Clement of Rome is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church, or more properly speaking, the first major figure in Christian history after the time of the apostles themselves. No one is sure about when he was born, but it is believed he was born around AD 35 in Rome and eventually became the leader (Bishop) of the Church in Rome in AD 88 until his death in AD 99. Depending on the source, he was either the third or fourth bishop of Rome, after Peter (d. AD 64), Linus (d. AD 76), and Anacletus (d. AD 88).
A Historic Life
When you think about it, this means the Clement’s life spanned the entirety of the life of the first century Church. He was born in Rome right around the time that Paul had his Damascus Road experience. He was 15 years old when the Jerusalem Council happened and when Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome because they were having arguments among themselves over a man name “Chrestus,” whom many scholars believe is a reference to Christ, meaning that there was quite the conflict within the Jewish community in Rome around AD 50 concerning Jesus. Also, it is interesting to consider the fact that when Paul wrote his letter to the Roman church (around AD 55), that Clement was a 20-year-old young man in that community. He was around 30 years old when the great fire in Rome happened and when Nero scapegoated the Christians in Rome, accusing them of being the culprits an unleashing the first official imperial persecution in Christians, albeit that persecution was largely confined to Rome itself. For all we know, he could have visited both Peter and Paul in prison before they were executed. He was 35 years old when Titus’ Roman legions put down the Jewish Revolt and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, and he very well could have been in the crowd to witness the Roman Triumph celebrating the crushing of the Jewish revolt in Rome the following year.
He became the Bishop of Rome in AD 88 and presided over the Church in Rome during the reign of Domitian, who unleashed the first empire-wide persecution of Christians. While the Apostle John was in exile on the island of Patmos, writing the Book of Revelation, Clement was in Rome, writing a letter to the Church in Corinth, about a conflict that was happening in that church at the time.
It is important to realize all that because it helps root Clement and his letter to the Corinthian Church (I Clement) in a clear historical context. Here we have a letter from the Christian leader in Rome, who probably knew Peter and Paul and who lived through all that stuff I just mentioned, to the Church in Corinth that Paul had established back in the early 50s. It is even possible that Clement is actually the one Paul mentions in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 4:3). After all, Paul was in prison in Rome in the early 60s when he wrote Philippians.
A New Reality for the Christian Church
It is also important to note that before the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70, during those first 30 years or so of Christianity, it was still considered to be somewhat part of, or connected to Judaism. After all, Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish. The Church was “born,” in Jerusalem, during Pentecost in AD 33. Of course, the odd thing was that this Jewish Messianic movement soon was going out to the Gentile world and welcoming Gentiles who professed Jesus as Lord into their communities. It is clear from the letters of Paul that there really was a “slow divorce” happening between Second Temple Judaism and this emerging Jesus movement during those first 30 years. It is also important to note that before the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70, during those first 30 years or so of Christianity, it was still considered to be somewhat part of, or connected to Judaism. After all, Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish. The Church was “born,” in Jerusalem, during Pentecost in AD 33. Of course, the odd thing was that this Jewish Messianic movement soon was going out to the Gentile world and welcoming Gentiles who professed Jesus as Lord into their communities.
After the end of the Jewish War, though, there was an entirely new reality, for both Judaism and Christianity. The Temple was destroyed, the Sadducees and Essenes were pretty much wiped out. The Zealot movement hung on until a second revolt in AD 132-135, but they were eventually destroyed as well. The only two sects that survived the destruction of the Temple was Pharisaic Judaism, which transformed into Rabbinic Judaism, from which Judaism over the next 2,000 grew, and Christianity, which, after the Jewish War, effectively became a completely different religion—and yes, it grew from there within the largely pagan culture of the Roman Empire.
And so, Clement of Rome was a Gentile Christian who grew up in Rome and who eventually presided over the Church in Rome. And the one letter we have of his (I Clement) was written to the Church in Corinth, another largely Gentile Christian community. So what is I Clement about? Let’s find out.
The Situation in Corinth in the Late First Century
If you ever get a copy of The Early Christian Writings, you’ll see that I Clement covers about 40 pages or so. And at times it can be challenging to read. Nevertheless, upon reading I Clement, it becomes clear what was going on in the Church in Corinth. Simply put, there were a few people—younger people—who had had it with the way the elders of the Church were running things, and so they somehow stage a successful “coup” of sorts, forced the elders to resign their positions as the leaders of the Corinthian Church, and took charge and assumed the leadership themselves. This resulted in a lot of confusion, division, hatred, and bitterness among the Christians in Corinth.
Go figure—Christians in a church quarreling with each other and causing division and resentment within the congregation! One of the things I’ve learned by reading the early Church Fathers is that I have to smile a little when I hear Christians today, complaining about current divisions and corruption within the Church sometimes, often say something like, “We’ve got to get back to what the early Church was like!” Well…we are! In any case, the way Clement addresses the divisions in Corinth are quite interesting and revealing—certainly a good lesson for us today.
A Summary of I Clement
For your reading pleasure, I’ve written my own truncated paraphrase of I Clement—I whittled the whole thing down to 5,300 words. As far as the gist of the whole thing is concerned, it really is straightforward. Clement is appealing to the Church in Corinth to repent of their internal jealousies and divisions, to dedicate themselves to the biblical examples of humility, grace, and faith—the predominant example being Christ himself—to turn back to holding on to the Holy Tradition and teaching that was passed down to them by the apostles themselves, and to re-instate the appointed leaders of the Church. They, after all, were the elders chosen in the direct line of apostolic succession, not the young hotheads who stirred up all the trouble.
Like I said, you can read my truncated paraphrase for yourself (you can access it at the end of this post) to get the full picture, but I want to spend the rest of this post, highlighting a number of things I think are telling and important.
The first interesting thing to note is that Clement begins his letter by saying he has been delayed in writing to the Church in Corinth because of “recent troubles” they had to deal with in Rome. This was the very time Domitian had unleashed his persecution on Christians, so it is a safe bet that the “troubles” Clement had to deal with was that persecution. I think having to deal with that situation probably spurred Clement to address the situation in Corinth. He realized that in the face of persecution, the Church had to stay unified and individual Christians had to put their own petty instincts aside (let’s face it, we all have them!) and make a concerted effort to extent grace and mercy to each other. A divided Church where Christians are at each other’s throats is a Church that will not withstand the harsh realities of the world.
The second thing to note is the importance Clement puts on apostolic succession. It is something still held to in the Orthodox and Catholic Church, but most Protestants probably have little or no idea what it is. Simply put, it means the leaders of any given church (particularly the bishop) was chosen to be the successor of the previous bishop, who was chosen by the previous bishop, all the way back to an actual apostle himself. For example, Clement was the Bishop of Rome, and before him was Anacletus, and before him was Linus, and before him was Peter. The choosing of a bishop in that direct line of apostolic succession was in order to preserve the original, apostolic teaching (or Tradition) that was passed down by Jesus himself. The bishops were the caretakers of that Tradition, and it was their responsibility to preserve and teach that Tradition to those in their churches.
Thus, as far as Clement was concerned, the young hotheads who forced the chosen elders out of their positions and who took over the leadership themselves were essentially saying they thought they knew the faith better than those leaders who had preserved the faith handed down to them from the apostles, indeed, Jesus himself. It was no wonder why divisions and chao sprang up in Corinth—they deviated from the Holy Tradition, which was all about harmony and order in Christ. When you abandon the teaching of Christ, you’re going to get division and chaos.
Third, the reality of actual persecution is mentioned in the letter, not just in the opening sentences, but later on as well, when Clement mentions that some Christians had forced to dress up as mythological pagan characters to be tortured and killed as a spectacle. We Christians in American can’t really begin to grasp that kind of thing, but I can’t help but think of what happened to the Christians in Iraq and Syria during the rise of ISIS, or the plight of Christians in the USSR or Communist China, or all around the world facing persecution even today.
Fourth, although I left the full quotes out in my truncated version, the actual letter of I Clement is saturated with quotes and references to Scripture. It reflects just how vital the Scriptures were to the early Christian communities. The Scriptures saturated their understanding and outlook. And to be clear, it was just the Old Testament. Even there in AD 95, long before any “official canon” of the New Testament was set down, we see Clement quoting the letters of Paul and parts of the Gospels as well. From the very beginning, what we have in our New Testaments today were considered inspired and authoritative for the Christians of the early Church.
Finally, a lot more can be said about so much of what Clement says in his letter, but what should come across more than ever is the absolute focus on Church unity, and how devastating and harmful division and jealousy is to the Church. Christian unity was of primary importance to Clement, just like it was to the Apostle Paul, and just like it was with so many other Church Fathers. I think that is something any Christian will be convicted about upon reading I Clement. Now, it is also true that dealing with division and pettiness within the Church has always been a reality—we are human, and that’s what we sometimes do! But still, it struck me how much those practical concerns of working for unity, putting your selfish wants aside for the good and harmony of others, striving for order in the Church—all of that—took center stage in Clement’s letter, and not so much articulating all the finer points of theology and intellectual learning that, let’s face it, can easily become the source of a lot of division and hostility!
In a way, it goes back to what the Apostle Paul said in his own letter to the Church in Corinth, in I Corinthians 13. You can have all the learning, all the spiritual gifts possible, but if you are not acting out of love for others, if you’re not in the business of extending grace and mercy to others on a constant basis, then the forces of division are going to do a lot of damage, both to you personally, and to the Church as a whole.
One last thought. Given that, I think it would be wrong to say we have to fight against division and jealousy in the Church—that’s actually oxymoronic, when you think about it. Instead, as Clement says, it is a matter of just turning away from it and turning once again to Christ, our High Priest, asking him to forgive us and show us mercy, so that we can be empowered to forgive and show mercy to others. Next up…I’ll discuss Ignatius of Antioch.
Very interesting. I tried to click on the link above tor your truncated version of I Clement but it doesn’t open. Is it just me?
Does Clement ever mentioning meeting or knowing Paul or Peter in his letter?
“Clement was the Bishop of Rome, and before him was Anacletus, and before him was Linus, and before him was Peter.”
Is it scholarly consensus that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or just Church tradition?
I put the truncated version at the bottom of the post. For some reason it overlaps a few things on the bottom of the post, but you should still be able to scroll and read it there.
I don’t think he comes right out and says, “I knew Paul/Peter,” but Paul does refer to Clement in his letter to the Philippians. And since that is dated to around AD 62, and Clement would have been part of the Christian community in Rome at that time (he’d be about 27), it is very probably that the “Clement” in Philippians is this Clement.
My PhD isn’t in Church History, but everything I’ve read acknowledges that Peter ended up in Rome and was considered to be the first bishop. No one knows when he actually ended up in Rome, but probably either the late 50s or early 60s. And given the fact that Paul’s letter to the Romans is dated to around AD 55, and that there didn’t seem to be one actual, unified community at that time (but rather Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians not having much to do with each other), it would seem that Peter arrived after that, and it was then (late 50s-early 60s) that there was more of a unified Church community in Rome, with Peter leading it. There would have been “leaders” in those early communities for those first two decades, but not a single bishop.
Scholars do acknowledge that the Church in Rome wasn’t started by an actual apostle, and that it started when some Jews from Rome who had been in Jerusalem for the Pentecost of Acts 2 had joined the “Jesus movement” and took it back to Rome with them.
I did a quick online search on the topic of whether or not any of the early Church Fathers had met Paul or one of the Twelve. It seems this issue is highly disputed. There is no scholarly consensus. I find that disturbing. How can we be certain today that the Early Church Fathers were teaching the doctrines of Jesus and not simply the doctrines of Paul, a man who never claims to have met Jesus before the latter’s death and who seemed to often be in conflict with the Twelve in Jerusalem? And if none of the Early Church Fathers ever met Paul, they never had the opportunity to question him about his teachings and how they compared to the teachings of the Twelve (and Jesus).
So…Jesus never left any writings. None of the Twelve left any writings (according to most scholars). All we have is Paul’s writings, and we can’t be sure if even one Early Church Father knew him. Not good.
Lol…Gary, you take unbridled, manic-skepticism to a whole new level. Clement of Rome is the earliest post-apostolic Church Father whose writing we have. After him, there is Ignatius (died AD 108) and Polycarp (died AD 155). I already pointed out that Clement of Rome probably did know Paul and that Paul mentioned him in one of his letters. And for that matter, since Peter was killed in Rome around the same time Paul was (in the 60s), and since Clement was a Christian who lived in Rome–it’s a safe bet that Clement knew Peter too.
Polycarp was born in AD 69, a good few years after Paul died, but he knew John the Apostle. We’re not sure when Ignatius was born, but we know he was Bishop from AD 70-107, until his martyrdom. That means he was alive during Paul’s life, and given the fact that Antioch was Paul’s base of operations (and basically his supporting church for his missionary journeys throughout the 50s), it isn’t a stretch at all to think Ignatius knew Paul…and Peter, who stayed in Antioch for a time as well before he died.
So, there you go.
“Polycarp was born in AD 69, a good few years after Paul died, but he knew John the Apostle.”
No. Polycarp claimed to have known, “John the Elder”. He never claimed to have known “John the Apostle”.
I’m not going to troll your posts, Joel. So, I’m going to end my comments on the topic of the Early Church Fathers with this: I think Christians should be very concerned with the FACT that the majority of (non-evangelical) NT scholars doubt that even *one* early Church Father met one of the Twelve (or Paul).
Well, that is quite the certain conclusion, given the fact that the extent of your research has been “a quick online search” on the topic. The FACT is that Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote the first History of the Church, painstakingly goes through the line of leaders and bishops throughout those first 300 years and traces them all the way back to the apostles. It is clear that you aren’t so much looking for the truth about basic history, as you are looking for any sliver of possible justification for dismissing it all.
As for Polycarp, here is what Irenaeus says in a letter to a man named Florus about their childhood, when they both sat and listened to Polycarp teach: “I can describe the place blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and his comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses to the crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his talking with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture.”
So, even if you are going to argue that the “John” was “John the Elder” and not “John the Apostle” (which is not certain), it is still crystal clear that this “John” whom Polycarp spoke, along with many others, was an eyewitness to Jesus himself.
I did not do a “quick online search” to evaluate the evidence for your claim that some early Church Fathers knew Paul or one of the Twelve. I did a quick online search to see what the experts (NT scholars) say on this subject. And the experts say you are wrong. The overwhelming majority of non-evangelical NT scholars say that there is insufficient evidence to believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or one of the Twelve.
This is what educated people do, Joel. Educated people do not research every issue on the planet themselves. Most educated people accept majority expert opinion on all issues about which they are not experts. And since you are not an expert on this subject, I will go with the majority expert opinion: Not one early Church Father knew Paul or one of the Twelve. Mormons and Muslims have a better chain of custody than Christianity. That should concern every Christian.
Now, I’m sure you are going to give evidence against this position. But I’m not interested in listening to your non-expert opinion. I’m only interested in what the majority of experts say. Period.
End of discussion.
Yep, end of discussion. Doesn’t matter what the actual evidence recorded in the earlier church history book says.
Sorry, I have something else for you to think about. If you truly want to emphasize using one’s reason and logic, instead of just blindly accepting what others say, I suggest you put that into practice.
Just think logically here. Here are historical facts no one really disputes: (1) Clement was born around AD 35, (2) he lived in Rome and became the bishop there from 88-99; (3) Peter and Paul were imprisoned and killed in Rome sometime between 64-68; and (4) while in prison in Rome, Paul specifically mentions Clement in his letter to the Philippians.
The Christian communities in these various cities in the 1st century were still relatively small. Do you HONESTLY think that both Peter and Paul–both of whom had ties to the Church in Rome and both of whom were killed in Rome–that they did not know the Christians in Rome, of whom Clement was one? Really?
You are foregoing common sense and reason on this, and instead are blindly relying on your “quick online search” and are saying, “Non-evangelical scholars say X…so I believe X.”
Talk about blind belief.
It is odd how you only appeal to majority scholarly opinion when it suits you.
I, on the other hand, accept majority expert opinion on ALL issues about which I am not an expert. That is why I accept that:
–the earth is not flat, it is a sphere
–the coronavirus is real; it is not a hoax
–Jesus was a real historical person; not a myth
–the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the associate of eyewitnesses but by persons living one or more generations removed from the (alleged) events they describe.
–not one early Church Father met or knew Paul or one of the Twelve.
That is what educated people do, Joel. We accept expert opinion on ALL issues about which we are not experts. I suggest that you do the same.
Nice to see you refuse to address the clear historical facts I presented.
I think you know that I am a medical doctor. As a doctor, I frequently have patients in come in to my office with “research articles” for this or that “miracle cure” for cancer or diabetes or another disease. Some of these “cures” are backed by people with an MD or PhD after their names. Should I read and thoroughly study each and every “miracle cure” brought in by patients? If I do not how can I justify not prescribing these “miracle cures” to my cancer (or diabetes, etc) when they MAY be the right cure?
Answer: No. There is not enough time in the day for me to thoroughly study each and every miracle cure on the planet. I trust the experts for which treatments to recommend to my patients. Even if a very intelligent, educated patient with a degree after his or her name (MD, DO, PhD) tells me a particular miracle cure is good, I don’t follow their advice. Why? Because I trust majority expert opinion, not just the opinion of fringe or even a minority of experts.
And that is the problem with conservative Christians like yourself. You people do not respect majority expert opinion. You believe that YOU are the final authority on what is true and what is not. That is why so many conservative Christians follow Trump’s conspiracy theories, reject global warming, and reject Covid research. Conservative Christians do not apply good critical thinking skills, and one of those skills is respect for majority expert opinion.
So, no. I will not waste my time reading your non-expert “evidence” when I can look up the opinion of the majority of experts on this subject who say you are wrong.
Sorry, this is just a request to think critically and logically about a basic historical figure. This isn’t about any “miracle cures.” It’s a very simple question to answer: IF Clement grew up in Rome, IF Clement was a Christian and part of the Church in Rome, then don’t you think it would be likely that he had contact with both Paul and Peter who ended up in Rome and were executed in the 60s, around the time Clement would have been a 30-year-old Christian in the Church in Rome? ESPECIALLY, given the fact that Paul, while in prison in Rome, writing to the Philippians, mentions a Clement who is a “fellow worker.”
What “experts” are you referring to when you say “experts” don’t think Clement knew Peter or Paul? That’s the issue. This isn’t that hard–comparing what I just laid out to zany “miracle cures” and Trumpian conspiracy theories is really just a way to avoid a basic question. You are refusing to use your reason and logic for a very basic historical question. And you haven’t share what “experts” you consulted who claim what you claim.
Gary, how goes it?
So you only listen to experts on issues in which you yourself are not an expert. That’s laudable.
Perhaps you’re unaware then that Bart Ehrman is a textual scholar and not a patristic scholar. Besides which you’re citing his popular stuff which isn’t nearly as academically rigorous as his more academic stuff. He tends to ignore or downplay scholars and evidence that doesn’t fit his agenda, and he still holds to an only slightly watered down version of the old, long discredited, 1930s Walter Bauer thesis which said that until the mid-2nd century “proto-Catholic” fathers began asserting their dominance, there was nothing like an “orthodox” view of Jesus and church history.
Look up the majority view on the Bauer thesis and you’ll discover that it was rejected by the majority because Bauer overstated his case and ignored evidence which didn’t fit his theory. And yet Ehrman still pushes a version of this theory.
Pax.
Lee.
“IF Clement grew up in Rome, IF Clement was a Christian and part of the Church in Rome, then don’t you think it would be likely that he had contact with both Paul and Peter who ended up in Rome and were executed in the 60s, around the time Clement would have been a 30-year-old Christian in the Church in Rome? ESPECIALLY, given the fact that Paul, while in prison in Rome, writing to the Philippians, mentions a Clement who is a “fellow worker.” ”
If Clement (the same Clement who wrote First Clement and later was the bishop of Rome) grew up in Rome and was attending the same church in Rome, at the same time as Peter and Paul, then, yes, it is very likely they all knew each other. But “if” is the key word in that question. If you can provide a respected source which states that most scholars/historians believe that Clement, Peter, and Paul attended the same church at the same time AND that they knew each other, then I will happily agree with your claim that the early Church Father known as “Clement” knew Paul and Peter and MAY be the Clement Paul mentions in one of his letters.
But this is typical of the Christian “evidence”: It is always chock FULL of “ifs”, “mays”, “probablys” and “possiblys”.
It’s not really a lot of ifs. Clement did live in Rome, was a member of the Roman Church and eventuallywas the Bishop.
Given those realities…there is really just one “if”–if Peter and Paul both ended up in the Roman Church in the 60s, what are the chances Clement would have known them? Pretty high.
But again, what experts and scholars are you referring to who are saying this is impossible?
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman: The question [Did any of the early Church Fathers know Paul or one of the Twelve] has to be asked of every church father based on his writings. What we can say is that in cases such as the author of 1 Clement is that he shows zero evidence of having met any of the apostles. Whether the historical Clement of Rome had can’t really be answered securely. If he’s the one referred to in the Shepherd of Hermas, then the answer would have to be no, since he would have lived long after their deaths.
Even though the letter {First Clement] claims to be written by the “church … residing in Rome,” it has from early times been attributed to Clement, a leader of the Roman church near the end of the first century. In his celebrated church history, Eusebius sets forth the tradition, earlier found in the writings of the third-century church Father Origen, that this Clement was the companion of the apostle Paul mentioned in Phil 4:3 (Eccl. Hist. 3.4.15; see Origen Comm. Jn. 6.36). Some of the early traditions claim that Clement was the second bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter himself (Tertullian, Prescription 32); more commonly it was thought that he was the third, following Linus and Anacletus (thus Irenaeus in Agst. Heresies 3.3.1 and Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3.4.21). The first reference to any …
The first reference to any Roman Christian named Clement is by a near-contemporary, Hermas, author of the Shepherd (see Introduction to the Shepherd of Hermas), who is instructed to send two copies of a book to Rome, one of them for “Clement” who was then to distribute it to churches in other locations, “for that is his commission”(Shepherd 8.2). This Clement, then, appears to have had an official role in the church, at least in Hermas’s time (first part of the second century), as some kind of secretary in charge of foreign correspondence.
As early as the middle of the second century it was claimed by Dionysius of Corinth that Clement had written this epistle to the Corinthians, which, he indicated, continued to be read in his own day during regular church gatherings (ca. 170 CE; also claimed, about the same time, by Hegessipus). This tradition is followed, then, by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 4.23) and down through the ages; it is evidenced in the surviving manuscripts of the letter as well. The only complete text of the epistle in Greek gives its title (in a subscription) as “The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians.” It is also ascribed to Clement in the other Greek, Latin, and Syriac manuscripts.
Some scholars have argued that this Clement was a freedman of the Roman consul T. Flavius Clemens, a Roman aristocrat of the Flavian family who was executed by his cousin Domitian for “atheism,” possibly referring to an association with Judaism (see esp. the full account in Lightfoot and the more recent discussion in Jeffers).
There are reasons, however, to doubt the traditional ascription. Nowhere is Clement mentioned in the letter, let alone named as its author. If the bishop of Rome himself had written the letter, one might expect him to assert his authority by mentioning his position. More to the point, even the tradition that there was a single bishop over the church in Rome at this time appears to be a later idea, advanced by (later) orthodox Christians concerned to show that their own lines of authority could be extended back through a succession of bishops to the apostles themselves, the so-called “apostolic succession.” As noted, Hermas, who was also from Rome, nowhere calls Clement, or anyone else in his day, the bishop of Rome. Moreover, 1 Clement itself uses the terms “presbyter” and “bishop” interchangeably (ch. 44), making it appear that a distinct office of “bishop” as the leader of the church presbyters had not yet appeared. It is striking that some years later the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius (see Introduction to the Letters of Ignatius) could write the church in Rome and give no indication that there was a single bishop in charge.
Some scholars have gone even further, asserting that the letter not only was not written by the head of the Roman church, but that it was not expressive of the views of the entire church. According to this view, the letter instead represents a perspective advanced by just one of the many “house churches” in the city, in an age when a variety of forms of Christianity were present in Rome (see especially Lampe, Jeffers). The Shepherd of Hermas, for example, presents a different understanding of Christian existence, in which the friendly attitude toward the Roman empire evidenced in 1 Clement (e.g., ch. 60) is replaced by a sense of opposition. This is not to mention the wide theological variation within Roman Christianity evidenced still some decades later by the followers of Justin Marytyr, Marcion, and Valentinus, prominent leaders of Christian groups scattered throughout the city.
And so it is difficult to draw conclusions about the authorship of the letter. Its later attribution to the sole bishop of the city, Clement, may represent a “best guess” by later Christians, or may even have been an orthodox claim used to bolster their own position vis-à-vis other groups contending for power in the church.
1. You do realize he is no more an “expert” in early Church history than I am, right?
2. Besides, you’ve chosen the NT scholar who had made a name for himself by writing the same book over 5-10 different times, all saying the same thing? “Textual variants means we can’t know anything really about 1st century Christianity!”
Sorry, he’s just not impressive…nor is he an expert in Church History.
And to be clear, his argument boils down to this, “Yes, early Church writings from the first few centuries all say Clement authored I Clement and he knew Peter and Paul….but….nope, can’t trust them! We don’t know!”
Ehrman didn’t just give his opinion. He listed various positions held by NT scholars on the issue of the authorship of First Clement. Note Ehrman did not say it is impossible that the Clement mentioned in Paul’s writing was the same Clement who wrote First Clement, but if he was, the evidence is poor!
No one makes the claim that the author of First Clement was Clement, the companion of Paul, until Origen in the THIRD century! Origen was born in circa 184 CE. Clement of Rome allegedly died in circa 94 CE. How did Origen know that Clement was a companion of Paul? The author of the Shepherd of Hermas doesn’t indicate that Clement knew Paul and the author of Clement does not indicate that he knows Paul! So how did a man living approximately 100 years later know this??
You will assume that it was “faithfully passed down” to Origen. I will assume that it is more likely to be a legend or a lie, Which of us is correct?
Well, I would recommend that your readers take a look at the history of the Church, in particular the Roman Church, and see how often they have lied to further their power. The fraudulent Donation of Rome to the Roman pope by Emperor Constantine is the most famous of the Church’s lies. Bottom line: There is ZERO contemporary evidence that Clement of Rome knew Paul or any of the Twelve. And I will assert that you, Joel, believe catholic tradition on this issue simply because you so desperately want to, not because there is any good historical evidence.
Gary, Gary, Gary…lol
All I’m saying is that Clement of Rome, the one who wrote I Clement, the one who was the Church leader in Rome during the last decade of the first century, very well could have known both Peter and Paul for the logical reasons I stated earlier regarding basic historical facts (i.e. He lived in Rome in the 60s and Peter and Paul were in Rome in the 60s).
And you have much to learn about how history and history writing works. You really need to read actual early Church history scholars and early Church history books that deal with this stuff. If you did, you’d realize that while all of them acknowledge no one can know FOR CERTAIN, it is pretty much accepted that the Clement who wrote I Clement was Clement of Rome, the bishop in the late first century. And therefore, given that FACT, only an extreme, hyper-skeptic would push so hard against the probability that yes, that Clement could have easily been acquainted with Paul and Peter.
As for Origen, do you honestly think he just “made it up”? If you read Eusebius’ Church history, if you read any of the early Church Fathers, you’d see they ALWAYS emphasize this historical apostolic succession and they ALWAYS appeal to that clear, historical line back to the teaching of the original apostles. It was all about preserving the original teaching, and they took it seriously.
As for your last paragraph, it is deflection and obfuscation. And so, I will assert that you, Gary, come to everything in the Bible and Church history with the presupposition that nothing that is written by actual Christians or Church Fathers can really be trusted. For you, if the early Church Fathers and historians make certain historical claims, even if it is something as innocuous as “Clement knew Paul,” you will scream, “No! Not true! No evidence for that!” It is really easy to scream, “No evidence!” when you purposely dismiss the actual historical evidence and testimony recorded in the writings of the early Church Fathers.
You’re not a skeptic. You’re a history denier.
Absolutely not true. I accept majority scholarly opinion on ALL issues.
–I accept that Jesus was a real historical person.
–I accept that Paul wrote at least seven of the Pauline epistles
–I even accept the historicity of the empty tomb.
Provide evidence to me from a respected source that the majority of NT scholars believe that Clement of Rome knew Paul or Peter and I will accept it. Period.
Now, do you accept majority scholarly opinion that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses or even by the associates of eyewitnesses? Let’s see if you practice what you preach, Joel.
Good Lord, Gary, ever heard of a bit of hyperbole? But it still gets to the heart of your general approach to the NT claims.
In any case, you clearly haven’t really read anything about early Church history or the early Church Fathers. You looked up what Bart Ehrman–a NT scholar who is NOT an expert in the early Church Fathers–and you then run to your extreme grand pronouncements (which actually end up being contradictory):
First: “It seems this issue is highly disputed. There is no scholarly consensus.”
Then (in the same response!): “If none of the Early Church Fathers ever met Paul, they never had the opportunity to question him about his teachings and how they compared to the teachings of the Twelve (and Jesus).”
So…”no scholarly consensus” to the assumption that “none of the ECF ever met Paul.”
AND THEN (in a later response): “The overwhelming majority of non-evangelical NT scholars say that there is insufficient evidence to believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or one of the Twelve.”
And all of your certain pronouncement comes from your “quick online search”!
Look at Henry Chadwick’s classic, “The Early Church.” Look at Andrew Louth’s comments in the classic “Early Christian Writings.” And try to keep a few things straight:
1. They say the writer of I Clement was Clement, the Bishop of Rome (AD 88-99)–Louth: “Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus, and Anencletus) in THE MOST RELIABLE LISTS OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME.”
2. Other history books say (although it can’t be said FOR CERTAIN) that Clement probably was born around AD 35 and lived in Rome
3. Beyond that, we don’t anything else about him.
4. Still, Origen said Clement was the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3–but ultimately that can’t be proven.
Now, TAKE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, and that is NOT SAYING that the leading scholars are saying they couldn’t have known each other. But that is the exact conclusion you are jumping to. That’s the problem. REAL SCHOLARS try to limit their comments to the evidence available. They don’t say things like, “Oh it’s for certain that Clement knew Paul,” OR “Oh Clement couldn’t have known Paul.” They clearly lay out what we DO KNOW. Given that, all I’m saying is, given what WE KNOW, it is completely reasonable to assume that yes, Clement probably knew Peter and Paul. It is entirely reasonable to think that member of a small group of Christians in Rome would have contact with two major figures in the Church when they were in Rome. That is just a reasonable assumption. But you are seemingly having a conniption over this suggestion, as if it was some kind of wild, crazy claim. (And no, just to be clear, I am not saying you are LITERALLY having a conniption!). This is just baffles me…and it is quite funny and entertaining!
Question: Is there a scholarly consensus on this issue: Did any early Church Father meet/know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?
BD Ehrman February 19, 2022 at 3:16 pm – Reply
None of the ones who has left us any writings, no. Not even any of the authors of the New Testament, apparently!
Gary: Bart Ehrman is an agnostic but still a respected NT scholar. Many atheists detest him because he rejects their mythicist assertions about Jesus. I have found him to be very evidenced based. If the evidence favors the Christian position, he accepts it without hesitation. His scholarly opinions reflect the majority position of (non-evangelical) scholars. He even admits that the majority of scholars believe in the empty tomb! Ehrman states above that the majority of scholars do NOT believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any of the Twelve.
Please look more closely at the very thing you have posted here:
Question: “Is there a SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS regarding the issue if any early Church Fathers (like Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp) knew Peter, Paul, or any other apostle?”
Ehrman’s Answer: “No, there isn’t scholarly consensus.”
Your interpretation: “The majority of scholars do not believe that any of the ECF knew Peter, Paul, or any other apostles.”
Do you see the problem? Saying there is “no scholarly consensus” is NOT saying “the majority do not believe.” It means, there is no scholarly consensus.
But again, let’s try to use our logic here. The only thing we have from Clement of Rome is ONE letter–in his entire career, we have only ONE letter. To say, “Well, he didn’t come right out and say, ‘Hey, Paul and I were buddies!’ in that ONE letter, therefore he didn’t know Paul!” is quite the uncritical stretch. As I’ve laid out numerous times already, when you logically look at the time of Clement’s life, WHERE he lived, and the undisputed fact that NO SCHOLAR DENIES that both Peter and Paul ended up in ROME in the 60s, where they were martyred–it is ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE and LOGICAL to assume that yes, Clement OF ROME, who was living IN ROME at the time, and who was part of the Church IN ROME, would have had contact with them. This is just basic, logical, historical inference. This isn’t a question regarding miracles or anything supernatural. It as logical to assume as it would be to assume (for example) something like this: “Hey, back in 1980, Billy Graham visited Calvary Temple in Naperville, Illinois–do you think he talked with the pastor of Calvary Temple?” “Yes, he probably did.”
But for some bizarre reason, you think that notion is just bonkers. Why? It is because YOU are the one pushing a certain agenda–you’ve said it already. You want to push the notion that the Christian faith that was proclaimed from the late first century on WAS NOT the same thing that Jesus and the original apostles taught. You want to claim that by the late first century, the next generation “changed things,” and so you do not want to acknowledge that early Church Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp ever knew any of the original apostles. If they did, your argument falls apart. So you deny basic common sense and you dismiss the writings of the early Church Fathers and early Church historians who say, in fact, that Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp did, in fact, know them.
I accept the very realistic probability that Clement and Ignatius knew Peter and Paul, and that Polycarp knew John, because (1) We have early Church theologians and historians saying they did, and (2) We know they were living in the cities in which Peter, Paul, and John were during their lifetimes. To reject that as a very realistic probability is the epitome of clinging to an uncritical, agenda-driven bias.
“Now, TAKE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, and that is NOT SAYING that the leading scholars are saying they couldn’t have known each other. But that is the exact conclusion you are jumping to. ”
I just re-read this. Where did I ever use the word “couldn’t”? Never. Why do you keep strawmanning me, Joel? It is very dishonest.
This is what I actually said: “Note Ehrman did not say it is impossible that the Clement mentioned in Paul’s writing was the same Clement who wrote First Clement, but if he was, the evidence is poor!”
Saying that “the evidence is poor” is not the same as saying “it couldn’t have happened”. Your reading skills are poor or you are engaging in very dishonest behavior.
GARY: You will assume that it was “faithfully passed down” to Origen. I will assume that it is more likely to be a legend or a lie, . . .
LEE: Why would you do this?
This isn’t how the historical method actually works. Even Bart Ehrman will tell you that New Testament scholars never–or at least SHOULD NEVER–begin with a conclusion that a historical source is lying or exaggerating. Because in doing so you lose the one thing that is CRITICAL . . . your scholarly objectivity.
You continue to remind me of the kind of skeptic described by Craig Evans, a skeptic who equates a radical skepticism and deep distrust of everything considered “orthodox” regarding Jesus and church history, with critical thing. When in fact such radical skepticism is no more critical than outright credulity.
Pax.
Lee.
Ridiculous. Yes, Ehrman could have been more clear, but it is obvious his “no” was to the second part of the question and his response to the first part of the question is that (it is the scholarly consensus that) none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or Peter.
However, I will ask him to be more precise in his answer.
“The only thing we have from Clement of Rome is ONE letter–in his entire career, we have only ONE letter.”
According to Ehrman, scholars are not even sure that someone named “Clement” wrote the epistle we now know as “First Clement”. The assertion that it was written by someone named Clement living in Rome in the mid first century is TRADITION. There is no good evidence for this claim. No one makes the claim that the author of First Clement knew Paul, Peter, or the Twelve until Origen in the THIRD century.
“As I’ve laid out numerous times already, when you logically look at the time of Clement’s life, WHERE he lived, and the undisputed fact that NO SCHOLAR DENIES that both Peter and Paul ended up in ROME in the 60s, where they were martyred–it is ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE and LOGICAL to assume that yes, Clement OF ROME, who was living IN ROME at the time, and who was part of the Church IN ROME, would have had contact with them.”
This statement is based on assumptions:
–the assumption that the author of First Clement was named Clement and that this Clement lived in Rome at the same time that Peter and Paul were there.
–According to Ehrman, the Clement mentioned by the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, was alive at a later period of time, and could not have known Peter or Paul. So you are assuming that Origen, living almost 200 years later, knew another Clement who lived in Rome at the time that Peter and Paul were there.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. The glue that holds together the Christian belief system.
Oh Gary,
Look up who Andrew Louth is. But if you don’t want to do a Google search, allow me to tell you: He is an emeritus professor of patristic and Byzantine studies in the Department of Theology and Religion of Durham University. He is one of the pre-eminent experts in Patristics. In the Penguin Classic edition of Early Christian Writings, he wrote the introduction and commentary on them. Concerning I Clement, he writes, “Of the authenticity of this epistle there is no doubt. Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus, and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome.” And later, “The date of the epistle is generally reckoned to be about AD 96.” And later, he talks about Clement’s knowledge of and quoting from I Corinthians, James, I Peter, Hebrews, and the Synoptic Gospels. He talks about how Clement shows his knowledge of many of the theological themes expressed in Paul’s letters.
I could go on, but I’ll hang my hat on the expertise of one of the foremost experts in Patristics. So no, not “assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.” Rather, the educated, EXPERT conclusion of real experts in the field.
Bottom line, the guy who wrote I Clement was Clement of Rome, who lived in Rome. And in his letter, he quotes Paul, James, Peter, and the Synoptics. It is utterly reasonable to assume that he very well could have known Peter and Paul. And EVEN IF HE DIDN’T, he shows he was intimately familiar with not only their writings, but the letter of James and the Synoptics.
It boggles my mind why you won’t let this go. The evidence and conclusion of the actual experts in Patristics is solid. You’ve lost this utterly silly debate.
Gary February 16, 2022 at 11:01 am – Reply
Is there a scholarly consensus on this issue (Did any early Church Father meet/know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?)
BDEhrman February 20, 2022 at 11:44 am – Reply
Yup, a consensus!
He is not being very clear, is he? I will have to get him to clarify…again.
GARY: “The only thing we have from Clement of Rome is ONE letter–in his entire career, we have only ONE letter.”
LEE: Therefore it’s automatically suspect? Do you know how many historical authors there are for which we have only ONE writing? Or NONE?
Gary, do you believe Socrates existed? How many writings do we have from him?
Then I guess Plato was exaggerating or lying about Socrates?
Pax.
Lee.
That’s different, Lee! Plato and Socrates weren’t Christians, so obviously they are more reliable! Lol
JOEL: That’s different, Lee! Plato and Socrates weren’t Christians, so obviously they are more reliable! Lol
LEE: Of course! What was I thinking?! Everyone KNOWS that only Evangelical Christians lie and exaggerate regarding historical sources.
Pax.
Lee.
Ok. I asked him the same question under another of his posts. Here is his response:
Gary February 18, 2022 at 2:31 pm – Reply
Is there a scholarly consensus on this issue: Did any early Church Father meet/know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?
BDEhrman February 19, 2022 at 3:16 pm – Reply
None of the ones who has left us any writings, no. Not even any of the authors of the New Testament, apparently!
Gary February 19, 2022 at 11:18 pm – Reply
Sorry to be persistent, but is there a scholarly consensus on this issue or are you simply stating your personal position? Is there a scholarly consensus that none of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any member of the Twelve?
Thanks! I’m currently involved in a debate on the existence of a scholarly consensus on this issue.
BDEhrman February 20, 2022 at 11:26 am – Reply
It’s a consensus. If you read the earliest authors you’ll see why (1 Clement; Ignatius; Papias — who is explicit about the point 00 etc.(disabledupes{682a72fb80b7fc6e4cec75cc400f09a7}disabledupes
Yeah, he really didn’t give a clear, straightforward answer, did he?
Therefore, since there is a scholarly consensus on this issue, I (a non-expert) do not need to do my own research. That is what educated people do, Joel. Educated people accept expert consensus opinion. I would encourage you to do the same.
None of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any other member of the Twelve!
Hahaha…”scholarly consensus” in the academic field of the early Church Fathers is not comprised of a NT scholar, who is not an expert in the early Church Fathers and is a hyper-skeptic to boot, saying, “Nope!”
Let’s be clear, you are taking the non-expert opinion of Ehrman over the expert conclusion of an actual pre-eminent Patristics scholar like Louth. Simply repeating, “None of the ECF knew Peter, Paul, or any other apostle because Bart Ehrman told me his opinion,” doesn’t make it true.
The EVIDENCE and CONCLUSIONS by actual Patristic scholars is that I Clement was written by Clement of Rome around AD 96. THEREFORE, since he lived in Rome, and since Peter and Paul had connections to the Church in Rome and actually were executed in Rome in the 60s, I can GUARRANTEE you that you’re not going to find too many experts in early Church Fathers and Patristics going around saying, “Oh no, there’s no way Clement couldn’t have known Peter or Paul!” That kind of pronouncement is not made by an expert. It is made with someone with an agenda.
Please give a respected source in which a “patristic scholar” (within the last 10 years) states that it is the ***scholarly consensus*** (not his personal opinion) that some of the Early Church Fathers knew/met Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve.
I’m not interested in one scholar’s personal opinion.
“Oh no, there’s no way Clement couldn’t have known Peter or Paul!”
Strawman. I have never made such a claim. Of course it is POSSIBLE that the author of First Clement knew Paul or Peter. But unfortunately for your position, most New Testament scholars doubt any of them did.
Once again, please provide a respected source in which a respected (non-evangelical) scholar states that it is the ***scholarly consensus*** that some of the Early Church Fathers knew Peter or Paul.
Attention readers: I exclude the opinions of evangelical scholars because all or at least most of them have signed agreements with their Christian university or its denomination to never publish or say anything that would contradict the teachings and doctrines of that institution or denomination. They have signed away their objectivity. I do not exclude the opinions of all conservative Christian scholars, however, For instance, i very much accept the opinions of Roman Catholic scholars (ie, Raymond Brown) because the Catholic Church does not force its scholars to sign such a document.
Oh Gary, just give up. This is getting embarrassing for you.
1. You say I’m straw-manning you and that you’ve never claimed the Clement couldn’t have known Peter or Paul. EXHIBIT A (Quoting Gary): “None of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any other member of the Twelve!” If I’m straw-manning you, it’s because you’re a scarecrow. haha…
2. When Louth says, “Of the authenticity of this epistle there is no doubt. Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus, and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome,” he’s not just giving his opinion. He’s speaking as an expert on the subject and is conveying facts.
3. Your justification for dismissing all Evangelical scholars is suspect. I HIGHLY DOUBT there is even ONE Evangelical college or university that has the issue regarding Clement’s, Ignatius’, or Polycarp’s knowing any of the apostles as a primary theological doctrine.
4. I don’t know what book you’re quoting from, but it isn’t from Louth’s. And if this “Loisy” person conjectures that the writer of I Clement lived in the 130s-140s, he is going against the EXPERT CONSENSUS that the EXPERT in Patristics, Andrew Louth, refers to in his work.
Please, just give up this nonsense. The writer of I Clement was the fourth bishop in Rome, Clement of Rome, who was bishop of Rome from AD 88-99. The actual letter is dated to about AD 96. THEREFORE, even though there is no actual evidence (like a photo or a direct correspondence between Paul, Peter, and Clement!), we KNOW both Peter and Paul were in Rome in the 60s, and we KNOW that Clement was a member of the Church in Rome. And we also KNOW that Clement QUOTES from Paul’s letters, as well as James, I Peter, Hebrews, and the Synoptics.
These are all FACTS. Therefore, it is not AT ALL any kind of stretch to think that Clement could have easily known Peter and Paul. They were in the same city at the same time and part of the same Church. No, we don’t have any letters between them, but logic should dictate here.
AND AGAIN, the whole reason why you are making such a big deal about this is because you’re trying to push the notion that ECFs didn’t have access to Jesus’ teachings because they never knew an apostle. All they had were Paul’s writings. But Clement DOES quote Paul, AND JAMES, AND PETER, AND HEBREWS, AND THE SYNOPTICS. Even if he didn’t know Peter or Paul, he still was quoting their stuff (along with James, Hebrews, and the Synoptics!) as if it was all authoritative and all crucial to faith in Christ.
So again, what are you doing, Cary? You’re ignoring Patristic experts, relying on the opinion of an NT skeptic instead, and refuse to acknowledge basic historical facts…and why? So you can prove that Clement only knew Paul’s writings and couldn’t compare them to the teaching of the apostles to see if what Paul was teaching really was from Jesus? But I Clement quotes from ALL OF THEIR STUFF! So, what are you doing?
Ok, let’s use a source you referred to above, “Early Christian Writings”:
Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):
Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. 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.
Gary: “the account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eyewitness”. This scholar does not believe that the author of First Clement knew Peter or Paul.
Again from Early Christian Writings:
Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, “These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us.” Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of “bishops and deacons” (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be “a rule of succession” for bishops and deacons who have “fallen asleep” (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.
Gary: Do you really believe that a man who “flourished” in 130-140 CE was old enough in circa 60-65 to have had a conversation with Paul and Peter before they were executed?
Once again, please provide a respected source in which a respected (non-evangelical) scholar states that it is the ***scholarly consensus*** that some of the Early Church Fathers knew Peter or Paul.
I’m going to stop replying to this silly thread.
Clement lived in Rome and was a part of the Church in Rome during the time Peter and Paul were there–Nope! says Gary
Patristics scholars say that I Clement was written by Clement of Rome, the fourth bishop of Rome, around AD 96–Not good enough says Gary
Church Tradition, and those like Origen and Eusebius, say Clement knew Paul–Nada! says Gary
While writing from Rome, Paul mentions Clement in his letter to the Philippians–Doesn’t prove a thing, says Gary
***Bart Ehrman says there is no consensus that Clement of Rome knew Peter or Paul, so that means there is scholarly consensus that Clement DIDN’T KNOW Peter and Paul! Bart Ehrman has spoken! And, according to Gary, that’s what educated people do. They dismiss all logic and reason and historical testimony that we have because it goes against their agenda-driven bias. Then, when they have dismissed it all, they turn to a NT scholar (not a Patristics scholar) who has the reputation of being hyper-skeptical to the point of absurdity, get him to say, “There is no scholarly consensus,” and then they declare the case is closed. I’m sorry, that is not a serious position. The fact that you are so obsessively fixated on this is bizarre.
As I thought. You are not able to provide a respected source which states that there is a scholarly consensus supporting your position. Just because you can find a couple of patristic scholars that agree with your position does not make it so.
Bottom line: Even if you refuse to accept NT scholar Bart Ehrman’s statement that a consensus exists that NONE of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, or one of the Twelve, you must admit that your position that they did is DISPUTED. Disputed evidence is not good evidence.
The chain of custody of the supernatural claims of Christianity is disputed. Without a clear, undisputed chain of custody, it is entirely possible that legends and tall tales crept into the Jesus Story over the decades between his death and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Islam and Mormonism have much better chains of custody for their supernatural claims. No one should believe in virgin births, tales of water walking, or sightings of a walking, talking, broiled fish eating corpse based on such poor evidence.
If you find a consensus statement, come to my blog and let me know, Joel. Good bye.
Whether or not Clement of Rome, who lived in Rome, knew or had come in contact with Peter and Paul, both of whom were in Rome and were part of the Christian community in Rome–that is not a “supernatural claim.” It is a basic historical reality that leads any fair-minded observer to say,”Yeah, it wouldn’t be surprising if he knew them.”
It’s that simple.
GARY: The chain of custody of the supernatural claims of Christianity is disputed. Without a clear, undisputed chain of custody, it is entirely possible that legends and tall tales crept into the Jesus Story over the decades between his death and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
LEE: Nope. There simply wasn’t enough time between Jesus’ death and the early church’s claims that he was resurrected for that kind of myth and legend to accrue. It took about 300 years for such myths and legends to accrue to the stories of Alexander the Great and yet scholars like Richard Buackham, Martin Hengel, David B. Capes, Carey Newman, Larry Hurtado, et. al.–hardly Evangelical hacks writing just to get a paycheck–have persuasively argued that within just a few years of Jesus’ death the early church was claiming he’d been resurrected.
The credal statement on the resurrection of Jesus Paul quotes in I Corinthians (itself written. ca. 55 AD) 15: 3-7 has been dated to a mere handful of years after Jesus’ death.
GARY: Islam and Mormonism have much better chains of custody for their supernatural claims.
LEE: You’re not serious, are you? Have you ever studied the origins of either? I mean, seriously studied the origins of either, not just read what Ehrman thinks about them?
Because the age//authenticity of the NT is a million times better attested historically than either the Quran or the Book of Mormon!
Pax.
Lee.
“There simply wasn’t enough time between Jesus’ death and the early church’s claims that he was resurrected for that kind of myth and legend to accrue.”
HAAAA! Tell that to anti-vaxxers and the Q-Anon crowd. RIDICULOUS rumors and legends develop within days in our modern educated society with television and the internet widely available, so why not 2,000 years ago when mass media did not exist???
Seriously? You’re going to use QAnon in your argument? Please stop. lol… The moment anyone starts bringing in that sort of stuff to questions of the Bible and early Church History, you know that person isn’t serious.
” scholars like Richard Buackham, Martin Hengel, David B. Capes, Carey Newman, Larry Hurtado, et. al.–hardly Evangelical hacks writing just to get a paycheck–have persuasively argued that within just a few years of Jesus’ death the early church was claiming he’d been resurrected.”
So what! The question is: WHY were early Christians claiming that Jesus had been bodily resurrected? Did they literally see, talk to, and touch a resurrected corpse or did the original eyewitnesses experience illusions (bright lights), vivid dreams, false sightings (cases of mistaken identity), or hallucinations/delusions which over decades evolved into the detailed stories of seeing, talking to, and touching a resurrected Jesus? You and Joel believe the former because you make MANY assumptions.
Conservative Christians ASSUME:
–that the detailed appearance stories in the last three Gospels of a walking, talking, fish eating resurrected Jesus are historically factual.
–that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or at least by close associates of eyewitnesses.
–that the Early Church Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Papias) met with and conversed with Paul, Peter, John or others of the Twelve, confirming the stories which we find in our Bibles.
–that first century people were somehow different than people throughout the rest of human history who create elaborate rumors and legends within a matter of days or even hours!
The fact is that most scholars, including most Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the supernatural, doubt the eyewitness or even the associate eyewitness authorship of the Gospels.
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Second, I have just given evidence that the majority of NT scholars do not believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, John, or any other member of the Twelve.
Third, there is abundant evidence today on television and the internet that even college educated people can be duped by outrageous (false) rumors, creating legends within days or hours of the rumor’s inception. If you don’t believe me, go online and ask Q-Anon followers about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s pedophile pizza parlor in Washington DC.. Human beings are incredibly gullible creatures!
The fact is, the evidence for the supernatural claims of Christianity is very, very poor. There is no clear chain of custody of the original supernatural stories, allowing for embellishments and outright lies to have crept into the Jesus Story over the decades between his death and the writing of the Gospels and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Mormonism and Islam have better chains of evidence for their claims. Believe by faith if you wish, but don’t claim that you have “good” evidence. You clearly do not.
Gary, for the love of Zeus, stop.
(1) All the historical/written evidence is that people started proclaiming Jesus rose from the dead because his followers saw him after he rose from the dead.
(2) The assumptions are all on your end–given the written texts and testimony we do have, you are rejecting that and justifying your rejection of it based on your own assumptions.
(3) “Second, I have just given evidence that the majority of NT scholars do not believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, John, or any other member of the Twelve.” –No, that is flat out BS coming from your own arse. The irony is that you’ve accused me of straw-manning you when I called you out on saying that very thing.
(4) Trying to tie in the Q-Anon crap to this discussion is just evidence of the utter bankruptcy of your argument. It is laughable.
(5) This post has nothing to do with supernatural claims–it is about how Clement of Rome lived in Rome when Peter and Paul were in Rome, so it is entirely probable that he had contact with them. This isn’t a supernatural question. It is a rational observation about how the small group of Christians in Rome in the 60s PROBABLY KNEW EACH OTHER.
(6) Your attempt to claim the Book of Mormon has better historical attestation is beyond mind-numbing stupidity. Yes, some Mormons attest to that Joseph Smith had golden plates and wrote the Book of Mormon from them. There is ZERO historical evidence or attestation that Moroni wrote the damn golden plates or that ANYTHING recorded in the Book of Mormon has ANY RELATION to actual history. The NT is ABOUT historical people and events; the Synoptics were written within a generation of those events–if you in your twisted irrational brain think the historicity of the Book of Mormon is better than that, that is even more reason to never take anything you say seriously.
So please, stop it and get help. You clearly are not well.
How dare you accuse me of mental illness just because you don’t like what I say. That is the typical modus operandi of cults: Attack the character and sanity of the ex-member of the cult instead of adequately answering the criticisms of the ex-member.
Let’s make a deal: I’ll stay off your blog and you stay off mine. You are not capable of a civil conversation.
Good gracious, Gary…you really can’t understand hyperbole and a little ribbing. I have to think your so-called “outrage” is completely staged. The simple fact is that your arguments are really bad and you’re upset that I’m not taking you seriously. Therefore, you act like you’re a victim and engage in name-calling. Grow up (and by saying that, I’m not suggesting you are suffering from Benjamin Button disease!)…lol…
GARY: So what! The question is: WHY were early Christians claiming that Jesus had been bodily resurrected? Did they literally see, talk to, and touch a resurrected corpse or did the original eyewitnesses experience illusions (bright lights), vivid dreams, false sightings (cases of mistaken identity), or hallucinations/delusions which over decades evolved into the detailed stories of seeing, talking to, and touching a resurrected Jesus? You and Joel believe the former because you make MANY assumptions.
Conservative Christians ASSUME:
LEE: To quote Dwight Schrute, “FALSE.” Conservative Christians don’t “ASSUME” anything . . . certainly not me.
I assert that Jesus was bodily resurrected
a) because for lots of reasons I accept the NT gospels as for the most part pretty reliable in what they say.
b) in antiquity the word *anastasis* or “resurrection” used in reference to a person ONLY and ALWAYS referred to a dead person coming back to life. The ancients, including Jews, had other words to describe a hallucination or a ghost, but rather than any of those words, they use the word “resurrection” or “resurrected,” which could only have one interpretation in relation to the deceased Jesus. The ancients weren’t stupid. They knew the difference between a real, flesh-and-blood person and a ghost or hallucination.
No adherents to any other Messianic movement in antiquity, after the death of the founder ever claimed that they were going to continue to fight the Romans because their dead Messiah had come back from the dead; less still that they were gonna continue the fight because they’d seen his ghost or hallucinated seeing him! No, in that case, these people either chose a new Messiah or went back home. ONLY the Jesus movement said anything so remarkable as to insist on a literal resurrection.
c) No one in ancient Judaism expected Messiah to die, much less be bodily resurrected, so these would be odd things for the disciples to invent from nothing. Having Messiah crucified was downright offensive so no pious Messianic Jew would purposely tell THAT lie. Not if he wanted to convince other Jews to join his fledgling religion. For non-Jews insisting that Jesus was bodily resurrected was absurd, so, again, why would the Jewish disciples of Jesus deliberately make up that particular lie.
d) Jesus’ disciples moved bodily resurrection from a peripheral belief of Judaism to center stage based on their assertion of his literal resurrection.
e) the gospels go to extraordinary lengths to stress his physicality; ghosts don’t eat broiled fish or exhibit wound scars which can be touched.
f) The members of the Early High Christology Club I named above and their colleagues have made a compelling case that within a very few years of his death Christians were claiming Jesus was resurrected and worshiping him as God. As Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan ca. 112 AD:
“However, they [the Christians Pliny had arrested] assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god . . .”
To sum up the unlikeliness of the disciples of Jesus inventing a fake resurrection, I quote Sherlock Holmes:
“My dear Watson, whenever you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Pax.
Lee.
“Because the age//authenticity of the NT is a million times better attested historically than either the Quran or the Book of Mormon!”
Ridiculous. No one contests that Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon, claiming that he had received it directly from an angel. And we have thirteen signed affidavits from known residents of the state of New York who testified to seeing the Golden Plates, three of them testifying to seeing the angels.
Christianity has nothing near this level of evidence! The authorship of the Gospels is CONTESTED. Christians can’t even agree on the names of the Twelve disciples of Jesus! And Jesus left us ZIP in writing. Pathetic evidence. Every claim of Christianity, except for the existence of its founder, is contested by experts.
GARY: Christianity has nothing near this level of evidence! The authorship of the Gospels is CONTESTED.
LEE: So is the Book of Mormon. Dozens of ficticious histories of the Native American tribes of the US existed in the 1820s many of which claimed they were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel.
It’s very likely Joseph Smith plagiarized the BOM from one of these already-extant fictional histories. The widow of one deceased Congregationalist pastor and author (Solomon Spaulding) sued Joseph Smith for plagiarism. Several academic books have been written on this subject.
GARY: And we have thirteen signed affidavits from known residents of the state of New York who testified to seeing the Golden Plates, three of them testifying to seeing the angels.
LEE: And we have FOUR gospels, all written between 30 and 60 years after the fact, which testify to seeing Jesus alive three days after the Romans executed him. These witnesses furthermore, knowing the scorn and ridicule that would be heaped on them by both the Jewish establishment AND the Romans, had no reason to lie or fabricate this story. ESPECIALLY since NONE of them expected a death, much less a resurrection.
Besides which, I think there were ELEVEN witnesses–two groups of eight and then three–who supposedly saw the golden plates. One was Joseph Smith’s father and many of the others were early leaders in the Mormon Church–which by your own logic makes their testimony essentially wo4rthless.
GARY: Christians can’t even agree on the names of the Twelve disciples of Jesus!
LEE: Since when do Christians dispute the names of the twelve? You should talk to some actual Christians before you say such things.
GARY: And Jesus left us ZIP in writing. Pathetic evidence. Every claim of Christianity, except for the existence of its founder, is contested by experts.
LEE: By this logic, since Socrates left us “ZIP” in writing that means he probably never existed either
Pax.
Lee.
I’m beginning to think Gary doesn’t really exist.
Pax.
Lee.
Excellent post, Joel. I wasn’t aware of the history around Clement and his milieu. Thank you for the background and commentary.
And amusing discussion here in the comments.
p.s. there is a duplicated section of this post. Search for “slow divorce”, and you’ll see a duplicated section.
Yes, the discussion is amusing…and a bit maddening! lol.
Thomas Herron in his monograph Clement and the Early Church of Rome makes a very persuasive case that 1 Clement was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It is the earliest record that Paul and Peter were martyred for their faith. Though the majority of biblical scholars put 1 Clement at 95–96 CE, I think that date is much too late. The Jerusalem Temple is talked about as still standing in the document. The writer in Chapter 5 mentions “Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.” He goes on that “Peter, through unrighteous envy . . . finally suffered martyrdom” and that “Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance . . . .” Though certainly not killing Peter and Paul themselves, the Roman Christian community was implicated by Clement in the arrest and execution of these great apostles. This fact would have been quite embarrassing for the author of the Book of Acts to mention, which is probably why he is silent on the deaths of the two great apostles, and probably is also one of the reasons why the document was not included for inclusion in the New Testament.
The document never says that it is authored by Clement. It begins, “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth . . . .” Thus Clement is not yet a “bishop,” but probably just a corresponding secretary of the Roman Church assigned the task of sending this letter to the Corinthian Church to assist them with their conflict. In his Letter to the Philippians, Paul mentions the division in the Roman Church in 1:15-18: “Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry but others from goodwill. These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of the gospel; the others proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but intending to increase my suffering in my imprisonment. What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.”