Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-13-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Early use of the Clementines

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the "Philocalia" of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian "Opus imperfectum in Matt." (See Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 436.)

Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In Church History III.38 (A.D. 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:

"And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."

Any theories on the fourth century author of the Clementines? The list of apochrypha in Chapter 5 - Decretum Gelasianum mentions the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal . Why were they considered apochryphal? Did the Clementine literature somehow fall out of favor with the canon maintainers like "The Shepherd of Hermas"? Any ideas on this?

Here is the cited section of Eusebius in full:

Quote:

Chapter XXXVIII. The Epistle of Clement and the Writings Falsely Ascribed to Him.

1 Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned,371 and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.372 In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.

2 Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.

3 The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different.373

4 But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it.374

5 And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion.375 But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp.376

The lately brought forward seems to indicate that this was happening as Eusebius was writing, like "The Acts of Pilate" for example. Does anyone know what these original two references in Origen were? And how these references - if they are indeed 4th century - made their way into Origen?

Best wishes,

Pete

aa5874 · 12-13-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From the catholic encyclopaedia:

Quote:

Early use of the Clementines

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the "Philocalia" of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian "Opus imperfectum in Matt." (See Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 436.)

Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In Church History III.38 (A.D. 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:

"And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."

Any theories on the fourth century author of the Clementines? The list of apochrypha in Chapter 5 - Decretum Gelasianum mentions the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal . Why were they considered apochryphal? Did the Clementine literature somehow fall out of favor with the canon maintainers like "The Shepherd of Hermas"? Any ideas on this?

Here is the cited section of Eusebius in full:

Quote:

Chapter XXXVIII. The Epistle of Clement and the Writings Falsely Ascribed to Him.

1 Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned,371 and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.372 In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.

2 Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.

3 The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different.373

4 But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it.374

5 And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion.375 But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp.376

The lately brought forward seems to indicate that this was happening as Eusebius was writing, like "The Acts of Pilate" for example. Does anyone know what these original two references in Origen were? And how these references - if they are indeed 4th century - made their way into Origen?

Best wishes,

Pete

I think Eusebius means that he was seeing, for the first time, other writings which carried the name of Clement which he knew nothing about.

But, why does Eusebius insist that Paul wrote Hebrews and that Clement translated Hebrews when Hebrews have no acknowledged author?

Eusebius claims Hebrews and 1st Clement appear similar.

Eusebius wrote them?

Roger Pearse · 12-13-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From the catholic encyclopaedia:

Quote:

Early use of the Clementines

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the "Philocalia" of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor.

...
Does anyone know what these original two references in Origen were?

Look at the English translation of the Philocalia and the notes.

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 12-15-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From the catholic encyclopaedia: Does anyone know what these original two references in Origen were?

Look at the English translation of the Philocalia and the notes.

Dear Roger,

The document outlines the following analysis of Origen's scheme of interpretation and states that it may be useful to the reader. Since I cannot produce the same format I will describe it. A trinity of main headings is first introduced as:

* Literal (Body)
* Moral (Soul)
* Mystical (Spirit)

however under the main heading of body, which I presume was intended to refer to the body of the purported historical jesus we have two separate and distinct sub-headings, as follows:

(1) Actual History.

There are no comments at all in this section.

(2) Fictitious History -- What does this mean?
.
The comments under this sub-heading state:

Quote:

"Invented by the Holy Spirit"

Why do I find the word "Invented" here? What does this actually mean?

Quote:

"Invented by the Holy Spirit
to convey moral and mystical
truths which earthly things
could not sufficiently typify.

In the law some things
were literally to be observed;
others were in the letter impossible
or absurd, but were intended
to convey moral and mystical teaching.

Am I to understand it was necessary for some reason to distinguish between actual and fictitious history according to the prescriptions of Origen?

Best wishes,

Pete

andrewcriddle · 12-16-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Am I to understand it was necessary for some reason to distinguish between actual and fictitious history according to the prescriptions of Origen?

Best wishes,

Pete

Origen believed that most of the bible narratives were historical records of actual events. However he held that some of the bible narratives had not literally happened and were really parables in the form of historical accounts.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 12-16-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From the catholic encyclopaedia:

Any theories on the fourth century author of the Clementines?
The lately brought forward seems to indicate that this was happening as Eusebius was writing, like "The Acts of Pilate" for example. Does anyone know what these original two references in Origen were? And how these references - if they are indeed 4th century - made their way into Origen?

I think Eusebius means that he was seeing, for the first time, other writings which carried the name of Clement which he knew nothing about.

Dear aa5874,

I think I agree with this assessment. We have what appears to be a voluminous output of new testament non-canonical tractates at perhaps precisely the very same epoch in which the new testament canonical tractates were widely published and proselyted by Constantine. I have not yet done a proper study of the statistical distribution of the presumed chronology of the NT apochrypha, however my earlier reviews seem to indicate that a significant portion (if not the majority, including Nag Hammadi) are known to be of fourth century origin.

However in regard to how any reference to the "Clementines" got into Origen I have looked at Rogers site and the text to find the footnote to Clement of Rome [581]

Quote:

Footnote 581.
For the story of Clement being appointed S. Peter's attendant, for the doings at Laodicea, and how Clement discovered his father in the poor old workman, and the discussions between father and son, see the Clementine Recognitions, vii. 25, viii. 1, etc.

This reference to Clement is not one of the two references to the "Clementines" in Origen is it?

Quote:

But, why does Eusebius insist that Paul wrote Hebrews and that Clement translated Hebrews when Hebrews have no acknowledged author?

Eusebius claims Hebrews and 1st Clement appear similar.

Eusebius wrote them?

Eusebius certainly prepared, collated and edited the publication of the new testament canon under the orders of Constantine. Eusebius assures us in many books of their legitimate heritage from earlier centuries. What are we to believe?

The question noone is jumping in to answer is the identity of the fourth century author(s) of this growing mountain of new testament non canonical works, which is uniquely typified by the archaeological finding and the translation from the Coptic of the Nag Hammadi Codices.

Eusebius admits the Clementine literature "had recently appeared". Was it a literary reaction to the canon of the new state monotheistic religion? Who could have written this? And where precisely does the third century author Origen cite these Clementines (which we know to be of the fourth century)

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-16-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Am I to understand it was necessary for some reason to distinguish between actual and fictitious history according to the prescriptions of Origen?

Origen believed that most of the bible narratives were historical records of actual events. However he held that some of the bible narratives had not literally happened and were really parables in the form of historical accounts.

Dear Andrew,

Was this belief of Origen's associated with the older Hebrew bible component of the "christian bible" or was it associated with the new testament, or both parts? The introductory chapter heading is termed "Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture" and it was a shock to find the term "Fictitious History" specifically written.

THE PHILOCALIA 1 OF ORIGEN
(Explanatory Note in the Greek)

Quote:

THE volume which we now offer to our readers contains a selection of scriptural problems and their solutions compiled by the divines Basil and Gregory 2 from the learned labours of Origen. It is said to have been sent by the latter, Gregory the theologian, to Theodorus, who was then Bishop of Tyana, as is shown by the letter 3 addressed to him, which runs thus:----

The festival, and your letter, and what is better, your anticipation of the season, and readiness to allow us to keep the festival beforehand. These are the gifts of your piety. In return we give the best we have, our prayers. But that you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from Basil, we have sent you a small volume of the choice thoughts of Origen, containing extracts of passages which may be of service to scholars. Pray accept it, and let us see that with the aid of industry and the Spirit you have found it useful.

Fictitious History invented by the Spirit may have been very useful, and a new industry in the empire. I am wondering whether the entry on "Fictitious History invented by the Spirit" was from Origen, or whether it was a summary note by the fourth century extractors and "saints"?

Best wishes,

Pete

andrewcriddle · 12-17-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Origen believed that most of the bible narratives were historical records of actual events. However he held that some of the bible narratives had not literally happened and were really parables in the form of historical accounts.

Dear Andrew,

Was this belief of Origen's associated with the older Hebrew bible component of the "christian bible" or was it associated with the new testament, or both parts? The introductory chapter heading is termed "Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture" and it was a shock to find the term "Fictitious History" specifically written.

Hi Pete

Origen mostly applied this view to the Hebrew bible (In its Greek LXX form) but he did sometimes apply it to the NT eg he held (at least in his early writings such as the commentary on John) that the episode of Jesus driving out the traders from the temple had not literally happened, partly because of the different position of the account in John and in the synoptics.

NB I haven't done a detailed rereading of Origen but I don't think he would have used terms like fictitious IMS Origen distinguished between literal and non-literal narratives nd ordinances.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 12-17-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Was this belief of Origen's associated with the older Hebrew bible component of the "christian bible" or was it associated with the new testament, or both parts? The introductory chapter heading is termed "Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture" and it was a shock to find the term "Fictitious History" specifically written.

Origen mostly applied this view to the Hebrew bible (In its Greek LXX form) but he did sometimes apply it to the NT eg he held (at least in his early writings such as the commentary on John) that the episode of Jesus driving out the traders from the temple had not literally happened, partly because of the different position of the account in John and in the synoptics.

Dear Andrew,

I have been rereading the Wace summary on Origen again and it comments:

Quote:

He made no sharp division between the old and the new testament. They must be treated as one body, and we must be careful not to mar the unity of the spirit which exists throughout ([i]in Joh. x.13; cf. de Princ. ii 4). The divinity of the OT is indeed first seen through Christ (de Pyinc. iv. 1, 6)

Quote:

NB I haven't done a detailed rereading of Origen but I don't think he would have used terms like fictitious IMS Origen distinguished between literal and non-literal narratives nd ordinances.

The collection "Philocalia" cited appears to have been made of Origen's writings by the two christian "saints" Gregory (of Nazianuzus) and Basil, and it usually dated to c.382 CE. Julian certainly used the term fiction c.362 CE. Perhaps at that time there were unrepenting pagans wandering around who held the same view as Emperor Julian?

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.