20260804 Q&A

Dating and Relations between Peter and Paul

(1:29:38) Um, Darth Rama says, "Is it possible that Clement agreed with Paul over Peter and the circumcision faction, and wouldn't that be another indication of early writing?" So, um, so there isn't a, uh, that there isn't a dispute within the letter over, um, over obedience to the law of Moses. There is not, so it does seem So, I think that actually it's it's later after this has ceased to be an issue.

(1:30:11) They resolved it. And in fact, the fact that that Clement um that Clement recognizes and lionizes both Paul and Peter um shows that by his uh uh time frame, any dispute that was happening between the two um has has faded into memory. And so, this is I think actually an a um an argument for a later the the later date.

(1:30:40) And I think why the later date is preferred because again, there's so few details of the of what he says about Peter and Paul. And again, he he brings them both together as, you know, fully reconciled, not fighting the way we sort of see all the indications of in Paul's own letters. And and with traces of in in some of the Jamesian um tradition letters, like the Epistle of James and so forth.

Heresy and the Proto-Orthodox Church

(1:31:09) So, um so, this is an indication I think that that because they are more like they are in Acts, where they're on the same team and they don't really ever have any fight or anything like that. I think that this is uh um maybe an indication that it's the later date for Clement. Um Ricky Palacios says, uh "Was Clement, like other church fathers, declared a heretic?" So, yeah, it's always risky, like you say, Ricky, to write early, you know, in um in Christianity because um because then you have the danger of being declared a heretic. And so, one of

(1:31:42) the early writers that we have that we've mentioned so far is like um is Valentinus. And uh and because he was declared uh a heretic, his text was lost until um until the recovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls in in the in the 20th century or the Nag Hammadi codices of the 20th century.

(1:32:05) And so that was something that could have happened, but actually with Clement it didn't happen. And so he is viewed very much as at the at the at the start of the um of the fathers of the church that are the proto-orthodox leaders. So he's really one of the most important of the um proto-orthodox group that becomes ultimately uh the or that the Orthodox Church that emerges eventually looks back to as their one of their key predecessors.

(1:32:30) And and and certainly that's one of the reasons why um Irenaeus, who is also one of the core proto-orthodox leaders, and he's also in the West in the city of Lyon in Gaul, um he also looks back and cites Clement as a a previous Pope and talks about him and talks about his letter. So no, he's not declared a heretic, instead he is actually um uh lionized by the church as the very first apostolic father.

The Relationship with Synoptic Gospels and Early Sources

(1:32:58) Al Bundy says it sounds more likely that Matthew and Luke took Clement's work than vice versa. Yeah, so um that's a possibility then. So again, when we have this if um if we have this, you know, early early source, we don't know what. So if if the date the early dating is um is is true, there would be a lot of implications, but the but most scholars don't buy the argument, right? So most scholars prefer the later dating in part, again, like we just mentioned, because of the um the understanding of um of Peter and Paul in Clement's letter or

(1:33:37) actually just the vagueness of it. And then also because um uh again, of the the very developed um sense of apostolic uh succession and and bishops and so forth. But if it was early, then yeah, um then there's something going on in the early tradition, and we also I would have to account again for the relationship here with the hypothetical Q document and so forth.

Iconography and the Identity of Clement

(1:34:04) Felix Fortuna Rex says, in that image of John the beloved and Marcion, which one is which? So, you probably saw Felix that that there's one guy is was intentionally defaced. So, there was one guy sitting next to another guy and the one is defaced. The guy who's not defaced, that's John the beloved, you know.

(1:34:25) And so then he was sitting next to Marcion and the face, you know, originally the picture wasn't defaced, but because Marcion becomes a heretic, whoever owned the book, you know, is considers Marcion a heretic and so at some point or other they defaced him intentionally. And so that's who who Marcion was. I was never here says, couldn't Clement be a Hellenized Jewish Christian with his Hebrew Bible and classical background and education? Yes.

(1:34:53) So, yes, it could be. It's not like Hellenized Jewish Christians didn't also have a classical education. And they also sometimes have Latin names, right? So, the main issue is that because he he uses those and he has a Latin name, you know, it could be either way, but but that's why the scale tips a little bit more to saying, well, we don't have any evidence that he's a Jewish Christian, so maybe he's a Latin one.

(1:35:23) So, again, it would depend. If he was if this was early and he was the one known by um if he's actually the Clement known by Paul, which is a minority position, then then maybe he does have a a Jewish background, although Paul also has all sorts of companions that are that are Gentiles like um Timothy and so forth.

Apostolic Succession and Church Order

(1:35:46) So, we we can't know. Diana Patterson says, can John recommend an edition of Clement's letter? I will I don't have one off hand. Um I was using several um Diana. And so I I will have to look at look for that for maybe maybe we'll put something in the um in the uh in the YouTube channel on the on the comments. Um sh sh I was never here says also says is first Clement basically professing apostolic succession for bishops and deacons. Yes.

(1:36:25) So, Clement uh the author of first Clement here Clement is is our very first um writer who is making that case. Um and so so again, if he's writing at the end of the first century like we think is probably the case, this is as bishops and deacons are emerging in each of the congregations and are asserting really their authority and leadership over the Christian church that is emerging.

(1:36:53) Um and so um how they're to do that, they need justification. We've seen in the Didache that that bishops and deacons are not anywhere near as popular among lots of Christians as the preceding uh apostle prophet teacher category. Um and so and so this uh Clement is saying no, the this is what happened. God appointed, you know, Christ.

(1:37:16) Christ appointed um the the the leading apostles, not just all of this rabble apostles. He appointed, you know, a very key group of apostles, the 12 and people like Paul and uh James the brother of Jesus who are not part of the 12 but are um authoritative apostles. And those guys in turn appointed as their firstfruits bishops and deacons who have then continued in a uh a state since then.

The Temple and Eschatology

(1:37:43) It's not clear that that's the case at all. You You we don't know if historically if that's true, but Clement is um asserting that that his belief that that's how it happened and then he's the source thereafter for everyone else who argues in favor of apostolic succession as a as a source of authority for the church. Todd Rademaker says, "If first Clement was written in the 90s, why does he talk about the temple in the present tense?" So So this is the point if um So again, if he that this is the this is the case for why he would make it in the

(1:38:22) in it's earlier. So why wouldn't he be talking about um uh the destruction of the temple? And if any sense that there is a present tense example and it's written in the 90s, this is would be talking about how all later Christians more or less uh in the next few centuries understand the temple, which would be in a symbolic spiritual sense.

(1:38:45) Or when he's talking about it in in the past tense in terms of what was going on before it was destroyed. But again, because he doesn't mention its destruction in this whole long letter that has all these different um uh examples from the scripture and history where he might say, you know, Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed and it was destroyed because of envy or something like that.

(1:39:06) The envy and striving or rebellion or something like that. It seems like it would have made a good example. So that's an argument for the earlier date, as you say. Um Fire Everlasting says, "Did Clement by his time abandon the idea from earlier Christians that the apocalypse would come any day now?" I I don't think so, no.

(1:39:27) So he um I think he's still, you know, um talking about uh uh a day of judgment that's about to come or will come before too long. So there are a lot of Christians writing in the end of the um in the end of the first century who have started to reevaluate this um and one of the main principal authors of the Gospel of John I would argue is one of those who has decided that um to reinterpret uh any apocalyptic idea very in a spiritual sense um as opposed to a literal sense um but but Clement doesn't seem to be one of those.

Purpose of the Hebrew Bible Authors

(1:40:07) Um Anders Andelister, thank you so much for your support. Anders asks um in previous lectures you said that Old Testament authors were not writing to be included in a Bible, why then were they writing? So yeah, there is no um you know, when when let's say the uh the prophet Jeremiah is writing and he's writing at the very end of the first Temple period and then after the destruction of Jerusalem uh and uh by the Babylonians and then as an exile in Egypt.

(1:40:43) Um he's writing because, you know, it's part of the prophetic tradition that he is a part of to um to exhort the people, to tell them they need to uh obey God in this and that way that they're not doing in order to um in order to uh have not have a bad end like having, you know, your kingdom get destroyed and so forth.

(1:41:06) And so so every one of the writers has their own agenda, so the prophetic tradition um has a lot of that kind of exhortation. The um uh the Torah is very complicated, so there's all kinds of different source authors that are brought together and or there is a um a tradition of adding. By the time you get to the redactor or as you get to the final voice, depending on if it's a supplementary creation or a documentary creation, that's occurring in the middle of the second Temple period and it's being used um by the priests um the priestly leaders of the

(1:41:41) the of Jerusalem as it exists as a minor Persian province to assert their authority over the tradition which is centered on the newly rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, the second temple. And so they have that as as as among their priorities for creating it. They are creating not a Bible, but at least a Torah, the first five books, and they're putting those together on purpose.

(1:42:07) But the source authors, if it if it is a sub a documentary hypothesis, didn't have that idea. All of the different writers in the wisdom tradition These are people who are interested, you know, in wisdom. So they're compiling in the earliest sense like things like um the Book of Proverbs. They're compiling different wise things that different either Jewish or in some cases Egyptian and others have said into one tome to to know you know, precepts for how to live, you know, a life wisely and successfully. And different um

(1:42:45) writers in the wisdom tradition, the different multiple authors of Job or the the author of Ecclesiastes have contrary takes on the kind of wisdom that exists. And so they dispute that some of the things that Proverbs says is wise because you can lead a you could you know, you can do all those wise things that Proverbs says and you can still have your life ruined and suffer as as Job shows.

(1:43:11) So so how do you how do we make of that? So in other words, they all have different um different reasons for writing. You know, the some of the Psalms are written in the very earliest sense to be liturgical things said either in the royal court of Judah or that the priests say when they're when they're performing different kinds of rituals um and so on.

Reliance on Old Testament Over New Testament

(1:43:36) You know, everybody's got their own reason for writing these different different books. Um Yardo of Galvestonia, thank you so much for uh your support. Uh Yardo says, "Why uh does First Clement appeal mostly to the Old Testament instead of Paul's letters given that Clement was writing to Corinth about problems Paul had already addressed decades earlier?" That is interesting, yeah.

(1:43:59) Um So, yeah, there's really only the one um major quotation uh from Paul. And uh and like you say, you'd think that he could have mined um Corinthians, First Corinthians, for maybe more details. But um but I guess Pa- um Clement isn't as concerned with Paul or isn't as excited about Paul as Clement happens to be about the New Testament.

(1:44:25) I'm sorry, the Old Testament. So, um it is pretty interesting. So, yeah, way So, the same is sort of true with um with the Jesus quotations, right? So, there is only um I read off the majority of all the things that um Clement has to say when he's quoting from uh sayings of Jesus. There's another couple that I didn't include.

(1:44:48) Um but that's actually just a very minority of it. So, interestingly um Clement is very excited about the Old Testament compared to um either, you know, again, sayings of Jesus or any other the New Tes- texts that eventually become the New Testament. And I guess part of it might be that um he's writing earlier early enough you know, we're long before there's a canon of the New Testament, but we're also long before um uh New Testament texts are are really widely circulating even.

Spiritual vs. Bodily Resurrection

(1:45:21) And so, even though he has a copy of Paul's letters and the Corinthians have a copy um um he's going to a more traditional source of authority, which is uh which is the Bible or the old the whole Old Testament. Hebrew Bible. So, Jeremy Brown says, "Clement's references to the bodily resurrection of the Phoenix make me wonder, when did Christians begin transitioning to an understanding of the resurrection that is spiritual and not bodily?" So, um so Christians mostly, I think, haven't all transitioned necessarily. So, I um have

(1:46:00) a understanding of resurrection that is spiritual and not bodily, and I think that that reading can be found in um the Gospel of John as well and in other other Christian texts, but certainly it's not the um the widespread position of Christians in the 1st century like Clement. So, um so we would be uh for a lot of people it would be very recent, indeed, to have re- kind of gone back to that and and and focus on it.

(1:46:29) And so, um I don't think Christians have mostly transitioned to that. Christians like uh um in in my church in Community of Christ, that transition would be happening kind of right now. You know, but certainly not they would have a very bodily um perspective would have been absolutely the majority 50 years ago and probably is still very widely held by lots of members.

(1:46:53) Andrew Guymore Androgyne says, um uh and uh Androgyne me. I'm trying to think how to pronounce that. I'm sorry, Androgyne. Andrew Guymore, I don't know how to say that. "Can you uh do an episode on Catherine of Alexandria someday?" That's interesting. Well, we'll have to see. So, we will put this on the list.

Historicity and Christian Faith

(1:47:12) Um I I'm that I I'm Joshua says, "For the sake of argument, let us say that all these are forgery, all the Gospels and the church fathers uh from the of the 4th century fabricated everything, would you still be Christian? So, yeah, so that's it's I'll just say for the beginning, it's not the case, but let's say or they it was the case.

(1:47:36) If it was all just an an event um a fabrication from the 4th century. So, so for me, that's not relevant um because I'm we're not I'm not um basing where I am as a Christian on historicity or anything that happened in history. Rather, what the way I talk about um the historical Jesus is the historical Jesus um you know, lived life uh a life that's quite different from what's recorded in the Gospels.

(1:48:08) Probably had some teachings that are similar to some of the teachings that have survived, although they've gone through a process of of telephone. Um and then was executed. And uh all of his disciples fled. And they don't know I mean, his body was maybe thrown into a a a pit an open pit as a mass grave like Romans would do and is lost.

(1:48:29) And then his disciples began having visions that he had ascended and was sitting at the right hand of God. And that confirmed for them that he had been resurrected, not because anybody actually went and met him and felt uh his body or anything like that. But uh because they had visions of that. That those visions then of a risen Christ inspired uh a kind of a process of the mendicant apostles going forth and spreading the Gospel by speaking as um again, mendicant uh apostles and prophets who went around and spoke in

(1:49:05) the spirit and acted uh in Christ's name as they identified those visions identified uh Jesus as the Christ and that include people like Paul, but also uh James and John and Peter. Um, and then it's only then um, much later generations when the Gospels themselves were written and uh, all of these uh, things were made, you know, very very fleshy and things like that.

(1:49:31) So, the point of it is is that once all of those things were then written and once we have all the texts, that led Christians to um, uh, begin to have a new understanding of God that exists in Christian theology. And that Christian theology, while um, while the history got them there, in other words, where we can trace how they got to that idea, um, the idea is what's important and the um, connection and understanding of God is what's important, not not the path that got it there.

(1:50:07) So, in the same way that um, the Old Testament texts are based on a belief in a God that in the at the earliest stages is uh, is very limited, is very uh, human-like and has all kinds of petty problems and things like that. That doesn't mean um, that just because God is not like that, that doesn't mean that um, there isn't a God.

(1:50:31) What it means is that the people in the past have a very limited perspective on what God would be that includes all kinds of errors and they use that as their vision to understand God. So, they see the God through that prism. And so, so yes, it doesn't it doesn't really matter. What we have is um, understanding that continues to evolve and grow going forward and it isn't based on history.

The Legend and Legacy of Clement of Rome

(1:50:56) History um, we go use history in order to understand where all these texts came from so that we can also understand them in their context, their limitations, uh, their errors and so forth. Um, Leandro Placias says, "Sorry, maybe you covered this already, but who is Clement of Rome?" So, yeah. So, as we said, Clement of Rome is the is the author of um of First Clement, but there's not else we know about him.

(1:51:26) So, we have later traditions about him and actually the traditions um become more and more outrageous and crazy as time goes on. So, um one of the things that I wasn't able to get to is So, whatever happened to you know, what are the traditions? So, as Clement is a name that's important um later legends emerge around him and so there are, you know, essentially um Christian romance novels that have the tale Clement's story written in I think like the 3rd century um where Clement is running around with Peter and uh and anyway, so it's telling his story. He

(1:52:02) goes off to Crimea and um and is martyred uh by tak- taking an anchor around his uh neck and throwing him into the Black Sea. And then miraculously, um you know, the Black Sea parts and so so that his shrine can be found and there's all kinds of things like that. And because he's also seen as um a really important you know, the first kind of Pope whose name we can make.

(1:52:26) So, in other words, he's the first leader anyway of uh a Roman church after Peter about anything whom is known. Um he therefore becomes a really important precedent for later medieval um uh Christians. So, when when um Christians are deciding that they want to have um let's say when you If you're a medieval bishop and you want to have uh have a a precedent um that the King of France can't just come and depose you or take your taxes or take your property or something like that, um you get out your um your crib book and you start writing

(1:53:02) phony um decretals that uh that Clement of Rome wrote as the Clement the first, the first Pope, that say that kings aren't allowed to do that kind of thing. And the Roman church has all this power and so forth. So, there's all of these medieval, false decretals of Clement and so forth. So, Clement has just as much interesting stuff about him, um, you know, uh, written about him in sort of like a post, uh, real Clement tradition that exists in antiquity in the Middle Ages as the actual historical Clement has. And so, that but that's,

(1:53:39) um, you know, didn't we ran out of time to put all that kind of thing into the lecture. So, maybe in the future. But, thank you all so much. Um, really liked this lecture. We will have another one next week, although we haven't decided what it is. So, stay tuned. And in the meantime, um, we always appreciate, uh, your donations.

(1:53:59) Thank you again and also liking and sharing, subscribing and all those good things. Bye. >> Mhm.

(1:58:00) >> Mhm.