Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 11-28-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Do you know if Clement of Alexandria believed that "Cephas" is different from "Peter"? Wikipedia's article on "Aramaic of Jesus" has that claim, but it has a [citation needed].

It comes to us only preserved by Eusebius (Eccles Hist, 1.12.2).

Here is the text:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote tothe Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face."

The Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria is one of his lost works. It still existed in the 9th century, when Photius read it, but probably perished with so much else in the sack of Constantinople by the renegade army originally hired for the Fourth Crusade. Photius' remarks are here, in the Bibliotheca, codex 109. (Hypotyposes = outlines) He isn't very complimentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photius

Read three volumes of the works of Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, entitled Outlines, The Miscellanies, The Tutor.

The Outlines contain a brief explanation and interpretation of certain passages in the Old and New Testaments. Although in some cases what he says appears orthodox, in others he indulges in impious and legendary fables. For he is of opinion that matter is eternal and that ideas are introduced by certain fixed conditions; he also reduces the Son to something created. He talks prodigious nonsense about the transmigration of souls and the existence of a number of worlds before Adam. He endeavours to show that Eve came from Adam, not as Holy Scripture tells us, but in an impious and shameful manner; he idly imagines that angels have connexion with women and beget children; that the Word was not incarnate, but only appeared so. He is further convicted of monstrous statements about two Words of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals, or rather not even that one, for he writes : "The Son is called the Word, of the same name as" the Word of the Father, but this is not the Word that became flesh, nor even the Word of the Father, but a certain power of God, as it were an efflux from the Word itself, having become mind, pervaded the hearts of men." All this he attempts to support by passages of Scripture. He talks much other blasphemous nonsense, either he or some one else under his name. These monstrous blasphemies are contained in eight books, in which he frequently discusses the same points and quotes passages from Scripture promiscuously and confusedly, like one possessed. The entire work includes notes on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, St. Paul's epistles, the Catholic epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. Clement was a pupil of Pantaenus, as he himself says. Let this suffice for the Outlines.

Codices 110 and 111 deal with the other two works.

Only fragments now exist of this commentary on the bible, which Eusebius tells us (HE 6.14.1) also included comments on the apocryphal works of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. Most of the few fragments are in Eusebius. Others are in the commentary of ps.Oecumenius, and John Moschus Pratum Spirituale.

There is also a Latin translation of a good chunk of it, which passes under the title Adumbrationes Clementi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas. This was made in the days of Cassiodorus, and is probably in Migne somewhere.

The Greek material can all be found in GCS 17, which is online somewhere, and translated here in the ANF 2.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2009, 09:48 AM

Was there something about Paul that he was not made the vicar of Christ as Peter was?

Was there some doubt about Paul's kosherness from the orthodox catholic perspective?

Solo · 11-28-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But I am not sure how advocates of the mythical-Jesus position explain Peter.

I'm not sure about ahistoricists (a term I prefer to mythicists) in general, but I explain him as a leader of the religious cult (or one of the cults) out of which Christianity as we now know it evolved. To grossly oversimplify: When a historical Jesus was added to stories about the cult's origins, Peter had to be worked into the narrative somehow.

Just to clear a little the dense fog of generalizations that seems to be falling here: Peter would have been worked into the narrative of Mark. Do you agree ? Mark would have been the one (at least the first one we know of) who suggested Peter's 'authority' derived from his personal acquiantance with the Nazarene Jesus. Correct ?

OK: how is it that if Peter in reality was just one of those who like Paul dreamed Jesus in middle-platonic troposphere and Mark was crafting a clever allegory of their rivalry (as he probably was), why is that Peter walked with Jesus and Paul did not ?

Can you somehow explain that ?

Jiri

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2009, 10:58 AM

Because the author of Mark had never heard of Paul?

aa5874 · 11-28-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Because the author of Mark had never heard of Paul?

The Jesus story in gMark did not include salvation for the Gentiles. Jesus in gMark came simply to warn the Jews about the coming of the Kingdom of God.

It would appear that the crucifixion of Jesus in gMark signified destruction and not salvation.

The Jews killed the son of God, so he destroyed Jerusalem with the Temple.

The salvation story was a later invention.

storytime · 11-28-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Ok, if you're going to see Peter as a real person, and Jesus also, then the storyline needs examination for its purpose. Evidence in the story strongly suggests that Peter is Satan, the [usurper] of the word of God due to Peter's overriding the commandments of God and bringing idol worshipers into the kingdom[temple] of God. Why did Peter wait until after the death of Jesus to do this abominable thing? What then does this story teach the Jews?

OK, I think I get it. Do you think that Paul's (or the false Paul's) writing of the dispute with Peter was meant to make Peter fill the role of the bad guy?

In that circumstance, yes. Paul said Peter was guilty - of hypocrisy, therefore Peter was the bad guy.

andrewcriddle · 11-29-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria is one of his lost works.
.................................................. ................................................
Only fragments now exist of this commentary on the bible, which Eusebius tells us (HE 6.14.1) also included comments on the apocryphal works of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. Most of the few fragments are in Eusebius. Others are in the commentary of ps.Oecumenius, and John Moschus Pratum Spirituale.

There is also a Latin translation of a good chunk of it, which passes under the title Adumbrationes Clementi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas. This was made in the days of Cassiodorus, and is probably in Migne somewhere.

The Greek material can all be found in GCS 17, which is online somewhere, and translated here in the ANF 2.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

There is also an English translation of Adumbrationes Clementi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas in the ANF

The Greek and Latin fragments of the Hypotyposeis are online at clemensalexandrinus

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 11-29-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Peter would have been worked into the narrative of Mark. Do you agree ?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Mark would have been the one (at least the first one we know of) who suggested Peter's 'authority' derived from his personal acquiantance with the Nazarene Jesus. Correct ?

No, that isn't what I think. Mark makes all the disciples, Peter included, look like a bunch of idiots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

OK: how is it that if Peter in reality was just one of those who like Paul dreamed Jesus in middle-platonic troposphere and Mark was crafting a clever allegory of their rivalry (as he probably was), why is that Peter walked with Jesus and Paul did not ?

Partial answer: What Clive said. I'm aware of no evidence that Mark had ever heard of Paul.

And whether he had or not, I don't see his gospel as an allegory of any rivalry between Peter and Paul.

Solo · 11-29-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Mark would have been the one (at least the first one we know of) who suggested Peter's 'authority' derived from his personal acquiantance with the Nazarene Jesus. Correct ?

No, that isn't what I think. Mark makes all the disciples, Peter included, look like a bunch of idiots.

I think you are being a tad disingenuous here. First, I put authority in quotation marks. Second, Peter was obviously singled out from the start of Mark's narrative as the one with the leadership status among the disciples. It is in Peter's house where Jesus performs the first cure; he rebukes Peter for opposing his passion; he transfigures before Peter; Peter promises to be true but denies Jesus three times in the hour of his trial, and Peter is the only one named by the angel stand-in at the tomb as the intended recipient of the news of Jesus rising and and his direction to follow him to Galilee.

Your denial that Mark wanted to present Peter's authority as stemming from personal contact, and closeness to the human Jesus looks pretty weak.

Whatever circulated about Peter (Cephas) before Mark, we know from Mark that Peter was his chosen man - whether this is historical fact or wholly fiction.

Quote:

OK: how is it that if Peter in reality was just one of those who like Paul dreamed Jesus in middle-platonic troposphere and Mark was crafting a clever allegory of their rivalry (as he probably was), why is that Peter walked with Jesus and Paul did not ?

Partial answer: What Clive said. I'm aware of no evidence that Mark had ever heard of Paul.

The 'evidence' is hidden to all except the chosen. Mark writes self-consciously a mysterion.

Mk 4:10-11 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;"

Everything (pas) means everything; the whole gospel. Actually the very idea of secret wisdom, as you know, was advocated by Paul and he provided justification for it.

1 Cr 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

How about the mysterious cry of Mark's Jesus on the cross, would that not be an allegorical rendering of Paul ? I am sure if you know the epistles you can pinpoint the one verse that inspires Mark to portray Jesus' horrific realization that in this life, and before men, he was abandoned by God. Paul spoke plainly.

Quote:

And whether he had or not, I don't see his gospel as an allegory of any rivalry between Peter and Paul.

In other words, even if I showed you all the parallels you would still not consider them - because you know that Mark's gospel cannot be a theological tug of war between two major branches of the faith, told as a story.

An you know what ? It's ok. You are comfortable with what you believe; I am comfortable with what I believe and we are not facing each with a finger on the button ready to wipe out life on the planet to prove that our respective comfort is the only true one.

Jiri

Doug Shaver · 11-30-2009, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

An you know what ? It's ok. You are comfortable with what you believe; I am comfortable with what I believe and we are not facing each with a finger on the button ready to wipe out life on the planet to prove that our respective comfort is the only true one.

Fine by me. You asked a question, I answered it, and you explained why you think my answer was unsatisfactory. I'm OK with leaving it at that.

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

11-28-2009, 09:48 AM	#22
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Was there something about Paul that he was not made the vicar of Christ as Peter was? Was there some doubt about Paul's kosherness from the orthodox catholic perspective?

11-28-2009, 10:58 AM	#24
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Because the author of Mark had never heard of Paul?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.