rlogan

Hi andrew. If you showed how some rhetorical conventions actually applied here then you'd have an argument.

We just disagree here about what "disatisfaction means". I have quoted the text that proves there were serious disputes underlying the supposed defrocking. You wish to deny so. Yet, you've provided zero argument beyond the waving of hands ("out of touch") about why a congregation would throw out its leadership. That is indeed the core contradiction in this pseudo-letter.

I agree that you have captured the phony excuse for the "letter". And the message is one only a would-be central authority would want to convey. Office for life. hmph.

Sure. Blind obedience to authority. Jesus was all about that.

i do not understand your statement here andrew. you seem to be alleging serious doctrinal disputes would have given rise to an overthrow of the leadership. The letter from rome is urging them to go with the old views instead of what ultimately prevails, under the very authority of Rome. so it is a host of contradictions.

I guess we just have to disagree andrew, which is fine. The very fact the letter is from Rome, representing itself as authority and emphasizing the fraudulent line of succession from Jesus to apostles to appointed Church leaders is ample proof.

Ignatius will be dealt with presently. I suppose I should pretend to work for a bit...

S.C.Carlson

A more sophisticated analysis of 1 Clement is in the fifth chapter of Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Here's a link:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Reso...er/bauer05.htm

Bauer accepted the composition of 1 Clement in the 90s.

rlogan

At least Baur admits we have to address why there is a purported schizm, and he asserts that I Clement is an anti-Gnostic letter. Of course, the problem is that the letter must also therefore be anti-anything-else-you-can-think-of-that-isn't-actually-stated too. So it must be a commentary on tax law, steroid use in sports, and gay marriage too. How far can we go with this idea that letters are about subjects they do not address?

In addition, Baur is also at least capable of seeing the obvious - that Rome is trying to exert authority with this document, even were we to assume it to be "sincere".



You mean, he accepts the tradition and interprets the letter accordingly instead of using the textual evidence to date the letter.


Rather backwards, I should think.

S.C.Carlson

If you think that Bauer (if all people!) operated that way, that is "rather backwards."

Stephen Carlson

rlogan

Twice now you've made an empty appeal to authority without citing the actual data upon which the argument rests.

Now perhaps you'd like to try a third time and actually cite the evidence itself upon which the assertion of dating rests as opposed to a passing reference to your prince.

An earlier poster was already admonished that simply quoting someone's conclusion is not very impressive here. But in your case, you haven't even done that much.

S.C.Carlson

I guess I was not too clear why I gave a link to Bauer.

I was responding to your statement that "The very fact the letter is from Rome, representing itself as authority and emphasizing the fraudulent line of succession from Jesus to apostles to appointed Church leaders is ample proof." Bauer assumes basically the same thing as you do about the letter but still places it in the 90s.

This means that you don't have "ample proof" of a second century date.

Calling Bauer a traditionalist is fairly amusing to those familiar with Bauer's scholarship and does not avoid the problem that the evidence you cite for a second century date is still compatible with the 90s.

Vorkosigan

JND Kelly is Canon of Cichester Cathedral. Hmmm....he doesn't exactly strike me as a Bishop Spong type.

Phil, note that I didn't assert "all the evidence was worthless." Rather, I pointed to the reason: that this tradition does not appear, even on the conventional dating, until 1 Clement, and even that is highly ambiguous, as Earl Doherty kindly pointed out to me on JM the other day.

The "evidence" I dismissed as worthless dates from after the second half of the second century, and cannot be considered very strong. This is because (1) Church historians appear to already fabricating history at that time; (2) traditions seem to have become firmly emplaced and thus useless for any kind of "multiple attestation approach. So placing Peter and his death in Rome looks like a legitimation strategy developed in late second and third century Christianity. Anything that dates from that period has to viewed with a jaundice in the eye, and whiskey in the hand. Probably some Xanax by keyboard too.

Ted Weeden, a brilliant and insightful scholar of rank who has basically been living inside the Gospel of Mark since about 1965, had this to say on the Mark list a few years ago

• "In fact Paul makes no explicit reference or even the slightest allusive hint of any disaffection upon the part of any one in the inner-circle of Jesus' followers."
  
  "Likewise, there is no reference or allusion to a Petrine denial in any other pre-Synoptic tradition. Not a trace of it can be found in Q. And nothing in the Gospel of Thomas would lead one to believe that any of the tradition(s) behind that Gospel knew of Peter denying Jesus. Had the author of Thomas known of the denial, he could have used it as sufficient cause alone for the elevation of Thomas over Peter in GTh. 13. For in that saying it is clear that what is at stake is that the author is trying to prove that Thomas, rather than Peter or Matthew, is Jesus' most trusted confidant and most favored disciple."
  
  "To pursue support for my position further: if such a Petrine denial is historical, then I find it quite strange that nowhere in the NT is there any reference to Peter ever offering a *mea culpa* and receiving forgiveness for his denial. It is particularly striking that in none of the resurrection-appearance stories is there any suggestion that Peter offers or has offered a *mea culpa* and is forgiven by the risen Jesus."

Do you think that Weeden has put his finger on a certain disjunct here between the portrait of Peter in the gospels, particularly Mark, the first, and the portrait of Peter in Church history? How do we go from one to the other? Can we?

Finally, I just want to say that there is much common ground between us, Phil, much. First is a mutual interest in these texts, a profound and passionate one. Second is a love of argument and learning. Third is brains and knowledge of the secondary literature. These are all common grounds, Phil. Also, we are all exceptionally good looking.

So stick around. Things can get exasperating for believers around here, especially those who cite a lot of conservatives, who have almost no pull here. But be patient. We like having other voices here.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Now for the third time, please demonstrate this by quoting him and the evidence upon which he is basing it.

You keep insisting Bauer makes this conclusion without citing anything specifically, and I am patiently waiting to go beyond this mere assertion of yours so we can actually talk some substance. So may I please help you here?

Example:

Baur states "X" (see the quote marks there, Steve? not your assertion, but what Baur actually says)

and his evidence is "Y" (See the quote marks?)


Sorry, but I did not go that far and you've gone several posts now with your nose in the air and not a wit of evidence has been set forth for us to discuss.

So let's just drop the snobbery and talk substance. So far, I've seen none from you. I have an open mind, and do not claim to be a blue-blood as you are doing in all of your posts. I'm not impressed by your pretentious facade. What I want is some data.


I rather fancy the Dutch Radical school on this one and before I lay out further here why I am in agreement beyond what I have already posted I request for the thrid time that you stop being a snob and actually discuss substance here.

Sincerely, the lowly rlogan

S.C.Carlson

Bauer is on-line, and I gave a link. I checked the link and it seems to work, so the complaint about not quoting him seems misplaced. If you want to know what he says, he's just a click away.

But, I didn't give the link to Bauer to prove that 1 Clem was written in the 90s (and, if you were specifically looking for that, I can understand your frustration). No, I gave the link, as I said before, to illustrate that the "very fact the letter is from Rome, representing itself as authority and emphasizing the fraudulent line of succession from Jesus to apostles to appointed Church leaders" is not "ample proof" that is good enough to exclude the 90s.

In other words, your second-century dating does not follow from your "ample proof," which means that the objections previously expressed in this thread to a mid-to-late second-century dating (e.g. no monarchial episcopate in 1 Clem., etc.) are still valid and insufficiently rebutted.

Stephen Carlson

rlogan

Heh. Four posts now without the evidence. Because you have none. I've been demanding this because I bloody well read the article and found that you were bluffing behind the snobbery.



He does not demonstrate any kind of analysis on deducing such a date. Does not even expressly state a date for it. I have been demanding you show it to me since it is your thesis. And, you can't.

The frustration is your snobbery in place of evidence.

Here is what you posted:

I see a snobbish remark with an unsubstantiated assertion about dating and since I could find zero substantiation for the dating in the article I stated as much.

To which you have responded with more snobbery.

You are quote mining me here. I was responding to andrewcriddles polite statement that the pseudo-letter was not an assertion of Roman authority. I disagree with him. Politely.



You quote-mined. And now, you offer someone else's point instead of something in Baur's piece that has for numerous posts been your supposed source of authority!


So it appears Baur is of no use to you in dating. No use in the comment andrewcriddle made.

What's that leave us with, Steve? Maybe an opportunity for a little attitude adjustment? I'm disappointed that I wasted my time thinking you had something for me to learn.




And I am happy to delve further into the Dutch Radical position. In the meantime, you managed to waste four posts with nothing but snobbish remarks to buttress an assertion about Baur dating this in the 90's. But I think I'm in the mood for an apology from you first.