www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings St. Clement's Epistle to Corinth

I am taking a short course on the Apostolic Fathers from the Holy Apostles Institute. The first lesson discusses St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians in which he roundly chastises them for their errors. Clement was then Bishop of Rome but Rome was a long way from Corinth. It would seem that the Bishop of Antioch would have been the more logical Bishop to chastise Corinth based on proximity. This led me to wonder by what authority would Clement have taken it upon himself to weigh in on the issues in Corinth?

I believe the church of Rome and the church of Corinth had a very close bond in the early Church. As to why I can't remember.

My recollection is somewhat rusty as well (I read about this some time ago), but remember Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch. It is speculated that when Clement wrote his first epistle to Corinth, the local bishop had passed away and his seat was still vacant. Clement was writing concerning the dismissal of several presbyters, and he did not believe that their dismissal was appropriate on several counts. Absent a bishop and in light of this type of crisis, it might have been quite logical for the early church of Antioch to look to Rome, given that Peter was the first bishop of each, for guidance.

Corinth was a Latin-speeking Roman colonia, settled by veterans of the civil wars; it was also founded by Saint Paul. As such, it looked to Rome as its Mother Church--Rome was culturally and commercially closer to Corinth than Antioch, and St. Paul was looked upon as the co-founder of the Church of Rome (hence its patronal Feast of Peter and Paul on 29 June).

Even a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians reveals a very troubled community plagued by factions (ch 1), synretism (ch 10), profaning of the Eucharist (ch 11), misundertanding of spiritual gifts (chs 12-13) and disbelief in the Resurrection (ch 16). Very likely the latter problems stemmed from the deep division addressed early on in the first chapter.

Clement rightly feared that these might redevelop in the absence of episcopal leadership.

I know that tradition ascribes the epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians to Clement. But there is nothing internal to the text itself to substantiate that claim. Indeed the epistle is addressed thus:

Ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα ῾Ρώμην τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον

In translation it reads: "The assembly of God sojourning at Rome to the assembly of God sojourning at Corinth" Taken at face value, it is a letter from an assembly not one man whether he be named Clement or any other.

I’ve always found amusing the author’s absurd thought in chapter 25 that the ancient Arabian mythological Phoenix was somehow connected with the Christian doctrine of resurrection.

1Clem.12:1 Ἴδωμεν τὸ παράδοξον σημεῖον τὸ γινόμενον ἐν τοῖς ἀνατολικοῖς τόποις, τουτέστιν τοῖς περὶ τὴν Ἀραβίαν. 2. ὄρνεον γάρ ἐστιν, ὃ προσονομάζεται φοῖνιξ· τοῦτο μονογενὲς ὑπάρχον ζῇ ἔτη πεντακόσια, γενόμενόν τε ἤδη πρὸς ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτό, σηκὸν ἑαυτῷ ποιεῖ ἐκ λιβάνου καὶ σμύρνης καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρωμάτων, εἰς ὃν πληρωθέντος τοῦ χρόνου εἰσέρχεται καὶ τελευτᾷ. 3. σηπομένης δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς σκώληξ τις γεννᾶται, ὃς ἐκ τῆς ἰκμάδος τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ζώου ἀνατρεφόμενος πτεροφυεῖ· εἶτα γενναῖος γενόμενος αἴρει τὸν σηκὸν ἐκεῖνον, ὅπου τὰ ὀστᾶ τοῦ προγεγονότος ἐστίν, καὶ ταῦτα βαστάζων διανύει ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀραβικῆς χώρας ἕως τῆς Αἰγύπτου εἰς τὴν λεγομένην Ἡλιούπολιν, 4. καὶ ἡμέρας, βλεπόντων πάντων, ἐπιπτὰς ἐπί τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου βωμὸν τίθησιν αὐτὰ καὶ οὕτως εἰς τοὐπίσω ἀφορμᾷ. 5. οἱ οὖν ἱερεῖς ἐπισκέπτονται τὰς ἀναγραφὰς τῶν χρόνων καὶ εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτὸν πεντακοσιοστοῦ ἔτους πεπληρωμένου ἐληλυθέναι.

An accepted English translation of the above:

“1. Let us consider the strange sign with takes place in the East, that is in the districts of Arabia. 2. There is a bird which is called the Phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years; and when the time if its dissolution in death is at hand, it makes itself a sepulcher of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, and when the time is fulfilled it enters into it and dies. 3. Now from the corruption of its flesh thee springs a worm, which is nourished by the juices of the dead bird, and puts forth wings. Then, when it has become strong, it takes up that sepulcher in which are the bones of its predecessor and carries them from the country of Arabia as far as Egypt until it reaches the city called Heliopolis, 4. and in the daylight in the sight of all it flies to the altar of the Sun, places them there, and then starts back to its former home. 5. Then the priest inspects the register of dates, and they find that it has come at the fulfillment of the 500th year.” Kirsop Lake translation.

The same tale with some variation is found in Herodotus’, Histories and also in Pliney’s, Natural History. It has been said that the Phoenix myth was sanctioned by the Church due to confusion between Psalm 92:12 where the Greek word φοῖνιξ is used for palm tree and the Greek word for Phoenix, φοῖνιξ. The two are spelled the same.

In Chapter 42:5 the author egregiously misquotes Isaiah 60:7 tailored to strengthen his argument that the expelled assembly leaders be restored. The particular citation is indicated in red below.

1st Clement 42:5. (Greek) καὶ τοῦτο οὐ καινῶς· ἐκ γὰρ δὴ πολλῶν χρόνων ἐγέγραπτο περὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ διακόνων. οὕτως γάρ που λέγει ἡ γραφή· Καταστήσω τοὺς ἐπισκόπους αὐτῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ τοὺς διακόνους αὐτῶν ἐν πίστει.

The English translation of Dr. Kirsop Lake:
“….And this was no new method, for many years before has bishops and deacons been written of; for the scripture says thus in one place “I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith”.”

However, the actual Isaiah passage as it appears in the Greek Seventy bears no resemblance to alleged Clement’s citation;

Isa.60:17 (LXX) καὶ ἀντὶ χαλκοῦ οἴσω σοι χρυσίον, ἀντὶ δὲ σιδήρου οἴσω σοι ἀργύριον, ἀντὶ δὲ ξύλων οἴσω σοι χαλκόν, ἀντὶ δὲ λίθων σίδηρον. καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ·.

Isa.60:17 And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.

There are other questionable points in the epistle. But these two are perhaps the most outstanding. Frankly, I would expect more from Clement the respected fellow laborer with the Apostle Paul mentioned in Phillipians 4:3. Thus, I am less than convinced he was the true author of the Epistle.


μιχαηλ τον αιρετικον

Thanks for the insights. I will let the debate about the authenticity of the authorship to others more informed and more interested than myself. Bottom line appears to be, the Church in Corinth was made up of many Romans, was started by Paul, was in a bit of a mess and there was no bishop in Antioch at the time.