stephan huller

My problem with including fake letters of Clement of Rome in the mix is that it dilutes Andrew's original question. Could there gave been two collections of letters of Clement at Mar Saba - one of Alexandria the other of Rome if at least one included fake letters? Of course

stephan huller

Another curious Alexandrian use of phronesis in combination with logos from Irenaeus:

stephan huller

Phronesis is the intellectual capacity for moral judgment. Clement of Alexandria says that Moses allegorically called divine understanding (phronesis) the "tree of Life" planted in Paradise (Strom. 5.72.2). Indeed I think the passage is very close to the sense of the fragment in Leontius and John:

This is a lot closer to the sense of the fragment from 'the ninth letter' than anything in 1 Clement or the Clementine writings.

Roger Pearse

I think this must be right. When you look at the Sacra Parallela, we are reminded of nothing so much as a catena. And the attributions of authors in catenas are always, always getting corrupted, omitted, etc.

I think the supposed 21 letters of Clement of A. is *interesting*; but I wouldn't care to put a lot of weight on this. It's pretty doubtful that by the 8th (?) century any such collection would be extant anyway, even if the attribution is accurate.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But do we know that there were *any*? Or that we are not dealing with compilations from compilations, as we do for catenas?

And (I'm on a very slow internet connection during the week, so forgive me if I miss things) ... I don't quite see how we get from quotations in the Sacra Parallela to the presence of items referenced in it at Mar Saba? (confused)

stephan huller

But everything is 'questionable' in the realm of scholarship. You can find any number of people argue over whether Mark really wrote the gospel of Mark or Luke the Acts of the Apostles. The real question is whether at least two of the references sound like Clement of Alexandria - which they certainly do and secondly whether a document purported to be another fragment of this collection of letters discovered at Mar Saba in 1958 - which is also simply true. The idea that is a forgery needs evidence to support it - which is lacking. So we are left with two witnesses to the existence of a collection of letters of Clement of Alexandria associated with Mar Saba.

The existence of other lost works of Clement in the Mar Saba library (Hypotyposeis for instance) and a number of other known works of Clement seems to indicate that it is at least plausible that the reason these texts were there in the monastery has something to do with Origenist controversy at Mar Saba under Justinian. I don't see why any of this is controversial. Just because there are Chinese whispers doesn't mean there is a substantive case against something.

The collection of Letters of Clement at Mar Saba is no stronger or weaker than the argument for the presence of the Dispute between Jason and Pascipus or the Hypotyposeis. Yes Eusebius mentions the latter examples and at the expense of the former. But Eusebius isn't God. He doesn't know everything. There may be a reason the collection wasn't mention (= it reflect a more intimate portrait of Clement and his Arian leanings). Who knows. But the idea that there was a collection of Letters of Clement of Alexandria at Mar Saba shouldn't be controversial based on the two witnesses. We might even have a third. Working on it as we speak ...

And indeed to be fair - it is one thing to argue that Morton Smith might have forged the Mar Saba letter. It is another probability to argue this plus the fact that the texts which say that there were 21 letters of Clement are both misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Any more we risk agreeing with mountainman that the Christians texts were all produced by Eusebius.

andrewcriddle

I don't think there were two variant introductions to the passage. What I think happened is this.

The original manuscript has From the Holy Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians followed by a passage from 1 Clement. The manuscript then has immediately after From [the previously mentioned Clement of Rome's] 9th epistle ... followed by the short passage we are discussing. When Mai edited the manuscript he couldn't be botherered copying out the passage from 1 Clement the text of which was already known. So he printed the short passage with an introduction From the Holy Clement of Rome's ninth epistle and added a footnote explaining rather vaguely what he had done.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Correct.

stephan huller

For what its worth I am in the process of getting a scan of the manuscript to see what prompted Migne to exclude the passage from 1 Clement from his edition. Sent an email to the wrong department apparently but will post here when I finally get some news


In reply to Your e-mail of 2 instant I have to warn You that the manuscript of Your interest doesn't belong to these Pontifical Archives, but to the Vatican Apostolic Library (www.vaticanlibrary.va), which I invite You to contact.

Yours sincerely,

Marco Grilli

_____________________________________

Archivum Secretum Vaticanum

Dott. Marco Grilli
Segretario della Prefettura

Cortile del Belvedere
00120, Città del Vaticano
tel. 06.698.85175
fax. 06.698.85574
asv@asv.va

andrewcriddle

The decision to exclude 1 Clement was IIUC taken by Mai. I think Migne merely reprinted Mai's text.

Andrew Criddle