aa5874

Well, now please tell me if mainstream scholarship support your claims. Your own post may make your crosed-eyes hurt.

Please, do you accept mainstream scholarship???

I can see clearly but perhaps your eyes are crossed.

Sheshbazzar

I know what I wrote.

And it ought to be apparent by what I wrote that I DO accept, and that I am in line with the opinions of mainstream textual scholarship with regards to the origin, the age of, and the authenticity of 'The First Epistle of Clement'.
That I state I that believe it underwent some latter interpolations is not very likely to knock any mainstream textual scholars out their chairs.

Now. Can you politely answer my questions ?

Or at the least attempt to present a lucid summary of when and where it was that -you- believe that text called "The First Epistle of Clement" originated ?

Or will we just have to accept it as a fact, that you don't know what you've been shouting about ?

You are being given opportunity and encouragement to explain your views on 1 Clement, in this thread that is devoted to the subject.

If you choose not to make your views and opinions on 'The Epistle of First Clement' transparent and understandable, you have no one to blame except yourself.


.

aa5874

I won't allow you to make accusations about mainstream scholarship when you make claims that are NOT supported by them.

Your post are recorded. This your argument and I cannot find any support for it.

Please show that mainstream scholarship maintain such an argument???

And further please remember that you have admitted that you have NOT dated the anonymous letter.

If you accuse people of not being mainstream then it must be investigated whether you yourself is NOT mainstream.

Sheshbazzar

Did I accuse mainstream scholarship of something? Where? What?

I have just stated that I agree with the findings of mainstream scholarship that The First Epistle of Clement is a very early Christian Church writing from around 95-100 CE.

Do you agree with mainstream scholarship on these approximate dates?
If you prefer a different set of dates, why not give them?

I accept along with mainstream scholarship, that although the Epistle is anonymous, that it's most likely author was Clement of Rome.
Wish to propose someone else? Who's stopping you?

Do you agree with mainstream scholarship that Clement of Rome was the most likely author of 'The First Epistle of Clement to The Corinthians'?
Got someone else in mind? spit it out. I'll tell you already, I wasn't the author
Did I anywhere say there was any mainstream support for my argument? Please quote where I stated there was mainstream support for my argument.
And please list the names of those scholars that I cited as supporting my argument.

(contrarian that I am, if there were mainstream support for my argument, I'd likely think my argument must be wrong, and seek after one no one would support.
I'm always suspicious of 'friends' who want to pat me on the back too easily or too often. If being right were ever that easy, I could never trust it. )

Anyone that read what I wrote regarding 'The Epistle of First Clement' being earlier than the fully composed Gospels, Book of Acts, and The various Epistles of the NT, and a seminal source for their creation, knows that my argument did not derive from, and is not supported by mainstream scholarship.
I have never claimed nor pretended that it is.

That would hardly be possible. Mainstream scholarship is not even aware of any such argument, and it has never been publicly discussed by mainstream scholarship to the best of my knowledge.
It is my argument. I have never claimed that it was anyone else's argument, or that it originated with anyone else.

I provided a general range of the date in my first paragraph above.
It just happens to be the same general range that is accepted by most academic sources. Got a different date? Why not just give it?

Accused? Who accused? Where? of What?

I asked you a few simple and easily answered questions regarding 1 Clement, and when you think 'The First Epistle of Clement' was written.
As 'When was The First Epistle of Clement written ?' is the subject of this thread.

I really don't get it. If you have what you honestly believe to be a valid theory or or alternative explanation for the origins of this document.
Why not use this opportunity to get it out on the table ?
On one hand you are shouting at the top of your lungs (with the caps & colors) while on the other you are refusing to even state what it is that you believe.
Certainly if it is valid it ought to hold up to any amount of examination.

Going after me, and my theory, is not going to help you at all with dealing with the problem you are having with presenting your own material.

If I ask you questions, you should be glad for these opportunities to present your own opinions on 1 Clement.
You think that I or anyone else here even cares if you are 'mainstream' or not?

Why should I care, given that my own views are so far from the 'mainstream'.
A whole LOT of peoples here hold views that are not 'mainstream', That's why we are -here- instead of someplace else.

If I required the support or the praise of 'mainstream' Biblical scholars' I'd most certainly be looking for a far different venue than this highly skeptical Freethought Forum.
I do not prefer the company of the 'mainstream'. All of my friends are -individuals- whose personal and original thoughts and ideas, right or wrong though they may be, I find intriguing. I seek the companionship of those who strive to, or have learned how to think 'outside of the box' of that 'mainstream'. If I wanted to sing a mantra in perfect harmony with thousands of other like voices. I'd join a church.

We're not in church on here. And no one is going to faint of suffer apoplexy if you say something that doesn't harmonize with a choir.

Shalom
.

mountainman

Hey Shesh,


I have been thinking about this suggestion. It seems that this article entitled The Use of Material Deriving from the Synoptic Gospels In the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians covers alot of the issues mentioned in this OP.

I find it difficult to point out any genuine apple in a barrel of rotten apples. If we go down the path of examining the suggestion that 1 Clement is a genuine source from antiquity, and the Clementine fogeries are not, then we probably need to explain who authored the forgeries and why. Other negative evidence to be dealt with includes the packaging of the "Shepherd of Hermas" in the first bibles, and the controversy over whether Clement was a "Bishop of the Apostolic Succession in Rome".

The Christians preserved a package of sources in many disparate books, from Philo and Josephus, to Origen (1st to 3rd centuries). In this package we find Clement 1 and Clement 2 etc. The suggestion that there may be a few genuine texts written by well known Christian Bishops of the Apostolic Succession in Rome and/or Alexandria, has its hurdles to overcome if it is to hold water.

First Epistle of Clement

Sheshbazzar

I believe that xριστιανός >christianos (Acts 11:26) >'Christ'-ianity' had its beginnings with the introduction of the LXX translation with its introduction and popular usage of the word χριστοῦ or χριστὸς (see for example the LXX usage in 1 Sam 2:10, & 24:6, Psa 2:2-7, Dan 9:25)

Once this version became familiar to Hellenistic (Greek speaking) Judeans and their Gentile companions, a pregnant expectation of the revealing of The χριστὸς 'christos' > Xριστὸς > 'Christos' ('Christ') was an inevitable and natural consequence.
So it was not as though there was much required to stimulate the stories and sayings that arose among 'messianic' χριστὸς 'christos' cultists during the first century CE. Indeed, these midrashic 'sayings' and Judaic/Hellenic syncretized tropes had been developing and building up over a period of some three hundred years, and events of the first century simply gave the final impetus to create those legendary NT stories that drew upon this huge backlog of syncretized Gentile Jew religious ideas that were quite alien and even adverse to the older Hebrew views of the traditional 'Jewish' religion.

In my view, the original anonymous writer that put together the original 'bare-bones' text that underlies '1 Clement' was simply drawing upon that 4 hundred+ year long trove of syncretized Hellenistic Jew/Gentile non-mainstream 'midrashim' (that body of discussion and developed 'tradition' which had been carried on by 'sects' apart from, and often in strongly felt opposition to the 'organized Jewish' religion of the Jerusalem priesthood and Temple cult.)

These were those 'religious rebels' who were extremely devout, yet unsatisfied with the way those of the Temple priesthood were running and in their view, 'ruining' the nations religion, such as the Essenes, the JTB cultist, and various other dissidents, and desert dwelling splinter sects.

There was no need of any physical 'Joshua YHWH's Anointed'. (sic 'Jesus' the LORD's 'Christos') The figure was a legendary and 'known' representative of their rebel desires, and all that was needed was to finally assemble these many midrash tales and 'sayings' into a renewed religion, one that despised the old 'Jewish priesthood', and that explained why The Temple, its priesthood, and its forms of institutionalized religion had failed and now needed to be replaced with a different 'Covenant', a refreshed (ka'neos) 'New' Covenant, and 'Priesthood' of all believers, one not according to that one received under Moses, (which kept those in power, who were in power) but a revival, a refreshing renewing of that Covenant made with Abraham, thus excluding and obsoleting that priesthood which served the Law of Moses and The Temple.

It was a dissident fundamentalist end-run right around the long held authority of the Temple establishment. But all of this is just background,

Getting back to 'Clement', or rather that unknown 1st century author, his 'job' as it were was to employ this long built up 'christological' corpus to unify and promote unity and order among the various squabbling xριστιανός 'christanos' sects.
The use of the titles 'Rome' and 'Corinthians' in Clement do not reflect any actual control or advice by any actual Roman 'Clement' over any actual Corinthian congregation, But rather was composed as a literary exemplar to all of the various squabbling factions.

These are the two 'big guys', huge in the Christianos religious traditions, and our anonymous writer is using them as an example to all of the 'little guys' (all the small battling christianos sects, throughout the then known 'world') Making a show of peace, order and mutual respect between these two, was a literary invention to bring home the message of their need to support their present leaders and join in mutually beneficial support.
It worked. And these factions more or less finally began to 'get their acts together' enough to become organized under the 'Orthodox' banner, began to standardize their texts, and their doctrines, and rituals, and became a cohesive and growing social movement to be reckoned with on the world stage.
Of course once they did this, it was necessary to revise and to update the original script of that unknown author (who by then had became '1 'Clement') to fit the texts and the 'history' of the Church that they had created.

It must be understood however, every writer involved in this enterprise most sincerely believed that what he was writing was at least in some sense the 'truth' of his Faith. There was no comprehended intent nor 'conspiracy' by anyone to deceive anyone, but rather just as Luke puts it; "to set forth in order a declaration those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us..."
Same as it is at the church down the street today, 'things which are most surely believed', and just as then, 'not having seen, yet they believe'.
The 'name it and claim it' kind of religion, where what one wants badly enough to be true, if they believe strongly enough, becomes their reality, and becomes their 'truth'.

That's the way I see it. There never was any flesh and blood 'Joshua the Anointed'> 'Jezuz the Christos', and none of 'The Gospel Story' ever took place in any actual physical sense. All just a lot of wishful thinking, and pretenting that what was thought, and what was said, was what was the actual truth.






.

aa5874

Did YOU not say you did NOT date the unknown letter now all of a sudden you assert it is 1st century??

This is the problem that I face in these threads. You say one thing then all of a sudden you switch.

Please, I do NOT accept Presumptions any longer. People appear to be abusing the use of imaginary evidence.

I cannot accept that an anonymous letter was written in the 1st century when there is NO credible evidence to support such a claim and when it would appear that the Jesus movement was NOT known at all before 115 CE based on non-apologetic sources.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT make mention of Jesus, the Apostles and Paul.

And further, arguments AGAINST the Jesus story by Non-Apologetic sources are found in the mid 2nd century and beyond.

Based on Justin and Lucian, there was NO system of Bishops up to the mid 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

In my posts within this thread, from POST #62, my initial post here, I have consistently argued that 'The Epistle of First Clement' was very early;
Finally, in response to your repeated mentions of the specific time period of "95-97 CE", I RESPONDED to these dates with;
And if you look back through all of my posts, you will find that nowhere to that point had I even so much as suggested any specific date or years for the composition of 'The Epistle of First Clement', only stating my conviction that it was "very early".
The "95-97" dating only appears within your writings, not in mine.
Thus when I stated that "It may be noted that I have NOT yet even attempted to assign any date to the composition of 1 Clement. " it is an absolutely true statement. As I had not.
That however does not mean that I never would.

No. Your problem in these threads is that you do not read others posts carefully, or think things through before you reply. And all too often do not actually comprehend what it is that other posters are writing.

There was no 'switch' at all in my position, I just finally in POST #134 stated; This ought to put an end to your erroneous claim that I have made any 'switch' in my position regarding WHEN The Epistle of 1 Clement was first composed.

It has been pointed out on multiple occasions and by many scholars that 'the church' of the 1st century, (if it could even accurately described as such) was small, very disorganized, and was composed of multiple sectarian groups all in opposition, and in competition with one another.

It is highly unlikely that men like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger would have even been aware that these various individual χριστὸς believers might someday soon unite to become a large and influential religious sect.
Who knew in 1980 what young Vernon Howell would become, even if they had at one time sat at the same table and conversed with him?
Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger may well have met many xριστιανός and not have recognized them as such because of their at that time, still widely divergent religious views.
Kind of hard for these Non-Apologetic sources to compose arguments against peoples and religious beliefs that they did not even recognise existed.

The common confusion between the ideas of the many christianos sects and those identified as the chrestianos would have been a mish-mash of indistinct and syncretized theological beliefs that would have defied any description as it would be difficult to find even a dozen people at any one time that agreed on the nature or the workings of their particular version of the 'Theos', much less what parts of past human history were most significant.

It wasn't until thousands of these 'X-ianos' had joined together into a common 'orthodox' cause, until such a group -could- be recognized as a distinct religious movement, and commented on by these latter Non-Apologetic writers, But this would have not taken place till many years after that writing attributed to 'Clement' which got these christianos sheeple moving in that direction.
Justin was aware of the traditions of his branch of the 'christianos' religion, there were many other 'christianos' branches and traditions that he would not have any awareness of, or if he did, he would have simply deemed them among the 'heretical' and not desired to further any propagation of their heretical ideas by drawing more attention to them through his writings.
(Even today, my Christian 'friends' and acquaintances have been well aware of my extremely 'heretical' beliefs for decades, but you will never find one who has composed a publicly distributed argument against my 'heresy', because to do so would draw even more attention to my alleged 'heresies', and shine much too bright of a light upon the shaky foundations and cracks and crevices in premises of their own flawed belief systems.)

Lucian knew that he was surrounded by a world of religious lunatics, and that there were so many flavors and colors of them, and as they changed and invented new 'stuff' almost daily, that there would have not been enough paper in the world to ever make a record of them all, and of all of the ridiculous things that these 'religious' claimed to believe, and to believe to have happened.




.

aa5874

You are just all over the place. Once you claim the anonymous letter is 1st century you have assigned a time period for the letter.

I have already told you that it is wholly absurd to use the internal evidence of a Questioned anonymous letter to date it early when it may have been derived from church tradition itself.

You have used the very source that is being scrutinized as corroborative evidence of itself which is quite illogical.

I have already pointed out to you that my research shows that it is NOT known when Clement was bishop and this would mean that we don't know when the Dissension of the Church of Corinth happened or if it happened at all.

Up to the 5th century Apologetic sources did NOT know when Clement was bishop so it must be obvious that they did NOT know of the anonymous letter and the event which caused the letter to have been written.

I place the letter AFTER the 5th century based on the evidence.

I no longer accept imaginary evidence. If people want to argue history then they MUST, MUST, MUST provide their sources.

When I make statements I must get my sources but other people here just BLURT out what they imagine is true. I am done with that. If you have NO sources then please move on.

Sheshbazzar

Another hasty reply without putting your brain into gear.

Your problem in these threads is that you do not read others posts carefully, or think things through before you reply. And all too often do not actually comprehend what it is that other posters are writing...

Do you wish to now present your 'non-imaginary' -'evidence'- to the contrary of my post;

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE ?

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED ?

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS ?

PLEASE

Do feel free to present us with all of your 'non-imaginary 'evidence' which is contrary to my simple statement that; "It has been pointed out on multiple occasions and by many scholars that 'the church', (if it could even accurately described as such) was small, very disorganized, and composed of multiple sectarian groups all in opposition, and in competition with one another.

I'm waiting breathlessly to see what your 'sources' and your 'non-imaginary 'evidence' can supply.