Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-19-2012, 01:54 PM

This is the section that immediately follows in Clement of Alexandria's citation of the text:

Quote:

"The decorous tendency of our philanthropy, therefore," according to Clement, "seeks the common good;" whether by suffering martyrdom, or by teaching by deed and word,--the latter being twofold, unwritten and written. This is love, to love God and our neighbour. "This conducts to the height which is unutterable.' Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, suffereth all things.' Love joins us to God, does all things in concord. In love, all the chosen of God were perfected. Apart from love, nothing is well pleasing to God." "Of its perfection there is no unfolding," it is said. "Who is fit to be found in it, except those whom. God counts worthy ?" To the point the Apostle Paul speaks, "If I give my body, and have not love, I am sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal." If it is not from a disposition determined by gnostic love that I shall testify, he means; but if through fear and expected reward, moving my lips in order to testify to the Lord that I shall confess the Lord, I am a common man, sounding the Lord's name, not knowing Him. "For there is the people that loveth with the lips; and there is another which gives the body to be burned." "And if I give all my goods in alms," he says, not according to the principle of loving communication, but on account of recompense, either from him who has received the benefit, or the Lord who has promised; "and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains," and cast away obscuring passions, and be not faithful to the Lord from love, "I am nothing," as in comparison of him who testifies as a Gnostic, and the crowd, and being reckoned nothing better.

Now all the generations from Adam to this day are gone. But they who have been perfected in love, through the grace of God, hold the place of the godly, who shall be manifested at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ." Love permits not to sin; but if it fall into any such case, by reason of the interference of the: adversary, in imitation of David, it will sing: "I will confess unto the Lord, and it will please Him above a young bullock that has horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad." For he says, "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me." "For the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit."

"God," then, being good, "is love," it is said.[3] Whose "love worketh no ill to his neighhour,"[4] neither injuring nor revenging ever, but, in a word, doing good to all according to the image of God. "Love is," then, "the fulfilling of the law; "[4] like as Christ, that is the presence of the Lord who loves us; and our loving teaching of, and discipline according to Christ. By love, then, the commands not to commit adultery, and not to covet one's neighbour's wife, are fulfilled,[these sins being] formerly prohibited by fear.

I think I can break this into two main parts. I've got to look at the original Greek to determine the placement of the first sentence. But the second part is in chapters 49, 50 of 1 Clement:

Quote:

The height, where unto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God: in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvelous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection.

Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God's grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.

For it is written; Enter into the closet for a very little while until Mine anger and Mine wrath shall pass away, and I will remember a good day and will raise you from your tombs. Blessed were we, dearly beloved, if we should be doing the commandments of God in concord of love, to the end that our sins may through love be forgiven us. For it is written; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall impute no sin, neither is guile in his mouth. This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

For all our transgressions which we have committed through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set themselves up as leaders of faction and division, ought to look to the common ground of hope. For such as walk in fear and love desire that they themselves should fall into suffering rather than their neighbors; and they pronounce condemnation against themselves rather than against the harmony which hath been handed down to us nobly and righteously. For it is good for a man to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and Death shall be their shepherd. Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea, and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.

The Master, brethren, hath need of nothing at all. He desireth not anything of any man, save to confess unto Him. For the elect David saith; I will confess unto the Lord, and it shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and rejoice. And again He saith; Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows to the Most High: and call upon Me in the day of thine affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. For a sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.

Roger Pearse · 04-19-2012, 01:57 PM

Let's have a go at Detering on Pliny. My German is rubbish, so this based on Google translate:

Quote:

Diese und viele andere Probleme klären sich möglicherweise bei der Untersuchung der Frage nach der äußeren Bezeugung des 10. Buches der Korrespondenz, die von Ehrman natürlich ebenso wenig beachtet, um nicht zu sagen: völlig ignoriert wird. Ohne weiter in die Details zu gehen, die in den „Falschen Zeugen“ ausführlich behandelt werden, nur soviel: Die Briefsammlung scheint erstmals durch die Entdeckung des Mönchs, Theologen, Antiquars und Architekten Fra Giocondo (um die Wende vom 14. zum 15. Jahrhundert) an das Licht der Öffentlichkeit gelangt zu sein. Ihre Echtheit war von Anfang an umstritten! Die Anspielungen, die sich nach Tertullian in der Kirchenväterliteratur finden, gehen in Wahrheit allesamt auf einen Abschnitt bei Tertullian zurück. Bei der Textstelle in dessen Apologie handelt es sich nicht um eine Bezugnahme auf den Pliniusbrief, wie häufig angenommen wird, sondern vermutlich – wie so oft – um eine phantasievolle Erfindung des Kirchenvaters. Der kennt bekanntlich ja eine Reihe anderer fragwürdiger Dokumente. So behauptete er beispielsweise, dass Pilatus, der „selbst schon in seinem Innersten ein Christ, dem damaligen Kaiser Tiberius über Christus gemeldet“ habe. Mit der von Tertullian erwähnten Schrift sind vermutlich die Acta Pilati gemeint, deren Existenz aber umstritten ist und die, wenn sie existiert haben sollten, sicherlich nicht authentisch waren. Auch der „Christenbrief“ des Tertullian war, wenn er existiert haben sollte, ein ebensolches phantasievolles Apokryphon. Mit anderen Worten: Offenbar diente der Text Tertullians im Apologeticum dem späteren Fälscher (Fra Giocondo?) als Aufhänger und Anregung für die Abfassung des sogenannten „Christenbriefs“. Der Verdacht lässt sich durch einen näheren Vergleich des Pliniustextes mit der Stelle in Tertullians Apologeticum weiter erhärten.

These and many other problems may be clarified in the investigation of the question of the external testimony for the 10th book of the Letters, which is of course no more than noted by Ehrman, not to say, completely ignored. Without going further into details, which are dealt with in detail in the "False witnesses", we may say this. The collection of letters appears to have seen the light of day first as a discovery by the monk, theologian and antiquarian, Fra Giocondo (at the turn of the 14-15th centuries). Their authenticity was disputed from the beginning! The allusions found in patristic literature after Tertullian all derive from a passage in Tertullian. The passage in the Apology is not a reference to the letters of Pliny, as commonly believed, but are probably - as so often - a fanciful invention by the church father. As is well-known, he references a number of other questionable documents. He claimed, for example, that Pilate, "already in his heart a Christian, made a report to the then emperor Tiberius." The work mentioned by Tertullian is probably the Acta Pilati, whose existence is disputed, and which, if they did exist, were certainly not authentic. Likewise the "Christian Letter" in Tertullian was, even if it existed, just the same kind of imaginative apocryphon. In other words, the text of Tertullian in the Apologeticum apparently served as a springboard and inspiration for the drafting of the so-called "Christian Letter" by the later forger (Fra Giocondo?) The suspicion is further substantiated by a closer comparison of the text of Pliny with the passage in Tertullian's Apology.

The argument seems no better than my wretched translation, but at least we can discuss it.

To claim that an inconvenient piece of data was forged is much too easy for us to pay much attention to such claims.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 04-19-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Here is the link to the letters 'in the original Latin'. Were they not written, originally, in Greek?

That manuscript in a monastery may have been a Latin version, but does that mean that Pliny himself wrote in Latin? Wouldn't official Roman government documents have been written in Greek?

The Romans spoke Latin. C. Plinius Secundus undoubtedly knew Greek, and wrote it fluently; but these letters are Latin. His collection of letters, like those of Cicero before him, were published as a literary work. Remember that there are 10 books of these letters; 9 of general correspondence, and the 10th of official letters and occasional replies from his trip to Bithynia on behalf of the emperor.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 04-19-2012, 02:16 PM

I have now found an article on the manuscript of Saint-Victor: Ofelia N. Salgado, France and the Transmission of Latin Manuscripts, in: Gerald N. Sandy, The Classical Heritage in France, Brill, 2002, p.29-33. The manuscript was actually 5th century -- an ancient Roman codex -- and 6 folios of it survive. But two other copies at least were made of it, other than the Aldine edition of 1508; a sloppy copy used for the 1502 edition, and some pages hand-copied and presently in the Bodleian library in a volume once belonging to William Bude.

Those few pages are well worth the reading and contradict and correct information in Texts and Transmissions.

Interesting to realise that Pliny's 10th book was preserved, not in a medieval copy, but in a copy written when there was still a Caesar on the throne!

mountainman · 04-19-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I just noticed this variant citation of 1 Clement in Clement of Alexandria which proves - I think - that someone around the time of Clement (probably Irenaeus) rearranged the material and added stuff.

This is not a proof, but a stacking of conjectures.

stephan huller · 04-19-2012, 04:23 PM

Whatever. These are not conjectures. The evidence is there in black and white. Irenaeus cites the same material that Clement does. It is in the same order presumably as our received text. Yet Clement of Alexandria's text is very different. Clement also calls him 'the apostle' which has always puzzled me. But the fact that you see it as conjecture only demonstrates that it is based on solid ground.

Here is some conjecture though - who authored the material that now goes under the name of 'Clement'? I think it appears very clear that the Alexandrian text of 1 Clement is much closer to the outlook of 2 Clement (= gnostic). The author repeatedly cites an unknown gospel and various apocryphal works shared with Clement of Alexandria. I think the author is very ancient. 1 Clement appears in some New Testament collections. Clement of A calls him 'the apostle.' Who knows.

Vorkosigan · 04-19-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I have now found an article on the manuscript of Saint-Victor: Ofelia N. Salgado, France and the Transmission of Latin Manuscripts, in: Gerald N. Sandy, The Classical Heritage in France, Brill, 2002, p.29-33. The manuscript was actually 5th century -- an ancient Roman codex -- and 6 folios of it survive. But two other copies at least were made of it, other than the Aldine edition of 1508; a sloppy copy used for the 1502 edition, and some pages hand-copied and presently in the Bodleian library in a volume once belonging to William Bude.

Those few pages are well worth the reading and contradict and correct information in Texts and Transmissions.

Interesting to realise that Pliny's 10th book was preserved, not in a medieval copy, but in a copy written when there was still a Caesar on the throne!

Wait... there are six surviving folios. Do they include the Pliny letter?

Detering says he show that the 10th folio is a forgery in its entirety, as I recall.

Vorkosigan

mountainman · 04-19-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Let's have a go at Detering on Pliny. My German is rubbish, so this based on Google translate:

Quote:

Diese und viele andere Probleme klären sich möglicherweise bei der Untersuchung der Frage nach der äußeren Bezeugung des 10. Buches der Korrespondenz, die von Ehrman natürlich ebenso wenig beachtet, um nicht zu sagen: völlig ignoriert wird. Ohne weiter in die Details zu gehen, die in den „Falschen Zeugen“ ausführlich behandelt werden, nur soviel: Die Briefsammlung scheint erstmals durch die Entdeckung des Mönchs, Theologen, Antiquars und Architekten Fra Giocondo (um die Wende vom 14. zum 15. Jahrhundert) an das Licht der Öffentlichkeit gelangt zu sein. Ihre Echtheit war von Anfang an umstritten! Die Anspielungen, die sich nach Tertullian in der Kirchenväterliteratur finden, gehen in Wahrheit allesamt auf einen Abschnitt bei Tertullian zurück. Bei der Textstelle in dessen Apologie handelt es sich nicht um eine Bezugnahme auf den Pliniusbrief, wie häufig angenommen wird, sondern vermutlich – wie so oft – um eine phantasievolle Erfindung des Kirchenvaters. Der kennt bekanntlich ja eine Reihe anderer fragwürdiger Dokumente. So behauptete er beispielsweise, dass Pilatus, der „selbst schon in seinem Innersten ein Christ, dem damaligen Kaiser Tiberius über Christus gemeldet“ habe. Mit der von Tertullian erwähnten Schrift sind vermutlich die Acta Pilati gemeint, deren Existenz aber umstritten ist und die, wenn sie existiert haben sollten, sicherlich nicht authentisch waren. Auch der „Christenbrief“ des Tertullian war, wenn er existiert haben sollte, ein ebensolches phantasievolles Apokryphon. Mit anderen Worten: Offenbar diente der Text Tertullians im Apologeticum dem späteren Fälscher (Fra Giocondo?) als Aufhänger und Anregung für die Abfassung des sogenannten „Christenbriefs“. Der Verdacht lässt sich durch einen näheren Vergleich des Pliniustextes mit der Stelle in Tertullians Apologeticum weiter erhärten.

These and many other problems may be clarified in the investigation of the question of the external testimony for the 10th book of the Letters, which is of course no more than noted by Ehrman, not to say, completely ignored. Without going further into details, which are dealt with in detail in the "False witnesses", we may say this. The collection of letters appears to have seen the light of day first as a discovery by the monk, theologian and antiquarian, Fra Giocondo (at the turn of the 14-15th centuries). Their authenticity was disputed from the beginning!

The allusions found in patristic literature after Tertullian all derive from a passage in Tertullian. The passage in the Apology is not a reference to the letters of Pliny, as commonly believed, but are probably - as so often - a fanciful invention by the church father. As is well-known, he references a number of other questionable documents. He claimed, for example, that Pilate, "already in his heart a Christian, made a report to the then emperor Tiberius." The work mentioned by Tertullian is probably the Acta Pilati, whose existence is disputed, and which, if they did exist, were certainly not authentic. Likewise the "Christian Letter" in Tertullian was, even if it existed, just the same kind of imaginative apocryphon. In other words, the text of Tertullian in the Apologeticum apparently served as a springboard and inspiration for the drafting of the so-called "Christian Letter" by the later forger (Fra Giocondo?) The suspicion is further substantiated by a closer comparison of the text of Pliny with the passage in Tertullian's Apology.

The argument seems no better than my wretched translation, but at least we can discuss it.

To claim that an inconvenient piece of data was forged is much too easy for us to pay much attention to such claims.

Thanks for the translation Roger, but it is a criteria of historical methodology and research that any given source may be forged or corrupted. It has nothing to do with inconvenience, or with the amount of attention that is to be allocated to an examination of the claims regarding the evidence itself.

mountainman · 04-19-2012, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I have now found an article on the manuscript of Saint-Victor: Ofelia N. Salgado, France and the Transmission of Latin Manuscripts, in: Gerald N. Sandy, The Classical Heritage in France, Brill, 2002, p.29-33. The manuscript was actually 5th century -- an ancient Roman codex -- and 6 folios of it survive. But two other copies at least were made of it, other than the Aldine edition of 1508; a sloppy copy used for the 1502 edition, and some pages hand-copied and presently in the Bodleian library in a volume once belonging to William Bude.

Those few pages are well worth the reading and contradict and correct information in Texts and Transmissions.

Interesting to realise that Pliny's 10th book was preserved, not in a medieval copy, but in a copy written when there was still a Caesar on the throne!

Wait... there are six surviving folios. Do they include the Pliny letter?

AFAIK no. The WIKI page at one stage listed the claim that the Pliny letter which was "suddenly found" was also "lost".

There is no extant ms.

Does anyone know how to view a prior version of a WIKI page: namely the "Pliny on Christians"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_t...er#Manuscripts

Quote:

Manuscripts

In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

Quote:

Detering says he show that the 10th folio is a forgery in its entirety, as I recall.

Detering has cracked open his textbooks and has done his homework. I would be interested to see an English translation of his demostration.

The book reference provided by Roger shows that one Gilbert Ouy accused Giovanni Giocondo of ..... [what, forgery]?

stephan huller · 04-19-2012, 06:57 PM

I found more pieces of Clement of Alexandria's original text of 1 Clement. In my first post I couldn't find this section:

Quote:

and was the father of Isaac." "For hospitality and piety, Lot was saved from Sodom." "For faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved."

The Lot statement has been moved to 1 Corinthians 11:

Quote:

For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom

The Rahab statement somehow made its way to 1 Corinthians 12:

Quote:

For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved.

The rest of the material in between is undoubtedly later additions:

Quote:

And again He saith; God led Abraham forth and said unto him, Look
up unto the heaven and count the stars, and see whether thou canst
number them. So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it
was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

1Clem 10:7
For his faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age,
and by obedience he offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the
mountains which He showed him.

1Clem 11:1
For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when all
the country round about was judged by fire and brimstone; the Master
having thus fore shown that He forsaketh not them which set their
hope on Him, but appointeth unto punishment and torment them which
swerve aside.

1Clem 11:2
For when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise minded and
not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so that she
became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might be known unto
all men that they which are double-minded and they which doubt
concerning the power of God are set for a judgment and for a token
unto all the generations.

1Clem 12:1
For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved.

1Clem 12:2
For when the spies were sent forth unto Jericho by Joshua the son of
Nun, the king of the land perceived that they were come to spy out
his country, and sent forth men to seize them, that being seized they
might be put to death.

1Clem 12:3
So the hospitable Rahab received them and hid them in the upper
chamber under the flax stalks.

1Clem 12:4
And when the messengers of the king came near and said, The spies
of our land entered in unto thee: bring them forth, for the king so
ordereth: then she answered, The men truly, whom ye seek,
entered in unto me, but they departed forthwith and are sojourning
on the way; and she pointed out to them the opposite road.

1Clem 12:5
And she said unto the men, Of a surety I perceive that the Lord
your God delivereth this city unto you; for the fear and the dread
of you is fallen upon the inhabitants thereof. When therefore it
shall come to pass that ye take it, save me and the house of my
father.

1Clem 12:6
And they said unto her, It shall be even so as thou hast spoken
unto us. Whensoever therefore thou perceivest that we are coming,
thou shalt gather all thy folk beneath thy roof and they shall be
saved; for as many as shall be found without the house shall
perish.

1Clem 12:7
And moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her
house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the
blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that
believe and hope on God.

1Clem 12:8
Ye see, dearly beloved, not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the
woman.

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

04-19-2012, 02:16 PM	#44
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I have now found an article on the manuscript of Saint-Victor: Ofelia N. Salgado, France and the Transmission of Latin Manuscripts, in: Gerald N. Sandy, The Classical Heritage in France, Brill, 2002, p.29-33. The manuscript was actually 5th century -- an ancient Roman codex -- and 6 folios of it survive. But two other copies at least were made of it, other than the Aldine edition of 1508; a sloppy copy used for the 1502 edition, and some pages hand-copied and presently in the Bodleian library in a volume once belonging to William Bude. Those few pages are well worth the reading and contradict and correct information in Texts and Transmissions. Interesting to realise that Pliny's 10th book was preserved, not in a medieval copy, but in a copy written when there was still a Caesar on the throne!

04-19-2012, 04:23 PM	#46
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Whatever. These are not conjectures. The evidence is there in black and white. Irenaeus cites the same material that Clement does. It is in the same order presumably as our received text. Yet Clement of Alexandria's text is very different. Clement also calls him 'the apostle' which has always puzzled me. But the fact that you see it as conjecture only demonstrates that it is based on solid ground. Here is some conjecture though - who authored the material that now goes under the name of 'Clement'? I think it appears very clear that the Alexandrian text of 1 Clement is much closer to the outlook of 2 Clement (= gnostic). The author repeatedly cites an unknown gospel and various apocryphal works shared with Clement of Alexandria. I think the author is very ancient. 1 Clement appears in some New Testament collections. Clement of A calls him 'the apostle.' Who knows.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.