The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by DCHindley »

Andrew,

I can understand not being sure about the author's place in episcopal succession at Rome due to contradictory lists that were in circulation, but what do you think about the authenticity of the letter itself?

Naturally, the fact that two mss exist with one (ms. A) not having certain text (e.g., the prayer to God ch 58-63 of ms. I), suggests that it had undergone editorial changes as it was copied, so was not on the level of a sacred writing.

Reading the newer translation (I'm sure newer ones exist as well, but under copyright) I cannot tell off the bat what exactly the purpose was. It claims to be a letter asking for the factions contending with one another at Corinth to reconcile and reinstate the original episcopal succession, but it also comes across as a little "preachy" as if it's actual function was as an apology for episcopal succession.

The differing order of the lists of episcopal succession at Rome suggests that their own succession history was, perhaps, not as clean and trouble free as later affirmed. The Roman church(es) later managed to reconcile *all* of the early episcopal leaders to the church order as practiced in the time of reconciliation, so the letter's peachiness may thus represent the newer POV in which episcopal succession and what functions should be submissive to others was finally established.

Was there, though, an original letter from one Clement representing the church at Rome pleading that the church at Corinth stop standing divided? Was it then expanded into the long winded letter we have preserved in mss A & I?

My personal opinion is to date something showing this level of organization and doctrine later than earlier, so I have been accepting a date in or just after the times of emperor Domitian, although hesitantly, as things have always seemed more developed than I think would be likely by then.

I could modify this to be a possible date for the letter's core, but the way it is now seems to be even later, maybe mid 2nd century or even later. Now we are in the time of Irenaeus, who clearly knows of such a letter from a Clement in Rome to factions at Corinth in some form. He really does not have a lot to say. Then there is the letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (ca 150 CE?), in which he claims that factions have taken some of his letters of exhortation and modified them to present heretical ideas foreign to Dionysius' POV.

Them Corinthians ...

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:52 am(I'm avoiding any material known only from Eusebius or I would add more evidence)
Why would Eusebius himself not count as evidence for this particular line of inquiry? The claim was made that Clement was not attached to the letter until the latter part of the fourth century or later:
The earliest manuscript does not ascribe an author but instead entitles it "The Letter from the Romans to the Corinthians". This suggests the attachment of the Clement legend to this manuscript happened sometime between the late 4th century and the middle of the 5th century.
If Eusebius himself does not predate the late fourth century, when did he write?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Stuart »

Ben, Andrew,

Eusubius needs to be considered with extreme caution. EH might well be thought of as a bin that was used over and over to deposit material for generations, if not centuries after lived. Like Josephus, it was open to later pious pens to correct things of importance he overlooked, but which were common sense knowledge in the corrector's day.

One should be asking pertinent questions about elements of a pro-Rome leadership in the church. If there was a probable bias for the supposed autobiographer of Constantine, it would surely have been too place the control of the church in the east and under the authority of the Pontifex Maximus, that is of course the Roman Emperor for whom he was devoted.

The entire debate of Roman primacy is post-Nicene. And material alluding to Roman primacy should be considered with that knowledge.

The big thing I am trying to say, is that the field of New Testament studies needs to have a vigorous reexamination of the church fathers, applying all the same techniques and intense investigation upon the writings of the supposed (that is named) persons that is brought to bear on the Pauline epistles and to a lesser extent the Gospels. I am very sure the same concepts and models, such as an authentic core, the infusion of legend and pseudo biographical materials and anachronistic settings that we find in Paul and the Gospels apply to much of the Church Father writings, especially the supposed pre-Nicene material. (Of course there will be great resistance to any serious examination, as many a scholar, even radical, have much of their life's work tied up in weighing heavily Patristic source.)

As far as this dating of when the Clement name got attached to the two "epistles" (really tracts), I think manuscript evidence is much stronger than Patristic, especially as the latter has not undergone sufficient rigorous criticism to be considered well vetted.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:34 amI think manuscript evidence is much stronger than Patristic....
The problem with manuscript evidence is that it is of precisely zero worth in establishing the earliest date for a text.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Stuart »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:55 am
The problem with manuscript evidence is that it is of precisely zero worth in establishing the earliest date for a text.
In this case we do have a window, where the title changed sometime between the middle of the 4th century and the 7th century. Unless one is claiming the earliest manuscript is highly aberrant.

This brings us to the question of reliability of the non-textual witness, i.e., the Patristic writings. Clearly they cannot be given as much weight without a thorough vetting of the entire writing -- something which is all too conveniently bypassed entirely by most scholars and others in the field (hey, the textbook or the website says he wrote in such and such a date, no further info except some notes that it's based on autobiographical material within the text -- 'God knows that can't possibly be lend added by a volume publisher to give background, it has to be 100% honest truth' mindset works for me!)

But this does point out how much of a black hole we are looking into when we try to push dates back centuries before the manuscripts. We have to consider all the hands which may have or in fact did edit or correct the text in the interim. The longer the time gap we propose the greater the opportunity. And this is biggest hole in all of NT scholarship, and needs to be addressed by a broad effort, rather than the eclectic vision of the odd scholar who notices something fishy with this or that text.

Note: on Eusubius, I am of the opinion it may well have an authentic core. Whether that core is from Eusubius himself or some compiler after Julian the Apostate (more likely probability), it never the less found itself a depository for all sundry legends and supposed texts. It is easy to see this in the Epistle entitled Polycary to the Philippians 7.1, where the famous "first-born of Satan" statement is made about heretics that say that Jesus was not of the flesh, and that there is no resurrection nor a judgement (well these last two requirements rule out Marcion and all three rule out Apelles as they both taught a spiritual resurrection, unless Polycarp means a bodily resurrection along the lines which Matthew supports), was transformed into an apocryphal story off a meeting with Marcion at a Roman bath where he hurls the same insult. Clearly it's a catchy phrase that went from literature to story/legend which then completed the loop in which Irenaeus supposedly reports, only recorded in Eusubius. If we broke down all the problems with this story (first of all Irenaeus is quoting as looking back at a person who is quoting books not written until after his death --yet another indication something is seriously amiss with Irenaeus-- and second the epistle from which the legend was drawn is very like after Eusubius' own death, yet the story relayed in EH --so obviously it's got to be 100% true!), we would have to come to the conclusion that very likely at least part of EH was written by Eusubius postmortem. Not even the Marcionites gave Jesus that power, as they said the material in the Gospel after Christ's death was written by Paul (per DA 1.8, similar to traditional Jewish accounts of Joshua completing Moses' book). To scholars Eusubius is greater than Moses and Christ it seems.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:18 am
Andrew,

The Church Fathers are far less reliable than any other sources. I have looked at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Justin and found them all to have problems with significant amounts of later or interpolated material. I suspect the same is true with Clement1, but I admit I have not yet attempted to tackle or list his issues of question - what I do know is he has an approach and focus on issues that do not fit the 2nd century, but fit a much later era ...
.
.
I will note Clement's commentary2. But I am not ready to accept it as either from whom it is claimed, as it could well have come from a later editor who produced the collection in the middle ages (e.g., Xiphilinus hand in Dio's work).
.
1, 2 Hi Stuart. Which Clement/s are you referring to in these comments?
  • C. of Alexandria (aka Titus Flavius Clemens, ~150-215 AD/CE)?
  • or 'C. of Rome', (aka St or Pope Clement of Rome, listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, d. 99 AD/CE?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by MrMacSon »

I wonder about the significance of the mention of [a] Clement in the Shepherd of Hermas at the end of Vision 2 -

4[8]:1 Now, brethren, a revelation was made unto me in my sleep by a youth of exceeding fair form, who said to me, "Whom thinkest thou the aged woman, from whom thou receivedst the book, to be?" I say, "The Sibyl" "Thou art wrong," saith he, "she is not." "Who then is she?" I say. "The Church," saith he. I said unto him, "Wherefore then is she aged?" "Because," saith he, "she was created before all things; therefore is she aged; and for her sake the world was framed."

4[8]:2 And afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The aged woman came, and asked me, if I had already given the book to the elders. I said that I had not given it. "Thou hast done well," she said, "for I have words to add. When then I shall have finished all the words, it shall be made known by thy means to all the elect.

4[8]:3 Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html [likewise http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02011.htm]
Clement of ? (Rome?)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:40 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:55 am
The problem with manuscript evidence is that it is of precisely zero worth in establishing the earliest date for a text.
In this case we do have a window, where the title changed sometime between the middle of the 4th century and the 7th century. Unless one is claiming the earliest manuscript is highly aberrant.
No need for the earliest title to be aberrant. The epistle itself bears nothing attributing it to Clement, and the title appropriately referenced the church at Rome and the church at Corinth.

Absolutely nothing of which I am aware, however, compels the view that the title was changed to reflect a legendary attachment of the epistle to Clement at the same time that the legend originally sprouted. That would be a reckless assumption. Old titles are allowed to persist.
This brings us to the question of reliability of the non-textual witness, i.e., the Patristic writings. Clearly they cannot be given as much weight without a thorough vetting of the entire writing -- something which is all too conveniently bypassed entirely by most scholars and others in the field (hey, the textbook or the website says he wrote in such and such a date, no further info except some notes that it's based on autobiographical material within the text -- 'God knows that can't possibly be lend added by a volume publisher to give background, it has to be 100% honest truth' mindset works for me!)
I am in favor of vetting all of those authors, and have been waiting for you to present some information on this kind of topic. I myself have argued for specific interpolations in the extant texts of Paul, the gospels, Eusebius, and others. You seem like you have specific reasons for dating parts of Irenaeus, for example, to much later than the end of century II, and now you are speaking similarly of Eusebius, so I am eager to review the arguments.

Yes, I tend to use the standard dates for a lot of those fathers concerning whom I bear no special expertise, but I am willing to be persuaded.

Your partial arguments to the effect that this or that patristic concern must date to century IV or later (or whatnot) have so far left me unpersuaded, simply because they are not yet complete. I need to know why a focus on Roman primacy, for example, must date to after Nicaea and not to century III or earlier. Why can the Roman church not have been throwing its weight around earlier? (This is just one example.)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by Stuart »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:06 pm
Stuart wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:18 am
Andrew,

The Church Fathers are far less reliable than any other sources. I have looked at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Justin and found them all to have problems with significant amounts of later or interpolated material. I suspect the same is true with Clement1, but I admit I have not yet attempted to tackle or list his issues of question - what I do know is he has an approach and focus on issues that do not fit the 2nd century, but fit a much later era ...
.
.
I will note Clement's commentary2. But I am not ready to accept it as either from whom it is claimed, as it could well have come from a later editor who produced the collection in the middle ages (e.g., Xiphilinus hand in Dio's work).
.
1, 2 Hi Stuart. Which Clement/s are you referring to in these comments?
  • C. of Alexandria (aka Titus Flavius Clemens, ~150-215 AD/CE)?
  • or 'C. of Rome', (aka St or Pope Clement of Rome, listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, d. 99 AD/CE?
LOL, probably all of those you mention.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees here. This issue is ALL the church father material is taken at face value and assumed to have been written in the dates and places of the text books by the names we assign them. But this is a scandal. The Sitz im Leben of many elements do not come close to fitting the eras.

I am also saying quit looking (a) at the website dates or textbook dates (from which they came) as if they are anything more than a WAG derived from accepting the pseudo autobiographical material as being true (it's the way people used to look at Dio or Historia Augusta before scholars not in the religious studies department tore them apart), and (b) quit looking for some "expert" (eclectic researcher like say myself) to do the work for you.

Ask yourself questions that need to be asked. I would start with understanding the biggest mystery of all. How did Christianity fly under the radar until the middle of the 3rd century, leaving no record, and yet according to the church father be large and thriving with Rome as it's center a full century earlier, complete with Popes of great stature who excommunicate all the great Heretics, who somehow run around the empire without consequence? Something is seriously wrong with the picture on so many levels. And yet you just accept it. We could say the same thing about Persecution and Martyrdom stories, or about how Irenaeus, Justin and Clement of Alexandria supposedly wrote in the middle of a terrible plague that brought the empire to it's knees, yet they say nothing in their autobiographical material. It was a trivial thing that one in three people died in cities like Rome, Athens and Alexandria, nah even Lyon. Something is seriously wrong with the picture.

I am saying NT scholarship is being lazy in not deconstructing the church father texts. I am not going to get in an argument about this or that specific passage, when entire works need to be reexamined. Sitz im Leben.

The textbook dates are as valid as the reports of George Washington's encounters with the cheery tree.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The closing chapters of 1 Clement

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:33 pm LOL, probably all of those you mention.
Sure. I wonder if many biblical characters have been duplicated or multiplied, like the loaves and fishes (like the two separate NT stories of 'feeding the multitudes' of 5,000 and 4,000, respectively, have also probably been multiplied ie. duplicated).

I wonder if that has happened with the Clements ie. there was only one, at some point..

Stuart wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:33 pm How did Christianity fly under the radar until the middle of the 3rd century, leaving no record, and yet according to the church father[s] be large and thriving with Rome as it's center a full century earlier, complete with Popes of great stature who excommunicate all the great Heretics, who somehow run around the empire without consequence? Something is seriously wrong with the picture on so many levels. And yet you just accept it.
I certainly don't accept it. I'm as sceptical as you.
Stuart wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:33 pm We could say the same thing about Persecution and Martyrdom stories, or about how Irenaeus, Justin and Clement of Alexandria supposedly wrote in the middle of a terrible plague that brought the empire to it's knees, yet they say nothing in their autobiographical material. It was a trivial thing that one in three people died in cities like Rome, Athens and Alexandria, nah even Lyon. Something is seriously wrong with the picture.

I am saying NT scholarship is being lazy in not deconstructing the church father texts. ... entire works need to be reexamined. Sitz im Leben.
Post Reply