A Study in 1 Clement

[Peter Kirby]

I have a proposal for consideration here:

http://peterkirby.com/a-study-in-1-clement.html

Comments are welcome.

[avi]

Thank you Peter. This is an important, and interesting topic, very appropriate for your new forum, and MANY thanks again, for giving us this precious gift.

Roger Pearse has an excellent collection of manuscripts, and a great list identifying specific dates, by century, with "original" texts.

Roger includes, in that list, the famous Namur Latin translation of the 1 Clement letter to the Corinthians, discovered in the 19th century, thought to have been copied in the 11th century, and with a presumption of an initial translation from Greek to Latin, in the 2nd to 3rd century.

Here is Egyptologist, University of Chicago Professor of Archaeology, and Historian, James Henry Breasted's comment on this famous Namur document:

The Newly-Discovered Latin Translation of the Epistle of Clement pages 452-3
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3135562?seq=1

One of the most interesting peculiarities of the new-found translation is a modification of the original to suit the later spirit of the Roman church. It must be borne in mind that the author of the epistle was, in the opinion of the church of the middle ages, the pupil of Peter and his successor as Pope of the early church. The passage in the Greek original, where the good Clement prays that all believers may subject themselves in humility to the powers of the civil government, has been so altered in the translation that it states precisely the opposite; that is, Clement now prays that all princes and rulers may now subject themselves to the church. Of course, the second-century translator could not have made this change as such ideas were at that time entirely unknown. But in the ninth or tenth century during the transmission of the document, at a time when the supremacy of the papacy was asserted, some one took the liberty of supposing that Clement never could have offered any such prayer, and the suitable alteration was made.

In other words, the Namur Latin "translation" has been falsified. It is a forgery. Yes, one can argue that only a small component is modified from the "original", whatever that may have been (what is the date of our oldest "authentic" Greek version of 1 Clement letter to Corinthians--fifth century??)

But, here's the problem, how do we know with confidence, that the original Greek version was quilled in Rome, circa 100 CE, as described by official church dogma? Which author of second or third century cites 1 Clement's letter? If the letter, written to the congregation in Corinth, contains criticism of senior Corinthian leaders (i.e. Presybyters, called in the Namur translation, "Seniores" (one of the reasons given why this translation was created in the 2nd-3rd century--what, the forgers would not have known that, were they so stupid???)) , why would such criticism be distributed far and wide, by church officials there? If I criticize Peter for expelling the one member of the forum who has actually read this arcane nonsense, why would Peter Kirby route my critique, to all the members of the forum? It would be illogical to do so.

Here's what we think we know: We believe that the "original" version, in Greek, our oldest extant copy of which, was written after Eusebius, is "authentic", but why? Why do we adhere to that opinion? We believe that the Coptic and Latin translations are reliable, but yet, acknowledge within the latter, clear evidence of forgery. Is not the underlying rationale for accepting the validity of 1 Clement's letter to the Corinthians, adherence to the fundamental idea that the ancient Roman church, post Nicea, faithfully preserved all original documents, AND, isn't it also our impression, that those scribes, authors, and church officials with access to library materials, LACKED an ability to write, in the fifth or sixth or tenth century, in the manner of a second or third century member of the clergy?

I believe the opposite. I think we badly underestimate the skill level, knowledge, and finesse of post Nicean churchmen. I think they forged MANY documents, in order to ensure conformance to the diktats from Rome.

Before undertaking a rigorous review of the significance of 1 Clement's letter to the Corinthians, shouldn't one first examine the evidence that our extant documents are authentic, and the evidence that a congregation of Christians actually existed in Corinth in the second century?
http://www.academia.edu/325765/Recent_D ... ne_Corinth

Yes, there is stuff to be found in Corinth, AFTER Nicea, but I have uncovered nothing excavated, before Nicea. Hope that someone will correct me, here, if I am wrong...

[Bernard Muller]

Which author of second or third century cites 1 Clement's letter?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3

"In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, ..."

[Peter Kirby]

why would such criticism be distributed far and wide, by church officials there?

It makes sense if the letter succeeded, the wrong was righted, and the letter became a "teachable moment." The criticism is against those who have disregarded existing authority in Corinth, not against Corinth. Authority loves to buttress itself.

[rakovsky]

Should one translate 1 Clement 20:8 as if Clement were talking about the worlds "beyond" the Atlantic Ocean, (eg. the Americas) or just the worlds "among" the Atlantic Ocean (eg. the British Isles, the Canaries, the Azores, and Iceland)?:

ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς ταγαῖς του δεσπότου διευθύνονται.

What is the best translation of this sentence?

The Bay of Jars in Brazil has been yielding ancient clay storage jars that resemble Roman amphorae[88] for over 150 years. It has been proposed that the origin of these jars is a Roman wreck, although it has been suggested that they could be 15th or 16th century Spanish olive oil jars.

Romeo Hristov argues that a Roman ship, or the drifting of such a shipwreck to the American shores, is a possible explanation of archaeological finds (like the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca bearded head) from ancient Rome in America. Hristov claims that the possibility of such an event has been made more likely by the discovery of evidences of travels from Romans to Tenerife and Lanzarote in the Canaries, and of a Roman settlement (from the 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE) on Lanzarote island. [in the Canaries]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Colum ... an_contact

http://www.geocities.ws/nephilimnot/anc ... omans.html

Vs.

Canary Islands in pre-colonial times

The islands were visited by the Phoenicians, the Greeks and the Carthaginians. According to the 1st century AD Roman author and philosopher Pliny the Elder, the archipelago was found to be uninhabited when visited by the Carthaginians under Hanno the Navigator in 5th century BC, but ruins of great buildings were seen.[1] This story may suggest that the islands were inhabited by other peoples prior to the Guanches.

...
According to Pliny the Elder, an expedition of Mauretanians sent by King Juba II (d. 23 CE) to the archipelago visited the islands, finding them uninhabited, but noting ruins of great buildings.[1] When King Juba, the Roman protegé, dispatched a contingent to re-open the dye production facility at Mogador (historical name of Essaouira, Morocco) in the early 1st century,[2] Juba's naval force was subsequently sent on an exploration of the Canary Islands, using Mogador as their mission base.

The Phoenicians may have arrived seeking the precious red dye extracted from the orchil - if the Canaries represent Pliny the Elder's Purple Isles or the Hesperides of legend. Although no evidence has survived of any permanent Roman settlements, in 1964 Roman amphorae were discovered in waters off Lanzarote. Discoveries made in the 1990s have demonstrated in more definite detail that the Romans traded with the indigenous inhabitants. Excavations of a settlement at El Bebedero on Lanzarote, made by a team under Pablo Atoche Peña of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Juan Ángel Paz Peralta of the University of Zaragoza, yielded about a hundred Roman potsherds, nine pieces of metal and one piece of glass at the site, in strata dated between the 1st and 4th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Is ... nial_times

[hakeem]

Which author of second or third century cites 1 Clement's letter?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3

"In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, ..."

Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus is not credible. Virtually all claims about the date, authorship and chronolgy of the books of the NT in Against Heresies have been rejected by Scholars.

1.The claim in Against Hereseies that the Canonical Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John has been rejected almost universally.
2. The claim or implication in Against Heresies that all the Pauline Epistles were written by a single person has been rejected almost universally.

In addition, there are hopeless irreconcilable fundamental problems in Against Heresies.

It is argued in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man at about 50 years of age or at around 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius. This places the crucifixion of Irenaeus Jesus at around 48-49 CE.

The argument in Against Heresies that Jesus was crucified around 50 years old completely destroys the claim that Paul preached Jesus crucified since the time of Aretas who died at around c 41 CE.

Against Heresies contradicts the chronology in Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Even Christian writings contradict the claims about Clement in "Against Heresies"

In effect, Against Heresies is really a rubbished historically worthless or manipulated source.

[Bernard Muller]

I wonder if hakeem is a reincarnation of aaa.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I wonder if hakeem is a reincarnation of aaa.

You are not the only one wondering.

[Secret Alias]

But aa accepted Justin as the only true early Christian source. I remember that curious position quite well. Not hakeem

[Secret Alias]

Although aa used to say "not credible" ...