stephan huller

It must be remembered that Clement was living in an age where many established Christian authorities doubted John 3. Gaius of Rome is only apparently the best known example. Clement may have been another and the difficulty with the story of course is that Jesus is portrayed as giving 'better wine' (= more potent) to people already drunk. So it is that Clement here may be interpreted as politely doubting the authenticity of the story (or at least going out of his way to allegorize the implications of the narrative) by saying 'for even if he did this ...' - i.e. if we have to accept this story of him giving stronger wine to likely already drunk wedding guests - then we can't interpret it as if it means that Jesus was helping the attendees drunk.

Clement uses this εἰ γὰρ καὶ expression throughout his writings. It's very common in Greek. We see it in the Letter to Theodore we read of the Carpocratians:

Did Clement really believe that the Gospel of John was holy Writ? Yes for certain he does reference 'the gospel according to John' at some point in his discussion of John 1.18 (I forget where). Yet is this another example of how the basic paradigm of the Letter to Theodore (i.e. that Clement REALLY only tacitly approved of the familiar canonical gospels and preferred instead another text)?

Juststeve

I'm not sure that any of the earliest generation of Christians regarded the Bible as inerrant. In fact Matthew and Luke's use of Mark implies that they didn't. In other words, so what if Clement did not believe all of the stories?

Steve

aa5874

Well, if you are NOT sure about what you say then what is the point?

Who really are you expecting to be sure about what you say?

It is NOT a fact at all that the use of gMark implies that the earliest generation of Christians did NOT regard the Bible as inerrant.

stephan huller

But the doubts raised here about the miracle at Cana (if that's what it is) are paralleled by Gaius of Rome, only Gaius - apparently - rejected the Gospel of John outright. Clement's position could be argued to be more in keeping with what we see in the letter to Theodore with respect to canonical Mark. In other words the Gospel of John is imperfect but not ultimately rejected. Still I strongly disagree with your point about inerrancy. The early Fathers did view the gospel as sacred especially Clement. All of which makes his attitude toward doubtful passages so interesting, I have always characterized Clement's attitude as pragmatic Marcionitism. I think this is yet another example

Juststeve

Stephen:

Sacred does not imply inerrant and no one claimed it did until rather recently. When I was a boy studying Judaism my Rabbi would staunchly defend the Torah as sacred while at the same time saying that not all of the stories therein reflected what actually happened. I can remember him saying with respect to the story of Cain and Able that the Master Of The Universe doesn't need one brother to murder another to teach us that we are our brothers keepers. The notion that the Bible founders if any of the stories are not literally true is very recent.

Steve

stephan huller

But Clement of Alexandria was living less than a century and a half from the revelation of the gospel to Paul. The gospel was very much developed with the example of a flawed Pentateuch lurking in the background. Christians made that accusation all the time (= the Torah was imperfectly delivered to Israel/its religion was flawed or a poor copy of Christianity). It is hard to imagine that the early religion could have functioned with the idea that the gospel was fucked up.

The conspiracy theorist in me has always thought that the fourfold gospel is a DELIBERATE way of forcing Christianity to accept an imperfect revelation. The Marcionite literally would have died rather than accepting this notion.

Juststeve

Stephen:

"The fourfold gospel is a DELIBERATE way of forcing Christianity to accept an imperfect revelation." You are right to suggest that it appeals to the conspiracy theorist, but is it really the bast explanation of the fourfold gospel?

I would suggest that there are four gospels because that's how many survived the after the winnowing process was complete. Why it came down to these four was probably as much political as theological. There is much in Matthew for example that would not sit well with a Paulist. Nevertheless there Matthew is. It may be as simple as Matthew was too popular to winnow out.

I really don't think there is much to explain here. The four writers of the canonical gospels wrote not what they knew but what they heard from various sources. When the sources matched, so did their stories. When they didn't match, neither did the stories. Is that imperfection, or just the differences one would expect?

Steve

Toto

If the early church was not some sort of "conspiracy," what was it?

These "sources" are a hypothetical ad hoc explanation for the differences in the gospels, but we have no independent evidence of historical sources. Both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, but are still different. All of the gospels used the Septuagint as a source. The differences in the gospels are not due to different sources, but to different theological agendas.

But you still need to explain the fact that the church picked four inconsistent gospels to be part of the canon.

aa5874

You have ZERO credible sources of antiquity to SUPPORT your stories. I regard what you say as Myth fables.

You seem to think that you have some kind of authority to INVENT stories from your imagination and pass them off as history.

Who told the author of gMatthew that the baby Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and that Herod KILLED ALL the Children of Jerusalem and round about Judea that were 2 years and younger?

Who told gMatthew those things?

And who told the author of gLuke that an angel did Tell people that Jesus was Born in the City of David in a manger, was PRESENTLY wrapped in swaddling clothes and that PEOPLE did LOCATE the Baby Jesus?

You imaginative story-telling are totally UNSUPPORTED.

Please, if you have NO sources for your claims then it is pointless posting them.

I will REJECT them INSTANTLY.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

It is possible that Clement saw the story as allegorical and not literal. Origen probably did.

However, the context of your quote is that Clement is arguing both that drunkenness is bad and (against the Encratites) that drinking wine is good and that Jesus himself drank wine. This suggests to me that Clement means that Jesus literally provided wine from water but this was intended as an object lesson to the wedding guests and was not intended to make them drunk.

Andrew Criddle