CHAPTER FIVE

THE PREFACE TO 1 CLEMENT:

THE RHETORICAL SITUATION AND
THE TRADITIONAL DATE

L. L. Welborn

I.

“The romance of Clement’s life has led us to the doors of the imperial
palace.”
Bishop Lightfoot

The author of the third-century romance of Clement’s life, which has

come down to us in two versions, the Homilies and the Recognitions,1
represented Christianity’s triumph in the story of the reunion of a
family driven apart by base desire and cruel fate. As the companion
of Peter on his journeys from place to place, Clement recovers his
family, recognizing in an old beggar woman his mother, in two of
Peter’s disciples his elder brothers, and in an old workman whom
misfortune had driven to despair his long lost father. The anxieties of
the third century are dissolved in this tale of recognitions by the sea:
memory emerges from the abyss to grasp its mother’s face, bathed in
tears.
The story is, of course, the purest fiction: indeed one may even
doubt whether its author intended it to be accepted as a narrative of
facts. Yet Lipsius2 discovered an intriguing parallel between the
Clementine romance and the true history of Flavius Clemens, a
Roman aristocrat whom Christians believed to have been exiled to
the island of Pontia, together with his wife Domitilla, “on account of
their testimony to Christ.”3 As Clement’s father in the legend is

1 B. Rehm, ed., Die Pseudoklementinen (GCS; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969); G.

Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (TU 70; Berlin: Akademie-Ver-

lag, 1958).
2 R. A. Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe bis zur Mitte des vierten Jahrhunderts

(Kiel: Schwers, 1869) 153.

3 Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.18.
198 l.l. welborn

described as a near kinsman of the emperor, so was Flavius Clemens

a cousin of Domitian.4 As Clement’s mother is said to have been of
the family of Caesar, so was Domitilla the emperor’s niece.5 As Faus-
tus and Mattidia in the romance are represented as having two sons
beside Clement, so Flavius Clemens and Domitilla are known to have
had two sons; and just as in actual history these sons were given new
names when they were designated Domitian’s successors, so in legend
the names of Clement’s brothers were changed when they were
adopted by a Christian.6 It need hardly be said that this ingenious
parallel does nothing to establish the identity of Clement the bishop
and the youngest son of the Roman consul. But it does much to
uncover the hidden source of the legend’s strength. For in the story of
the conversion of Clement, a kinsman of Caesar, Christianity lays
hands on the imperial house. In this way a third-century Christian
sought to invest the iron visage of the Roman state with the ability to
return his gaze.
No modern scholar places trust in the Clement legend or in the
identification it suggests. But other ways have been found to the doors
of the imperial palace. By nearly unanimous assent, the so-called First
Epistle of Clement is said to have been written in the last years of
Domitian or at the beginning of the reign of Nerva, that is to say, dur-
ing a lull in the persecution which Domitian is reputed to have visited
upon the church, or immediately after its cessation.7 Yet the epistle is
characterized throughout by a positive attitude toward the Roman
state.8 In the solemn liturgical prayer with which it concludes, the
author asks that Christians “may be obedient to their rulers and gov-
ernors upon earth, to whom God has given the sovereignty.”9 This

4 Suetonius Dom. 15.

5 Dio Cassius 67.14; Philostratus Vit. Apol. 8.25.
6 Suetonius Dom. 15; Quintilian Inst. Orat. 4 proem.
7 Cf., e.g., J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers I: Clement I (London: Macmillan,

1890) 58, 346-58; R. Knopf, Die apostolischen Väter I. Zwei Clemensbriefe (HNT; Tübin-
gen: Siebeck-Mohr, 1920) 43-44; A. von Harnack, Einführung in die alte Kirchengeschichte.
Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Clemensbrief)
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929) 52, 104; Helmut Koester, Einführung in das Neue Testament
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980) 727. L. Barnard’s statement is representative: “1 Clement
was written just after the reign of Domitian when the Church was not sure how the
new Emperor, Nerva, would react. Or it could perhaps be fitted into a lull a year or
two before Domitian was assassinated.”
8 1 Clem. 37:2-3; 21:1,6; 60:2; 61:1-2. See the discussion in A. von Harnack, Ein-

führung 86-87 and C. Eggenberger, Die Quellen der politischen Ethik des 1. Klemensbriefes
(Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1951) 19-41 and passim.
9 1 Clem. 60: 4-61:1.