DCHindley

Interesting. If I am understanding correctly, Ofelia Salgado, in her article “France and the Transmission of Latin Manuscripts,“ in The Classical Heritage in France, by Gerald N. Sandy, (2002, pp 25ff) says:

Codex Parisinus of Pliny’s Epistles, ... returned in the first decade of the sixteenth century —to be precise, in 1508— to the country [we're talking about France] where it had been written about ten centuries earlier ... (pg 29)

But how does she know that Codex Parisianus can be dated to about 500 CE (1508-1000)?

She relates this background info: It is undisputed that the edition of Pliny's Epistles edited by Aldus Manutius in 1508 relied mainly upon the now lost Codex Parisianus. This was essentially an "Editio Princeps"

since it contains 375 epistles divided into ten books, while the edition of Rome (1490) contained only 236 letters divided into nine books, and the editions of Venice (c. 1471), Naples {1476} and Milan (1478) had just 122 letters, divided into eight books. (pg 30)

In a somewhat offhand manner, meant to tell us that only "players" are expected to understand, she mentions "six surviving leaves of the Parisinus, now in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York City (M. 462)."

Whaaaa?

With a little searching, I found the editio princeps of these fragments is A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger. A study of six leaves of an uncial manuscript preserved in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, by E.A. Lowe and E.K. Rand, 1922, pp. 37 ff. (You can download it here)

Inasmuch as these palaeographical differences mark a tendency which reaches fuller development in later uncial manuscripts, it is clear that their presence in our manuscript is a sign of its more recent character as compared with manuscripts of the oldest type. Just as our manuscript is clearly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about the year 546, so it is clearly more recent than the Berlin Computus Paschalis of about the year 447. Its proper place is at the end of the oldest series of uncial manuscripts, which begins with the Cicero palimpsest. Its closest neighbors are, I believe, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia and the Codex Theodosianus of Turin. If we conclude by saying that the Morgan manuscript was written about the year 500 we shall probably not be far from the truth. [page 20]

Well, there you go, you Pliny Book 10 letter 95-96 deniers, fragments identified as from Codex Parisianus, a mss you claim was fabricated to bolster Christian claims, are datable to the 5th century.

Back to the drawing board.

DCH

"Truth is stranger than fiction" - Mark Twain

stephan huller

Very interesting. Never had any doubts though.

aa5874

I REPEATEDLY show that Aologetic sources and Church records are bogus to ALERT people here NOT to accept them as historically accurate Without corroboration.

Well, FIRST of all, the letter is Anonymous so the attribution to Clement may be part of the very same lying propaganda and church tradition.

You must be AWARE that anonymous sources have been mis-attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and James.

The anonymous letter attributed to Clement is bogus since it could NOT have been written, known and circulated within the Jesus cult and Church since 95-97 CE or else the time when Clement was bishop of Rome would have been well established.

UP to the 4th-5th century, there were still apologetic sources that claimed Clement was bishop at around 67-90 CE so they could NOT have had known of a letter which was written by Clement at around 95-97 CE.

Apologetic sources, Tertullian, Rufinus, Optatus and Augustine suggest that the Anonymous letter was most likely written AFTER the 5TH CENTURY.

Well, we have at least four sources that we can logically deduce did NOT know of a 95-97 CE letter when Clement was supposedly bishop of Rome and one of those sources, Augustine of Hippo, is late as the 5th century

If people of the Roman Empire, and the Church knew of an ACTUAL letter of Clement since 95-97 CE then it would have made NO logical sense for Tertullian, Rufinus, Optatus and Augustine to claim Clement was bishop around 67-90 CE.

The abundance of evidence suggests the anonymous letter was invented AFTER the 5th century.

Sheshbazzar

IF it were, it would have carefully followed the wording of the Epistles and Gospels which by then, were certainly believed by all to have preceeded it.

IF 1 Clement had been produced as late as the 5th century, it would have been immediately rejected by the Church as a crude forgery because that it did not properly credit 'Paul' or accurately quote the by then well known and established NT texts.

Not disputing that it was an anonymous composition, The internal evidence indicates it was produced earlier than the composed Epistles and Gospels.

A 5th century date makes no sense, as anyone producing a forgery that late would have had to produce one that followed and agreed with the wording of the by then well established authorised texts.

As it stands, it makes a lie out of the church's claims that Paul's Epistles and the Gospels were well known and circulated amongst the Church before 100 CE. And that would have never flown at as late a date as the 5th century CE

Sheshbazzar

It may be noted that I have NOT yet even attempted to assign any date to the composition of 1 Clement.

The going on and on about Church traditions regarding the date of Clement of Rome's bishopric is worthless. the traditions give conflicting dates that cannot be resolved.

Personally, I do not believer there ever was an actual Clement. Both the person and the writing is an early church created fiction intended to establish orthodox authority through a totally fabricated history of 'Apostolic succession', the anonymously produced text being the means of doing so.
And once this 'authority' was effectively asserted, the next thing on the agenda was the production of 'ancient' texts that supported the emergent orthodox religious views. ('Epistles and Gospels)
All of this sudden furor of 'Christian' activity was post 120 CE, and did not even begin to receive circulation or make any public impression until after 150 CE.
From that point on, the lies and traditions of the Christian Church forever overtook any actual accounts of history.

mountainman

Hi DCH,

Pliny Book 10 letter 95-96 deniers do not deny the existence of Pliny Books 1 to 9. Your source cited examines fragments from Books 2 and 3 that have been dated to the 5th century. But we are looking for fragments of Book 10. I may have missed something here. I admit I have not spent too much time examining this, so you may be able to point out what I have missed.

Best wishes


Pete

aa5874

Of course you attempted to assign an EARLY time period to 1 Clement based on INTERNAL evidence and (no questionable 'church traditions') when you ought to know that the ANONYMOUS letter itself may have been derived from QUESTIONABLE church traditions.

The very ANONYMOUS letter contains phrases found in gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews and 2 Peter.

Your view is extremely illogical and quite troubling.

It MUST be of great importance to point out that the RECORDS of the Roman Church itself show that Clement was NOT bishop of Rome 95-97 CE based on a ROMAN writer called Tertullian and that his claim is SUPPORTED by apologetic sources attributed to Jerome, Rufinus, Optatus and Augustine of Hippo up to the 5th century.

The very fact that the time period for Clement is conflicting MUST be relevant to the question of the OP.

It is UNHEARD of that the time Clement was bishop of Rome is worthless when attempting to resolve when a letter attributed to Clement was written as bishop of Rome.

What you believe is NOT relevant if you are NOT prepared to provide the sources to support your Beliefs. You have ZERO credible evidence of antiquity to show that the anonymous letter was written by an "early church".

I have POINTED out to you that Apolgetic sources, up to the 4th and 5th century appear UNAWARE of the anonymous letter because they did NOT claim Clement was bishop of Rome 95-97 CE.

Based on the internal information in the Anonymous letter it CANNOT be shown that it was written BEFORE the 5th century.

sotto voce

To suppose that Domitian could have failed to find the Galilean inimical is to misunderstand either Jesus, or Domitian; if not both. A character of Domitian's nature must have opposed Christianity, or been quite unaware of it. To suppose that the empire could have failed to find the Galilean inimical is to misunderstand either the gospel or the empire; if not both. The only period in which the Romans did not oppose Christians was the one in which they had not yet woken up to the fact that the two were incompatible. The new 'atheism' promoted justice and mercy, the very two commodities that Rome was unable to supply, to the end of its days.

Of course, no-one would too readily admit to opposing those whose only objectives in life were justice and mercy. So it is a bit unreasonable to expect too much extant evidence thereof.

spin

Hmmm, made that up on the spur of the moment, eh?

"must"? Another fabrication.

You're not doing too well with this effluent bilge, are you?

The Romans didn't cope well with any non-Roman religion. Nevertheless, I (and you) don't know that there was a christian presence of any entity worth Roman intervention at the time of Domitian.

Rome was happy to supply it to its own citizens. But your comment is just a tangent on your attempts to insist that there was action against christians under Domitian.

Given the opposition for example to the Dalai Lama, you don't seem to be in touch with the world.

Whether it is reasonable or not, you don't need evidence to know what happened. The rest of us, including Sturdy, do need to show that there is evidence for holding their views.

sotto voce

What, like everyone else?

I knew you'd agree with that. No option, is there!

I knew you'd agree with that. No option, is there!

They excelled at it. Any damn rubbish, they loved. They even gave Judaism a break. With some pretty fatal compromises, mind.

Made that up on the spur of the moment, eh?

But you don't know that there wasn't. And we both know that there are not too many educated people in the world who think that there was no such presence.

Of course. It just didn't supply many citizens.

It's explanation, not tangent. Rationality. A bit uncommon, I know, but there it is.

He's a foul, right wing b*****d, according to most of his opponents. Catch up!

And you don't have it. You cannot possibly exclude an early date for 'Clem' on the basis supplied here. What I wrote earlier is the supreme, unassailable truth, QED.