For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

So Eusebius believed and reported a hand written letter from Jesus, which he lost or his dog ate it, had the original copy of Matthew in the "language of the Jews", and lost that, and this guy has doubts that Second Clement was authentic? I dunno. There had to be a lot of proof, like a big sign "I AM A FAKE" stuck to the front of it for this guy to have any doubts!

It wasn't just Eusebius who doubted Second Clement according to the History. It's not only a case of what information he presented but how he phrased things in books which were available for others to read around 323/324 AD.

I found something interesting when taking the approach that Kenneth Humphries wants people to do their own investigations. The Shadowy Clement

His epistle is usually dated to 95 AD but the earliest extant copy (in the Codex Alexandrinus) dates from the 5th century and the earliest reference to 1 Clement is made in the 4th century history of Eusebius, a notorious fabricator (Hist. Eccl. 3,16,38; 4,22).

I decided to see what Eusebius had to say about Clement in Hist. Eccl.3. Clement And The Epistle

Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.

There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness

1: Was First Clement actually forged in the 5th century because that's the date of the earliest known copy? If so, a 4th century historian couldn't have mentioned it. Did somebody forge the Eusebius passage as well or is it more likely that we can't be sure what was in the very first copy of the letter?

2: If the passage is genuine, Eusebius could have got away with saying "There is a newly discovered epistle from Clement, the third bishop of Rome, which is now being read out in a great many churches." It would be difficult for him to get away with what he did say, though, when his book was out. Readers - "What do you mean by this letter was read out in former times? Nobody had heard of it until a few years ago." Eusebius -"Oh, well I just happened to find a letter from Dionysis, the bishop of Corinth who lived at the end of the second century, and he said it was read out in his time." Maybe it would work if that was the only bit of mystery but it wasn't.

3: Hegesippus (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD) was one of those chroniclers whose works didn't survive but Eusebius is writing as if people knew what Hegesippus had said and were using this reference to confirm the authenticity of First Clement. He mentions Hegesippus again in History Book 4

1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.

Readers -"What five books of Memoirs are you talking about?" Eusebius- "I found them in a little used section of the Caesarea Library." Readers - "Can we see them? Eusebius - "Um ... they went missing after I'd looked through them."

He also quotes from a lost (to us) work of Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD). Readers -" We've never heard of that Tertullian passage." Eusebius would then need another excuse for how he managed to quote this bit from a Tertullian text which nobody had heard of.

4: If Clement of Rome didn't exist, Eusebius would have needed to forge some kind of record to say he did. He would then have to add the bit about Paul knowing Clement to the Philippians epistle.

5: In Eusebius's Book Two he talks about Paul and Peter being martyred but I haven't tracked down where this is supposed to be recorded yet.

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

He's now all set to forge First Clement but forgets to mention that Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified. (There's more than one translation of First Clement on Early Christian Writings - Lightfoot's and Hoole's translations suggest that martyrdom could have been referred to while Roberts-Donaldson's actually uses the word martyrdom.)

There's a lot more that Eusebius said which would have needed him to fake extra texts as well and the question is why would he go to all that trouble. Was he trying to alter Marcion's forged Pauline letters so they were 'orthodox theology'? He was a bit late for that because Tertullian's Book 5 against Marcion reveals that the Roman faction had already done it. Did Eusebius forge Tertullian's books against Marcion too? "I found these books in the Caesarea Library but they didn't go missing like the Hegesippus chronicles."

I finally decided that Eusebius forging everything had reached the realms of the absurd. Something else must have been going on and it had started long before Eusebius's time.