MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:12 pm
Regarding 1 Clement (and its authenticity), Peter Kirby has noted Hermann Detering expounded seven arguments, -
First, “Can a document consisting of some 32-35 papyrus pages be accepted without further ado as a writing that was sent from Rome to Corinth with the intention of actual correspondence? …With the passing of one or two months, the situation which the writer presupposes in his writing could be entirely different, and his writing hopelessly out of date.”
Second, “If the party conflict in Corinth and the replacement of the presbyters with younger members of the church was in fact the real incentive for the letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, it is furthermore completely impossible to understand why the writer only comes to speak of this in chapter 44 (!) and in the first two-thirds of the writing exhausts the patience of the Corinthians with discussions of the resurrection, the omniscience and omnipresence of God, and such things, which although edifying, have no importance for the matter at hand.”
Third, “In addition, there is the consideration that the entire controversy addressed by the writer of 1 Clement remains strangely unclear and vague and that the information about it is very contradictory, as even supporters of its authenticity today must concede: He [Clement] emphasizes that the uproar can be traced to a few rash and self-willed persons (1.1; in 47.6 it is only one or two persons), but then accuses the entire congregation (46.9 = your uproar). As motives he identifies jealousy; envy and contentiousness; lack of love, humility and discernment. But he does not identify the actual background of the Corinthian conflict (!), just as little as he identifies the actual motives for the certainly uninvited intervention by Rome in the inner affairs of the Corinthian church (!). Without doubt, these are closely related, but there is nothing else to learn about either.”
Fourth, “If one begins with the presumption that we have to do here with a real letter, all the peculiarities cited here should give one cause for thought! Finally, the conflict as such lacks any inner probability: how can the Corinthian church, founded so long ago, rise up against their presbyters on account of only a few ringleaders? The attempt at mediation that the writer undertakes (from Rome!), in which he onesidedly condemns the troublemakers in Corinth, as if they acted from base motives, is also entirely unrealistic and shows the fictional character of the whole thing.”
Fifth, “The tensions and obscurities revealed here are due to the contradiction between the situation presupposed in the writing and the author’s real intention. The real intention of the author, of course, is not the resolution of an actual conflict in a diplomatic way, but something quite different: his writing, that is directed not to one church, and also not to the church in Corinth, but to all the churches in the Catholic universe, is intended not to mediate, but to instruct and here a typical Catholic tendency of the letter becomes visible to warn against uprisings and disorder in the churches! The writings leads us into a time, most probably the middle of the second century, in which the distinction between priests and laity (40.5: there are much different rules for laity than for ecclesiastical officer-holders) already announces the Roman clericalism. Over against all inclinations to opposition, the authority of the church is enjoined in an impressive example…”
Sixth, “Once one has recognized the writer’s real intention, it will no longer seem strange if there are other peculiarities as well that would look odd in a real letter. Who would expect, for example, in real letter, which moreover is written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, to find the exhortation (34.7), Let us therefore come together in the same place with harmony of conscience and earnestly call upon the Lord as from one mouth, that we may share in his great and glorious promises? In view of the geographical distance between Rome and Corinth, one can only wonder how the writer imagined the common visit of a holy place…”
Seventh, “In other places, the author succeeds very well in imagining himself in the role of a letter writer: for example, in the introduction to the letter, where it reads: ‘On account of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities that have befallen us, we have been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable and unholy sedition, so inappropriate for the elect of God.’ In these lines, many people have wanted to see a reference to an actual situation of persecution (under Nero or Domitian). As the Dutch theologian Van den Bergh van Eysinga already recognized, however, what we have here is only a conventional apology, which the author of 1 Clement readily employs to give his writing the appearance of an authentic letter. According to the operative Roman law, persecutions did not usually arrive overnight.”
http://peterkirby.com/dialogue-concerni ... stems.html
