Sheshbazzar

Sorry, aa but you are not making a bit of sense to me.

So the dates conflict, a -lot- about Christian history conflicts. They obviously did not keep very accurate records of their beginnings, and there is a lot of confusion between the various reports, but I can hardly interpret that fact as -there was no Christian religion before the 5th century- if that is what it is you are attempting to prove.

Are you trying to outdo mountainman's 325 CE "Constantinian Conspiracy for the Creation of Christianity"? :huh:
I'm just trying to see where it is that you are going with this.

Perhaps if you would just address answering the simple questions I actually asked of you?

How do you explain Eusebius writing about 'Clement' in 324 CE if 'Clement' was unknown until the 5th century?

How do you explain Tertullian writing about 'Clement' circa 200 CE if 'Clement' was unknown until the 5th century?

How do you explain Irenaeus writing about 'Clement' circa 180 CE if 'Clement' was unknown until the 5th century?

mountainman

You describe Giovanni Giocondo as an antiquarian whereas he was a monk, theologian and antiquarian. Drews writing earlier summarily rejects the additional Pliny letters, and so does Detering, on the basis that these so-called additional Pliny letters, when published, were met with denunciation as forgeries. Here is Detering, based on Roger's translation earlier:

I am presuming that Detering substantiates his claim that their authenticity was disputed from the beginning, and that you may choose to revise your opinions on this issue after examining Detering's evidence.

Forged manuscripts and other relics continue to be fabricated into the 21st century, and it is wishful thinking on your part to think that the forgery mill did not simply ceasr manufacturing in the 15th century, especially in view of the fact that there are (apparently) cited claims made at that time that these additional Pliny letters were lemons.

I expect Detering to have the evidence available to Drews, demonstrating 15th century opinions concerning forgery by Giovanni Giocondo.

aa5874

Please, no straw man arguments.

I am dealing with the OP--"When was the first Epistle to the Corinthians written".

You specifically stated that 1 Clement was early source so if they did NOT keep accurate records of their beginnings why are you trying to argue that 1 Clement is an early source??

Again, you are employing straw men. You claimed that based ENTIRELY on the Internal evidence you believe an anonymous letter is an early source. You may have out done Ratzinger. You seem to have a lot of FAITH in the writings of the Church

Again, you are presenting STRAWMEN.

Please read my post carefully.
I specifically stated there is NOTHING on Clement as Bishop even up to the 5th century.

Sheshbazzar

I still don't get it aa.
You say;
Yet Tertullian -circa 200 CE- writes;
Is your objection only simply that Tertullian did not employ the -word- 'bishop' rather than 'ordained' ? :huh:

Or is it that Tertullian didn't state an exact date that Peter ordained Clement ? :huh:

Or are you claiming Tertullian never wrote anything at all about 'Clement' ? :huh:

I really don't know, as you are still not making yourself clear as to exactly what it is about Clement that you are objecting to.

Accusing me of making 'strawman' arguments is doing nothing to claify what your objections to Clement are.

spin

The attention you've demonstrated elsewhere is just as deep and just as insufficient. I don't really know why you are here. It's certainly not as a contributor. Your views tend to be untinged apologetic. You seem totally uncritical and unable to use evidence or deal with it. So when you say, "It's all you offered that was worth attention", your inability to see worth just seems endemic of your bias. Arbitrary and selective as it is.

I see no effort from you to actually communicate with anyone here. It's all just snarkiness and apologetic. I would like to see some attempt to provide some sign of reasoned argument from you, but I doubt if I ever will see such a thing. It would require you to participate. Surprise me.

Sheshbazzar

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.

andrewcriddle

I don't think it would have been possible to do a convincing forgery of Pliny book X without considerable knowledge of the situation in Bithynia around the time Pliny served there.

In practice this requires access to the orations of Dio Chrysostom which were little known in the West before the 1551 printed edition. (Allegedly there was a 1476 printed edition but no copy of it survives and modern scholars doubt if it ever existed.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Well, why did you NOT first ask for clarification??? You have been arguing with me but now admit you don't really understand my statements about the supposed Clement.

It is basic and fundamental that you first understand my statements about Clement BEFORE you begin your argument.

On the other hand, I understand you perfectly.

You accept an anonymous letter that is being QUESTIONED entirely on the very same questionable contents WITHOUT any credible corroboration.

It is not logical or reasonable to accept a questionable source based SOLELY on the very questionable contents of an anonymous letter.

You ought to have CONSULTED other sources that mentioned the anonymous letter.

Only Apologetic sources mention that the anonymous letter was attributed to Clement WHEN he was Bishop of Rome.

It is therefore EXTREMELY important that it is ESTABLISHED when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

In "Against Heresies" Clement was the THIRD bishop after Peter.

In "Prescription Against Heretics" Clement was FIRST bishop after Peter.

In "Against the Donatist" Clement was SECOND bishop after Peter.

In Letter 53 of Augustine Clement was SECOND bishop after Peter.

In "Recognitions" Clement was FIRST bishop after Peter.

We have FOUR sources that CONTRADICT "Against Heresies"

We have THREE different time periods when Clement was bishop.

If there was a Dissension of the Church of Corinth when did it happen if Clement was bishop???

If the anonymous letter to the Church of Corinth was written when Clement was bishop when was the letter written???

It was quite illogical and unreasonable for you to accept a QUESTIONED anonymous writing based ENTIRELY on the very same same QUESTIONABLE contents without any credible corroborative sources.

mountainman

We need to see the claims in Detering.

Sheshbazzar

I see, I have to inquire of you, and get permission from you, before I post any of my own thoughts or opinions in these threads?

(It may be seen that my initial post in this thread, #62, was in response to sotto voce's response to Stephan Huller post #57.
Do I have to receive clearance and permission from aa5874 before I am allowed to reply or suggest lines of inquiry to other members on this Forum? Does everybody?)

Totally putting aside any opinions that I may have expressed, I am -again- asking you to clarify your position.

You have -again- avoided giving simple direct answers to the questions that I posed, I don't know why this is so, but the fact should be evident to anyone reading this thread.

I'll pose the same questions again;

1. Is your objection only simply that Tertullian did not employ the -word- 'bishop' rather than 'ordained' ?

2. Is your objection only that Tertullian did not state an exact date that Peter ordained Clement ??

3. Are you claiming Tertullian never wrote anything at all about 'Clement' ?

It shouldn't be too difficult to courteously give a simple straight forward reply to reply to each these politely worded and simple questions.

4. Are you claiming that there was no well known 1st century manuscript addressed to the Corinthians, that came to be identified by the title 'First Clement' ?

I'm not in any way here trying to tell you what to believe, I am simply trying to find out what it is that you do believe.

Thus, apparently you do not accept any of conventional mainstream scholarships commentary on either the origins, the age of, nor the authenticity of of 'The 1 Epistle of Clement' (and I have been reading up on it until I'm cross-eyed)

How do you expect me to know, or to understand your views and position unless you are willing to clearly and unambiguously present it?

So one final question here, If you reject all of conventional mainstream Textual scholarships stated dating and origins of 1 Clement (as you certainly seem to be doing)
And it being, that in all the hundreds of documents I have referenced not even -one- Textual Scholar has dated it any latter than the 1st century CE.

5. When do -you- date the origin of that manuscript commonly known as 1 Clement to ?

Whatever theory or answers it is that you may endorse, I have not been able to locate within any scholarly reference materials.
I cannot be expected to know your answers to these questions unless you are willing to provide them.





.