Was Clement's interest in Corinth sincere, or was he just building a new empire??"The Church of God which sojourneth at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourneth at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you from Almighty God through Jesus Christ." - 1 Clem. 1:1
Intro
This letter is commonly attributed to Clement (c.35 – 99 AD), although he is not named as author within the text itself. Clement was one of the earliest bishops of Rome, fourth in line from Peter. This attributed work probably dates from the First Century, and according to some people at least, is older than some of the New Testament canon we use today. It was an early favourite among Christians, and depending on your POV either shows the decay or the consolidation of the early church.
As a gentile, and a Roman, Clement represents a new breed of Christian. One with no ancestral attachment to Jewish traditions but also under the influence of Rome and Greece.
This letter shows some similarities to Pauline thinking. There is also another aspect of interest – this is one of the second generation works of church literature. Clement was born after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, but appears to have known people who met Jesus in the flesh. It is claimed that Clement met both Luke, and Paul.
Name
Most of the names are variations on the same theme although there some doubt Clement himself wrote this letter, see below:
* 1 Clement, I Clement, First Clement etc
* First Epistle of Clement, First Letter of Clement
* Clement to Corinthians (Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους), First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
* I Clemens etc (the Latin title)
I use the abbreviation "1 Clem." here.
Audiobook
1 hour 22 minutes Approximately
There is some distortion in this recording but I find this reader more pleasant to listen to than some of the alternatives.
Canonicity
The book has no canonicity among modern churches, but was included in some ancient canons. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), one of the earliest near-complete Bibles contains most of the LDS canonical works, plus all four books of Maccabees, Psalm 151 & the Book of Odes (still accepted by the Orthodox church), the Epistle to Marcellinus, 1 & 2 Clement, and the Psalms of Solomon. (For 2 Clement, check the link "farm" in replies.)
Eusebius noted in his History of the Church (III 16)
This may represent a western viewpoint, although we know Clement himself was exiled to the Crimea, an area currently disputed between Russia and the Ukraine... so it is possible Clement's teachings had some circulation in the Black Sea region. They certainly did in the eastern Empire as translations into Syriac and Coptic have been found."There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day."
The Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) mentions 1 Clement as part of the Christian canon. This may suggest it was still in use somewhere in the Christian communities conquered by the Muslims, such as Egypt, the Levant or even Spain.
Wikipedia
Some scholars have doubted whether Clement wrote this letter or not, but the consensus is that he did. 2 Clement is written in a different style from 1 Clement and is far more contested. See link below for details.The work is attributed to Clement I, the Bishop of Rome. In Corinth, the letter was read aloud from time to time. This practice spread to other churches, and Christians translated the Greek work into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. Some early Christians even treated the work like scripture. The work was lost for centuries, but since the 1600s various copies or fragments have been found and studied. It has provided valuable evidence about the structure of the early church.
Likewise, most people date this work from the 1st Century, but a few have dated it to the 2nd. Welborn in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol. 1, p. 1060) makes a case for a 1st Century origin:
Later he says:The epistle is customarily dated to the end of the reign of [Emperor] Domitian (95 or 96...). In the first sentence of the letter, the author explains that the Roman church has been delayed in turning its attention to the dispute at Corinth by "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1). This statement is usually interpreted as an allusion to a persecution through which the church at Rome has just been passing. Since chap. 5 speaks of the Neronian persecution as something long past, the sporadic assaults of Domitian must be meant.
Despite its early date, 1 Clement is normally assigned to the writings of the Early Church Fathers now, aka Patristic literature. Its doctrine does not seem heretical, but I would advise exercising discernment and prayer as with all the other apocryphal/extracanonical works I've discussed recently. The main issue here is its link to the papacy.... The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.
For convenience's sake, I refer to Clement as the writer of this letter from now on.
Summary
- St-Clement-of-Rome.jpg (62.45 KiB) Viewed 121 times
The Handbook of Patrology divides the letter into the following sections:O foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree. Take, for example, the vine: first it sheddeth its leaves, then cometh the bud, then the leaf, then the flower, after that the unripe grape, then the ripe grape. See how in a little time the fruit of the tree attaineth to maturity. Of a truth, quickly and suddenly shall his will be fulfilled; the scripture also bearing witness that he shall come quickly, and shall not tarry; and the Lord shall come suddenly into his temple, even the holy one, whom ye expect. - 1 Clem. 23:4-5
* "The first is general (iv-xxxviii [chapters 4-38]) and contains a series of exhortations to the practice of charity, penance, obedience, humility, faith, etc., calculated to insure a spirit of concord among the faithful."
** "The train of thought is interrupted (xxiii-xxx) [chapters 22-30].by a lengthy parenthesis on the certainty of the future resurrection."
* "The second part (xxxix-lix) [chapters 39-59] deals more directly with the troubles at Corinth"
** "Then follows a long prayer (lix, -3 lxi), in which praises to God and supplications for the Christians and for the authorities succeed one another. The letter concludes with fresh exhortations to unity and with spiritual good wishes (Ixii-lxv) [chapters 62-65]."
As I've just said, Clement appears to have been written by a bishop of Rome, although his name does not appear in the text. Still, whether or not Clement wrote this letter, it describes someone from Rome intervening in a dispute in Corinth, and as such could be seen as an early example of the Roman church flexing its muscles over the rest of Christendom. On the other hand, the early papacy was completely different from what we see in Rome today, was an underground church (often literally) and persecuted by the state. Even though Corinth was a major church in Christendom, there is no evidence from the letter that it had a bishop in the modern Roman Catholic sense. Clement recommends a better organised hierarchy and we know from later records that not only did Corinth obtain a bishop but that the epistle was being read in the church at Corinth decades later according to Irenaeus.
The internal evidence of the letter points to a very early date which means that it dates to this period.
Corinth was a major early church. The city was on a narrow isthmus, with harbours connecting the eastern and western coasts of Greece, so was very important in terms of trade within the region and the Roman Empire. It was a rich city and some of its church members may have been similarly wealthy. Two books of the NT canon are addressed to the Corinthians by Paul.
Like many of Paul's letters, 1 Clement is concerned with church discipline and organisation. There had been a major dispute within the Corinthian church, although it is not entirely clear what it was. There are several candidates:
* Panic at persecution by the government, probably the Emperor Domitian's.
* There was a generational gap, with old guard and younger members disagreeing in direction.
* There was a class gap, i.e. some of the poorer members resented richer members of the church taking over or vice versa. Some interpreters think that richer members had tried to buy church positions through large donations. This is against Jesus' doctrine of course, but a pattern repeated into the present day.
* An East-West dispute. This is not stated in the
text, as it is written by a Roman, but even then some may have resented Roman influences on their church. The Greek churches were clearly among the oldest and best established, outranked only by those in and around modern-day Israel & Palestine.
* It may also just have been a personal dispute. As we all know, these are all too common, and rarely have anything to do with actual theology.
Clement rebukes the congregation for its jealousy and internal disputes. He frequently refers back to the Old Testament and likens the situation to various Biblical figures including Cain and Esau. He does not quote any of the canonical New Testament directly, including the Four Gospels, but he does quote some sayings of Jesus. That in itself is worthy of further examination. He does however refer to 1 & 2 Corinthians and other Pauline letters.
1 Clem. 58 is sometimes taken as Trinitarian. While it refers to the Godhead, I do not consider it to be so clearly Trinitarian. Here is the relevant quotation from 1 Clem 58:2:
The Handbook of Patrology concludes:Accept this our advice, and it will not be repented of by you. For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ, through whom is there to him glory, world without end. Amen
Gospel of Thomas vs 1 CorinthiansThe letter is worthy of [high] esteem because of the happy blending of firmness and kindness which characterizes it, and the shrewdness of observation, delicacy of touch and lofty sentiments which the author manifests throughout. The great prayer at the conclusion has a majestic swing. Unfortunately, the abuse of Old Testament quotations, especially in the first part, often interferes with the development of the author's thought and prevents it from attaining its highest flight.
Is 1 Clement quoting Paul here quoting Jesus or is it quoting from the Gospel of Thomas? This saying does not appear in the Four Gospels.
1 Clem 34:8 "for he saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, neither hath there entered into the heart of man, what things he hath prepared for them that wait for him."
1 Corinthians 2:9
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
The PhoenixThe Gospel of Thomas verse 17
Jesus said, “I will give you what your eyes have not seen, what your ears have not heard, what your hands have not touched, what the human heart has not felt.”
- Phoenix-Fabelwesen.jpg (609.06 KiB) Viewed 121 times
"Let us consider the wonderful sign that happeneth in the region of the east, even about Arabia. There is a bird which is called the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years. And when the time of its death draweth near, it maketh for itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and the other perfumes, into which, when its time is fulfilled, it entereth, and then dieth. But as its flesh rotteth, a certain worm is produced, which being nourished by the moisture of the dead animal, putteth forth feathers. Then, when it hath become strong, it taketh the nest wherein are the bones of its ancestor, and bearing them, it flieth from the region of Arabia to that of Egypt, to the city which is called Heliopolis; there, in day-time, in the sight of all, it flieth up, and placeth them upon the altar of the sun, and having done so, returneth back. The priests, therefore, look into the registers of the times, and find that it has come at the completion of the five-hundredth year."
Note the difference here from other versions of the phoenix legend in which the bird is consumed by flame. (The Phoenix may be a solar metaphor.) The Phoenix was later used by Greek nationalists as a symbol of their resurgence from under Turkish rule.
Successor Generation Christianity
While we in the LDS movement have been taught apostasy started early on, as various apostles etc were murdered, some of the early church members lived a surprisingly long time. There is evidence that some people who knew Jesus during his mortal mission lived way past the 30s AD, and lasted into the 70s, 80s & even 90s – most of these would have been slightly younger than Jesus, maybe ten or even fifteen years younger than him so in their teens or twenties when they encountered him. If we took someone who was twelve in 33AD (and old enough to remember Jesus), and another who was twenty, then they would be 62 and 70 years old respectively in 83 AD, 72 & 80 years old in 93 AD and (this is pushing it!), 82 & 90 years old in 103 AD.
The second generation, i.e. those who had met people who had met Jesus, also lasted for a considerable time. Clement was born around 35 AD, which is after Jesus, but still well within the envelope of meeting individuals of the first generation. We know some other second generation individuals lasted into the 120s AD. One such person, Polycarp of Smyrna even lived until 155 AD, when he was martyred in his eighties! That is well past any of the dates given for the composition of 1 Clement. Polycarp had met John the Revelator, as had Papias of Hierapolis who lived until around 130 AD. Does this make these men reliable? Yes and no, since we know some of Jesus' contemporaries themselves had to be rebuked by him, but it does prove that such close connections existed over a century after his death.
We assume now that people in ancient times did not live a long time, but the average age of death was brought down by high infant mortality and wars. While fewer people reached great ages as they do today, some certainly did. One of the criticisms of New Testament literature is that it was supposedly written decades after the events, yet eyewitnesses and acquaintances of eyewitnesses clearly lasted much much longer.
(In more recent times, by way of comparison, veterans of the US Civil War lived into the 1950s, and a handful of former US slaves lived into the 1960s and 70s. Since there are people still around who may have met those individuals, we are only two or three generations of temembrance away from those events. I would have met people born in the nineteenth century as a small children and certainly WW1 veterans.)
Like I say, this doesn't make 1 Clement doctrinally reliable in itself, but it does mean that it was not written in a time as remote from that of Jesus as some might think.
