Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: corpus-paul digest: June 03, 1999

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT csi.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: corpus-paul digest: June 03, 1999
  • Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:54:17 -0400


On Jun 3, 1999, Jon Paul wrote:

>>Last but not least, no less than Clement of Rome (a contemporary in time and
place!) and Origen also subscribe to a Pauline inspiration scenario [for
Hebrews], more or
less.<<

I am not clear regarding what you are trying to say here.

Could you be a bit more specific about where Origin "subscribe[d] to a Pauline
inspiration scenario [for Hebrews]?" Or are you citing Origin as a witness for
Pauline authorship? If so, Origin would have written at least 125 years after
Paul's death, seriously eroding his value as a witness for Pauline authorship
of this book. Are you giving his witness extra weight because he was from
Alexandria?

Similarly, where does 1 Clement say Paul "inspired" Hebrews? The best one can
say is that the letter quotes a truncated form of Hebrews 1:3-4 and -possibly-
alludes to 13:17.

On Jun 4, 1999, Andrew Dolan said:

>>I would even question the apparent consensus on the date of 1 Clement to
which Jon Peter refers and which seems founded on weak assumptions from
Lightfoot (see J. Christian Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of
Revelation," NTS 39 [1993]: 587-605).<<

I took Jon's statement above to mean that the author of 1 Clement was a
contemporary of Paul during the period he was in Rome. I would then suppose
that Jon has taken the author of 1 Clement to be the Clement mentioned in Phil
4:3 (although I trust Jon will correct me if I am wrong).

Andrew appears, on the other hand, to take "contemporary" to mean 1st century
CE. I am interpreting Andrew's statement as implying that he thinks 1 Clement
was written later (?) than the time of Domitian, not earlier (and again, I
trust Andrew will correct me if I am in error about this).

Determination of the date of composition of 1 Clement is affected by the NT
books that it quotes or possibly alludes to. Using a crude database based on
volume 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers series (Eerdmans reprint), these quotes
("Q") and allusions ("A") are:

CLEMENT1 Q ACTS 20:35
CLEMENT1 Q COR 1 02:09
CLEMENT1 Q HEB 01:03-04
CLEMENT1 Q JAS 01:08
CLEMENT1 Q JAS 02:23
CLEMENT1 Q LUKE 06:36-38
CLEMENT1 Q MATT 06:12-15
CLEMENT1 Q MATT 07:02
CLEMENT1 Q PET 2 03:03-04
CLEMENT1 Q ROM 01:32
CLEMENT1 Q ROM 12:05
CLEMENT1 Q TIT 03:01

CLEMENT1 A COL 01:18
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 03:13
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 12:12
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 13:04
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 15:20
CLEMENT1 A HEB 13:17
CLEMENT1 A JAS 02:21
CLEMENT1 A JAS 05:20
CLEMENT1 A LUKE 17:02
CLEMENT1 A MARK 09:42
CLEMENT1 A MATT 18:06
CLEMENT1 A MATT 26:24
CLEMENT1 A PET 1 02:17
CLEMENT1 A PET 1 03:20
CLEMENT1 A PET 1 04:08
CLEMENT1 A PET 2 02:05
CLEMENT1 A PET 2 02:06-09
CLEMENT1 A PHI 04:15
CLEMENT1 A THE 1 05:12-13
CLEMENT1 A TIM 1 05:21

Several of the books quoted (such as 2 Peter, James, Acts and Titus) are
generally assigned dates of composition in the 2nd century CE. Even if a case
can be made for 1st century dates for any one of them, how many would apply an
early date to -all- of them? 1 Clement, then, would appear to be either late
or interpolated. Again, the value of this book as a witness is eroded.

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page