For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

Humphreys, unlike the church phonies, lists his sources which include
Maxwell Staniforth, a prolific translator of Early Christian writings among others.

I had a look for Staniforth's book and managed to find an Amazon book search which includes the section on the First Epistle Click on the option to search the book and keep scrolling down until you get to Clement of Rome. Copying for pasting isn't allowed so I'll have to paraphrase a few bits and you can check for yourself. The introduction is probably by Andrew Louth but I'll just say Staniforth for clarity.

Staniforth thought the letter is authentic and Clement really was the fourth Bishop of Rome. He said that nothing else is known about him other than he wrote this letter. He didin't challenge the AD 96 date and thought that the 'recent misfortunes' could have referred to persecution during Domitian's reign. He also thought it unlikely that Clement was confused with Flavius Clemens.

Humphreys provides a list of books but he gives no indication which bits of information came from which book. Here's the kind of thing I mean from his Clement section.

Nothing is known of the life or death of "Saint" Clement (often grandly, if anachronistically, styled either first, second, third or fourth 'pope'!).

The confusion is further compounded by the common assumption that Clement's reference to the "recent misfortunes" of the Roman Church relates to a supposed persecution instigated by Domitian. But this "persecution" is bogus and Clement actually makes no mention of martyrdom even when it refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Why isn't there a [1] after this and a list of references at the end of the page with a note [1] such as Book X by Author Y Page#123? I'll make a guess that he's criticising what Staniforth said but it would have been helpful if he'd said so. After all, people might buy Staniforth's book because Humphreys includes it in his sources only to find out that Humphreys doesn't agree with it.

The only reference Humphreys provides for anything at all in his information about Clement comes in the brief mention about career rivalry in the church - it says which verse. This leads to the conclusion which I've bolded.

It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute "Apostolic succession" to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.

This gives me the impression that he copied it straight out of one of his books but he doesn't say which book again. All we can deduce is that it wasn't Staniforth's because Staniforth doesn't say that career rivalry suggests a 2nd century date. An established 2nd century date would be extremely useful for our discussion about when the Paul tradition could have started because Paul is mentioned twice in the text. I suppose I could check to see if Amazon has a 'search book' service for the other six books in Humphreys' list but, right now, I can't be bothered. If you've read them all you can tell me which book it is.

The epistle, important as it is in the gathering up of papal authority, says nothing of an historical Jesus. Its fancies include reference to the "500-year-old phoenix bird".

Staniforth said that the epistle draws on a series of exempla (which are references used to make a point) so I checked what this was all about in in the context of the text. Early Christian Writings - J.B. Lightfoot. Here is the full quote leading up to the phoenix. (I'll put it in hide tags)

---

1Clem 24:1
Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually
showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He
made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from
the dead.

1Clem 24:2
Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at
its proper season.

1Clem 24:3
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on.

1Clem 24:4
Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh
place.

1Clem 24:5
The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the
seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out
of their decay the mightiness of the Master's providence raiseth them
up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.

1Clem 25:1
Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of
the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.

---

Whoever wrote this text wasn't concerned with saying anything about an historical Jesus. He was telling people to look at nature for examples of resurrection and made the mistake of believing in the legend of the phoenix. Agriculture as a symbol of death and resurrection isn't unusual and it's still used today in the pagan chant We All Come From The Goddess

Corn and grain, Corn and grain
All that falls shall rise again

Back to Clement.

"Clement" (or, rather, the coterie of pseudonymous fraudsters) authored further nonsense throughout the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, notably the Clementine Recognitions.

The Clementine Recognitions/Homilies/Pseudo Clementine Literature are known as a 'romance' and a lot of it is about Peter versus Simon the Magician. The Clementine writers had an agenda but nobody is sure what it was now although there are some interesting theories. Yes, it's nonsense if you think it's supposedly reporting historical events but, as an allegory, it could refer to the fight between Christian factions for dominance.

There are only two extant Greek texts of 1 Clement. The oldest is in Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the 5th century.

What point is Humphreys trying to make here? Earlier on he said that career rivalry suggests a 2nd century date for the text. Is he now suggesting that it wasn't actually written until the 5th century or the 5th century version could be significantly different to the original version because it was altered along the way?

You are dangerously close to the bullshit routine that xtians always pull.

My bullshit routine happens to be -

1: Wanting someone to provide proper references so we don't have to guess which books various bits of information come from.

2: Wanting someone to who lists Staniforth as a source to actually read what Staniforth said about nature being included in the exempla. Nobody who reads this epistle would be expecting it to refer to an historical Jesus so why did Humphreys bother to point out that it doesn't refer to an historical Jesus?

3: Wanting someone to explain what point he's trying to make instead of just throwing in bits of information at random.

Humphreys' site could be a useful starting point for things if he gave proper references but it's a pain having to spend ages doing google searches to track down something of interest.