stephan huller

I notice that Maximus describes a number of more recent figures as 'most holy" at the beginning of texts:

Σοῦ αὐτοῦ πρός τόν ἁγιώτατον καί μακαριώτατον ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Ἰωάννην, περί τοῦ , Ὅτι ἀσώματός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή

Σοῦ αὐτοῦ πρός ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Κυδωνίας.

and in the main body of the text:

τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πατρός ἡμῶν καί διδασκάλου Κυρίλλου νοουμένην ὀρθῶς,

stephan huller

I think the superlative here was only used in the Byzantine period to apply to people. I can't see it used with early figures.

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify.

The extracts from the supposed letters of Clement of Alexandria in the Sacra Parallela are quoted with their attributions and (briefly) discussed in vol 3 of Stahlin's edition of Clement.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Right but you are saying that the Sacred Parallels are improperly understood as actually referencing a collection of letters of Clement of Alexandria. So if we follow your argument (and what we saw from Maximus) then we'd have to believe that Morton Smith decided to take an 'uncertain' reference to the existence of letters. One which really didn't exist at all and can only be seen if you misunderstand the original material and then proceeded not only to invent one of the letters but did so by following the typical way that Maximus the Confessor introduces Clement's sayings (i.e. the forger complicates matters by avoiding the way John of Damascus actually identifies the collection). If the forger wanted to strengthen the connection between the Sacred Parallels and his discovery - and this would be necessary if as you and Annik claim there is no reason to assume that Clement of Alexandria is being referenced in the Sacred Parallels - why wouldn't he have cited the collection in a manner more in keeping with John of Damascus's typical citations? In other words to strengthen the argument that John actually saw a collection of letters of Clement of Alexandria?

Instead he necessarily takes a leap of logic and assumes that Maximus also knew of these letters or at least that the collection was related to collection of writings associated with Maximus.

stephan huller

And then the question becomes - could Morton Smith have determined that Maximus the Confessor was ever at Mar Saba to make this connection? I think he certainly did not know that Maximus was Palestinian. He probably presumed he was from Constantinople. Yes he may have known he was in the circle of Sophonius. But still I don't think he would have made any connection with Mar Saba.

andrewcriddle

Eric Osborn argued in The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria 1957 Appendix C that On Providence is probably neo-Platonic in date. He provides evidence that it was sometimes attributed (by writers other than Maximus) to Clement of Rome.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

But he also admits that this view is nonsense. He firmly identifies the passage as being by Clement of Alexandria. It's been awhile since I read Osborne but I remember he says it is certainly by Clement (even though Philo also has a treatise by this name and Philo and Clement are often confused in these Mar Saba writings).

stephan huller

Here is Ferguson's English translation of one of the fragments of the letters of Clement in John of Damascus. Who else but Clement of Alexandria could have written this?

http://books.google.com/books?id=igA...or.%22&f=false

andrewcriddle

I agree this feels like Clement of Alexandria. However, IIUC, this is the passage from the section on Almsgiving, where the external evidence for the original attribution being a letter of Clement of Alexandria is weak. IE the passage is IMHO by Clement of Alexandria but probably not from a letter by Clement.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Thank you Andrew for this. My apologies for not responding sooner. That looks like a good article.