2. Date and authorship. — ( 1 ) Date. — The terminvs a quo for the dating of the Ejjistle is fixed by its reference to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul (v. 4, 6), and its use of the Epistle to the Helirews (xxxvi. xliii. ). Even if we accept the earliest possible dates for the death of the apostles and for the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Clement cannot have been written before A.D. 70. The terminus ad quern is also fixed by the fact that Clement's Epistle was indubitably used by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (Light-
foot, Clem. Rom. [Apostol. Fathers, pt. i., 1890] vol. i. p. 14911".). If Lightfoot be correct — as seems most probable — in dating Polycarp's letter c. A.D. 110 (.S'^. Ign. and St. Polt/c.^ [Ajiostol. Fathers, pt. ii., 1SS9], vol. i. p. 428 fl'.), the date of Clement's Epistle must fall between the years a.d. 70 and A.D. 110.
Fortunately it is possible to reduce these limits very considerably. The Epistle contains distinct allusions to two serious persecutions already sufl'ered bj'^ the Church at Rome. During the former of these, we are told, ' women sutlered cruel and un- holy insults as Danaids and DirciB,' and ' a vast multitude of the elect ' endured ' many indignities and tortures ' before ' they reached the goal in the race of faith and received a noble reward ' { vi. 1, 2). When the Epistle was written this persecution was a matter of past history, but its victims are still spoken of as ' those champions who lived very near to our own time ' and ' the noble examples which belong to our generation' (roi>s ^yyL<TTa yevofievovs ddXrp-ds , . .Ti]syei'eds7]/j,QvTay£vva2avTrodeiyfj.ara,'v.l). The second persecution was still in progress when the news of the Corinthian schism was brought to Rome. The Epistle opens with an apology for the delay in writing which has been caused by ' the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us ' (ras al(ppi8iovs /cat ^TraXXijXous 7ej'o- fiivas rj/juv <Tv/jL<popas Kal TreptTrrwcrets, i. 1). The writer's words suggest that the method of attack adopted in the later persecution was different from that of the earlier one. That the two are not to be identified is made plain in vii. I, where a clear distinction is drawn between the martyrs of an earlier date and ' us ' who ' are in the same lists,' whom ' the same contest awaits.'
Now it is a well-established fact that during the 1st cent. A.D. the Roman Church suffered two, and only two, serious persecutions. The first was that of Nero (c. A.D. 64), in the course of which, accord- ing to an ancient tradition, St. Paul lost his life. The second was that of Domitian. Nero's persecu- tion was a savage onslaught on all Christians indis- criminately ; that of Domitian took the form of sharp intermittent attacks aimed at individuals. In fact, the difference between the two was precisely the difference between the two persecutions men- tioned in the Epistle of Clement. It seems, there- fore, a safe conclusion that the references of the Epistle are to the persecutions of Nero and Domi- tian, and that the Epistle was written either just before or just after the termination of the latter of the two, i.e. c. A.D. 95-96. This date suits admir- ably the other indications of time contained in the Epistle, all of which point towards the close of the 1st cent. A.D. An earlier date is precluded by the following facts : (a) the Church of Corinth is already called apxaia (xlvii. 6) ; (b) presbyters are mentioned who have succeeded successors of the apostles (xliv. 3) ; (c) the language used of the Roman envoys ' who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably ' (Ixiii. 3) seems to imply that a generation has almost passed since the Church of Rome was founded. On the other hand, the Epistle cannot have been written later than the end of the century, because (a) St. Peter and St. Paul are included amongst the ' examples of our own generation ' (v. 1) ; (6) iirldKOTros and -rrpea- jSorepos are still regarded as interchangeable terms (xliv. 4, 5), whereas very early in the 2nd cent, they were used to denote distinct offices (Ign. Fpp., passim). Finally, external evidence of an early and reliable kind (a) connects the Epistle with the epis- copate of Clement, third bishop of Rome, and (6) places liis episcopate in the last decade of the 1st cent. A.D. (Hegesippus, ap. Eus. HE iv. 22 ; Dion. Cor. ap. Eus. HE iv. 23 ; Iren. adv. Hair. III. iii. 3). In view of this accumulation of evidence, it is
CLEMENT OF EOME, EPISTLE OF CLE^IEKT OF KOME, EPISTLE OF 217
impossible to doubt that the Epistle of Clement was written abuut A.D. 95-96.
(2) Authort^hip. — The Epistle itself claims to be the letter not of an individual but of a community. The author's name is nowhere mentioned. Nor in- deed do we find in the stateinents of Hegesippus, Dionj-sius of Corinth, and Irenceus, the three ear- liest writers who connect the Epistle with the name of Clement, any definite assertion that Clement was the author. Eusebius, to whom we owe our know- ledge of Hegesippus, does indeed declare that that writer ' makes some remarks concerning the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians' (HE iv. 22), but the title here given to the letter is due to the his- torian and not to Hegesippus, whose own words have unfortunately not been preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, c. A.D. 170 [ap. Eus. HE iv. 23), speaks of rrjv irporepav ijpuv dia KXrjfievros ypa<pelaav [sc. ewta- To\rji>), but his statement is ambiguous. 5ia K\-/j- fievTos might mean that Clement was the author, the amanuensis, or even the bearer of the Epistle. Similarly the language of Irenseus (c. A.D. 180) is indefinite as to the actual authorship of the letter :