For my part, I think that the arguments produced above in #56 incline me to support an early date; those, and the fact that there really is no evidence of a “Domitianic persecution” beyond the references in Clement’s epistle itself (as opposed to his having had his nephew [or great nephew] and designated heir, Titus Flavius Clemens, executed, and TFC’s wife, Flavia Domitilla, exiled, for “embracing a noxious superstition,” and harassing those who lived like Jews, but were not, for trying to benefit from various Jewish exemptions and privileges). However, you can read Edmundson’s book for yourself online, here:

http://www.ccel.org/e/edmundson/church/

I am still mulling a suitable response to Gil. In the meanwhile I would still be very much interested in the views of others regarding the hermeneutic, ecclesiological, historical or epistemological issues raised in this discussion. I note our Orthodox friends have been curiously silent (or at least subdued), which surprises me as 1 Clement is arguably the earliest piece of Patristic writing available to us.

Perhaps Fr. Tighe could… (emphasis my own)

Is that an implied promotion or demotion for Dr Tighe? ;)

Better evidence, according to Jurgens, is given in ch 64 where the names of the legates are given. These legates have names which demonstrate that they must have come from the household of Emperor Claudius and his wife Valeria Messalina. Roman law prohibited the freeing of any slave under 30 years of age. If we accept the later dating of the letter, then these legates were running from Rome to Greece and back in their 90’s. Highly improbable says Jurgens.

More likely, these legates were in their 50’s or 60’s as the letter says that they had, “grown old in their faith.” This puts the letter being composed in the 60’s or 70’s because these men could not have been born prior to 10 CE. The “sudden and repeated calamities” might then refer to Rome’s fire and Nero’s persecution or the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and fire and pestilence in Rome.

Additionally, there are few New Testament quotes in the letter which would make more sense if written earlier before the New Testament was completed. Also, the martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul are referred to as recent, which can only be true if the letter was written earlier.

I personally think that the arguments for an earlier date are interesting and warrant further study. I don’t believe that such evidence should be ruled out simply because the evidence doesn’t fit into one’s ecclesiology.

To restate the matter somewhat differently, my “speculative ecclesiology” is my primary reason for doubting, a priori, that the letter could date from the 70s and to prefer the end of the first century, which is, after all, the traditional date ascribed to the letter.

That said, while I have not found the few arguments that I have read so far particularly convincing in adducing an earlier date from internal textual analysis, I am open to hearing them restated and more thoroughly defended. But I think I would have to be offered some more plausible argument dismissing my scruple than the rather dubious proposition that the authority of Peter’s episcopal successor should have exceeded that of a living Apostle.

You might be better off arguing that John could have been absent from, or not yet settled, in Ephesus at the time the letter was written. You might note that the old Catholic Encyclopedia, sticking to the traditional dates for both the letter (96) and John’s death (101) states the following without explanation or further comment: “St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome.”

The online version of the encyclopedia also has the following interpolation: “In 1996, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI supported a date of A.D. 70, and by 2002 most scholars a date earlier than 96, some agreeing with the A.D. 70 date.” A date of precisely 70 A.D. would do a good job of bypassing my scruple as John and the other surviving Apostles might still have been in distant Palestine, or John himself at any rate not yet settled (with Mary) at Ephesus.

Perhaps Fr. Tighe could enlighten us to whether most 21st century historians do opt for an early date and, if so, why.

It seems that your primary reason for dating the letter so late is your speculative ecclesiology. That is, you rest your argument on your inability to concieve a world in which a successor to Peter and bishop of Rome intervenes in a Greek affair when at least one apostle is alive and in close proximity.

I prefer to keeping the arguments on textual dating to the text itself. It makes no difference to Catholic ecclesiology whether or not the letter is dated early or late.

I do suggest, however, that an early date to 1 Clement might alter your speculative ecclesiology.

I am happy to get into the Scriptural and historical arguments for the unique role of the Petrine ministry, but that would be outside our scope in this discussion.

In 96, however, John would have been very old, probably in his late 80s and probably no longer in active ministry. Tradition also tells us he spent some of his last years in exile, possible under close confinement, on the island of Patmos. This sort of situation could explain why the Corinthian elders would have appealed to Clement even if John was still alive. The situation in the 70s where some scholars would put the letter was quite different, however.

“Don’t forget that Peter’s ministry as Shepherd of the entire Flock of Christ can only be bestowed by Peter to successors and not to any other living apostle or by any other living apostle.”

I don’t forget it. I just don’t see any grounds for this rather bold assertion. There is nothing in scripture, Tradition (or the Catechism) to support it. We are also talking about a *function* of charismatic leadership, not an office, and it was shared by all the Apostles with Peter at their head. Paul founded the first Church in Ephesus and appointed Timothy as its bishop. We have this from scripture. Yet in the 70s John establishes his ministry in Ephesus and organizes the churches in Asia Minor from there. He is clearly exercising charismatic leadership above and beyond that exercised by Paul’s appointed successor on the spot. The authority of any Apostle anywhere in the world is clearly of a different and higher order than that of any bishop. John’s Revelation and letters are part of scripture and treated as the inspired word of God (even if the 2 and 3 John are hardly of momentous significance); Clement’s letter, despite it’s far greater practical significance, is not.

I think the root problem of this disagreement is a conflation of apostolic and episcopal authority, along with an unwarranted assumption that the Petrine function of charismatic leadership is rooted exclusively in Peter’s *episcopal* succession in Rome, whereas every Apostle, patriarch and even bishop shares in it to some degree. It is in the absence of Peter and the Apostles that the Petrine function becomes vested principally in the bishop of Rome, and it is thus in their physical absence (and that of Christ, of course) that the Pope exercises this function in the unique way that he does.

You imagine a dilemma where none exists. You give many reasons why John must be dead by the time of Clement’s letter however, ultimately, each is argued from silence and isn’t supported by the text.

Don’t forget that Peter’s ministry as Shepherd of the entire Flock of Christ can only be bestowed by Peter to successors and not to any other living apostle or by any other living apostle.

The successor of Peter (say Linus) would have no more and no less authority in his ministry than Peter himself. This is why there is no dilemma to having a successor to Peter exercising Petrine ministry while other apostles are alive.”

The bishops are the successors of the apostles. This much we can readily concede. The difficulty I have is with the suggestion that the successor’s authority must therefore be coextensive with that of his apostolic predecessor. This is not what the Church teaches. I quote from the Catechism:

“860: In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church.”

This superior, direct and personal witness of John would inevitably trump that of Linus. John’s visions and prophecies, received after Christ’s death, were considered by the Church to be the inspired word of God. No bishop, even Peter’s successor shares in this inspired witness and authority.

We know from John’s letters (the three we have can only be chance remains of a far more voluminous correspondence) that he was an active and detailed manager of a flock extending over several cities. Eusebius describes an extensive and detailed hagiography surrounding the apostle which contrast remarkably with the little we have concerning Clement. Linus and Anacletus are even paler shadows (mere names actually).

I think some conceptual unbundling is required here. Peter’s authority, and that of the apostles generally, involved a number of distinct but closely related strands. Some of these were shared (e.g. binding and loosing), others were particular to Peter (e.g. the power of the keys). Some strands could be transmitted (e.g. holy orders), some could not (e.g. inspiration).

The Petrine function of charismatic leadership, however, is unique in that it exists historically at two levels: within the apostolic college, and within the episcopate which succeeds to some but not all of its funcitons. When Peter died, his leadership within the apostle college could only have been transmitted, by definition, to another apostle and ultimately to John as the last living member of the college. As the apostolic function was superior to the episcopal, the leadership of the Church as a whole must have been in the hands of the apostles until they all passed away or ceased active ministry. The Creed, after all, describes the Church as “apostolic” not “episcopal”. Peter’s episcopal authority and leadership within the lesser episcopal order, on the other hand, would have been transmitted to his personal successors as bishop of Rome. With John’s death and the extinction of the Apostolic college (and thus of the possibility of new direct revelation), leadership of the Church as a whole would have been assumed by Peter’s successors within the episcopal college.

This is not to suggest that Linus would have had no primatial authority to intervene at Corinth had the incident in question occurred during his pontificate. Nor am I suggesting that Linus’ charismatic authority (not to speak of an anachronistic “legal” authority) was in any way less than or fundamentally different from that enjoyed by the current pontiff. I am merely stating what I consider to be the obvious: that Rome’s authority to intervene at Corinth would have been less than, and could only have deferred to, that of John while he remained active. This is why I consider the traditionally accepted date for Clement’s letter (mid to late 90s) makes sense, while the interpolated one (70s) does not.

“Clement when writing to the Corinthians (which everybody agrees, is nowhere near Rome) uses his Petrine authority.”

No disagreement there.

“Clement explains his tardiness in dealing with the Corinthians due “calamities and misfortunes.” Historical events go far to explain the silence of Linus and Anacletus during their respective ministries.”

How so? Paul wrote letters while in prison awaiting trial. Why could Linus and Anacletus not do the same? Even if one allowed this proposition, what bearing does it have? We can accept that they *did* enjoy Petrine authority even if they did not exercise it or if the record of this exercise was never preserved or somehow lost. That’s not the point at issue. What I am putting forward is that John would have inherited Petrine authority in a fuller and superior capacity.

“Clement is hardly using humble tones when he writes…”

He speaks with Petrine authority. I am not contesting this. In fact, this is part of my argument. He is not, however, using the imperial “we”. He uses the plural because he is writing on behalf of the members of the church of Rome and specifically associating them with his missive. He thus implicitly leans on the consensus of his presbyters and of the deceased founder-martyrs of his church — both of them, Peter *and* Paul, yet doesn’t seek to associate John or any other living apostle with his intervention. In my view, this can only mean that John is either dead or in the exile that led to his martyrdom.

Let’s be clear here. The traditional date for Clement’s letter is 96 A.D, not the 70s. It is those who would move the date forward who have to explain why Clement (the traditional dates of his pontificate being 88-99) should be writing as if affairs in Corinth were his business and that of his presbyters, but not that of John living but a short boat ride away on the other side of the Aegean as was the case in the 70s after the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersal of the Apostles.

The letter, far from demonstrating any superiority of Clement’s Petrine authority over that of one of the Twelve, simply demonstrates, to me at least, that it could not have been written while John was still active in his ministry.

I find it interesting that a discussion over chronology should have been transformed into an involved argument over primitive ecclesiology.