Clement Stromata was Re: [GTh](was ...(was
- Thanks for this informative and interesting post. I'm off out of town
for a while.
see ya later.
--- In gthomas@y..., DaGoi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/13/2 5:48:51 AM, Steve Allison wrote:
> <<--- In gthomas@y..., DaGoi@a... wrote:
> > <<[Bill Foley]:
> > ..... Clement shows us where many of the
> > come from - ... he more or less tells us the state of
> >> the material in <<
> gThom at
> > the time he writes the Stroms. Then 'suddenly' to our evidence (at
> > three manuscripts show up within only a few years. This is a book
> > should know, being that it is in Egypt - 3 copies we have from just
> > this time and comparatively in his neighborhood - the book should be
> > around him if it existed in his time (unless, as I say, he did it
> > shortly after the Stroms) - and he is not shy about quoting where he
> gets his
> > stuff.
> > Maybe he missed it somehow and just was not in that loop, but I
> > that is unlikely.
> I just did a search in the Stromata, at Peter Kirby's site, on the
> name "Mark." I did not find any citation of the gospel of Mark in
> this long work. I did a search on "Luke." One explicit mention of the
> gospel of Luke and one specific mention of Acts turned up. Regarding
> Matthew, only two times does he mention Matthew and then quote or
> allude to something in canonical Matthew. I've not finished reading
> the Stromata but I'm sure Clement quoted without citation these works
> often, many times ascribing it to "the Lord." Given that these well
> known and much longer works are explicitly cited so infrequently, it
> is not all that surprising that the gospel of Thomas, if it existed,
> might not be cited too. I realize that Clement does mention the
> gospel of Mark in other fragmentary writings and in citations of
> Clement by others.
> Steve Allison
> [Bill F]
> He does throw in a gThom allusion or two now and then and does not
> source, but other times when he gives us a gThom allusion he distinctly
> mentions that it is from another source that is not gThom (he
> apostle Thomas only once in the Stroms and Fragments, and that with
> Philip, Thomas, Levi (sic) and many others" - poor Matthew also gets
> conflated with the Lukan Zaccharias in another place) and gives us
> strong negative evidence then that he does not know gThom.
> I haven't finished the Stroms either, but look at the way the gThom
> are mentioned. You might say the big fish in 1.1 would definitely
be, but he
> does not mention gthom. Discussing 'Know thyself' in 1.14 he
> bunch of philosophers and even Strabo - here would be a good place
> gThom; but for more compellingly positive negative evidence, Strom
> after trying to find the right words himself, he quotes the
> Matthew (but gThom has a paraphrase of this (#5) that says the same
> much better) immediately followed by a gHeb attribution of half of
> he gives whole unattributed later, and none of the gThom scholars
> from anywhere but gHeb.
> gHeb, gEgy, he mentions by name only a couple or three times each,
> with the Traditions of Matthew twice, and especially the Preaching
> which he apparantly thinks is actually from Peter, mentioned 4
> general impression though is that he does not want his reader to be
> dark about where he gets things, which is why I think it reasonable to
> believe he does not know gThom although Alexandria is between Syria and
> Oxyrhynchus, and knowing that he would find gThom interesting and
> This is also roughly why I doubt his actual involvement in Secret
> wouldn't put it past him, sounds like it's right up his alley, but I
> would be mentioned here, unless he found it later of course.
> but he is blatantly in possession of other works with a lot of the
> material right before our evidence of the existence of gThom begins.
> why I think he wrote it.
> I'm not qualified to be a linguist, so I can't attack it from that
> I don't know any Syriac (that's suppossed to be close to Aramaic?) and
> haven't got the Perrin book on gThom and the Diatessaron yet - I
> trying to read a book on the translation of the LXX into Coptic
> and Textual Criticism by John R Miles, '85 Chico, Cal) though all
> I've run across is from Grondin's Interlinear, and my Guillaumont et
> of course I don't understand what I'm reading here - like there's no
> books, it seems also there's no end to languages. Mike, what's the
> Perrin's Syriac and Diatessaron theories giving my Clem/gthom
> theory the heave ho?
> Then there's Strom 4.13, which on my first reading a couple of days
> me jittery that gThom may be writ by maybe a reformed Valentinian
> but I'll have to re-read that again much more closely.
> In Strom 3.13 he mentions the "four gospels that have come down to us",
> differentiating them from gEgy which, as you know, has some gThom
> This is as good as a mention of each of the canonicals since it is
> which four he means; 1.21 mentions gLk and gMt, frag of Nicetas
Catena on Mt
> obviously specifies gMt, the Comm on 1Pt mentions gMk and the Peter
> Comm on Jude mentions gMk, and comm on 1Jn mentions gJn. Clement
> knowledge of these books though, so he would probably be less prone
> drop them in the first place, and they are quoted unattested, or
> 'the Gospel', very liberally.
> I did not look in the Instructor, which he mentions also in the later
> Stromatas, because all his little rules (granted, interspersed with
> stuff) make me laugh (as does the editors Latin half chapter in
> Paul w his women have to wear a hat when they pray but guys can't -
> would rule out many foxhole conversions I guess -, women must have
> or be shaved, but guys must have short hair; the Clem rules I've read a
> couple of times but can't remember offhand any of the funnies, as if
> salvation is a matter of hats, hair, table manners, and bed clothes,
> of grace for sinners and a people who are no people walking in the
> Hearing Jesus come to the last and minor conclusion "but you can
eat with unw
> ashed hands" after dissing the food laws makes me think he'd find
> these other odd rules funny too.) The Stromatas, this is a long
work to get
> through in itself just on a quick read, to say nothing of the thoughful
> pondering that this calls for.
> The Loeb collection doesn't have the Stromatas. Does anyone know
where I can
> find them in Greek, preferably with an interesting rap on the
> well, this is certainly a meandering post :0)
> may God bless the reader who gets through all of it,
> Bill Foley