(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Author: Karl Josef von Hefele
Googlebooks PDF: PG001
VIII. Now let us discuss regarding the time at which the first epistle of Clement was written.
It is established from the epistle itself, chapter 1, that it was written shortly after some persecution. No one doubts that the persecution was either Nero's or Domitian's. Grabe, Pagi, Orsi, Gallandi, <Henry> Wotton, and others contend that it was written around the year 68 <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing, closely after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul. However, Cotelier, Tillemont, and Lumper think that it was written out around the year 96 or 97 <when> Domitian's persecution <was> ceasing.
This entire question can most easily be resolved if the time of the Clementine episcopate is plainly established. Now, from the things said above we have understood that the ecclesiastical rule of Clement is to be attributed either to the years 68-77 or 92-101.
This entire question can most easily be resolved if the time of the Clementine episcopate is plainly established. Now, from the things said above we have understood that the ecclesiastical rule of Clement is to be attributed either to the years 68-77 or 92-101.
But this the matter thus holds itself, let us look into the epistle itself, <intending to investigate> the indications of the age.
a) Clement, making mention <in> chapter 5 of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, says: "Let us go to <those who have most recently become> athletes." From this it is apparent that our epistle was written out not much after Nero's persecution.
b) <In> chapter 6 the persecution recently passed by (chapter 1) <is described as> so cruel, and the multitude of martyrs is described as so great, that the times of Nero, not of Domitian, are indicated. For that an "enormous multitude" had been crucified under Nero, Tacitus (with clearly the same <manner of speaking> which the holy Father uses, "large multitude") reports to us[[43]]; however, regarding the <persecution of Domitian>, Tertullian thus speaks: "Domitian also had tried, <he being> a portion of Nero as concerns cruelty, but <by that> by which <he was> also a man, he restrained <what had been> easily begun, <with> also <those> whom he had gathered up, having been restored."[[44]]
c) <In> chapters 5 and 6, none of the so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian is mentioned: Not Flavius Clemens, non Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitillia, not John the Evangelist; of whom, as Cardinal Orsi[[45]] points out, the holy Father would at least have mentioned one, if he had written after the persecution of Domitian.
d) That before the time of Domitian and shortly after Nero's persecution our epistle was written, persuades the mention of the Jewish cult thriving in the then still standing Jerusalem temple <(>chapters 40 and 41<)>. Towards weakening this argument Lardner and others brought froth the example of Flavius Josephus, who <in> the year 93 after the birth of Christ did not discuss regarding the sacrifices otherwise than if the temple still existed[[46]].
But both matters, Josephus's and Clement's, are by far dissimilar. Josephus, describing the sacred rites of his people, through a not uncommon trope of history uses what we call the historical present. Clement, however, in order <to lead> the Corinthians towards preserving order, places before the eyes <of> <his> readers the order of the Jewish cult. Which <being the case>, however, if the temple had already been destroyed, the whole argument of the holy Father would have been invalid, and it would have invited adversaries <to say>: Behold, by the overturning of the Jerusalem temple God himself has borne witness that such order is not desired by him.
From these things we infer that our epistle was written <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing and before the destruction of Jerusalem (Years 68-70), <and> moreover that St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter.
<The things> which are objected by Cotelier and others are of no weight. For from here, <namely>, that Clement, <in> chapter 47, reports that the first dissension of the Corinthians was aroused "in the beginning of the Gospel", <it> cannot be concluded that a longer space of time from that first dissension went by. For also St. Paul, around nine years after <the foundation of the Philippian Church>, speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians 4:15 about "the beginning of the Gospel", not at all intimating that the Philippian Church was founded already many years before.
Nor does it move us that St. Clement <in> chapter 42 called the Church of the Corinthians "ancient". For the Church, as Dodwell well points out, by the best right she is called "ancient", which was founded "in the beginning of the Gospel"[[A]], that is, <in> the first times of the preached Gospel[[47]].
Notes
43. "Annals", 15, chapters 41-44.
44. "Apology", chapter 5.
45. "Ecclesiastical History", tome 1, page 412. In Gallandi's "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 9.
46. "Antiquities", 3, chapter 10.
47. Cf. Grabe's "Gleanings", tome 1, page 256.
My Notes
A. English fails to capture the Greek etymological similarity of "ancient" and "beginning".
b) <In> chapter 6 the persecution recently passed by (chapter 1) <is described as> so cruel, and the multitude of martyrs is described as so great, that the times of Nero, not of Domitian, are indicated. For that an "enormous multitude" had been crucified under Nero, Tacitus (with clearly the same <manner of speaking> which the holy Father uses, "large multitude") reports to us[[43]]; however, regarding the <persecution of Domitian>, Tertullian thus speaks: "Domitian also had tried, <he being> a portion of Nero as concerns cruelty, but <by that> by which <he was> also a man, he restrained <what had been> easily begun, <with> also <those> whom he had gathered up, having been restored."[[44]]
c) <In> chapters 5 and 6, none of the so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian is mentioned: Not Flavius Clemens, non Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitillia, not John the Evangelist; of whom, as Cardinal Orsi[[45]] points out, the holy Father would at least have mentioned one, if he had written after the persecution of Domitian.
d) That before the time of Domitian and shortly after Nero's persecution our epistle was written, persuades the mention of the Jewish cult thriving in the then still standing Jerusalem temple <(>chapters 40 and 41<)>. Towards weakening this argument Lardner and others brought froth the example of Flavius Josephus, who <in> the year 93 after the birth of Christ did not discuss regarding the sacrifices otherwise than if the temple still existed[[46]].
But both matters, Josephus's and Clement's, are by far dissimilar. Josephus, describing the sacred rites of his people, through a not uncommon trope of history uses what we call the historical present. Clement, however, in order <to lead> the Corinthians towards preserving order, places before the eyes <of> <his> readers the order of the Jewish cult. Which <being the case>, however, if the temple had already been destroyed, the whole argument of the holy Father would have been invalid, and it would have invited adversaries <to say>: Behold, by the overturning of the Jerusalem temple God himself has borne witness that such order is not desired by him.
From these things we infer that our epistle was written <when> Nero's persecution <was> ceasing and before the destruction of Jerusalem (Years 68-70), <and> moreover that St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter.
<The things> which are objected by Cotelier and others are of no weight. For from here, <namely>, that Clement, <in> chapter 47, reports that the first dissension of the Corinthians was aroused "in the beginning of the Gospel", <it> cannot be concluded that a longer space of time from that first dissension went by. For also St. Paul, around nine years after <the foundation of the Philippian Church>, speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians 4:15 about "the beginning of the Gospel", not at all intimating that the Philippian Church was founded already many years before.
Nor does it move us that St. Clement <in> chapter 42 called the Church of the Corinthians "ancient". For the Church, as Dodwell well points out, by the best right she is called "ancient", which was founded "in the beginning of the Gospel"[[A]], that is, <in> the first times of the preached Gospel[[47]].
Notes
43. "Annals", 15, chapters 41-44.
44. "Apology", chapter 5.
45. "Ecclesiastical History", tome 1, page 412. In Gallandi's "Library", tome 1, Prologue, page 9.
46. "Antiquities", 3, chapter 10.
47. Cf. Grabe's "Gleanings", tome 1, page 256.
My Notes
A. English fails to capture the Greek etymological similarity of "ancient" and "beginning".
No comments:
Post a Comment