Mention is made of Clement in Philippians 4:3 as one of St. Paul’s fellow-workers. If μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος is connected with συλλαμβάνου, Clement was urged to help in the work of reconciling Euodia and Syntyche. But it is better to connect the phrase with συνήθλησαν, so including Clement among those with whom these women and St. Paul ‘laboured in the gospel’; i.e. he had been conspicuous in Christian work in Philippi. But the reference does not suggest that he was in Philippi when St. Paul wrote; it is too oblique for that. Would he not have been asked to use his good offices to effect a reconciliation? Two things are possible: (a) he may be dead, though his memory is fragrant (the reference to other ‘fellow-workers whose names are in the book of life’ is not inconsistent with this suggestion); (b) he may be with St. Paul, one of the band who gathered about him in his imprisonment and through whom the Apostle carried on his work. In that case Clement was in Rome, and one of the arguments against identifying him with Clement, bishop of Rome, who wrote the Letter to the Church of Corinth, would disappear. The difficulty of date is, however, serious, though not insuperable. If Clement were a promising convert from Philippi, who after serving there with marked success became a pupil and companion of St. Paul, he could not very well have been less than 35 or 40 years of age when Phil was written from Rome about a.d. 60. If this Clement is to be identified with Clemens Romanus, he must have lived to extreme old age. The identification, first made by Origen, cannot be proved; it is even precarious; but Kennedy goes too far when he calls it ‘absurd’ (Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘Philippians,’ ad loc.).

The name is a common one.

Literature.-J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians4, 1878 (esp. note on p. 168ff.); H. A. A. Kennedy, Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘Philippians,’ 1903; article on ‘Clement’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ; E. B. Redlich, St. Paul and his Companions, 1913, p. 223.

J. E. Roberts.