The First Epistle of Clement
Online Text for 1 Clement
Online Resources for 1 Clement
Offline Resources for 1 Clement
Information on 1 Clement
On the internal evidence for the dating of 1 Clement,
Welborn writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1060):
The epistle is customarily dated to the end of the
reign of Domitian (95 or 96 C.E.). 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. But the
langauge of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether
it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160);
and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is
tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148-73). In letters and
speeches on concord, one often finds an apologetic
formula like that which introduces 1 Clement; it was
customary for one who gave advice on concord to excuse
his delay by reference to personal or domestic
hindrances (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.2; Aelius
Aristides Or. 24.1; Socratic Ep. 31).
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.
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.
Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40). On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.
The author writes because certain factions in Corinth have not given proper respect to the bishops and deacons and have set up new leaders in their place. On the occasion of the epistle, Welborn states (op. cit., p. 1059):
Whatever the causes of the conflict in Corinth, money
seems to have been involved. Contrasting the former
humility of the Corinthians with the ambition which
has now given rise to strife, the author states that
the Corinthians had once been 'satisfied with the
provision (ephodios) of Christ' (2:1). Dionysius of
Corinth, in his letter to Soter, observed that it had
been the custom of the Roman church from the beginning
'to send contributions (ephodia) to many churchs in
every city' (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.23.10). From the
Roman point of view of Clement, the younger generation
of leaders at Corinth are dissatisfied with the
provision for their church. What role did this play
in the revolt against the presbyters? Were the
established presbyters accused of embezzlement? Did
the new leaders seek another contribution, to replace
the funds their predecessors stole? Polycarp reports
that the presbyter Valens was deposed from office for
"avarice" (Ad Phil. 11). The unrest of the 1st and 2d
centuries almost always had economic causes; and the
agreements which brought strife to an end usually
included concrete provisions which served the
interests of all parties.
For convenience, a copy of the table of contents is provided here.
|
