The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach page 250

3.2.5.1. Clement of Rome. First Clement is a letter written to the church at Corinth from the church at Rome. Although the letter does not claim to have been written by a particular person, it has been attributed to Clement of Rome. It is about the same size as Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth.211

Who was Clement? A few possibilities have been proposed. Paul mentions a Clement in Philippians 4:3. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. a.d. 260–339) reports that this Clement later became the bishop of Rome in a.d. 92.212 However, he does not make a connection between him and the author of 1 Clement. The Shepherd of Hermas (end of first century-first half of second century) refers to a Clement whose job it is to send books to all the other churches.213 Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 140–202) mentions a Clement who became the third bishop of Rome. He adds that Clement had seen and conversed with the apostles.214 This is perhaps consistent with the Clement in Philippians, although it is not required. Irenaeus also reports that 1 Clement was written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth while Clement was bishop at the former. This is the first clear attribution of 1 Clement to the bishop of Rome and is consistent with the “we” passages found in 1 Clement. Clement of Alexandria (ca. a.d. 150–215) attributed the text of 1 Clement to the “apostle Clement” and provides numerous quotations from it.215 Tertullian (ca. a.d. 160–220) wrote of a Clement ordained by Peter for the church in Rome but makes no mention of 1 Clement.216 A Clement is mentioned in Ignatius’s letter to the Trallians (long recension) who is a helper of Peter.217 Of interest is that there are no traditions that reject Clementine authorship or that question Clement’s link to the apostle Peter.

In summary, there is a tradition that a man named Clement, who was possibly the one mentioned by Paul, became the bishop of the church in Rome at the end of the first century. This Clement may have personally known a number of the apostles, perhaps even Peter or Paul. Because there are a number of sources that appear to link Clement to the apostles in some manner, this possible relationship cannot be ignored. On one hand, we cannot be certain of the reliability of the statements made about Clement, since with the possible exception of The Shepherd of Hermas, the sources are fairly late (ca. a.d. 140–325). On the other hand, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the long version of Ignatius’s letter to the Trallians are four sources that link Clement to Peter and/or 1 Clement, and there are no competing traditions that claim otherwise.218 Thus, although historical certainty eludes us, I regard it more probable than not (i.e., possible-plus) that Clement of Rome personally knew the apostle Peter.

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach page 250

Shop The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

 

See Inside

Get $100 off a Logos 10 base package (first-time base package purchasers only)                   10% off of various Logos packages + 5 free digital books   Logos Monthly Free Book Furnished by Rick Livermore Webmaster220 San Juan Capistrano California –  https://rick-livermore-on-blogger.blogspot.com/