Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Jonathan Bernier on the Ecclesiology of 1 Clement

  

Ecclesiology

 

First Clement evinces no awareness of a monarchical bishop in either Rome or Corinth. Rather, it seems to suppose presbyterian rule throughout. In this regard, we suggest that the ecclesiology of 1 Clement is closer to that evidenced from Philippians 1:1, with its address to Philippian bishops in the parallel, than to that of Ignatius of Antioch, whose letters strongly emphasize the singularity of the bishop. . . .

 

Bishop of Rome

 

Influential in supporting a ca. 95 date for the letter is the supposition that it must have been written when Clement was bishop of Rome (likely in the 90s). In response to this supposition, one can raise several challenges. Most radically, one can argue against ascribing 1 Clement to the “historical Clement of Rome,” meaning the bishop putatively active toward the end of the first century. This would have little effect on when to date the letter. Alternatively, one might argue that the historical Clement was indeed responsible for the letter but at some point other than during his putative episcopate. This is Robinson’s position (Redating, 328, 333). Such a position coheres strongly with certain internal and external data. Internally, it coheres with the letter’s tendency to speak in the first-person plural as well as the absence of reference to a monepiscopacy. Externally, it coheres with Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 (8.3), which states that a certain Clement was responsible for sending letters to other cities. These data have together led to a tendency to portray Clement more as a “foreign secretary” than a monarch. It also coheres with Dionysius’s letter to Bishop Soter of Rome, in which Dionysius refers to the Roman church having written what is likely our 1 Clement “through” (δια) Clement (according to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11). (Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2022], 248, 249-50; Bernier notes that the “Clement” of this letter being the same as the “Clement” in Phil 4:2 “is far from probable” [ibid., 249]; Bernier places the authorship to 64-70)

 

Blog Archive