CLEMENT OF ROME & THE PROBLEM POSED BY ST. PAUL TO THOSE WHO WANT TO CLAIM JESUS NEVER EXISTED

In every generation there are a few writers who say that Jesus went to India, or that he married Mary Magdalene, or Mary, or Martha, or all three, or that he survived the crucifixion and live to a ripe old age somewhere, or that he simply never existed. Most often the proponents of these views aren't scholars, or at least not New Testament scholars.  Quite often they explain that those of us who are New Testament scholars, who have got doctorates in that field,  actually face an impediment to right understanding due to the inevitable prejudices imposed upon us by our educations, prejudices from which they declare themselves free by virtue of the fact that they have not studied, leaving them at liberty, as they assure us, to "follow truth, wherever it leads." Its an old story and an old formula.  In addition most generations also toss up a writer or two who make such claims despite actually having doctorates, even sometimes doctorates in the field of New Testament studies. 

In this post however, I am interested in only one of the theories mentioned above, namely the idea that Jesus never existed, and that only from a single angle: the problem posed for the denial of the Historical Jesus by the existence of the Historical Paul.  

To be sure many who would deny Jesus existed might wonder at this, regarding Paul as a convenient  asset to their argument as "the man who invented Jesus," or at least the one who spread the idea of the invented Jesus. But the situation is not so simple.  

The problem for such a view emerges from incidental remarks in Paul's letters which reveal that he knows and speaks familiarly not only of the Peter (whom he sometimes refers to by his Aramaic name Cephas), who was the head of the historical Jesus's circle of followers, but also of actual members of Jesus's family, in particular his brothers. 

In Galatians 1:19 Paul speaks of how he met Peter and "James the Lord's brother."

And then, to give just one more example,  in  1 Corinthians 9:5-6, Paul writes: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?"

In both cases, Paul's comments are off-hand and it is obvious he is taking for granted his readers will know and recognize who it is he's talking about.

Both these remarks take place in what are generally referred to as the "undisputed" letters of Paul. 

So, if you want to dispense with a historical Jesus, it behooves you also to come up with some way to dispense with the historical Paul as well, or at least with the above references, especially in relation to Jesus' brothers, because, as we all know,  non-existent people seldom have real brothers. Few historical Jesus deniers, however, have proved ambitious and thoroughgoing enough in their arguments to follow through and come up with ways to deal with the evidence of Paul.  One who actually does so is the very ingenious Robert M. Price, who claims that Paul too never existed. 

But of course New Testament scholars have not gotten on board with Price's arguments nor will they.  One of the reasons is that Paul's existence is too well attested too early.  And it is here that the other player in my title makes his entry: the first-century writer Clement of Rome, who is credited with writing a letter on behalf of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth sometime during the final decades of the first century. 

Traditionally, the Clement credited with authoring this letter is understood to be the associate of Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3, whom Roman Catholic tradition comes to identify as their third Pope.  That Clement was in leadership in the Roman Church is not disputed, but most scholars, including a good number of Catholic ones, would dispute that Rome had a single bishop in Clement's day, and suggest rather that he was one of a group of multiple elders or overseers.*  In any case the letter isn't written in Clement's name, which does not appear in the text of the letter, but in the name of the Church of Rome.  Still given Clement's prominence in the early Church, the attribution of the letter is widely accepted.

In the fifth chapter of the letter, Clement counts himself as part of the generation that lived through  the persecutions of the Emperor Nero (54-68 AD).  In the context he describes first the death of Peter and then that of Paul, the latter of which we now quote:

"Because of jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for patient endurance. After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the east and in the west, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the west. Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance." (1 Clement 5:5-7)

Later in the letter he urges the Corinthian Christians to remember what Paul had written them in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians:

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he first write to you in the beginning of the gospel? Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions." (1 Clement 47:1-3).

 Other examples of early references to Paul could be cited, but what we have given here focuses on this important first-century reference by Clement of Rome. 

*In my view. it remains possible that Clement was the single bishop governing the Church of Rome, although by no means the Pope in the sense in which that would be understood today.