Clement of Rome

Post by **_JC** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:21 pm

I've been reading Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians and was wondering why it wasn't included in the canon of scripture? Scholars admit the epistle (the first one anyway) is early and authentic. I haven't seen anything remotely heretical in the document and find it quite edifying. Is Clement considered too "late" to be considered for inclusion in the Bible? John's writings are also considered late and they are included, though he was an apostle. Anyone know?

Post by **_TK** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:31 pm

was jude considered to be an apostle?

TK

Post by **_JC** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:55 pm

I wouldn't mind swapping out Clement for Jude. Hehe.

Actually, he was considered an apostle, though his letter was hotly debated. I think the issue was whether or not Jude actually wrote it.

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:00 pm

Yes, Clement's letter to the Corinthians shortly after Peter and Paul's deaths, is very powerful. It is almost certain that he was Paul's fellow worker (Phillipians 4:3). His writing was publically read in second-century churches along with the other apostolic scriptures.

It is possible that his writing was later excluded because in his use of the Phoenix bird as illustrating the resurrection, he seemed to believe that there was actually such a bird. But that does not seem to justify omitting his letter to the Corinthians. The word "unicorn" is found in the Old Testament in 6 different places, none of which indicated a mythological creature. Oh, I know most modern translations have "wild ox" and some have "buffalo" and others "rhinocerous". But the translators of the Septuagint understood the Hebrew to be "unicorn." The Greek word they used in each case was "monokeras" which literally means "single horn".

Why are we so certain that unicorns never existed? Why are we so certain the the Phoenix never existed?

Post by **_Christopher** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:19 pm

JC wrote:

Actually, he was considered an apostle, though his letter was hotly debated. I think the issue was whether or not Jude actually wrote it.

I thought the issue was that he quoted some pseudopigraphal works (Book of Enoch, Assumption of Moses) and his letter was therefore considered by many to not be inspired.

Post by **_JC** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:29 am

I thought the issue was that he quoted some pseudopigraphal works (Book of Enoch, Assumption of Moses) and his letter was therefore considered by many to not be inspired.

I believe that's the very reason reason Jude's authorship was in question. They felt it was doubtful an apostle would say such goofy things. I'm more interested in why they actually approved the work as canonical. Does anyone know?

Post by **_TK** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:41 am

i guess my main point in asking whether Jude was considered to be an apostle was that if he WASN'T, and still allowed the book, then why would they not do the same for Clement, who wasnt an apostle either (i dont think). but if jude WAS an apostle, that would be a distinction between he and Clement.

TK

Post by **_JC** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:04 am

TK, Jude was a very common name so there were no doubt many disciples with that name in the first century. However, I think the assumption is that this particular Jude is the brother of Jesus. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.