by
“It is quite remarkable that he cites
names of those involved in the Neronian persecution that allegedly occurred about
thirty years previous to his own day, but that he is strangely silent about the
names of those who died in the Domitianic persecution – even though they are
supposed to have been prominent members of his own congregation!”
Kenneth L. Gentry
A typical introduction to Saint Clement of
Rome reads like this:
“Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης; died 99), also known as Saint
Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian
as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic
Father of the Church.[3]
Few details are known about Clement's life.
Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint
Peter,[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in
the late 1st century. Early church lists
place him as the second or third[2][4] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis states that Clement died
in Greece in
the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD”.
For
more on emperor Trajan, see my:
Vespasian and Trajan. Part One: Re-setting the Roman
Empire
Now, there are some highly competent
biblical scholars-theologians (e.g., Arthur S. Barnes, George Edmundson, John
A. T. Robinson) who would concur in suggesting
that Clement of Rome needs to be dated.
The best argument for this,
though, I find in Kenneth L. Gentry’s:
BEFORE
JERUSALEM FELL
(beginning on p. 176):
….
Objections
to the Thesis
Despite the
above observations, it is frequently argued by many that the Revelation 11
indication of the Temple’s existence does not demand a pre-A.D. 70 date. And
this for several reasons.
The Objection
from Clement of Rome
Both Guthrie and
Mounce … for example, argue that Clement of Rome spoke of the Temple as still
standing, even though he wrote around A.D. 90+. Clement’s relevant statement is
as follows: “Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining
a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but
acting with all seemliness. Not in every place, brethren, are the continual
daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and
the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is
not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the alta.q
and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that
the victim to be offered bath been inspected for blemishes.” ….
This language in
1 Clement, however, opens the whole question of the actual date of 1 Clement
itself. Unfortunately, there is almost as serious a question over the dating of
Clement’s letter as there is over the dating of Revelation. …. Coxe, who
himself opts for an A.D. 97 date for the letter, is quite cautious: “I have
reluctantly adopted the opinion that his Epistle was written near the close of
his life, and not just after the persecution of Nero.” …. Though Lightfoot
accepts the late date of 1 Clement, he recognizes some unusual factors of the letter
(which we will consider below) that are quite curious if the letter is to be dated
late. …. Three noteworthy scholars who have opted for an early (A.D. 70) date
for Clement are: historians Arthur S. Barnes … and George Edmundson, … and
theologian John A. T. Robinson. …. Robinson observes in this regard: “Yet in
fact its [late date] basis is a great deal weaker than it appears and the case
against it has been powerfully stated by Edmundson, whose book seems to have
been ignored at this point as at others. . . . The sole question is whether he
wrote it when he was bishop or at an earlier stage. Edmundson argues strongly
that the evidence points to the latter alternative”. ….
Let us now look
at the leading early date evidences for 1 Clement.
If the evidence
is compelling, then Clement would be removed as an obstacle to regarding the
Temple reference in Revelation as indicating a pre-A.D. 70 date. If it is less
than persuasive, however, yet the argument will have served a purpose in at
least diminishing the effectiveness of the reference to 1 Clement 41 as a tool
for undermining the establishment of the above Temple argument in Revelation.
The first line
of evidence regards an ex silentio
matter. If the letter were written after A.D. 90 – when Clement was
appointed the bishop of Rome – then an unusual ecclesiastical silence in the
letter must be accounted for.
….
Robinson is
persuaded by the silence: “At no point in the epistle is appeal made to
episcopal authority. . . . Not only is the author not writing as a bishop, but
the office of bishop is still apparently synonymous with that of presbyter
(42.4f; 44.1, 4f.; 54.2; 57.1), as in the New Testament and all the other
writings we have examined. . . . If this is really the state of affairs in Rome
in 96, then we are faced with a very remarkable transition within less than 20
years to that presupposed by the epistles of Ignatius. . . . It is easier to
believe that 1 Clement, like the Shepherd of Hermas, reflects an earlier period.”
…. The point is well-taken. The evidence, such as it is, is more suggestive of
a pre-bishopric era than for a later era.
Second, it would
seem that in Clement’s letter the internal evidence is suggestive of a more
primitive Christian era.
In the organisation of the Church
only ‘bishops and deacons’ are mentioned, exactly as they are in St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Philippians, while the title ‘bishop’ is to the same extent
interchangeable with that of ‘presbyter’ as it is in the Acts and Pauline
epistles, and the word ‘rulers’ has the same sense as in the Epistle to the Hebrews…..
We can also note
reference to Christ as the “child of God,” the primitive form of Scripture
quotations, the reference to the phoenix (which had been exhibited in Rome
under Claudius), and other such matters, all of which lend themselves to the
earlier period more readily. …. Barnes added to these the reference to one
Fortunatus (a friend of Paul in 54, cf. 1 Cor. 16:17), the selection of Claudis and Valerius (who were of the household of Claudius the Emperor, according
to Lightfoot) as messengers, and
other such indications. ….
Third, in 1
Clement 5:1 we read: “But to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us
come to those champions who lived nearest our times. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealously and envy
the greatest and most righteous pillars of the church were persecuted, and
contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.” Clement
thereupon mentions the deaths of Peter and Paul, which indisputably indicates
that he is referring to the Neronic persecution.
The fact that he
mentions the deaths of “the good Apostles” in “our generation” suggests a very
recent occurrence that is quite compatible with a date around A.D. 69 or 70.
And although possible, the “generation” would be on the outside reach of a date
of A.D. 96 (which would be close to thirty years after the events).
Furthermore, it
is more than a little interesting that Clement names a few of those who died in
the Neronian persecution. In 1 Clement 5 he names Peter and Paul, but also in 1
Clement 6 we read of the names of a couple of other martyrs now virtually
unknown, Danaids and Dircae. It is quite remarkable that he cites names of those
involved in the Neronian persecution that allegedly occurred about thirty years
previous to his own day, but that he is strangely silent about the names of
those who died in the Domitianic persecution – even though they are supposed to
have been prominent members of his own congregation!
In both sections
five and six Clement devotes many sentences to explication of these Neronian
woes. But it is quite curious, on the supposition of a Domitianic date, that in
1 Clement 1 he uses only ten words (in the Greek) to refer to the Domitianic
persecution, the persecution through which he and many of his friends were
allegedly going. That reference reads: “by reason of the sudden and successive troubles
and calamities which have befallen us.” If the letter were written sometime
approaching or in early A.D. 70, however, then the
first, fifth,
and sixth sections would all speak of the Neronian persecution. ….
….
Finally, there
is the very Temple reference in question in 1 Clement 41 (cited above). It may
be that an “ideal present” is intended by Clement; but all things considered,
the reference to the Temple services as if they were still being conducted is
best construed as demanding a pre-August, A.D. 70 dating. Edmundson insists
that “it is difficult to see how the evidential value of c. xii. can be
explained away”. ….
It would seem
that, at the very least, reference to the statement in 1 Clement 41 cannot
discount the possibility of our approach to Revelation 11, in that the date of
1 Clement is in question. And as is probably the case, Clement did write his
epistle prior to the Temple’s destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment