andrewcriddle

I can see no indication that the author of 1 Clement is a monarchical bishop.

In fact one argument for an early date for 1 Clement is that it seems to use bishop and presbyter as synonymous

Chapter 44 has Andrew Criddle

yalla

You are correct of course.
What I was attemting to [poorly] express is that the authoritarian tone of the epistle reflects a later period when the development of such was under way.
That the attribution of the letter to a supposed earlier prominent member of the Roman church, not a bishop, can be seen as supporting the later attempts by bishops to assert their authority via Apostolic Succession.

I got some of this from Detering's article on the Dutch Radicals from the website below.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In particular Detering makes these statements which to me indicate a later date than the end of the 1C.
"° A later period is indicated as well by all text parts that presuppose an antagonism between priests and laymen (cf. 40, 5: other laws apply to laymen than those for religious office-holders; see 41,1)"

"Above all, so LOMAN, the idea of the Apostolic Succession, which shines through in 44, 1f., indicates the time that letter was written: with a high degree of probability in mid 2nd century."

But basically my point is that we have very little solid historical evidence to so confidently assert [as most sources seem to] that 1 Clem was written c96CE.
My jury is out.
cheers
yalla

robto

Uh, you left out a gospel. What about MT?
But you can say that about any criterion you choose. This is one criterion of many, and it supports Mkan priority. If you wish to suggest an alternative, you have to explain ALL the data according to it, not just some subset selected to support your theory.

michael wellenberg

I do not think that it matters in fact for dating Mark whether Mk 7:3-4 is a later insertion or whether it is genuinely Markan.
If it was added by a later (gentile ?) copyist which is still debatable then it could of course not be used for dating Mark.
If it is originally Markan then it would be an exaggeration (on which we would seem to agree) and could not be used for dating Mark either. Because as an exaggeration it does not mean that Mark was aware that 100 % of the Jews practiced handwashing at the time when he wrote, and therefore does not indicate a post 100-date.
In favor of a later addition it might be said that Mark makes many assumptions in regard of Jewish history and traditions he does not find necessary to explain. So it may be inferred that he was sure his audience would understand. For instance scriptural allusions, or figures like Elijah.
The passage 7:3-4 provides a rather lengthy explanation of Jewish background which I find at least unusual for him.

Michael