Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-24-2013, 07:50 AM

Clementine literature (also called Clementina, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, The Preaching of Peter, Kerygmata Petrou, Clementine Romance etc.) is the name given to the religious romance which purports to contain a record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the apostle Peter, Simon Magus and other early Christian identies.

The WIKI section about Authorship reads:

Quote:

The original author shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phoenician coast from Caesarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published — presumably in his own region; these were probably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epiphanius, who found the romance among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the Apostolical Constitutions, compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the Opus imperfectum cited it freely. It was interpolated by a Eunomian about 365–70.

All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far from Caesarea.

The author, though an Arian, probably belonged nominally to the Catholic Church. He wrote for the heathens of his day, and observed the stiff and often merely formal disciplina arcani which the 4th century enforced. Atonement, grace, sacraments are omitted for this cause only. "The true Prophet" is not a name for Christ used by Christians, but the office of Christ which the author puts forward towards the pagan world.

See also the section about the The generation of the Son

Quote:

H has also a disquisition on the generation of the Son (xvi, 15–18, and xx, 7–8). The writer calls God autopator and autogennetos, and both Mother and Father of men. His idea of a changeable God and an unchangeable Son projected from the best modification of God has been mentioned above. This ingenious doctrine enables the writer to accept the words of the Nicene definition, while denying their sense. The Son may be called God, for so may men be, but not in the strict sense. He is homoousios to Patri, begotten ek tes ousias, He is not treptos or alloiotos. Apparently He is not ktistos, nor was there a time when He was not, though this is not quite distinctly enunciated. The writer is clearly an Arian who manages to accept the formula of Nicea by an acrobatic feat, in order to save himself. The date is therefore probably within the reign of Constantine (died 337), while the great council was still imposed on all by the emperor, about 330.

But this is not the date of H, but of the original behind both H and R; for it is clear that the Eunomian interpolator of R attacks the doctrine we find in H. He ridicules autopator and autogennetos, he declares God to be unchangeable, and the Son to be created, not begotten from the Father's essence and consubstantial. God is not masculo-femina. It is clear that the interpolator had before him the doctrine of H. in a yet clearer form, and that he substituted his own view for it (R. iii, 2–11). But it is remarkable that he retained one integral part of H's theory, viz., the origin of the Evil One from an accidental mixture of elements, for Rufinus tells us (De Adult. libr. Origenis) that he found this doctrine in R and omitted it.

The date of the original is therefore fixed as after Nicea, 325, probably c. 330; that of H may be anywhere in the second half of the 4th century. The Eunomian interpolator is about 365–70, and the compilation of R about 370–80.

stephan huller · 09-24-2013, 10:46 AM

How can the question even be answered sensibly when almost nothing of Arius's writings survive?

aa5874 · 09-24-2013, 05:58 PM

What about Eusebius? He was a follower of Arius.

Apologia Contra Arianos

Quote:

6. When Arius, from whom the heresy of the Arian madmen has its name, was cast out of the Church for his impiety by Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, Eusebius and his fellows, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety, considering themselves also to have been ejected, wrote frequently to Bishop Alexander, beseeching him not to leave the heretic Arius out of the Church.

Peter Kirby · 09-24-2013, 07:22 PM

Difficult to prove or disprove, as already stated.

Arius apparently had another decade in him after being condemned and having all his writings ordered to be destroyed. Could he have turned to writing pseudepigrapha? Distributed it discretely? Who knows?

He was not the only Arian at the time, and so far the timeframe supposed and the doctrine (a form of Arianism) are the only links to Arius.

stephan huller · 09-24-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Eusebius and his fellows, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety

Without even looking at the context of the statement I am almost certain Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant here not Eusebius of Caesarea.

spin · 09-24-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Eusebius and his fellows, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety

Without even looking at the context of the statement I am almost certain Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant here not Eusebius of Caesarea.

Gosh, I wish you'd stop being pedantic, Genghiz!

You say "you-see-be-us"; I say "you-sebby-us";
"you-see-be-us", "you-sebby-us"
Let's call the whole thing off.

aa5874 · 09-24-2013, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Eusebius and his fellows, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety

Without even looking at the context of the statement I am almost certain Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant here not Eusebius of Caesarea.

I did look before I posted. Eusebius of Caesarea was one of the Arian faction.

First examine Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus.

Quote:

The real fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea, as I have already said before, who was in his day the standard bearer of the Arian faction...

It appears that it is claimed that Eusebius of Casearae was a follower of Arius at least one year before the Apologia Contra Arianos was composed.

Apologia Contra Arianos

Quote:

.....it is evident that these enemies of the Catholic Church speak nothing that is true concerning us, but say everything against us.

And the law of God forbids an enemy to be either a witness or a judge. Wherefore as you will have to give an account in the day of judgment, receive this testimony, and recognising the conspiracy which has been framed against us, beware, if you are requested by them, of doing anything against us, and of taking part in the designs of Eusebius and his fellows. For you know, as we said before, that they are our enemies, and you are aware why Eusebius of Cæsarea became such last year...

stephan huller · 09-24-2013, 10:01 PM

For fucking crying out loud. Just look at this page and tell me what you see aa. Are we talking about Eusebius of Caesarea or Eusebius of Nicomedia? How long have you been doing this and still a -----------

http://books.google.com/books?id=pxh...omedia&f=false

aa5874 · 09-24-2013, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

For fucking crying out loud. Just look at this page and tell me what you see aa. Are we talking about Eusebius of Caesarea or Eusebius of Nicomedia? How long have you been doing this and still a -----------

http://books.google.com/books?id=pxh...omedia&f=false

I LOOKED at the evidence from antiquity. Eusebius of Caesarea is specifically identified as an Arian.

LOOK at Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus--Eusebius of Caesarea was IN FACT the STANDARD bearer of the Arian faction.

Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus

Quote:

The real fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea, as I have already said before, who was in his day the standard bearer of the Arian faction...

LOOK at Apologia Contra Arianos---Eusebius of Caesarea was an ENEMY of the Catholic Church.

Apologia Contra Arianos

Quote:

.....it is evident that these enemies of the Catholic Church speak nothing that is true concerning us, but say everything against us.

And the law of God forbids an enemy to be either a witness or a judge. Wherefore as you will have to give an account in the day of judgment, receive this testimony, and recognising the conspiracy which has been framed against us, beware, if you are requested by them, of doing anything against us, and of taking part in the designs of Eusebius and his fellows. For you know, as we said before, that they are our enemies, and you are aware why Eusebius of Cæsarea became such last year...

stephan huller · 09-24-2013, 11:31 PM

Read it again (or maybe for the first time). When you read the greater context in which your citation appears it is clear that 'Eusebius and his fellows' (= the Eusebians) refers to Eusebius of Nicomedia:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pxh...omedia&f=false

He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of the See of Nicomedia, where the imperial court resided, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Nicomedia

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

09-24-2013, 10:46 AM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	How can the question even be answered sensibly when almost nothing of Arius's writings survive?

09-24-2013, 07:22 PM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Difficult to prove or disprove, as already stated. Arius apparently had another decade in him after being condemned and having all his writings ordered to be destroyed. Could he have turned to writing pseudepigrapha? Distributed it discretely? Who knows? He was not the only Arian at the time, and so far the timeframe supposed and the doctrine (a form of Arianism) are the only links to Arius.

09-24-2013, 10:01 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	For fucking crying out loud. Just look at this page and tell me what you see aa. Are we talking about Eusebius of Caesarea or Eusebius of Nicomedia? How long have you been doing this and still a ----------- http://books.google.com/books?id=pxh...omedia&f=false

09-24-2013, 11:31 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Read it again (or maybe for the first time). When you read the greater context in which your citation appears it is clear that 'Eusebius and his fellows' (= the Eusebians) refers to Eusebius of Nicomedia: http://books.google.com/books?id=pxh...omedia&f=false He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of the See of Nicomedia, where the imperial court resided, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Nicomedia

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.