GakuseiDon

Yes, I wonder about that also. The Jews were banned from Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt in 130 CE, so I wonder if the Passover tradition continued from 70 CE to then? I would guess that it would, though I haven't read anything to confirm this. 1 Clement has:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him [Abraham] have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah...

Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites.

This suggests on-going activities by the Levites at the time of 1 Clement.

Vinnie

1 Clement is dependent upon at least one or two writings of Paul (1 Cor. and probably Romans). Both individuals (Peter and Paul) were historical and lived in the first century.

Garragan, a Guide to Historical Method

“On the other hand, hypercriticism, as being the abuse of a good thing, is also to be deprecated. It shows itself in overrating of internal evidence, in an absorption of trifles, with corresponding neglect in the inner meaning and significance of things; above all, in an itch for novelties and an urge to upset (on no grounds of adequate evidence) established beliefs and traditions, especially those concerning the Church. This spurious criticism is the enemy of genuine science and serves only the cause of error.” [emphasis mine]

Re: Justin Martyr. You abuse arguments from silence so bad I think they might be coming down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome. Seriously, you need a history primer.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Interesting. I think I need to look into evocatio deorum a little more and browse through Josephus...

Toto

From here

Sacrifices could not have been offered at the Temple without elaborate purification rituals (there are current movements to restore the Temple and Temple sacrifices, but the restorationists have had some problems breeding the red heifer that is ritually required.)

But it does sound like the Temple and its restoration were on people's minds.

Petergdi

Passover is in a somewhat different category from the regular temple sacrifices. The Samaritans still still celebrate Passover the old way, even though all the other sacrifices ceased with the destruction of their temple.

Peter.

Toto

Yes, but the original question had to do with sacrifices at the Temple. Passover without the sacrifices continues today.

Petergdi

By the "old way" I meant that the Samaritans still have the Passover lamb sacrifice at mount Gerizim,. They have had no other sacrifices after the destruction of their temple.

Peter.

spamandham

Although you're probably right that most scholars date 1st Clement to the 90s, IMHO, that dating is on the table to discuss. I for one, am not going to argue for a late date for 1 Clement. I am going to argue for a very early date...possibly well before the 1st century.

As we've discussed before (and came to concensus?), the claims by Irenaeus that Polycarp was appointed by apostles is very unlikely to be true from the perspective of life expectancies. That being the case, church tradition is not trustworthy, and should be very heavily discounted in our attempts to date these documents.

It's possible. Apparently, there was enough of the temple still in tact after 70CE that the Jews took great offense when the rubble was razed in 130...that's what started the Bar Kochba revolt afterall. That said, it seems a stretch. This suggests a pre-70 date, rather than the traditional 90s date.

Now on to the evidence:

By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so
alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and
self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your
name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men,
hath been greatly reviled.

At which time in history were Corinthians so reviled, aside from the second century BCE? This passage, which is the mainstay of traditional dating, is really only applicable to the 2nd century BCE and the 4th century CE when earthquakes destroyed the city. Aside from those two times, Corinth was always held in high esteem. It's quite a stretch I think to link it to the late 1st century, or even the 2nd century CE for that matter.

....15, 16, 17...numerous quotes from Psalms that Clement equates with Jesus

Is 1 Clement one of the documents upon which the Gospel story is based (or possibly, he is referencing some other text now lost?). It certainly seems to show a much earlier stage of Christology, one where he appears to be derived from the Jewish scriptures and need not have even been historical. Again, in 22 we see Jesus mentioned, and references to the scriptures pulled up to support the reference. What's going on? Why not just quote from the mouth of Jesus already?

Like Paul, Clement doesn't seem to actually know much (anything?) about Jesus beyond what is derived from the Jewish scriptures.

In 25 Clement, we see him referencing Egyptian mythology to justify the belief in resurrection. It's hard to imagine this at a later date of Christianity, but easy to see how it would fit an earlier date.

Twice, (in 18? and in 32), Clement includes Jesus in the listing of the Patriarchs. That's odd.

1Clem 32:2
For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the
altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh;

We have mention of the alter, indicating the alter may still have been in place, as you mentioned.

But more interestingly, IMHO....

Well, I don't know Greek, so I'm not certain I'm reading this right, but it seems to be saying that Jesus is a son of the flesh of Jacob. That would explain why Clement includes him with the other patriarchs, because he is one of the patriarchs...David perhaps?

1Clem 18:1
But what must we say of David that obtained a good report? of whom
God said, I have found a man after My heart, David the son of
Jesse: with eternal mercy have I anointed him.

Clement considers David to still be anointed, and eternally so. That seems at odds with Jesus being the anointed savior....unless of course, David = anointed savior = Jesus.

And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are
not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or
understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of
heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men
that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and
ever. Amen.

I am inclined to believe this is the original ending. It is the first time we see this pattern in the letter, and the flavor of the letter changes significantly after this as well. I'm not saying the rest is inauthentic though, merely suggesting that 1 Clement is really a compilation of letters.

Interestingly, we continue to see the David = Jesus link:

1Clem 36:4
but of His Son the Master said thus, Thou art My Son, I this day
have begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles
for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy
possession.

(from Psalm 2, in reference to David)

Back to the dating argument:

1Clem 41:2
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone.

This certainly implies the temple is still in tact. I am inclined to date 1 Clement earlier than 70 CE, and possibly as early as the 2nd century BCE.

In regards to Peter and Paul, I don't think it's valid to a priori assume the individuals Clement is referring to are 1st century individuals. They could be, but if we have all these texts open for dating, as we should, that has to be independently established. They may be colloquial references to Jacob and Benjamin.

Vinnie

I was correcting a comment, not arguing from consensus. I've stated my reasons for 90-110.

Gets one thing wrong so everything is wrong. Goodbye Jospehus, Tacitus, etc. etc. etc. etc. You sound like a fundamentalist telling me I have to believe every word of the Bible is true or none of it. That is an abuse of logic and critical thinking. Some church traditions are wrong, some are right. That you find one to be wrong does not demonstrate them all to be so. In fact, Irenaeus may have confused the apostle John with the Elder John and this can partially explain this garbled tradition.

I agree the easiest reading of the passage is pre-70 but there are a number of arguments necessitating a later date. What I see in this thread is people of different persuasions arguing for one of the other but no one seems to want to account for all the data as I do.

The language is too vague and rhetorical to date the work as I have mentioned in this thread:

The persecution mentioned in the beginning of the letter often gets 1 Clement assigned the 90’s during the last years of Domitian. This supposition has been shown to be incorrect, however. Welborn writes:

“But the language of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160); and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148–73). In letters and speeches on concord, one often finds an apologetic formula like that which introduces 1 Clement; it was customary for one who gave advice on concord to excuse his delay by reference to personal or domestic hindrances (e.g. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.2; Aelius Aristides Or. 24.1; Socratic Ep. 31). The language which Clement uses to describe the causes of the delay, symphorai and periptōseis, with the adjectives aiphnidioi and epallēloi, is frequently found in discussions of the circumstances which give rise to discord in literary and epigraphic texts (Diodorus Siculus 16.7.2; 4 Macc. 3:21; Josephus JW 5.32; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.2.1; OGIS 335.15; 339.17; SIG 685.137; 708.7; 730.20; 731.6). The appearance of terms so closely associated with strife in the preface to 1 Clement suggests that the author has cast the conventional apology in the form of a captatio benevolentiae; he wished to include himself and the Roman church in the nouthetēsis (admonition), so that they should not appear to be lording it over their brethren. The “misfortunes and hindrances” of which the epistle makes mention may have been internal dissensions like those which troubled the community in Corinth. But it is not necessary to believe that these quarrels had any real existence at all, only that the author found allusion to them, by means of conventional expressions, a convenient way of establishing a sympathetic relationship between himself and his readers. He wished to say: We are faced with the same problems and have need of the same admonition.”

This cannot be used to date the work.

Unless arguing for interpolation and adaptation by a later Christian that is laughable.

Vinnie

spamandham

Josephus and Tacitus are independent of church tradition. But yes, I am arguing that church tradition is basically worthless. It is found failing but not found reliable. Really, that should come as no surprise, since tradition is not established as trustworthy in general. I can't imagine using 'tradition' to try to date any historical text.

Regardless, it is the very tradition that Polycarp received authority from the apostles that we have discussed endlessly. Even if you think tradition is generally reliable, that specific tradition is not.

...are you arguing for or against the utility of tradition in dating? :huh:

Considering the vast quantities of proven interpolations, adaptation, and pseudepigraphy, it is naive in the extreme to take these off the table.

If we're going to play the asinine game the apologists insist upon, we might as well just conclude that Jesus really was god and be done with skepticism altogether.