Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Saint Clement I of Rome may need mini re-dating


St. Clement 

by

 Damien F. Mackey


 

“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