I return her to the book of 1 Clement, probably unknown to many people on the blog, but an important work written at about the time of some of some of the writings of the New Testament – or so I’ll b arguing in the post after this. First I need to say something about the author. Why is it attributed to someone named Clement? Could this really have been written by a first-century pope (i.e., the Bishop of the church in Rome)?
Again, I am taking this information from the Introduction to the letter, which I give in a new English translation (with the Greek text on the facing page) in the first volume of my Apostolic Fathers in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).
**************************************************************
The Author of the Book
Even though the letter 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 …
To see the rest of this post, you will need to be a member of the blog. If you’re not already, now’s your big chance. Why not join? It doesn’t cost much, you get tons for your money, and every penny goes to charity.
Your course on the Apostolic Fathers for the Great Courses led to me buying your translations for the Loeb Classical Library. I highly recommend both for anyone wanting to explore I Clement or any of the other writings of the Apostolic Fathers. This is an era of Christian history too often overlooked, and one that needs to be examined to get an undistorted view of the story of the Christian church.
I just finished rereading I Clement after many years and was struck by how much the author quotes the Old Testament. He continuously refers to it as “scripture”, something he never seems to do with his allusions to the writings in the New Testament. He also makes a reference to “our Father Abraham” at one point. I guess I always assumed the author was a Gentile writing to other Gentiles. Is it possible the author was a Jewish Christian with a high position in the Roman Church? If not then how were the Gentile converts learning their Tanakh?
Thanks!
I think the author was almost certainly a gentile and that he, and other gentile converts, learned early on the importance of the Old Testament for understanding their faith.
Dr Ehrman, I’m currently reading the Pseudo-Clementine literature (the Homilies and Recognitions in parallel) and I would be absolutely stunned if they were actually composed by a 1st century follower of Peter. (That’s probably why they’re called the “Pseudo”-Clementine literature.) In fact, they read more like something composed in the 3rd century, in response to attacks from Orthodox Pauline Christianity on the right, and Gnosticism and Neoplatonism on the left. (Peter’s main opponent in the works — which consist mainly disputations in the tradition of other apologetics, such as Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho — is Simon Magus, who himself can’t seem to decide whether he’s a Neoplatonist, a Gnostic heretic or a hardcore Pauline Christian.)
Anyway, 1 Clement seems like the first in a long line of traditions of using Clement as a mouthpiece for some Christian guy’s own thoughts and opinions (in this case, for a church hierarchy). Maybe early Christians found it necessary to fill out the CV of this purported Clement of Rome. The same way that they found it necessary fill out the stories of most of Jesus’ disciples — many of whom have a blink-and-you’ll-miss-him quality in the gospels — into these epic lives spent spreading the gospel in India or somesuch nonsense. If you’re an early Christian missionary, and someone asks you “whatever happened to Bartholomew?” you can’t just say, “You know what? That’s a good question.” No, you have to say something (anything!) in order not to look like an idiot, so you make something up, such as that Bartholomew took Christianity to Armenia, or India, or both, or somesuch nonsense.
So you’re a 2nd century Christian initiate who asks, “who is this Clement guy who I read mentioned from time-to-time in the literature?” If you’re a Christian apostle, you can’t answer, “Good question. I don’t know.” Because you’ll look like an idiot. So you say, “Oh Clement? He was one of the first bishops of Rome. In fact, he was handpicked by Saint Peter himself. And that letter to the Corinthians that’s been going around? That was written by Clement.” And, bam! Clement is now a fully realized human being.
This kind of stuff happens so often that there’s even a name for it. It’s called “bullshitting”. We see it happening even today. All the time (just listen to the words of any politician). It’s so ubiquitous, in fact, as to be inconspicuous and commonplace.
No, they certainly are not first century. The scholarship is massively complicated, especially the older work that focused almost exclusively in trying to establish the sources/Urtext behind the Recognitions and Homilies. But more recent scholarship has bypassed all that to try to understand how the works could function in their fourth century context. If you’re interested, there are excellent books by Annette Yoshiko Reed and Nicole Kelley for starters.
Thanks for the tip.
Dr Bart Ehrman, on a personal note do you believe in demonic possession and exorcism?
I believe exorcisms happen, but I don’t believe in demons or any supernatural beings, so I don’t think there are literally demons being cast out of people, no.
How historical is the movie, AGORA?
Have you ever written on book on the violence of early Christians? Can you make any recommendation on the violence of early Christians?
I haven’t seen it in a while — I would have to take a look. I deal with violence in the later chapters of my most recent book Triumph of Christianity, and give bibliography there in the footnotes, if you’re interested.
Some things were changed in the movie, probably for the sake of narrative, like most historical dramas. The biggest change, of course, is that Hypatia is stoned in the film (after first being mercifully strangled by her former slave). The historical record, however, says that Hypatia was flayed with pottery shards (possibly while she was still conscious), publicly dismembered and burned.
Dismembered? She was stripped, but I don’t remember anything about dismemberment. Ugly incident in any event….
“I don’t remember anything about dismemberment.”
“After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burned them.” — Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 7.15
Ah, thanks.
Don’t know about a pope writing it. Don’t care. I’m sure that some popes were nice fellas, but having a title means nothing about the character of the individual or his pursuit of God. Give me a St. Frances of Assisi any day or a Brother Andrew. They longed for God, to know Him and the fellowship of His sufferings. The bibles Andrew smuggled included all the miraculous deeds and references to the miraculous that the Higher Critics dismiss before even considering that they may have taken place. Gone Before The Wind gets there.
Bart, why don’t Higher Critics use The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English”, Tom Jefferson’s Version? He completed it in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson’s condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, *(Should have removed every single reference to the supernatural no matter how subtle) including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine. Thanks Wikipedia.
You see, at least that way, we can know that we are discussing and comparing the same material, apples to apples, oranges to oranges, you know?
* guess who
It makes no sense to me for Higher Critics to call the N.T. the N.T. when Higher Critics mean a N.T. absent everything miraculous. Do you see what I mean? In fact, when Historic Critics try to explain them away, it merely complicates their interpretations. They end up making a bunch of truly bizarre theories. If they would stick with a Jefferson Bible, that would reduce the number of misunderstandings and much of the conjecture.
I am not too sure why Prestonp is commenting here, he doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between what is historical and what is theological. There is a difference between fact and faith, the one does not require evidence.
“the friendly attitude toward the Roman empire evidenced in 1 Clement (e.g., ch. 60) is replaced by a sense of opposition.”
I think I once read somewhere (but can’t find it now) that some scholars have concluded that ch 60-65 were a late addition to the epistle, and that why some translations of the text end at chapter 59. Is that something you’ve come across?
No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The first discovered ms of the book, Codex Alexandrinus, was missing a page and so was lacking 57.7-63.4; but the other complete manuscript has all the chapters.
It’s been about 10 years since I listened to your Great Courses lectures on the Apostolic Fathers, so this is a nice refresher!
Great courses has a monthly subscription now, I would be interested in the anthropology lectures.
When do you think the first “pope,” recognized leader of the majority of churches in the empire, actually emerged? Do you think the existence of a secular Caesar influenced the Christians to want a singe leader of the church? (I.e., that was the assumed proper form of government, secular or religious.)
It’s very hard to date. There was a bishop of Rome certainly by the mid to late second century; but the Roman bishop is not considered by most everyone as “the” leader of the church probably until the early fourth century. that is, of course, when the emperor converts, so possibly there was some cross-fertilization of ideas?
{fishician August 13, 2018
When do you think the first “pope,” recognized leader of the majority of churches in the empire, actually emerged?}
Recognized by whom?
“Bart August 13, 2018
I believe exorcisms happen, but I don’t believe in demons or any supernatural beings, so I don’t think there are literally demons being cast out of people, no.”
See M. Scott Peck
Neither MBI nor Wheaton supported the “spiritual gifts”, I assume. Do you have an opinion about how those who exercise them do so? IOW, for “languages”, do you think they are manufacturing what they do intentionally to deceive others? If not, what’s your best guess as to the mechanism of action? How do they do it?
“But it is not at all implausible that the miracle working deeds of Jesus were later memories told by those who had come to believe that he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven. His current powers as Lord of all, according to these memories, were present already during his life as demonstrations that the end was near.” Bart
It is far, far, more plausible that they reported observed miracles. IMO. These guys were monotheists! Jews! The ONE GOD crowd! They gave up all for Him
John said, “I am not the Christ.” “Then who are you?” “Are you Elijah?” “Are you the Prophet?” …So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us…” “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”…”among you stands One you do not know. He is the One who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”…The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Why would John call Jesus the Lamb of God? (I know, must have been added later.) Why would the Apocalypticist announce the coming of another apocalypticist? Why wouldn’t the conspirators eliminate all mention of John? Wait. I got it! Duh! They throw him in to prove that Christ was the One! Though He was a loose cannon, end time, nut job, (and John obviously knew this) they made Him God and put words in the mouth of John to affirm His deity at some point down the road. AHA!
I think miracle workers in Christianity today are much like miracle workers in so many other religions. If you think one group actually does them, I think you need to allow that the others do as well.
prestonp,
M. Scott Peck’s book was an interesting read.
Even though M. Scott Peck was a psychiatrist, the reason why he could not provide psychotherapy alone to those patients is because demonic possession affects both state of mind and agency. Medicine would not diagnosis someone as demonically possessed, this is what a patient might describe their mental disturbance as in some cases, other cases the patient might not know what to call their condition. However, the underlying issue is the patient no longer has a unified agency.
When agency is affected, there are periods when the patient is not in complete control of their actions. One example where agency can be compromised is a patient has a surgical procedure to cut their corpus callosum. They can feel someone is pushing them out of bed, but it’s really one half of their body doing the pushing resulting in a tug of war.
In those who are experiencing a loss of agency (e.g., split-brain, demonically possessed), this is also accompanied with mental and behavioral changes. Since those parts of the brain which control behavior are also affected. Treatment would include medication, behavioral therapy, relaxation techniques, and follow ups with the neurologist.
However, M. Scott Peck chose exorcism and it was successful, because he was able to cast out the demon. I’ve read what happens during an exorcism in M. Scott Peck’s Glimpse of the Devil, Fr. Gabriel Amorth’s An Exorcist tells his Story, and Fr. Malachi Martin’s Hostage to the Devil and the metaphysical aspects were pretty unnerving and left me a little unsettled. It eventually lead me to read the Bible from cover-to-cover.
But it’s important to note the rituals of exorcism induces a hypnotic state and exorcisms could very well be a form of hypnotherapy.
Bart, what would happen if you asked Christ to reveal Himself to you? Would your answer be that He couldn’t? Would you say that because He was an apocalypticist and not God, not the risen, the resurrected Savior of the world, there is no way He could?
But, say you were truly curious, and you really, really wanted to know if you were right. If you were to ask Him to come into your heart, sincerely-which is the only way you would do such a thing-what do you think would happen?
I think that would be a fair test. If your understanding of Christ is correct, He couldn’t respond, of course, because He is dead. Long gone. There’s nothing He could do, period, end of story, see you later, that’s all she wrote! Right? Nothing to worry about plain and simple. That’s if you are correct. You wouldn’t lose a thing. Nothing. Zero.
Say you were willing to conduct this test of sorts and gave it a go. Say you just wanted to be absolutely positive that you are on the right track. Not that you don’t know that you are. You do. You’ve researched these issues for decades and by golly you know deep down you are on target. But, just as a scholar thoroughly committed to investigate these matters fairly and objectively, if you earnestly wrote in a letter to Him or just said to Him, “Jesus, if You are real, if You really did rise from the dead, if You can hear me, show me!”, what do you think would happen?
You do know that I was a very devout born again Christian who asked Jesus into his heart and committed his life to him as his lord and savior, don’t you?
Yes, I do.
The Professor:
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).
The Student:
I’m ready to check amazon dot com or libraries:
What is the book by Lightfoot and the author’s full name?
What is the book by Jeffers and the author’s full name?
J. B. Lightfoot, the five-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers, originally published in 1889, reissued by Hendrickson publishers in 1989. Deffers. I wonder if I meant Clayton Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers? Or maybe James S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome.
J.B. Lightfoot, the five volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers
Steve: OMG, I’m really not feeling going through each of the five volumes
Clayton Jefford – “Reading the Apostolic Fathers
Steve: Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction, 2nd Edition
James S. Jeffers – Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity
Steve quoting amazon dot com text: Utilizing archeological evidence and an analysis of two early Christian texts related to the church at Rome, James S. Jeffers offers a penetrating glimpse into the economic, social, and theological tensions of early Roman Christianity. Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas are shown to represent two decidedly conflicting conceptions of Christianity and hierarchy: Clement represents the social elite and a more structured approach to church organization, and Hermas displays a tendency toward sectarianism.
I’m definitely hunting down the Jeffers book.
The Marvin Meyer’s book (The Ancient Mysteries) you recommended does not have an index, which of course is an obvious problem for studying the book.
It really doesn’t need much of an index: it is a reader that is clearly organized by mystery cult (Isis, Bacchus, Demeter, etc.)
I’m sure there are quotations in the Apostolic/Church Fathers from early Christian documents of which there are no extant manuscripts. Are there any in particular that would be on your wish list of future discoveries?
I’d love to see the five-volume work of Papias, Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. Dated to around 130 and must have been filled with both historical and, especially, legendary material, from very early times.
Bart,
could you cite good book or article on the rise of early-christian mono-episcopacy? I m really interested in the question of how did church structure rose from earliest house churches to the administrative church with clear hierarchy and with a bishop on top?
Thanks!
That’s a great question. I can’t think of anything other than dry and relatively inaccessible scholarship… I’ll think some more — or maybe someone else on the blog knows of something?
Dr. Ehrman: Is there a respected source which makes a statement as to the scholarly consensus on this issue:
“Did any of the Early Church Fathers (such as Clement of Rome) know Paul, Peter, or one of the Twelve?”
Christians often claim that there is a solid chain of custody (of information/teachings) from the Twelve and Paul to the Early Church Fathers. Is this true or just Church tradition? Thanks.
The question 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 the Shepherd of Hermas, then the answer wold have to be no, since he would have lived long after their deaths.
Is there a scholarly consensus on this issue (Did any early Church Father meet/know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?)
Yup, a consensus!
My debate partner, OT Bible scholar Joel Edmund Anderson, responded to your claim that a consensus exists that none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or the Twelve: “Hahaha…”scholarly consensus” in the academic field of the early Church Fathers is not comprised of a NT scholar [Bart Ehrman], who is not an expert in the early Church Fathers and is a hyper-skeptic to boot.”
Dr. Anderson then quotes patristic scholar Andrew Louth, Penguin Classic edition of Early Christian Writings, concerning I Clement: “Of the authenticity of this epistle [First Clement] 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.”
Anderson: The guy who wrote I Clement was Clement of Rome, who lived in Rome. He quotes Paul, James, Peter, and the Synoptics. It is utterly reasonable to assume that he very well could have known Peter and Paul.
How would you respond, Dr. Ehrman?
Wow. I wonder if Louth still thinks that? (He wrote it nearly 35 years ago) It’s a highly unusual position, I would say except among very conservative theologians, and I owuld not have put him in that camp. The author of 1 Clement does not claim to be someone named Clement. It claims to be written by the “church” in Rome, not by a leader. Nothing in the letter — nothing — suggests that the author knew any of the apostles. I don’t even know what it means to talk aoub the “authenticity” of the epistle. That normally means that the person who claims to be the author actually wrote it. But the author of 1 Clement never claims to be Clement, so how can it be either authentic or inauthentic. [As you may know I did the Loeb Classical Library edition of 1 Clement (Introduction and a new translation) and I have never heard anyone claim that my scholarship on the book was “skeptical.”] Yes ,the book is usually dated to the mid 90s — that is, about 30 years after the traditional deaths of Peter and Paul, which the author mentions, without giving the slightest hint that he knew either one of them. When I speak of a consensus, I don’t mean that NO ONE has another view. There is a consensus for example, that Jesus existed, but there are some who disagree… In any event, if you pursue your conversation with this fellow, I’d suggest you ask him where in the book of 1 Clement it indicates it was written by someone who was Clement, or someone who knew the apostles. If he gives you some evidence, look carefully yourself and you’ll see….
As you know, this is a BIG issue for conservative Christians. If none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or one of the Twelve, then the chain of custody of the “Jesus Story” is questionable at best. Conservative Christian apologists desperately want to convince lay Christians that Clement et al were actual disciples of the apostles and therefore Christians can be certain that the teachings of the Early Church Fathers are the teachings of Jesus. Even more importantly, if the Early Church Fathers knew the Apostles, they most certainly would have verified the historical accuracy of the stories in the Gospels with them.
But without a continuous chain of custody, apologists are forced to admit that the Jesus Story found in our Bibles may very well contain extensive fictional embellishments. That is why Anderson is so stridently contesting your pronouncement of a “consensus” on this issue. He is using Louth’s statement as evidence that you are wrong; that the consensus among PATRISTIC scholars is that the Early Church Fathers DID know the apostles. Do you have access to any statements by other patristic scholars who cite a scholarly consensus on this issue?
Questions of consensus are always anecdotal. I don’t know anyone professionally in the field of Patristic studies who says it was written by a companion of the Apostles. In addition to the Loeb edition that I did, the other standard one currently is by Michael Holmes, himself an evangelical, and in his introduction he also says there isn’t any evidence to support a direct apostolic connection. Maybe apologists do say this? I’ve never heard anyone make the claim myself. But in any event, consensus of scholarship is not evidence one way or the other. I wold just press Anderson on what is *evidence* is that the author knew the apostles. I assume he’s familiar with the book, but I don’t know him or know what he knows. It would be hard to say, though, that the book is replicating the teachings of Jesus since it isn’t about Jesus, though he does quote a fw of Jesus’ teachings. The book is about something completely differeent. Have you read it? Check it out and see.
Dr. Ehrman,
Aside from our canonical Gospels and epistles, are there any known and surviving writings by Christians in the first century in addition to 1 Clement?
The next earliest is probably the Didache, which is usually dated in its current from to around 100 CE, with a couple or even all of its sources earlier. There have been debates about whether the Gospel of Thomas should be that early, but I don’t think so myself.
Do you think it’s historical that the infuential church leaders (Peter, Paul, John, Cephas, etc) appointed bishops to succeed them?
There’s many traditions in churches of succession, but I’m not really concerned about whether it’s correct. Just wondered if apostolic succession was a thing.
The only “apostolic” author we have is Paul, and in his undisputed letters there’s nothing like this — on the contrary, Paul never talks about a “leader” of any of his churches.