Talk:First Epistle of Clement

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is almost word for word the text in the article Epistles of Clement. I say that we move the couple of paragraphs here to that article and delete this one. Jhobson1 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation has been completed. The contents of this page have been moved to Epistles of Clement and links have been changed. Silvanus42 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the merger was unfortunate. I will try to undo it, unless there are objections. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very odd thing in this article - the footnote to this statement "Clement also alludes to the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and the first epistle to the Corinthians;[5]" takes you straight to the editing page of the article! I wanted to see what source was cited for the statement as in Robert M. Price's book "The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul", he writes "Polycarp, Ignatius and 1 Clement can be shown to make allusions to the letters to the Corinthians. I remain unpersuaded by the attempts of Andreas Lindemann to secure other Pauline citations", page 102, with a footnote that cites Lindemann "Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers," in Babcock, Paul and Legacies, 25-43. So it seems that there is at least some doubt that it can be stated as fact that 1 Clement alludes to the other Pauline epistles other than Corinthians. I am changing the statement to "Clement also alludes to 1 Cor and may allude to the others.Smeat75 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Price also holds a ton of bizarre positions that no one else holds. For example, the idea that Marcion wrote Galatians. Regardless, 1 Clement certainly demonstrates knowledge of 1 Cor, 2 Cor, and Romans. The rest is more difficult to say. Conservative scholars have tried to maximize the number of allusions (presumably for apologetic reasons), so it is good to be cautious. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carrier points out there is internal evidence that the work was written before 70 C.E. (Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield. Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2. pg 271-272) pointing to 1 Clement 41:2 which states: "Not in every place, brethren, are sacrifices offered continually, either in answer to prayer, or concerning sin and neglect, but in Jerusalem only; and even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the temple in the court of the altar, after that which is offered has been diligently examined by the high priest and the appointed ministers" as evidence that when 1 Clement was written the temple was intact. Thomas J Herron, who is already cited as a source says much the same thing as circa 70 CE means around 70 CE not exactly 70 CE and a before date makes far more sense then one after. Also do the experts who give a date in the 90s explain why someone would write as if the Temple was intact when it had been destroyed some 20 years previously?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While not reliable Church in History says the same thing and points out "During 69 AD the Roman Empire was in political chaos with the Emperors - Galba, Otho and Vitellius - being killed in one year. This chaos was the cause of troops being withdrawn from besieging Jerusalem. Clement’s words fit this turbulent year very well. G. Edmundson presents a good case for Clement writing this letter in the early months of 70 AD ((GE 180-205)). Robinson accepted that Edmundson’s case should be most seriously considered ((JATR 329)) and Thied has also adopted this date ((CTR 71))." It also points to J. B. Lightfoot (who died in 1889) as the source and claims "Lightfoot did not discuss alternative dates nor provide any indication of any close personal research. The 96 AD date is based on two assumptions: 1). That Clement wrote after he became bishop of Rome in 91 AD, and 2). That the opening words refer to the persecution by Domitian, murdered in 96 AD ((GE 180-205, JATR 328))." If true, then any source that cites 96 AD is using wildly out of date information as the references above (which are reliable) are:

GE - The Church in Rome in the First Century by G. Edmundson, 1913

CTR - Rekindling the Word by Carston Thiede, 1995.

JATR - Redating the New Testament by J.A.T. Robinson, 1976.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under "authorship and date", the current page lists a secondary source for tying 1 Clement to Clement of Rome. Why not cite Irenaeus directly? The source is Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3. You can read it here: https://files.romanroadsstatic.com/materials/romans/early-christianity/IrenaeusV1-0.pdf I would make the edit myself, but I am not familiar with editing conventions so would probably make a mess of it. 2A00:23C6:2498:8E01:E046:4FBE:320C:AB95 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]