1 Still worth consulting on this topic is Lindemann, A., Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979)Google Scholar. More recent contributions include: Babcock, W. S., ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1990)Google Scholar; Roetzel, C. J., ‘Paul in the Second Century’, The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (ed. Dunn, J. D. G.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003) 227-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aageson, J., Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008)Google Scholar; Bird, M. F. and Dodson, J. R., eds., Paul and the Second Century (LNTS 412; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2011)Google Scholar; and Liljeström, K., ed., The Early Reception of Paul (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 99; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2011)Google Scholar.

2 A date in the last two decades of the first century is likely because of (1) the allusion in 1 Clem. 5–6 to the deaths of Peter and Paul, in the past, during the persecution under Nero and (2) the implication of 1 Clem. 44 that some leaders appointed by ‘our apostles’ are still alive. Thus, the letter cannot have been before the late 60s or early 70s and is not likely to have been written after the end of the first century. For thorough discussions, see Lona, H. E., Der erste Clemensbrief: Übersetzt und erklärt (KAV 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 75-8Google Scholar, and Lindemann, A., Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Die Apostolischen Väter I; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 11-20Google Scholar.

3 Early sources that attribute the letter to Clement, bishop of Rome, include Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3), Tertullian (Praescr. 32.2), and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.16; 3.4.9; cf. Eusebius's citation of a letter from Dionysius of Corinth in Hist. eccl. 4.23.11).

4 Unless otherwise noted, the text and translation of 1 Clement used in this essay are adapted from Holmes, M. W., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 3rd ed. 2007)Google Scholar. All translations of the NT are adapted from the nrsv.

5 For an excellent study of 1 Clement as an example of deliberative rhetoric, see O. Bakke, M., ‘Concord and Peace’: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition (WUNT 2/141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001)Google Scholar.

6 Regardless of the meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών in 1 Clem. 5.7, which I take be an allusion to Paul's travels to Spain (whether those journeys are historical or not), the phrase μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων (‘having borne witness before the rulers’) probably suggests Paul's witness before Roman imperial officials in Rome, even if the geographical location of this testimony is not expressly articulated. On the origins of the tradition of Paul's death in Rome, see M. Bockmuehl, ‘Peter's Death in Rome? Back to Front and Upside Down’, SJT 60 (2007) 1-23; Eastman, D. L., Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West (Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplements; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 16-24Google Scholar (cf. Phil 1.20-23; 2 Tim 4.6; Acts 20.17-38; Dehandschutter, B., ‘Some Notes on 1 Clement 5,4-7’, IP 19 [1989] 83-9Google Scholar; Löhr, H., ‘Zur Paulus-Notiz in 1 Clem 5,5-7’, Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte [ed. Horn, F. W.; BZNW 106; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2001] 197-213)Google Scholar.

7 D. A. Hagner identifies in 1 Clement knowledge of all the Pauline epistles except for 1–2 Thessalonians and Philemon (The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [NovTSup 34; Leiden: Brill, 1973] 236-7Google Scholar). Even if some have questioned Hagner's maximalist approach, there is no debate about the fact that the author of 1 Clement cites or alludes to material from both 1 Corinthians and Romans (so Carlyle, A. J. in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers [Oxford: Clarendon, 1905] 38-42Google Scholar; Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, 177-99; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 17-18; Lona, Erste Clemensbrief, 49).

8 See Hagner, Use, 195. For a more recent (and generally more cautious) discussion, see Gregory, A. F., ‘1 Clement and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’, The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Gregory, A. F. and Tuckett, C.; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University, 2005) 1.129-57Google Scholar.

9 Carlyle, New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 38. That Paul and the author of 1 Clement independently drew upon an earlier tradition cannot be ruled out (a possibility considered by Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, 188), but such an explanation seems unlikely, especially considering other external and internal factors in favor of Clement's knowledge of Romans.

10 The next most compelling of the additional connections is probably 1 Clem. 32.2//Rom 9.5. Other possible allusions, none of which are decisive, would include: 1 Clem. 30.6//Rom 2.29b; 1 Clem. 31.1//Rom 6.1; 1 Clem. 34.2//Rom 11.36; 1 Clem. 36.2; 51.5//Rom 1.21; 1 Clem. 37.5//Rom 12.4; 1 Clem. 38.1; 46.7//Rom 12.4; 1 Clem. 47.7//Rom 2.24; and 1 Clem. 50.6-7//Rom 4.7-9.

11 Text in bold indicates a verbal or cognate parallel; underlined text indicates a conceptual overlap.

12 In addition to these connections, it should be noted that the encouragement to consider the ways of God's blessing in 1 Clem. 31 begins by reminding readers that Abraham was blessed ‘because he attained righteousness and truth through faith’ (δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν διὰ πίστεως ποιήσας, 31.2). This correlation of (1) Abraham, (2) δικαιοσύνη, and (3) πίστις parallels the discussion of similar themes in Rom 4.1-25. Unlike Paul, however, the author of 1 Clement follows the reference to Abraham by pointing also to the examples of Isaac and Jacob (1 Clem. 31.3-4). Earlier in the letter, the author of 1 Clement also cites Gen 15.5-6 with reference to Abraham's justification by faith (10.6). On the reference to Isaac's willing sacrifice in 1 Clem. 31.3 as one of the earliest examples of the Aqedah tradition in Christian literature, see Huizenga, L. A., ‘The Aqedah at the End of the First Century of the Common Era: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 4 Maccabees, Josephus' Antiquities, 1 Clement’, JSP 20 (2010) 105-33Google Scholar, esp. 131-3.

13 Knopf, R., Die Apostolischen Väter: Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel. Die zwei Clemensbriefe (HNTSup 1; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1920)Google Scholar 98; my translation.

14 See Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. Grobel, K.; New York: Scribner's, 1951–55)Google Scholar 2.200-1. Following Bultmann, S. Schulz's study of ‘early Catholicism’ declares 1 Clement; to represent ‘die Selbstrechtfertigung der Frommen aufgrund geleisteter und verdienstlicher Tugenden’ (Die Mitte der Schrift: Der Frühkatholizismus im Neuen Testament als Herausforderung an den Protestantismus [Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1976]Google Scholar 322). In English-speaking scholarship, Torrance, T. F. (The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers [London and Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1948Google Scholar]) is consistently negative in his appraisal of the soteriology of 1 Clement; of the role of Christ in salvation: ‘In the last resort therefore Clement is unable to ascribe saving significance to Christ himself’ (47); of 1 Clem. 32: ‘There can be no doubt that this is Pauline language, but it cannot be understood in a Pauline fashion’ (50); ‘Like the whole mass of Judaistic writers, Clement thinks of God's mercy as directed only toward the pious; and if he uses the word χάρις, as in Philo, it carries with it the same principle’ (55).

15 So Aono, T., Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedanken bei den Apostolischen Vätern (EHS 23/137; Bern: Lang, 1979) 80-2Google Scholar.

16 Räisänen, H., ‘“Werkgerechtigkeit”—Eine Frühkatholische Lehre? Überlegungen zum 1. Klemensbrief’, Studia Theologica 37 (1983) 79-99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; an English translation is available as ‘“Righteousness by Works”: An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement’, Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays (trans. Orton, D. E.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 203-24Google Scholar; see also the careful discussions in Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 98-100, and Lona, Erste Clemensbrief, 363-5.

17 Räisänen, ‘Righteousness by Works’, 211. I would disagree, however, with Räisänen's contention that 1 Clement is so completely theocentric that ‘Christ could be completely removed from Clement's theology without any change to its basic structure’ (215). Torrance expresses a similar sentiment: ‘Much use is made of Pauline expressions, and once Clement actually speaks of faith in Christ, but nevertheless there is no doubt that faith pertains “not so much to the person of Christ as to Christ's precepts” and the real object of faith is God alone’ (Doctrine, 46; quotation from Lipsius, R. A., De Clementis Romani epistola ad Corinthios priore disquisitio [Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1855Google Scholar] 74). For more positive assessments of the importance of Clement's christology for his pastoral paraenesis, see Lona, Erste Clemensbrief, 398-407; Bakke, Concord and Peace, 327-41.

18 Cf. Rom 2.6-10; 8.13; 14.10-12; 1 Cor 3.10-15; 2 Cor 5.10; Gal 6.7-8; Col 3.25; Eph 2.10; 6.8; 1 Tim 5.24-25; 2 Tim 4.8, 14. On the motif of judgment according to deeds in Paul's letters, see Yinger, K. L., Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999)Google Scholar; Bird, M. F., The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007) 155-78Google Scholar; Kim, K., God Will Judge Each One according to Works: Judgment according to Works and Psalm 62 in Early Judaism and the New Testament (BZNW 178; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 On the notion of participation in Christ in the Pauline writings, see, e.g., Hooker, M., ‘Interchange in Christ’, JTS 22 (1971) 349-61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tannehill, R. C., ‘Participation in Christ: A Central Theme in Pauline Soteriology’, The Shape of the Gospel: New Testament Essays (Eugene: Cascade, 2007) 223-37Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 390-441Google Scholar; and now Campbell, C. R., Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012)Google Scholar.

20 See especially Byrne, B., ‘Living Out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom 6.1–8.13 to an Understanding of Paul's Ethical Presuppositions’, CBQ 43 (1981) 557-81Google Scholar.

21 Including this statement, the phrase ‘good work’ (ἔργον ἀγαθόν: 2.7; 34.4) and its plural form ‘good works’ (33.7 [2 × ]; 38.2) occur six times in the letter.

22 If by the term ‘participationist soteriology’ we mean that believers experience the saving benefits of Christ through their union with him in his death and resurrection, there are a few places where the author of 1 Clement hints at this soteriological model. For example, the author's claim in 24.1 that the Lord Jesus Christ is the ‘firstfruit’ (ἀπαρχή) of the coming resurrection of believers (τὴν μέλλουσαν ἀνάστασιν) both alludes to the Pauline concept in 1 Cor 15.20-28 of Jesus' resurrection as the ‘firstfruits’ of a future resurrection and implies that believers will share in Jesus' narrative trajectory. Additionally, if the verb ἐνοπτρίζομαι in 1 Clem. 36.2 connotes the idea that believers themselves reflect the ‘faultless and transcendent face’ of Christ (perhaps with an allusion to the similarly participatory language of 2 Cor 3.18, where the cognate verb κατοπτρίζω is found), then perhaps this text also speaks of believers' mystical union with Christ. To these two texts we might add statements in 1 Clement about the believing community as the body of Christ (37.5–38.1; 46.7) and possibly some instances of the locution ἐν Χριστῷ (1.2; 21.8; 22.1; 32.4; 38.1; 43.1; 46.6; 47.6; 49.1; 54.3).

23 If 1 Clem. 7.4 (‘Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is to his Father, because, being poured out for our salvation, it won for the whole world the grace of repentance’) does, in fact, reveal that ‘the idea of salvation through the blood-of-Christ in 1 Clement is rooted in the eucharistic and corporate life of the early Christian community’, as E. W. Fisher has argued, then perhaps it would be possible to argue for the presence of a sacramental and participationist soteriology in the congregation's sharing in the death of Jesus through the observation of the Eucharist (‘“Let Us Look upon the Blood-of-Christ” (1 Clement 7:4)’, VC 34 [1980] 218-36, esp. 218). According to Fisher, 1 Clem. 7.4 indicates that, as the believer gazes upon the blood of Christ during the ritual celebration of the Eucharist, one ‘beholds his saviour, or his salvation. He appropriates to himself the salvation by means of seeing, that is through a visual participation in the divine’ (234, emphasis added). Unfortunately, Fisher's form-critical argument that 1 Clem. 7.4 refers to Eucharistic practice is unpersuasive, not least because Fisher isolates the so-called ‘exhortation form’ in 1 Clem. 7.4 (i.e. a hortatory subjunctive) from the larger context of pastoral paraenesis found throughout the document. Excluding the occurrence in scriptural citations, first-person plural hortatory subjunctives are directed to readers in 1 Clem. 5.1 (2×), 3; 7.2 (2×), 3, 4 (2×), 5; 9.1 (3×), 2, 3; 13.1 (2×), 3; 14.3; 15.1; 17.1; 19.2 (2×), 3 (3×); 21.3, 5, 6 (5×); 24.1, 2, 4; 25.1; 27.3; 28.1 (2×); 29.1; 30.1, 3 (2×); 31.1 (3×); 33.1, 7, 8 (2×); 34.5 (2×), 7; 35.4; 37.1, 2, 5; 38.3; 46.4; 48.1 (3×); 50.2 (2×); 51.1; 56.1, 2; 58.1. Thus, Fisher's claim that the use of the subjunctive form of the verb ἀτενίζω in 1 Clem. 7.4 represents an example of ‘the dominant form-critical category’ of ‘epiphany’ fails to account for the frequency of subjunctive appeals throughout 1 Clement.

24 See, e.g., the essays in Pennington, J. and McDonough, S. M., eds., Cosmology and New Testament Theology (LNTS 355; London: T&T Clark, 2008)Google Scholar, especially the introduction to J. White, ‘Paul's Cosmology: The Witness of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians’, 90-106.

25 See Adams, E., Constructing the World: A Study in Paul's Cosmological Language (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; London: T&T Clark, 1999) 151-220Google Scholar; Byrne, B., ‘An Ecological Reading of Rom. 8.19-22’, Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (ed. Horrell, D. G. et al. ; London: T&T Clark, 2010) 83-93Google Scholar; Wischmeyer, O., ‘Kosmos und Kosmologie bei Paulus’, Weltkonstruktionen: Religiöse Weltdeutung zwischen Chaos und Kosmos vom Alten Orient bis zum Islam (ed. Gemeinhardt, P. and Zgoll, A.; ORA 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 87-102Google Scholar. White, ‘Paul's Cosmology’, constructs a nine-point ‘cosmological narrative’ based on material from a variety of Paul's letters.

26 Rom 4.13 should probably be included as a use of κόσμος to refer to the physical creation; see Forman, M., The Politics of Inheritance in Romans (SNTSMS 148; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2011) 58-101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Gaventa, B. R., ‘Neither Height nor Depth: Discerning the Cosmology of Romans’, SJT 64 (2011) 265-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar (270).

28 In spite of the majority view that κτίσις in Rom 8.19-23 represents non-human creation, Gaventa advances a persuasive argument that κτίσις is ‘as an all-encompassing term, one which refers to everything God has created, including humanity’ (‘Neither Height’, 276). For a reading of the text that highlights the close connections between human and nonhuman creation in Rom 8.19-23, see Horrell, D. G., Hunt, C., and Southgate, C., Greening Paul: Reading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological Crisis (Waco: Baylor University, 2010)Google Scholar; cf. Bolt, J., ‘The Relationship between Creation and Redemption in Romans 8.18-27’, CJT 30 (1995) 34-51Google Scholar; Moo, J., ‘Romans 8.19-22 and Isaiah's Cosmic Covenant’, NTS 54 (2008) 74-89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Gaventa, ‘Neither Height’, 265.

30 The phrase ‘hymn of the universe’ comes from Bakke, Concord and Peace, 164; cf. Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 67-75.

31 Pseudo-Aristotle [Mund.] 397a; Cicero Nat. d. 2.38.98–47.120; Dio Chrysostom Conc. Apam. 40.35-37; In cont. 14. The parallels are listed and discussed in the classic works on 1 Clement, including Knopf, Die Apostolischen Väter, 75-6; and Sanders, L., L'Hellénisme de Saint Clément de Rome et le Paulinisme (Studia Hellenistica 2; Louvain: Peeters, 1943) 121-30Google Scholar.

32 W. C. Van Unnik, ‘Is 1 Clement 20 Purely Stoic?’, VC 4 (1950) 181-9 (184). Jewish parallels would include 1 En. 2–5; T. Naph. 3; As. Mos. 12.9-10; Pss. Sol. 18.12-14, 54-56; cf. Pss 18; 104; Jer 8.7.

33 Breytenbach, C., ‘Civic Concord and Cosmic Harmony: Sources of Metaphoric Mapping in 1 Clement 20:3’, Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement (ed. Breytenbach, C. and Welborn, L. L.; AGJU 53; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 182-96Google Scholar.

34 See also Bakke, Concord and Peace, 160-7.

35 Namely, the deeds of humility described from 16.1–19.1.

36 The term ‘theoformity’ is taken from Gorman, M., Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)Google Scholar. It is important to emphasize, however, that with respect to 1 Clement the term ‘theoformity’ describes ‘God-shaped’ behavior and does not necessarily point in the direction of theosis.

37 See, e.g., Dio Chyrsostom's Conc. Apam. 40.35-37 for a very similar rhetorical strategy; Bakke, Concord and Peace, 164-7; cf. Eggenberger, C., Die Quellen der politischen Ethik des 1. Klemensbriefes (Zürich: Zwingli, 1951) 74-86Google Scholar.

38 7.3: ‘Indeed, let us note what is good and what is pleasing and what is acceptable in the sight of the one who made us’ (καὶ ἴδωμεν τί καλὸν καὶ τί τερπνὸν καὶ τί προσδεκτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς); 14.3: ‘Let us be kind to them, in accordance with the compassion and tenderness of the one who made us’ (χρηστευσώμεθα ἀυτοῖς κατὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν καὶ γλυκύτητα τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς); cf. 36.3 (with reference to God's action upon angels) and 61.3.

39 This sentiment continues in 1 Clem. 39.1-9 with a long citation of material from Job (i.e. 4.16-18; 15.15; 4.19–5.5), material that is introduced by the rhetorical questions, ‘For what can a mortal do? Or what strength does an earthborn creature have?’ (39.2).

40 See Hagner, Use, 68-9; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe, 33-4.

41 To this list we might add (1) that the violent power of lions is recognized in a citation of LXX Ps 49.16-23 in 35.11; (2) that mortals and ‘earth born creatures’ (γηγενής) lack power (39.2); and (3) that Gentiles have experienced times of ‘pestilence’ (λοιμικός), although this word seems to function as a metaphor for political dissent rather than as a reference to food crisis (55.1; so BDAG, 4610; cf. the reference to famine in the citation of Prov 1.23-33 in 1 Clem. 57.3-7).

42 Gaventa, ‘Neither Height’, 265.

43 Gaventa, ‘Neither Height’, 278.

44 Adams, Constructing the World, 240 (italics original).