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)
