(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...This will be my final post on the book of 1 Clement. Now that I’ve summarized what the book is about and said something about its author, I can turn to the question of when it was written. The time of its writing is an important question, for a reason you might not suspect.
It is almost always said – I myself regularly say this, as a kind of simple “short hand,” knowing that it’s probably not literally true — that the books of the New Testament are the “earliest” Christian writings we have. In fact, if, as is often thought, Revelation was written around 95 CE, and 2 Peter around 120 and Acts possibly (?) around them as well, then a couple of other Christian books may have ante-dated them, including 1 Clement and the Didache, two of the apostolic fathers. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch were almost certainly written around 110 CE.
So, the big question here is: when did this anonymous author from Rome write the book of 1 Clement? This is an edited version of my discussion in my edition The Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (vol. 1; Harvard University Press, 2003)
******************************
Date
There are some things we can say with relative certainly
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Did the Jarusalem apostles accept Paul’s later message, that he wrote about in his epistles like Corinthians and Romans?
If I understand the timeline, Paul meets with Peter and maybe James the first time, but he doesn’t say what was discussed. Then Paul meets with the Jarusalem apostles after 14 years, and his mission to the gentiles is approved, and he is given the “right hand of fellowship”. However, the “Pauline” christianity that he appears to develop in the epistles comes after that, correct?
Thank you!
Paul indicates that he was given his distinctive gospel message by a “revelation” from God and that appears to be at the time he had his vision of Jesus. That would have been before his first trip to Jerusalem, so it is usually thought that he told Peter what had happened and then continued his mission. The meeting later was probably because he was getting some pushback from others and wanted Jerusalem’s support. All of that is before he wrote Corinthians and Romans. (We of course only have Paul’s word that they other apostles agreed with him)
The two emissaries, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, appear to have been freedmen from the household of Emperor Claudius (who died in AD 54) and his wife, Valeria Messalina (who died in AD 48). If their manumission took place before Claudius’s death, and given that Roman law required freed slaves to be at least thirty years old to obtain citizenship, would they not have been too old by AD 95 to serve as messengers to Corinth? Under this assumption, Ephebus would have been no younger than seventy, and Valerius at least seventy-eight, if we maintain the traditional dating to AD 95.
I’m not sure of the chronology (any more! It’s been years since I’ve looked at this stuff). Where are you getting your information about these two figures (outside of 1 Clement) and the age of citizenship for manumitted slaves?
According to the Lex Aelia Sentia a manumission was only legally valid (except in rare cases) if the slave was at least thirty.
The suggestion that the envoys mentioned belonged to the household of Claudius comes from Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, Part I, Volume II (pp. 27–30 in the introduction and the commentary on 1 Clement § 65). Lightfoot observes that the names “Claudius/Claudia” and “Valerius/Valeria” appear frequently in inscriptions of freedmen and slaves connected with the imperial household- particularly during the reign of Claudius (of the Claudian gens) and his wife Messalina (of the Valerian gens). He also notes instances where Claudius/Valerius occur together in inscriptions related to imperial freedmen, further strengthening the association. The relatively uncommon cognomen “Bito” (or “Vito”) is linked by Lightfoot to the names “Bitalis”/“Vitalis,” which also appear among freedmen of the imperial palace (CIL VI, etc.).
Lightfoot further connects this with Paul’s reference in Philippians 4:22 “…those of Caesar’s household” arguing that the early Roman church included members of the imperial household. From this perspective, the presence of Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito as Roman envoys, bearing names characteristic of imperial freedmen, lends credibility to the idea they belonged to that circle of “Caesar’s household” Christians.
Again, I haven’t looked at this material for a very long time (I considered this problem over 25 years ago and haven’t had occasoin to return to it), but subsequent scholars have not normally been persuaded by Lightfoot’s case, in this instance, even though he was indeed a brilliant scholar. The point you raise about ages is a very big problem for it. And it is now widely inown that “Caesar’s household” wsa not limited to Rome: it mean anyone in the employ of the imperial family wherever they lived.
I find myself waiting for the rest of the story. Was harmony restored in the Corinth congregation? Was 1 Clement successful?
We don’t have a follow up letter! So it’s difficult to say.
In other words, did the apostels or Paul develop the idea that later become the doctine of substitutionary sacrificial atonement?
It was around before Paul; he inherited it (as he himself says in 1 Cor. 15:3).
Dr. Ehrman,
On 1 Clem: A scholar made the point that one of the reasons the letter can be dated fairly early is because in 1 Clem. 44:1-5, those appointed as leaders by the apostles were still alive, do you agree?
1Clem 44:1ff
our Apostles knew through Christ there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.
We see that ye have displaced certain persons, from the ministration which had been respected by
them blamelessly.
He leaves the door open whether the leaders were appointed by apostles or by others appointed by the apostles (“afterward”)
Some scholars appear to prefer dating 2 Peter to 125-150 CE. Do you find their arguments convincing? Likewise for the surprisingly late dating of Acts (something about reliance on Josephus)?
I usually date 2 Peter to around 120; it could be later, but I don’t know that there’s a compelling argument either way, since it’s not mentioned by any of the church writers till later still.
I think the evidence that the author of Acts read and used Josephus is very thin. A lot of scholars are shifting to that view, but my view generally is that scholars are more commonly finding thin evidence compelling….
Late comment: The evidence looks compelling to a non-scholar lay person: Luke only referencing rebels and rebellions in Luke/Acts that were also referenced in Josephus. But I think I’ve seen the claim that maybe Luke and Josephus used a common source. Does that sound more plausible?
I’m not so sure. Do you mean the fact that they name they both name the Egyptian and Theudas? These were known figures, so I’m not sure the fact they are both mentioned by these two authors means that they were the only two who ever mentioned them or — as you’re suggesting — that there must have been only one who mentioned them earlier that both Josephus and Luke had read.. For me that’s trying to connect dots in a puzzle that is missing nearly all the dots. But it’s certainly possible. (When I read the actual arguments made by Mason and Pervo I find them weak…)
Regarding the dating of this letter, it’s interesting to see what the author comments about Peter and Paul.
Peter
“There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors,
and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.”
The quote is very vague; it doesn’t even mention Rome as the place of martyrdom, even though the letter is written from Rome. It gives the feeling that the author has no idea what happened to Peter but attributes a martyr’s death to him because that’s what would be appropriate for an apostle.
Paul
“After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned,
had preached in the East and in the West…
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West;
and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers…”
About Paul, it’s more precise, but most of the details can be deduced from 2 Corinthians, which is probably its source. The novel element is his ‘testimony before the rulers’ and his martyrdom, the place of which is also not specified. Perhaps this last part, just like in Peter’s case, was added to give an ending befitting Paul’s stature as an apostle.
In relation to his preaching ‘in the West’ it’s more than probable that this is based on Romans 15:24.
The letter neither matches Acts, which suggests a happy ending for Paul in Rome (Acts 28:31), nor the pastoral letters, which point to Paul’s martyrdom in Rome but do not mention any journey to the west.
Could this letter be earlier than those other four books of the NT?
Ok, so if I understand his argument correctly, James Tabor is likely right, that the Jarusalem apostles did not fully know about Paul’s gospel.
I suppose Paul might not have told them everything, or he might not have fully developed his gospel yet, since we first see it in his letters that take place after his first two visits with the Jarusalem apostles.
Tabor argues as well (again, if I understand him correctly) that Paul hints at a serious rift in his letters, and that Acts shows James taking issue with what he heard Paul was teaching (during his last visit).
Is 1st Corinthians 15:3 the Gospel that Paul received from the risen Christ?
That’s not my view. I think Paul told them his Gospel very plainly, at least in his second visit. And the language in 1 Corinthians 15 is the kind of language one uses to indicate traditions one has received from other authorities and is now passing on; he appears to be referring to what he heard from the other apostles. Paul’s own “distinctive” gospel was that this original message applied to gentiels as well as Jews, and that these gentiles did not therefore have to convert to Judaism.
Ok, so when people talk about the difference between the gospels of Jesus and Paul, it’s really (mostly) the difference between Jesus and the apostles (we just have it through Paul).
To some extent, yes. But we don’t have the others’ writings to know in much depth what they actually said, and Paul’s message had a lot more to it than is found in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.
Dr. Ehrman,
In addition to 1 Cor. being clearly referenced in 1 Clem., a few have said Rom. was as well, what do you think? I tend to think that the clarity is lacking. Here are the example verses given:
1Clem 32.2
For from him come the priests and all the Levites, who serve the altar of God, from him comes the Lord Jesus according to the flesh, from him come the kings and rulers and governors in the succession of Judah, and the other sceptres of his tribes are in no small renown seeing that God promised that “thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.”
1Clem 35:5
But how shall this be, dearly beloved? If our mind be fixed through
faith towards God; if we seek out those things which are well
pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we accomplish such things as
beseem His faultless will, and follow the way of truth, casting off
from ourselves all unrighteousness and iniquity, covetousness,
strifes, malignities and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred
of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory and inhospitality.
1Clem 50:6
This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have
been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the
glory for ever and ever. Amen.
I don’t think the parallels are obvious with Romans; surely they had the book (in Rome!) but I don’t see that it influenced 1 Clement much.
Hello Bart. What are we to make of the “Danaids and Dirces” passage in Chapter 6? Is it a reference to some instance of persecution? I see Kirsopp Lake thought the passage might be “hopelessly corrupt”. – t
It’s a strange one! And it is interpreted in a variety of ways. One leading interpretatoin is that it is referring to a Roman practice of dressing up criminals in mythological costumes before having them attacked by wild beasts or executed in some other (for them relevant) way.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was reading a commentary that said that one of the reasons for placing the writing of 1 Clem. still within the 1st century is its claim that Peter and Paul are role models of “our generation.” Following 1 Clem’s previous statement…”to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time…” Do you think this is a strong argument for a 1st century date?
The Text of 1 Clem 5:1ff:
1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance…..
Yes, it’s one of the arguments. I summarize the major ones in the Introduction to my edition of 1 Clement in vol. 1 of The Apostolic Fathers in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press)