Clement refers to sacrifices being made by the high priest in Jerusalem. This is unequivocally in the present tense; yet it is known that temple sacrifices ceased, once and for all, when the Roman occupied the Temple in 70CE. On the face of it, then it would appear that I Clement was written before 70 CE, some 25 years earlier than the usual date assumed for Clement's installation as Bishop of Rome.
We discussed some possibilities:
That there is a scribal error, and that the original is in a different tense
That Clement is quoting from some earlier document.
That sacrifices were made after 70 AD.
Dr. Isobel Combes suspects that we are overstating the issue:
.... as I understand it, the conventional view dates Clement to around 95 AD. It may be simpler than you think -- he is still one of those who sees Christianity merely as a continuation of Judaism and Christians as "true Israelites" still following in the traditions of priests and synagogues. It will have taken some time, if ever, for it to sink in for some people that it was really all over.
If the Houses of Parliament and St Paul's were razed to the ground and invading fundamentalists took over London, would we all shrug and say "ah well, the end of democracy and the Church of England" .... or would we still for years afterwards live in hope that the situation would eventually be sorted out and we would go back to the way things were?
Or, living elsewhere, occasionally even forget that it had happened and be caught out occasionally mentioning it as if it were still there?