PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Generally good points.

However, there is no reason to put this text around 120 rather than 220 or 320 based on the style. While it is true that he uses a lot of old testament examples, the writer proves his knowledge and adherence of Christian Roman Catholic orthodoxy by using both gospel and Pauline text in chapters 46-47:

In the movie versions and the novel, "True Grit," horses, stage coaches and 19th century trains are used for transportation. It would be a categorical mistake to conclude from this that the work was written in the 19th century. What is included and excluded is a deliberate decision of the writer to give the illusion of an earlier date of composition or to give more authenticity to the work.

In the same way, any 3rd or 4th century Christian rhetorician writing this piece would choose a style which he thought represented the style of somebody writing in the time he wished for people to understand that Clement wrote. The use of many Old Testament examples shows us nothing, but that the writer was a student of the Old Testament, as were Tertullian, Origen (3rd Century), and Eusebius (4th century).

Since we know that Christians produced many writings pretending to be from historical Christian figures, there is no reason to believe that this is any more authentic or any earlier than the Letters of Jesus that Eusebius published in his Church history.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

:constern02: Wow.

What we know is that people pretending to be Christians produced many writings, usually obviously spurious, pretending to be from historical Christian figures. We also know that some people pretend that these pretenders were Christians.

But the author of this letter did not indicate who he was, which is significant. He (or they) merely gave an impression that it came from the church in Rome, and gave the impression that the church of Rome was in some sort of authority over that of Corinth. It is very likely to have been got up by some imperial lackey, and at a relatively early date, because spying, infiltration and use of placemen were standard Roman control techniques.

RParvus

I consider 1 Clement to be a providential letter; and perhaps the word “inspired” is not too strong a descriptive for it. It is easy to see why it was included in some early codices of the Bible. For, as Irenaeus noted very early on, it constitutes an effective refutation of those who deny that the Creator was the Father of Jesus Christ “since this epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating the existence of another God beyond the Creator and Maker of all existing things” (Against Heresies 3,3,3).

Think of it: this letter gives us a sub-apostolic window into two prominent churches associated with Peter and Paul. And its author is careful to point out that—until the difficulties he addresses in the letter had arisen—the church of Corinth had maintained such “virtuous and steadfast faith… sober and forbearing piety… perfect and sound knowledge…” that its name was “revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men” (ch. 1). That is great news, for this letter lets us see what the faith of this admirable church was. That’s right. We can see from this letter not only the faith of the Roman church in the sub-apostolic period, but that of the Corinthian church too; for the author makes a point of not only letting us know what he believes, but also of telling us what the Corinthians believe:

“You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; and you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them” (ch. 45);

“For you know, and know well, the Sacred Scriptures, dearly beloved, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance” (ch. 53);

“We knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God” (ch. 62, my emphases).

This is all very reassuring, for we can see that both these churches fully accept the authority of the Old Testament. From it the author quotes copiously throughout the letter, and time and again holds up its heroes as examples to be imitated. Already this attitude viz a viz Scripture allows us to conclude that there was not the least trace of Marcionesque beliefs in these early churches.

But even more remarkable is that, although the author often seems to be wandering aimlessly in his choice of subjects, it turns out—again, providentially—that he takes up one after another doctrines that Marcion was later to deny, e.g., the creation of the world by the Father of Jesus, the goodness of the created world, the true bodily nature of Christ, that he was descended from Jacob according to the flesh, his bodily resurrection, the goodness of marriage, the future bodily resurrection of Christians, that the Creator is both good and yet to be feared, that ecclesiastical authority goes through the apostles (plural). So, in effect, this letter rules out in advance not just Marcionism in general, but even specific Marcionite beliefs!

But—believe it or not—there is something even more wonderful in 1 Clement. It is as if the Holy Spirit was inspiring Clement in his very choice of words. For he chose to describe the schism of the Corinthian troublemakers with the words: “so alien and strange to the church of God” (ch. 1, my emphases). Those just happen to be the words that Marcion was later to use for his God! And when the author again makes reference to the troublemakers (in chapter 14), he uses an unusual form of one of these words. Robert M. Grant, in his commentary on 1 Clement, noticed it:

“He (Clement) warns his readers against recklessly yielding to the ringleaders, who plunge into strife and sedition to alienate them from what is right. The words italicized are fairly unusual and occur in 1 Clement only here (except alienate, used of wives and husbands in 6:3)…” (The Apostolic Fathers, A Translation and Commentary, vol. II, p. 37).

The word that Grant translates as “plunge into” is translated as “launch out” by Lightfoot. To me these have a nautical ring to them. Which leads me to wonder: Was there any shipmaster in the early church who alienated (or estranged) from correct doctrine those who recklessly followed him? And if so, was there anything in his alien teaching that was inimical to marriage? That might alienate wives from their husbands?

Something else that is curious: immediately after warning his readers about recklessly yielding to the ringleaders, Clement gives a piece of positive advice: “Let us show kindness to one another in accordance with the compassion and tenderness of him who made us.” What does that have to do with anything? Why mention the compassion and tenderness of the Creator right after warning about the alienators? It’s all very confusing.

In any case, I’m glad I’m not cynical or I would be tempted to think that the classicist Elmer Truesdell Merrill was right after all to assign 1 Clement “to the neighborhood of A.D. 140” (Essays in Early Christian History, p. 241). If I was cynical I might be tempted to suspect a Roman proto-orthodox Christian composed 1 Clement at that time with the intent of passing it off as belonging to sub-apostolic times. But what would the proto-orthodox have stood to gain by such deception? And besides, God’s truth doesn’t need the lies of men to prop it up. No doubt the proto-orthodox church felt the same way. Why should we not take 1 Clement at face value, as a clear proof that in the Petrine and Pauline churches proto-orthodoxy was in calm and uncontested possession long before the errors of Marcion saw the light of day. Why should we not embrace this providential window into the Pauline church at Corinth which effectively undercuts in advance Marcion’s later claims about Paul and Pauline Christianity?

[But if by chance there are any cynical types out there who can read French and have access to a well-stocked library, they may find interesting an article written by Henri Delafosse (pseudonym of Joseph Turmel) proposing an anti-Marcionite purpose for 1 Clement: “L’Epitre de Clement Romain aux Corinthiens” in the January 1928 issue of Revue d’Histoire des Religions]

dog-on

So... reverse diabolical mimicry, right?

sotto voce

Why does no-one else accept them as inspired?

aa5874

Again, you cannot use "Against Heresies" as an historical marker for the date of the writing of the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement.

1. Our copy of "Against Heresies" is NOT original and is NOT even dated by paleography or scientific means to the 2nd century.

2. "Against Heresies" is NOT even credible. Anonymous writings called Gospels were incorrectly attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in "Against Heresies". The author has a history of incompetence or providing erroneous information.

3 The time period when the supposed Clement of Rome was Bishop is NOT certain. According to a writer under the name of Tertullian, Roman Church records show that Clement was bishop of Rome at around c 67 CE which contradicts "Against Heresies".

andrewcriddle

ἐξακοντίζουσιν
“plunge into” or “launch out” does not IIUC have nautical connotations. (It seems related to throwing javelins.)

On the more general issue external evidence probably requires a date for 1 Clement no later than 140 CE which is early for anti-Marcionite polemic.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

From you earlier post: claims in the letter that members of the church had been appointed by apostles and that Peter and Paul had died in their own generation.
Eusebius is unclear here but it is IMHO likely that Hegesippus referred to the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.
I don't think Pliny would have been involved as a lawyer in measures by Domitian against Christians so unless he attended such hypothetical trials as a spectator he would not know procedure.

I agree the direct evidence for anti-Christian measures by Domitian is weak. On the other hand there is clearly some sort of precedent behind Pliny's actions and from Trajan's rather laid back response I doubt if he created the precedent that Christianity is unlawful.

On the authenticity of Book 10 of the Pliny letters. I think a Renaissance forgery can probably be ruled out. It would require an elaborate conspiracy.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Again, your opinion is NOT evidence of anything. Your are only making presumptions without a shred of evidence.

The Pliny letter show that he did NOT know what the supposed Christians believed.

If the supposed Paul, the Apostles, the Bishops of Rome, and other Christians had spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire and also in Rome for at least 70 years and Pliny lived in Rome and was a lawyer then it is expected that that Pliny would have at least known of the Jesus cult and their beliefs.

Pliny had NO idea what people called Christians believed and executed some without knowing what they believed at c 115 CE and TORTURED some to find out what Christians believe.

The Pliny letters to Trajan support a LATE development of a Jesus cult since Jesus is NOT at all mentioned in the Pliny letter.

But, haven't you been through this already??? You should have known that there was NOT any direct evidence for the Pauline letters.

I really do not understand what you are trying to acheive.

We cannot be going over the same thing every day. We are engaged in a very SERIOUS discussion.

Let us mark the date. From today, we can be reasonable certain that there is NO credible evidence for the knowledge of the Pauline letters.

Whether or not book 10 of the Pliny letters is authentic there is NO mention of Jesus or Paul--Nothing.

Whether or not book 10 of the Pliny letters is authentic Pliny did NOT know what Christians believed and AFTER Torture none of them mention Jesus or Paul--Nothing.

We have got to move the next level.

It is clear that the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles are NOT historically credible.

mountainman

So the Papacy and Vatican never conspired towards its own power? I dont think it can be ruled out in such a summary fashion. What does the sedimentary deposit of commentary have to say about the Pliny manuscript which was suddenly "found" and then just as suddenly "lost"? This is supposed to be an investigation, not a guessing competition.