Toto

Fuller cite:

Osborn, Eric. "Clement of Alexandria: A Review of Research, 1958-1982." The Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies 3 (1983): 219-244.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Andrew,

Let's suppose that this Johannine passage, that already included "door", was added to the previously existing harmony ca. 170 CE. But it must have existed in this shape for some time previously, so let's suppose it was first produced ca. 150 CE.

This still seems pretty early to me. It's likely that Jn was re-edited and expanded sometime before being included into the canon, which also seems to have happened ca. 170 CE.

1ST STAGE

A short Jn was produced, possibly ca. 100 CE.

2ND STAGE

It was re-edited and expanded ca. 150-170 CE, i.e. before having been included into the canon.

3RD STAGE

Our final canonical Jn.

Based on this, I would say that the version that is now found in the OS and the Diatessarons is likely to represent the second stage of Johannine editing. Still pre-canonical.

Thus, we may also be able to date the SecMk at around 150 CE.

Seems reasonable to me.

I wouldn't be so ambitious as to talk of "originality". Getting to the second stage of Johannine editing is already good enough for me at this point.

Best,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, DQ,

Perhaps I overreacted a bit, because I've seen so much junk from those who would accuse Morton Smith of forgery without the slightest basis for such a grave accusation.

The scholars would do anything to minimise work for themselves... "Let's not bother with this new text, because the voices in my head tell me it's a forgery!"

Well, not necessarily...

(Assuming it's authentic...)

This was a private letter to a friend, who has heard some rumours about some Secret Gospel in Alexandria, and Clement was trying to bring him up do speed on these developments... We only have a _part_ of this letter. So we don't really know everything that was said in this letter.

To deny the existence of such a Secret Gospel would have been an outright lie, so is this what you would have wanted Clement to do?

So let's not rush to judgement based on insufficient information.

Good for you!

Yes, I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of strange stuff happening with this letter -- in a number of ways. The whole thing is a bit weird...

But right from the time I first learned about this whole controversy, I've always had a feeling that Smith was not a forger.

And now I'm glad that I've found some pretty solid textual evidence to exonerate Smith.

As I already told to Andrew, the questions that he's raising are not really directly relevant to my main thesis in this textual study.

You're welcome.

Best,

Yuri

Wilfried Dornwald

I have visited the website and found that the last entry is from July 2003. I am wondering what you mean by "seriously out of date"? There is no new information AFAIK.

Wilfried Dornwald

DramaQ

I understand. It’s an easy thing to do.

The letter was a response to a previous letter from this friend. The Theodore to whom Clement has addressed the letter has done more than repeat rumors about a secret gospel. He’s directly quoted material from it.

Clement writes:

It’s one thing for Clement to quote Theodore material he considers “true� secret gospel in order to set the record straight. (Although one would think if it was secret and only for higher-ups in the faith Clement would not be so cavalier about disseminating it). But in this case, the quoted material Clement is reproducing (the “untrue gospel�) came FROM THEODORE in the first place. Why should Theodore be told what the quote is?

Why not? He tells Theodore to do as much:

He could have told Theodore “We’ll talk about this more when I see you. For now, just deny it all.�

In the case of what Clement considered “untrue� material, I would have expected him to only say “the other things you wrote� without duplicating the “offensive� material.

As for who might have forged it and when: It came to light in another thread that the book in which the copy of the letter was found was a Voss edition that discusses forged Christian documents. While some see this as some sort of “inside joke�, I can’t help wondering if what it really means is that even in the 17th century there were suspicions about the authenticity of the letter, and thus a scribed copied into an appropriate place for that.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

My mistake. I stand corrected. When I popped in on the SM homepage I only saw the “Sept 2000/Feb 2001� dates on the “Latest News� link. Time for a check of my eye glass prescription.


dq

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, DQ,

I'm not quite sure what your argument is right now.

If you want to bash Clement, I'm not sure I'm really interested.

If you want to argue that SecMk is some sort of an ancient or medieval forgery, fine with me... My main point in all this has always been primarily to exonerate Smith.

Beyond this, this whole subject becomes extremely complex. Sure, this document may have been an ancient forgery of some sort. It would take a very long time to figure these things out. Just keep in mind that the scholars have been arguing about "Q" for a very long time now, and still nobody is really sure it existed.

Nevertheless, the easy part here AFAIAC is that Smith was not a forger.

Regards,

Yuri.