mountainman

The "Historia Ecclesiastica" and the "Historia Augusta" are similar genres (MOCKUMENTARIES), and may have been manufactured by the same scriptoria. Both texts are heavily characterized by:

(1) copious fabricated sources [orthodox sources like Clement et al]
(2) copious forged documents [orthdox sources like the Clementine literature et al]
(3) further copious fabricated sources who disagree with (1) [in HE these are the gnostic heretics]

The "fabrication of the Galilaeans" was an insidious invention.

aa5874

It is interesting to NOTE that there are TWO writers who placed Clement directly AFTER the Apostles. They are Tertullian and Rufinus.

Rufinus claimed MULTIPLE times in different writings that Clement was FIRST after the Apostles.

Again, bear in mind that ALL writings from Rufinus, Clement and Tertullian should have been KNOWN and CIRCULATED Publicly.

Tertullian's "Prescription Against Heretics" 32 According to Tertullian, the CHURCH of ROME records show that Clement was Ordained by Peter.


Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen
Rufinus' Preface to the Translation of Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
The Preface to the Recognitions of St. Clement” by Rufinus According to Rufinus he has a LETTER from Clement where Clement stated that he was ORDAINED by Peter.

So when did the GREAT DISSENSION of the Church of Corinth happen? When were the Messengers Claudius, Valerius and Fortunatus sent with Epistle of Clement?

Now, that Clement was the FIRST bishop AFTER the death of Peter based on Rufinus and Tertullian did he SIT for 9 or 12 years?

Once Clement was the FIRST Bishop AFTER Peter then ALL the BISHOPS of Rome AFTER Clement do NOT agree with the chronology in "Against Heresies" if we use Rufinus' Explanation.

It is CLEAR that Clement of Rome with other Switching Bishops and the Great Dissension of Corinth are INVENTIONS of the Roman Church.

jakejonesiv

The author of 1 Clement does not identify himself. It is only in the second half of the 2nd century that it is attributed to Clement the Bishop of Rome.

The dating of 1 Clement is usually based on 1Clem 1:1, "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us." This is then assumed, by circular reasoning, to be an allusion to the alleged persecution of Christians in Rome under at the end of the reign of Domitian in 95 or 96 CE. The evidence for such a persecution is tenuous at best, and may have never happened. But the question must be asked, “Why Domitian? Why not some other persecution under another emperor such as Trajan?” The reason is quite simple and quite circular, Domitian is chosen because he was the Emperor when by Catholic Church reckoning, Saint Clement, was supposed to be the Bishop of Rome! But we know that this Clement never wrote the “epistle.” With that you lose you dating anchor.

But the discussion of which emperor and which persecutions are really a tempest in a teapot. No persecutions are mentioned in 1:1, only “misfortunes and hindrances” which are apologetic formula for personal or domestic hindrances.

The internal indications are that a long time, generations, have passed since the founding of the Roman church, 23:3, 44:2-3, 47:6, 63:3. It could as easily be dated to 50 years—or more—after the traditional date, which as we have seen is based on Christian Apologetics with a capital A.

Please note that 1 Clement is a sermon from the Diaspora synagogue that has been redacted by a proto-catholic Christian editor. It is way too long to be the letter it pretends to be. There are other indications that the document is not what ir pretends to be, and I will direct the interested reader to 1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism

1 Clement only cites one Pauline epistle, and that is 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

The other mention of Paul in 1 Clement is a historically improbable description of his journeys. Robert Price has commented that it sounds like a high school student trying to bluff his way through an assignment he had not read.

That Paul was in bonds seven times is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament epistles or Acts. The rest is so vague, we can only guess what the redactor means. I would not imagine that a Roman writer (if indeed this was written in Rome) would think of Rome as the “farthest bounds of the west.” For such a person Rome would be the center. Perhaps the closest we can come is the Muratorian fragment that alleges that Paul went to Spain, and the redactor of 1 Clement thought Paul was assumed into heaven from there. Whatever the case, we are clearly not dealing with historical facts.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

In its present form, (I don't want to go into arguments about possible redactions), Clement's letter is on internal evidence rather early. The fact that church leaders directly appointed by the apostles are seen as a serious possibility indicates a date well before the death of Trajan.

I agree that if one ignores the early tradition about Clementine auhorship the letter could be dated anywhere between 80 and 110 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

What would be the external dating indicator for the supercession of the belief that the apostles were appointing bishops ? Didache, IIRC, seems to be innocent of such a notion.

Thanks.

Best,
Jiri

Iskander

A Christian author acknowledged ignorance when dealing with the beginnings of the Christian church in Rome and say that what is has been written about its earliest history in Rome is a fable.

History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). Philip Schaff
A.D. 1-100.
Page 233

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Perhaps I am missing something, I don't see how this internal text indicates an early date.

N/A

This could have been written any time well into the second century, and indeed the indications are that a long time had passed since the alleged time of the apostles. It seems arbitrary to try to "draw a line" with this text.


1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

1Clem 44:4
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.

Best,
Jake

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

2 Peter claims on internal evidence to be early but is almost certainly late.

I'm talking here about the date claimed by 1 Clement on internal evidence. (It might possibly be a late text trying to present itself as early but if so one would IMHO expect a rather more explicit way of doing so.)

1 Clement presents itself as written at a time when bishops/presbyters appointed directly by the Apostles are still around to be unjustly dismissed, although they have mostly or at least partially been replaced by bishops/presbyters brought in to replace deceased bishops/presbyters of the immediately post-apostolic generation.

This is entirely plausible in the 90s CE but becoming highly unlikely after 115 CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

The Didache has a very different model of church order and government than is implied by 1 Clement. I agree it lacks any idea of apostolic succession. (Apostles in the Didache are wandering preachers not The Apostles.) This either implies a very early date for the Didache or a pattern for the local church which was unusual at the time when the Didache was written.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Your explanation does NOT make much sense. You keep on FORGETTING that ALL the Church writings were supposed to be PUBLICLY KNOWN and CIRCULATED.

So when Tertullian claimed that Clement was MAde Bishop AFTER Peter c 67-68 CE by the Roman Church that should have been KNOWN in Rome by the Roman Church and should have been in their records.

And , when Irenaeus claimed Clement was Bishop of Rome c 90 CE AFTER Peter, Linus and Anancletus that ALSO should have been KNOWN by the Roman Church and should have been in their records.

But, look again. The Clement dilemma is NOT over.

When Augustine of Hippo made the claim that Clement of Rome was Bishop c 80 CE after Peter and LINUS that should have also been PUBLICLY KNOWN and Circulated in the Roman Church and should have been in their records.

The Clement disaster is CONFIRMED by Rufinus.

Rufinus put forward the most BIZARRE explanation and claimed Clement was indeed AFTER Peter, Linus and Anacletus but the Clement was ORDAINED c 67-68 immediately AFTER Peter was dead.

In effect, Rufinus places Linus and Anacletus as Bishops starting sometime around c 42 CE

The Claim by Rufinus should have been KNOWN by the Roman Church and should have been Publicly Circulated.

The Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth, if it did occur, could NOT have been mistaken by 25 years. In the Letter supposedly to the Corinth Church, messengers NAMED Fortunatus, Valerius and Claudius were DISPATCHED.

These messengers, Valerius, Fortunatus and Claudius could NOT have been forgotten and mistaken by 25 years. The PEOPLE of the Church of Corinth could NOT have FORGOTTEN when the Great Dissension occurred by 25 years.

How is it possible that Agents of the Roman Church could have PUBLICLY CIRCULATED within the Church this chronological disaster.

The Church of Rome did NOT KNOW who was their FIRST Bishop AFTER Peter.

It is CLEAR that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops, and the Great Dissension are INVENTIONS of the Roman Church.

The Letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement is NOT of Clement it is FROM the Roman Church.

IT IS SO STATED in the very LETTER.

EXAMINE THE LETTER TO the CORINTHIANS

We NOW can deduce that there was NO history of the Bishops of the Church until some time in the second century. The Bishops were INVENTED WITHOUT any records at all.