Well, knowing that the former, i.e., epistle to the Corinthians was written by Pope St. Clement I without putting forth his name then it should make sense that Pope St. Clement would do the same again writing Hebrews (as that too lacks an author’s name). Moreover, who are these scholars that believe that Clement penned the letter as a secretary presbyter, because it seems that from the official/authoritative tone of the epistle, Clement is acting in a capacity far greater than “secretary presbyter,”
Also, Pope St. Clement indicates when the letter was written:
Now, Hegesippus states that Clement’s reign started 90 A.D. and ended in 99 A.D.
Anyways, the point I’m trying to make is this that Rome was sought out by the Corinthian Church because she had primacy (first see), and there is something else which I forgot to mention St. John was still alive at Ephesus (so one has to wonder why, being that he was an apostle, the Corinthian Church did not seek out the primary/immediate source so to speak). Also, by dint of what St. Ignatius says of the Church in Rome, i.e., a “source of instruction” , "presiding in love (over the churches), “foremost in love”. . . .etc., one can safely say that some sort of primacy was being exercised in Rome even in his time.
Hi Josie L:
The Book of Hebrews does not have the traditional greeting of an epistle, where the “from” and “to” are usually mentioned. Hebrews was attributed to St. Paul, although some in the Church denied this authorship. The tradition is that St. Clement *translated *the original Book of Hebrews into Greek, so I do not believe he would have included his name as translator.
There are two dates given for the date of authorship of 1 Clement: just before 70 AD and c. 96 AD. From internal evidence of the epistle, the letter was written right after a great persecution in Rome. Scholars understood this as being either the Neronian persecution just before 70 AD or during the Diocletian persecution c. 96 AD. In support of the earlier date, scholars mention that the epistle describes in the present tense sacrifices offered at the Temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in 70 AD. Proponents of the c. 96 AD time mention how the Roman church is described as “ancient” and how some of those chosen for ministry by the Apostles have passed away. Part of the dating of 1 Clement concerns the dating of the canonical writings quoted within, especially the Book of Hebrews. If the scholar understands the Book of Hebrews to have been written after 70 AD (and also not by St. Paul, who died in the Neronian persecution) then the First Epistle of Clement is understood to have been written in c. 96 AD.
A major proponent of the earlier dating of 1 Clement was the scholar John A T Robinson, who also argued for an earlier dating of the canonical works. Thomas J Herron is a more recent Catholic scholar who has argued for the earlier dating. His doctoral dissertation was on the subject of the dating of Clement, and it was published in Rome by the pontifical university. Pope Benedict, when Cardinal Ratzinger, footnoted his work (see footnote 27 at
adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html). Some have argued that in doing so Cardinal Ratzinger espoused his view. I do not see the evidence for that, although I do not believe either that Cardinal Ratzinger would footnote a work completely quack. Earlier scholars who allegedly supported the earlier date are: Grotius, Grabe, Orsi, Uhlorn, Hefele and Wieseler. (see:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-3.htm)
Early Church writers speak of 1 Clement being written by Clement in the name of the Church of Rome, or being written by the Church of Rome through Clement. The early Roman Church did not yet have the monarchial bishop organization that later became the norm in the 2nd century. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy, for example, writes that there was no “pope” in the early Roman Church, and indeed the office of “bishop” had not yet been established there, there instead existing a group of presbyters (see
Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, Yale University Press, London, 2002, pp. 9-10). If 1 Clement were written in 70 AD, either Linus or Cletus would, according to the episcopal lists, have been “bishop” of Rome, but were the ecclesial situation such as Eamon describes it, Clement would have been a prominent presbyter writing on behalf of the Roman Church.
The Church of Corinth may have applied to St. John, yet her ties were with St. Paul, who was in Rome at the end of his ministry. It is reasonable to believe that St. Paul maintained, or attempted to maintain, connections with the churches he previously established, even as these letters may no longer be extant. As another poster mentioned, the city of Corinth itself was the destination for Jews expelled from Rome (which would have included Christian Jews). Corinth too by that time was a Roman colony city.
The encomium given by St. Ignatius and others is to the Church of Rome, the great city where St. Peter and Paul were martyred and which was resplendent in her orthodoxy. I am wary of seeing “foremost in love” or “presiding in love” as equivalents of “foremost in authority” and “presiding in authority.” The connection is not automatic. The Roman Christians showed their love in being witnesses to Christ (as during the Neronian persecution) and by their contribution in bringing concord amongst discord (as with the Corinthians).
[continued]
). St. Cyprian was of the belief that all heretics should be rebaptized no matter how they were baptized. i.e., no exceptions even for those who were baptized in the trinitarian form with water, however this view was denounced by St. Stephen as innovation (something that was not practiced by the Church) and eventually placed with a more tolerant view which provided exceptions for those who were believed to have been baptized in a proper manner. Here is an excerpt I took from a Russian Orthdox cite:
and continue my posting tomorrow. Have a good evening and God bless