In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the Corinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ is quite right in saying that ’the great mass of critics ... assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the first century (A.D. 95-100)’ [Endnote 58:1].  There is as usual a right and a left wing in the array of critics.  The right includes several of the older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the Roman Catholic Bishop Hefele.  Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed out somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side.  According to their opinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70.  On the left, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler [Endnote 59:1].  Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle to the Corinthians, ’as one of the oldest documents of Christian antiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the Roman Clement,’ had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so many spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2].  But it is surely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant and spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober and consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is not likely to have been written by him.  The contrary inference would be the more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent parties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his name.  But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight.  Probably not one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but no one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon.

Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of Baur, adding some reasons of his own.  Such as, that the letter shows Pauline tendencies, while ‘according to the most certain traditions’ Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle (Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than these ‘most certain traditions’ (Tertullian and Origen), even if they proved anything:  ’in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle to the Hebrews;’ but surely, according to any sober canons of criticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as so much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews:  the Epistle implies a development of the episcopate which ‘demonstrably’ (nachweislich) did not take place until during the course of the second century; what the ‘demonstration’ is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the great fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tuebingen theory.