In Defense of an Early Date for the First Epistle of Clement
Before diving into the dating of the First Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), we must first contextualize the letter. 1 Clement was written by St. Clement of Rome, who served as the third Bishop of Rome and died around 99 CE. The letter was sent in an attempt to restore peace and unity in the Corinthian church, where apparently a few violent people had revolted against the leadership of the church community. Can a bishop who has done nothing morally wrong, and who was appointed by an apostle or a group instated by the apostles, be replaced for any reason? This is the issue at hand. There also appears to be false teachings spreading in the Corinthian church, with Clement emphasizing the doctrine of the Trinity, primacy of Scripture, that the Second Coming is literal, etc. The letter is extremely lengthy—twice as long as the Epistle to the Hebrews—and includes many references to the Old Testament. The dating of 1 Clement is divided into three categories by biblical scholars: early date (ca. 64-70 AD), middle date (ca. 94-98 AD), and late date (until 140 AD). The middle date is the view most held by modern scholars, affirmed because of references to the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul as of "our own generation" and the interpretation of 1 Clement 1:1 as a reference to the persecutions under Domitian. However, for reasons I believe are sound, I will be defending an early dating for 1 Clement. Every quotation from 1 Clement is from the translation by Charles H. Hoole.
OBJECTION 1: According to 1 Clement 1:1 and 7:1 there is some type of persecution going on in Rome. While it could refer to a local persecution, it seems most likely that it is referring to an "official" persecution. The persecution is certainly at such a level that the Corinthians, all the way across the Adriatic, are aware of it. This places the letter during the Neronian persecution (64-68 AD) or the Domitian persecution (89-96 AD).
- The "calamities and mischances" mentioned in 1 Clem 1:1 could certainly be a localized persecution. In fact, the early churches were well aware of even the minor happenings of far away churches. For example, in Phil 4:2-3, Paul references a disagreement between Euodia and Syntyche. If Paul (and presumably others) knew of a disagreement between women from a Greek city with a population of 10,000-15,000, it is completely reasonable to assume that a local persecution in Rome would be known to the Corinthian church. Even in Acts 18:13-17, St. Luke speaks of an otherwise unknown persecution. Another interpretation of the "calamities and mischances" is that they are referring "Danaides and Dircae, who, after enduring dreadful and unholy insults, ... received a noble reward" (1 Clement 6:2)
- The passage in 1 Clem 7:1 (“For we are in the same arena, and the same contest is imposed upon us”) is not descriptive enough to be proof of an empire-wide persecution. If Clement refers to Rome and Corinth fighting “in the same arena”, this implies only that they both have sufferings–not that Christians are literally being thrown into the Colosseum.
OBJECTION 2: Clement makes reference to Peter and Paul as “in the times nearest to us", giving the appearance of some distance between their martyrdom and the writing of the epistle. However, Peter and Paul also would have had to have died fairly recently because they are referred to as of " our own generation".
- I agree. I believe the epistle should be dated about 10 years after Peter’s martyrdom (which is traditionally dated to 64-68 AD). In fact, Clement speaks of those presently ruling in the Corinthian church as being one or two generations after the Apostles:
Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop; and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry. Those who were thus appointed by them [the apostles], or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church, who have blamelessly ministered to the flock of Christ with humility, quietly, and without illiberality, and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry (1 Clem 44)
- The apostolic (first) generation has generally passed away at this point and it appears that there are congregations led by second (“those who were thus appointed by them”) or third generation (“or afterwards by other men of good repute”) of believers. If all the apostles were converted between 25 AD to 35 AD, they would all have passed away or be martyred by the 60s (aside from the Apostle John.) Four or five decades is enough time for almost the entire first generation to pass, along with much of the second generation. The fact a fourth generation is not mentioned makes it almost impossible that the epistle could have been written much after the 80s AD. Why? Timothy is a second-generation believer, converted by Paul in the 30s or 40s AD, who was appointing elders himself (1 Tim 3). These elders would be third generation believers. Could Timothy still be alive in Clement’s time? Yes, but he would have been in his 60s or 70s, assuming he was converted when he was around the age of 20. Being that Timothy was already assisting in the appointing of other bishops in the 60s AD, this proves that a third-generation had already begun that early. The fact that none of the elders in the 60s AD have passed and forced Clement to name a fourth-generation appears to prove a date in the 70s or 80s AD at the very latest. Any time after that, there would almost certainly be a widespread fourth generation of elders.
- Furthermore, for evidence outside of 1 Clement, Eusebius records 15 Jewish Bishops in the Jerusalem church between St. James the Just (died 62 AD) to Judas of Jerusalem (?135 AD). After James, none of the successors are apostles except for possibly St. Simon of Jerusalem (who is identified with St. Simon the Zealot by some). Going by Eusebius' records, we average two bishops per decade between 60 to 130 AD. By 75 AD, we would have easily had at least one or two second generation elders ruling as Bishops in Jerusalem. If so, then the internal chronology in 1 Clement favors the earlier date.
OBJECTION 3: The Epistle to the Hebrews is extensively quoted by Clement. Hebrews mentions some type of persecution that was going on in “the former days” (10:32-34). Paul seems to distance himself from the first apostles when he writes that the salvation spoken by Jesus was “confirmed to us by those who heard Him” (2:3), i.e. the author did not meet Jesus. Furthermore, Heb 9:6-9 has allusions to the Temple in Jerusalem, meaning the book most likely predates 70 AD.
- As discussed above, even in the Acts of the Apostles we see persecutions, so a persecution in the 60s is not out of the bag. Furthermore, in Jude 17, St. Jude speaks of himself as if he had not heard Jesus personally even though he grew up with Jesus. Paul and Jude were referring to those who heard Jesus’ ministry before the Crucifixion, those deemed properly apostles. James and Paul were only apostles because they saw and were taught by the risen Christ.
- In 1 Clem 41, the same allusions to the Temple as in Hebrews exists. This means that either the sacrificial system was in some sense still intact (pre-70 AD) or it was immediately after its destruction with a small continuance of sacrifices in the temple ruins (post-70 AD). Scholars generally agree that there is some evidence that some people still lived in the Jerusalem area at that time, despite the destruction of the city.
In conclusion, dating 1 Clement to the 70s or 80s AD is much more consistent with there being a church with a plurality of elders in which both first and second generation elders still rule. A church in the 90s would easily have third, fourth, and even fifth generation elders if we go off of Eusebius' records.