerned with the manuscript tradition of the text. On each such page I try to give some kind of one-line intro so that the casual reader doesn't think "what's that, and why do I care?" I haven't researched those particularly.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for starting this thread, Robert.

Its title is odd. It speaks of the manuscript tradition, but the OP asks about the date. Are you interested in both topics?

I have summarized the manuscript tradition on my epistles of Clement page.

The evidence for a Domitianic persecution is slim, IIUC.

Fortunately, modern scholarly evaluations of the date of 1 Clement are not based on this purported persecution. I quote Bart Ehrman, pages 24-25 of The Apostolic Fathers; after speaking of the more customary connection of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and setbacks at the beginning of the letter with the Domitianic persecution, he writes:

This view of the historical context is now by and large rejected. There is nothing in the epistle that suggests it was written in the context of persecution: the "misfortunes and setbacks" could just as easily have been internal struggles within the church. Moreover, there is no solid evidence from the period itself of a persecution of Christians under Domitian.

Even so, a date near the end of Domitian's reign is altogether plausible. The epistle could not have been written much later: it indicates that the deaths of Peter and Paul took place "within our own generation" (ch. 5) and assumes that there are still living leaders of the Christian churches who had been appointed by the apostles of Jesus, that is, sometime no later than early in the second half of the first century (chs. 42, 44). Moreover, there is no indication that the hierarchical structures later so important to proto-orthodox Christians—in which there was a solitary bishop over a group of presbyters [elders] and deacons—was yet in place.

Thus the internal dating of this letter clearly places it sometime in the second half of century I (or, at the latest, the very beginning of century II). The only way out of this, it seems, is to suppose that the letter was written only later, but pseudepigraphically, as it were; that is, the letter is a forgery. What kind of case for this can be made?

Ben.

spin

Hell's bells, Ben C. Do you have to employ the simplistic dichotomy of veracious or forgery?? Is Colossians a forgery??


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes.

But you are correct to note that the term is probably too laden with emotive content (it obviously got you going ). Well observed, and I shall accordingly stick with neutral terms such as pseudepigrapha.

Ben.

dog-on

Yes, but starting with 1 Clement.


Doesn't 42-44 describe a hierarchical structure, even a case for Apostolic succession?

I smell anti-marcionite polemic here, Ben.

Ben C Smith

There may be a case for apostolic succession.

And Ehrman is not saying that any hierarchical structure is missing. He is saying that the structure of choice among the proto-orthodox is missing, to wit, monepiscopy.

Ben.

dog-on

Ben, where and when do you place 'The Book of Judith'?

Ben C Smith

Not 100% sure. I have seen dates ranging from second century before Christ to about year 0. You can click some of the useful links on my Judith page for more information.

Does this have to do with 1 Clement 55.4-5?

For whatever it may be worth, the NT appears to reflect Judith at some points. For example, in Matthew 9.36 and Mark 6.34 the crowds are said to be as sheep that do not have a shepherd; see Judith 11.19b, in which Judith promises Holofernes: And you will lead them like sheep for whom there is no shepherd. In Mark 9.48 Jesus characterizes gehenna as the place where the worm does not come to an end and the fire is not extinguished; this resembles Judith 16.17, which reads: Woe to the nations that rise up against my race! The almighty Lord will avenge them in the day of judgment, to give fire and worms to their flesh, to make them weep... forever. In Luke 1.42 Elizabeth tells Mary: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! In Judith 13.18 Uzziah says to Judith: Blessed are you, daughter, by the most high God above all women on earth!

Ben.

dog-on

Thanks, Ben. I'll check it out.