Roger Pearse

Just a word of caution; remember the existence of catenas. It is not necessary to suppose that obscure works from centuries earlier still existed in a complete form after the 6th century (although they may have done), purely because there is a reference to them. The authors may simply be referencing some compilation of sayings, made earlier.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Which is GCS 17, online here:

http://archive.org/details/clemensalexandri17clemuoft

The fragments from the Sacra Parallela are on p.223, I find!

All the best,

Roger Pearse
UPDATE: Rechecked reference to Stahlin.

Roger Pearse

Possibly I am missing something but ... are these the three references to letters of Clement of Alexandria that we are discussing? I.e. PG vol. 96, cols 473, 480 and 508?

For col. 473 I see a quotation from Philo on Genesis, but no Clement.

On 480, I see "S. Clementis episcopi Romae", in tit. XLIX.

On 508, I see only quotations from the letters of Ignatius, and no Clement.

I know that the PG edition was reprinted after the fire destroyed the original edition; perhaps we could have a link to the version above?

All this material is in the Rupefucaldina version of the Sacra Parallela, according to the Migne table of contents.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
UPDATE: Apparently we should be looking at Sacra Parallela 311, 312 and 313.
How we find that in the Patrologia Graeca, I don't know.

UPDATE2: And I see that on p.223 of the Stahlin edition, 311, 312 and 313 are the references to the Holl edition of the Sacra Parallela; is that, perhaps, "K. Holl, Die Sacra Parallela des Johannes Damascenus (TU XVI. i = NF I.1,1 896)"? Will look.

UDPATE3: Holl is here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...AJ&redir_esc=y

But this is just stuff on the mss.

UPDATE4: OK he did a "Fragmente vornicanischer Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela" in TU 20, part 2, which is here. And on p.120 of that (p. 384 of the PDF which also includes part 1), we finally find "numbers 311-313". Holl's book consists of lists of quotations from the ante-Nicene fathers, as found in the Sacra Parallela. He groups them by author. There are more than 300 from Clement of Alexandria, and numbers 311-3 are the ones that matter to us. The number is simply a convenience of Holl's, nothing more.

The real sources for these are: PG 95, col. 1361 A; PG 95, col. 1264 C; and PG 95, col. 1473 A. The first two are from the "21st letter".

Phew! That was hard, hard work.

UPDATE5: Nor is it over yet. For PG 95.1361A does not seem to be Clement! col. 1264C *is* Clement, following a quote from "Clement Quis dives salv.", we have "Ejusdem ex epist 21". But col. 1473 has quotes from Clement, but I see no letter...

Anyone care to try?

stephan huller

I am looking at the material now. The Germans like everyone else BEFORE the discovery of Mar Saba 65 assume that there are three references to letters of Clement of Alexandria. The understanding only became controversial once Mar Saba 65 was revealed. It is then that a situation emerges that those who want to disprove the discovery also have to cloud the waters with respect to the existence of letters of Clement at Mar Saba.

The truth is that this is no slam dunk insofar as one could argue that Morton Smith knew that these letters existed and merely tried to manufacture one out of his own imagination. The difficulty with that argument is that the 'forger' (at least theoretically speaking here for a moment) clearly reached out one step further and avoided using John of Damascus's formula for identifying the Clementine material and adopted that of Maximus from over a century earlier.

While it can't be proved either way IMO one either has to figure (a) there was a work of some sort circulating with the 'most holy Clement' identification associated with it or (b) the forger was keen on establishing the text as of Sabaite provenance and took two pieces of information from people associated with the Sabaite library. The difficulty with that is that I can't see how Smith could have connected Maximus with Mar Saba.

stephan huller

Thank you Roger for pointing out that book to me.

stephan huller

The third letter is certainly by Clement of Alexandria. He uses eu poiein and eupoiia which is very common in his writings (especially the Stromata). Clement of Rome never uses these words and uses agathopoiia. I happened to have went through all the writings of both men in another thread here.

The Father has the power to make nobody poor. But if he took away the act of benefit (eu poiein) another, no one would think to feel sympathy. As it is, it is for the sake of one another that some are rich and some poor, so that there may be benefaction (eupoiia).

I have a strong feeling the context of this statement is mystical in nature. He's not talking about money or just about money. It's developed from 2 Corinthians chapter 6 and 8.

DCHindley

As Andrew has stated in his web article, Freidrich Loofs, in Studien uber die dem Johannes von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen 1892, seems to have shown that none of the surviving manuscripts really preserve the original form of the Sacra Parallela. The original Sacra Parallela was arranged in three books; the first dealing with God, the second with man, and the third with virtues and vices. The existing manuscripts have combined this material into one book.

The manuscripts that have survived variously rearrange the materials from the original into a number of headings, and frequently vary in the attributions of quotes, and fall into two major recensions, one represented by Parallela Rupefucaldina (Codex Rupef) and a second by the various remaining manuscripts of the Sacra Parallela.

Andrew feels that it is not likely that the compiler of the Sacra Parallela was aware of two otherwise unknown collections of letters by Clement of Rome (to at least #9) and by Clement of Alexandria (to at least #21). He is of the mind that a pseudepigraphic collection of letters originally attributed to Clement of Rome, as was common in the Pseudo-Clementine writings in general, and the compiler misattributed these letters to Clement of Alexandria.

Curious to better understand Andrew’s argument, I’ve whipped up this table:

Section	Codex Rupef (Recension 1)	Sacra Parallela mss (Recension 2)	Coisl. 276 (independent tradition of original book one)	Vat. 1553 (independent tradition of original book two)	Antonius Melissa (substantially rewritten version of original book three)
On the Kingdom of Heaven	Follows passage attributed to Quis Dives Salvetur by Clement. No new heading.	Follows passage attributed to Quis Dives Salvetur by Clement. From letter 21 (presumably of Clement of Alexandria.)	Follows passage attributed to Quis Dives Salvetur by Clement. No new heading (so likely attributed to Clement of Alexandria.)
On the Servants of God	From letter 21 of Clement the Stromatist	Clement
On Almsgiving	Clement the Stromatist	Clement the Stromatist (most) or Letter of Clement the Stromatist (some)			Clement
Misc				quote a short passage as from letter 9 of the Holy Clement of Rome

The passages in question are:

ANF vol 2 (ed. Donaldson & Roberts)/Migne’s Patrologia Graecae, Clemens Alexandrinus, Fragmenta

6. IN JOHN OF DAMASCUS-[SACRED] PARALLEL[S]-VOL. II. P. 307./Apud S. Joannem Damascenum in sacris Parallel. tom. II, pag. 307. (On the Servants of God?)

The fear of God, who is impassible, is free of perturbation. For it is not God that one dreads, but the falling away from God. He who dreads this, dreads falling into what is evil, and dreads what is evil. And he that fears a fall wishes himself to be immortal and passionless.

Ὁ τοῦ ἀπαθοῦς Θεοῦ φόβος ἀπαθής· φοβεῖται γάρ τις, οὐ τὸν Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀποπεσεῖν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτο δεδιὼς, τὸ τοῖς κακοῖς συμπεσεῖν, φοβεῖται καὶ δέδιεν τὰ κακά· ὁ δεδιὼς δὲ τὸ πτῶμα, ἄφθαρτον ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπαθῆ εἶναι βούλεται. [fragmenta e cod. Vat. gr. 1236, 95.1093]

D Timor Dei qui perturbationibus vacat, perturbationi non est obnoxius. Neque enim Deum quisquam timet, sed ne a Deo excidat. Qui autem hoc timet, ne incidat in mala, is proinde mala metuit Porro qui casum timet, is ab interitu et perpessionibus alienus fieri cupit.

7. THE SAME, P. 341./Ibid. pag. 341 (On the Kingdom of God?)

Let there be a law against those who dare to look at things sacred and divine irreverently, and in a way unworthy of God, to inflict on them the punishment of blindness.

Νόμος ἔστω κατὰ τῶν σεμνὰ καὶ θεῖα, οὐ σεμνῶς καὶ θεοπρεπῶς ὁρᾷν ἀξιούντων, κόλασιν ἐπιφέρειν ἀορασίας. [fragmenta e cod. Vat. gr. 1236, 95.1171]

Κλήμεντος ἐκ τοῦ ηʹ τῶν Στρωμάτων. … Ἐκ τοῦ δʹ τῶν αὐτῶν. –Νόμος ἔστω κατὰ τῶν τὰ σεμνὰ καὶ θεῖα μὴ σεμνῶς καὶ θεοπρεπῶς ὁρᾷν ἀξιούντων, κόλασιν ἐπιφέρειν ἀορασίας. [Rupefucaldia 96.512]

A Sit lex ista constituta, adversus eos qui res sanetas et divinas, non sancte et ut Deo dignum est, cernere cupiunt, poenam caecitatis inferre.

8. THE SAME, P. 657./Ibid. pag. 657. (On Almsgiving?)

Universally, the Christian is friendly to solitude, and quiet, and tranquillity, and peace.

Καθόλου ὁ Χριστιανὸς ἐρημίας, καὶ ἡσυχίας, καὶ γαλήνης, καὶ εἰρήνης οἰκεῖός ἐστιν. [fragmenta e cod. Vat. gr. 1236, 96.280]

In universum Christianus solitudinis, secessionisque et tranquillitatis ac pacis amicus est.

However, Stahlin identifies them as follows:

311) aus einem 21. Brief des Clemens. (Migne 95, 1361 A)
312) aus einem 21. Brief des Clemens (Migne 95, 1264 C)
313) aus einem Brief des Clemens. (Migne 95, 1473 A)

I have not yet quite figured out which saying is to be associated to which manuscript, due to the total confusion over the various citations in Migne PG, but the passages above are from the online versions available through a couple sites.

DCH

stephan huller

Thanks David. This is brilliantly clear. But what about Ferguson's citation of this saying as part of the collection of letters:

The Father has the power to make nobody poor. But if he took away the act of benefit (eu poiein) another, no one would think to feel sympathy. As it is, it is for the sake of one another that some are rich and some poor, so that there may be benefaction (eupoiia).

This saying shows up as 313 in Harnack http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O...lement&f=false p 121

stephan huller

But the language is so obviously from Clement of Alexandria especially 313 in Harnack (which isn't listed here). I know why there is an effort to raise doubts here. But it is Clement of Alexandria all the same.

stephan huller

And I am trying to get a look at what the reference to the ninth letter to Clement looks like. I have this reference which says it reads 'from the ninth epistle of saint Clement'

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1Q...lement&f=false